Innovation Snobbery is Not Serving Organizations
By Michelle Malay Carter on December 2, 2007
Harvard Business Online has posed the question, what is management?s role in innovation?? I ask, what isn’t management’s role in innovation?
Executive management?s role is to ensure that it institutionalizes the?expectation that managers will lead the continuous?improvement of their teams AND that time is allotted?for them to lead?improvement initiatives.? Innovation should be an expectation of all workers and an accountability of all managers.
Based upon my experience, managers are not systematically held accountable for continuous improvement of their teams.? Further, most believe innovativeness and creativity are characteristics of a select few, and that it need only occur at the highest levels of the organization.? Innovation snobbery is not serving us for a variety of reasons.
Innovation Must Occur at All Levels
Indeed, innovation looks different at varying levels of the organization, but continuous improvement must happen at all levels.? When a warehouse employee discovers a different way of stacking raw materials to load more materials per pallet and the result is more material delivered each trip, you?ve got innovation at level 1 – increased productivity.
All Work is Creative
All work is creative and involves judgment and discretion.? This is what humans do that computers and robots cannot. Successful TQM initiatives took advantage of the fact that all humans are creative.? Ignorance of work levels led to trouble when kaizen meetings were filled with people from multiple levels of the organization, as their focus was different and rightfully so.? Multiple-level meetings left some attendees?feeling pulled into the weeds by minutia and others annoyed by pie-in-the-sky conceptual, strategic topics.? Both need tending to, but during separate meetings led by accountable managers at the appropriate level.
Adaptive Innovation – For Cost Reduction and Increased Productivity
Levels 1 ? 3 of an organization are concerned with current operations and their innovation focus should be value adding adaptations to current processes.? Some models call this adaptive innovation.
Strategic Innovation ? For Sustainability and Competitive Advantage
Levels 4+ should be concerned with strategic innovation ? new markets, new products, new business models.
Outsourcing Innovation is a Mistake
When innovation snobbery results in our thinking that innovation must be separated from the mission-delivering part of the organization and it is ?outsourced? to an elite group, organizations must bear the cost of integrating the innovation back into the line organization, and this integration is often met with resistance.? Further, it robs the mission-delivering part of the organization from the ?psychological kick? of the opportunity to be creative, leading to disengagement.
Innovation?s Link to Accountability
Current performance management models seek to hold employees accountable for their output rather than their overall effectiveness. ?This is ludicrous because ?reward for output? does not account for unforeseen circumstances.? Additionally, employees do not supply their own resources nor choose their assignments, their managers do.? Therefore, accountability for personal output alone is cruel, and frequently fuels corruption.
Rather, employees should be accountable for giving their best, and managers should be accountable for the output of their teams.? Further, managers should be accountable for leading their team in continuous improvement efforts.? At review time, managers should make judgments (not calculations) about their direct reports? effectiveness, i.e. did they use appropriate judgment and discretion based on the circumstances.
We have got to reduce accountability conflicts of interest.? As long as employees are held accountable for their output, why would they take a risk on innovation which could lead to reduced output?? If instead, they were held accountable for using appropriate judgment and discretion, they could be rewarded for taking?a chance on something, even if it “failed”.? Nearly all current performance management models are stacked against innovation.? It?s safer to continue the status quo.?
The fact that many organizations offer bonuses telegraphs the idea that organizations believe most employees are ?holding back?, and bonuses will coax employees into giving their best.? If bonuses fueled innovation, when bonuses were threatened at the end of the year due to budget shortfalls, we should expect a burst of innovation.??Rather, we?see open jobs left unfilled, and travel, dining, and holiday parties cut from the budget.
In Summary, To Foster Innovation Organizations Must:
- Insource innovation, i.e. expect it from the mission-delivering organization, at all levels.
- Institutionalize the idea of managers? being accountable for the continuous improvement of their team.
- Institutionalize the idea of managers? being accountable for the output of their team.
- Relieve employees of output accountability, but expect full commitment and their best advice to their managers.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Your innovative thoughts on the subject?
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization | 4 Comments
Short Term Versus Long Term Thinking – A Friday Funny
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 30, 2007
I stumbled across this old Subway ad on YouTube.? I only saw it a few times on TV, so it still makes me laugh.? I am really stretching to find a way to weave it into my blog for your Friday enjoyment.
How about this? Short term gratification often rules in America. Corporations often meet their quarterly financial goals at the expense of the organization’s long term health. In the ad below, it seems the fast food customers are aware of the long term implications of eating a steady diet of greasy food but are opting for short term gratification as well.
Click on the right facing arrow to begin. Unlike most YouTube videos, there was no still photo associated with this video.
Filed Under Corporate Values, Personal Observation | Comments Off on Short Term Versus Long Term Thinking – A Friday Funny
Leadership by Proxy Causes Low Employee Engagement
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 29, 2007
A Wyatt Watson survey in India found that the adoption of well known HR practices does not necessarily?equate to higher?employee satisfaction and engagement scores.
I could not discern specifically what “well known HR practices” the study is referring to, but I suspect it includes the current idea of managers handing over more of their managerial work to HR (orientation, job scoping, performance management, coaching, selection, training), leaving the managers with only their “technical” work to do.? I think we have gone too far in this, and the tail is wagging the dog.? I read somewhere recently that managers can now hire someone to fire their employees for them!
I contend that the strikingly?low employee engagement numbers, i.e. 29%, reported in recent studies by Towers Perrin and Gallup are due to the fact that more and more managerial leadership practices are being outsourced to HR.?? Employees don’t want leadership by proxy, they want it from their managers!
Instead of putting in systems to relieve managers of their managerial duties, organizations should be focused upon designing systems that clarify managerial accountabilities and authorities.? Further, they should be equipping managers with the skills and technology they need to effectively lead their employees.? The role of HR should be to help managers understand and discharge their duties effectively, NOT to do their duties for them.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
?What do you think?
Filed Under Corporate Values, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 8 Comments
Executives Wash Their Hands of System-Level Accountability for Employee Engagement and Managerial Leadership
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 28, 2007
I saw an article entitled, What does Leadership Development have to Do with Employee Retention?? In it, there is a list of what direct reports want from their leaders.? It is not much different than anything I have said here:
1. A clear and definite objective.
2. Resources needed to get the job done.
3. Basic to comprehensive. [Opportunities for development]
4. Always give time.
I certainly agree with what is being said here, but I am struck by the fact that this article is being published in a self-help blog.? Once again, we are telling individual leaders to “be good leaders” by giving them a list of behaviors they can perform, but systems drive behavior.? Who is looking at systems?
Yes, we can go after individual leaders, i.e. managers, one by one, or we can begin holding executives accountable for creating environments that enable productive leadership through people-systems design.
Back to my disease metaphor.? We can ask managers to be accountable for doing their part toward preventing disease if this is a corporate strategy, and it would be reasonable to ask them to wash their hands frequently toward this end.? However, the organization will be much more?successful if it combined its?hand washing tactic with corporate-wide indoor plumbing and clean water.? It is this piece that organizations are missing.
?I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization | Comments Off on Executives Wash Their Hands of System-Level Accountability for Employee Engagement and Managerial Leadership
Behavioral Based Interviewing Discriminates Against Your Target Market
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 26, 2007
Yes, behavioral based interviewing is an exceptional way to clarify a candidate?s experience and to gain a view into their values and preferences, and as such, it has a place in the interviewing process; however, it is not a tool for predicting potential.
The premise behind behavioral interviewing is that the most accurate predictor of future performance is past performance in similar situations. An understanding of work levels and problem solving capability disclaims this premise.
Behavioral Based Interviewing Discriminates Against Underutilized Employees
When candidates are restricted to talking about what they have done in the past, their ability to prove themselves is bounded by their past opportunities. We know 20% of employees are underutilized. Most people who have a job but are seeking another are likely from this underutilized population, as they are searching for a more challenging role, i.e. a role in the next higher level of work. Herein lies the catch-22, how can a candidate prove s/he can handle more complex work when s/he has never had an opportunity to do any, and your interviewing model will not allow to solve problems ?hypothetically??
Most Candidates Have a Script
With behavioral interviewing being the predominant interviewing model, most candidates come prepared with a script. I can?t imagine anyone interviewing without a script for explaining about a time when they solved a customer complaint, led a team, worked through a difficult situation with a co-worker, overcame an obstacle, failed, created a new way of doing things?.
The Key is Problem Solving – We Hire People To Think Not Recite
The result of the use of scripts is that you end up verifying that a candidate can create a script based on a past experience, but you may still not know if they problem solve at the level of complexity called for by the role. You don?t know how they solve emergent problems. I could recite the strategies that led to the victory of World War II, but could I have conceived of them?
How to be More Successful Matching Candidates to Roles
In addition to asking the behavioral-based questions you have been trained to ask, I urge you to include some future-oriented problem solving questions related to the most complex tasks of role and, quite simply, see if you are satisfied with the answer. In other words, do they have the potential to do the job? This is another, well-duh, piece of advice I know, but how many of you hiring managers are told you are NOT allowed to ask ?hypothetical? questions?
Yes, I know, saying you can do something and actually doing it are two different things, just as writing the plan is not proof one can execute the plan. However, you run the same risk in reverse with behavioral based interviewing. Saying you did something is not the same as doing all the thinking behind what was done. When someone was involved in a project and recites the history of the project, it is difficult to judge how many of the problems solved along the way were due to their thinking or another?s.
Do You Conduct Behavioral Interviewing and Then Choose with your Gut?
When it?s all said and done, you are making a judgment when you hire someone. Behavioral based interviewing is necessary but not sufficient to judge a candidate?s suitability for a role. Hence, I am proposing that you will be able to make the most informed judgment using a combination of behavioral-based and future-oriented problem-solving questions related to the role.
I suspect many managers follow their pre-determined behavioral interviewing process to satisfy HR, and then find a way to hire the candidate who their gut says can do the job, even if that candidate doesn?t have the requisite experience or the ?right? education.
Share Your Story
Have you ever manipulated a dysfunctional interviewing system in order to hire a candidate you knew could do the job? Have you ever had to hire an inferior candidate because your preferred candidate did not meet overly strict criteria? Please share. What were the results?
I?m OK. You?re OK. Let?s fix the system.
Filed Under Employee Engagement, High Potential, Managerial Leadership, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 9 Comments
Friday Cubicle Freakout – Who Says Employees Aren’t Engaged at Work?
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 23, 2007
To those Americans who are stuck working on the Friday after Thanksgiving, or for those who want to do anything but their job right now, try Cubicle Freakout.? Warning!! This game has sound.
My high score was 92%.? Let me know your score.? And, just curious, have you ever destroyed anything at work?
Thanks to Chuck at I Hate Your Job for the link to the game.
Filed Under Employee Engagement | 2 Comments
Holiday Sharing – Turkey Bosses
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 22, 2007
Happy Thanksgiving to those in the US!
I shared my turkey boss story already.? Have you every worked for a turkey of a boss?? Do tell.
For those are unfamiliar with American slang, a turkey can be defined as:? a joker; a person who does something thoughtless or annoying.
Filed Under Managerial Leadership | Comments Off on Holiday Sharing – Turkey Bosses
The Slowly Eroding Allegiance to Current Management Paradigms
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 21, 2007
A short post today as I am on vacation.? I flew in a helicopter from?Las Vegas to?the Grand Canyon today.? What an amazing experience, having never before seen the canyon?nor flown in a helicopter.
Cheesy Sentiment Alert!
I was struck by the enormous impact one small, steady river could have over time.? It encourages me as my small, steady voice chips away the current management and people systems paradigms.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.?? Let’s fix the system.? Have you ever fought an uphill organizational battle and succeeded?? Please share.
Filed Under Executive Leadership, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | Comments Off on The Slowly Eroding Allegiance to Current Management Paradigms
Systematically Poisoning Employee Engagement
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 19, 2007
Before we were aware of the existence of bacteria, viruses, and cancer cells, disease was thought to be a curse from God.? Sick people were told sickness was their fault and the resolution of the issue was up to them.? As such, the remedies of the day included repenting, praying, and making peace with the God through various sacrifices.
With our current understanding of the root cause of sickness, we now have macro-level systems in place for the prevention of disease and additional systems in place for the treatment of disease.
With 79% of employees disengaged at work, I offer that the catastrophic failure of today’s management and people systems are due to a complete lack of awareness?of?the?four root causes of most organizational pain which emanate from lack of understanding of work levels:
- People mismatched to their roles
- People mismatched to their managers
- Too many or too few roles within a reporting chain
- Misappropriated or lack of clear?accountability and authority.
What is going on today in the corporate world is akin to asking employees to be accountable for preventing disease when the organization refuses to install indoor plumbing or filter its contaminated well water.
Employees are working in polluted environments created by misinformed, piecemeal, dysfunctional people systems, and we keep blaming them for showing symptoms of illness.?
Empower yourself!? We tell them. ?Change your attitude!? Work smarter!? Go to training!? Be a team player!? Certainly, these strategies can’t hurt, but I daresay, they won’t help much either when an employee’s work?environment?ensures that each day will bring yet another dose of poison.
We Can Design Systems that Enable Productive Work and Effective?Leadership?
Designing organizational systems to exploit the benefits of work levels is a critical pathway to not only employee engagement but also strategy execution, embedding values, and driving accountability.? You get the total package because it’s a total system for organizational design, talent management, and managerial leadership.? It’s a macro level solution for a macro level issue.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.
Have you ever fallen victim to a polluted system?? Share your story.
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | 5 Comments
Why Isn’t your Boss’s Boss Firing Your Bad Boss? More System-Level Issues
By Michelle Malay Carter on November 18, 2007
I’ve read quite a few articles lately advising unhappy employees to “fire their boss”.? This is easy for the employed to say, and it makes career gurus feel like they are helping disenchanted employees by empowering them.? It is a valid coping strategy for individuals, but it doesn’t address the system-level issue that caused the bad boss situation.
Most organizations place little emphasis on managerial leadership.? Further, organizations are systematically outsourcing more managerial leadership accountabilities to human resources, and therefore,?it’s no surprize that we are watching employee engagement plummet.
I’ve said before systems telegraph values and drive behavior.? You may say managerial leadership is important, but the proof must be found in the system.? Let’s take a look at performance management systems.
What Gets Measured, Gets Done.? A question to my readers who are managers:?
Do any of your performance measures relate to your managerial leadership effectiveness?? Or are all your measures related to outputs within the technical portion of your role?
Leave me a comment and let me know if any portion of your performance appraisal deals with your effectiveness as a manager.? If I get no comments, I will?reinforce my assertion that?organizations do not value managerial leadership.
The lack of accountability for exercising effective managerial leadership is stunning!? Why aren’t managers-once-removed accountable for tracking and evaluating the managerial leadership effectiveness of their direct reports who are managers?
Conclusion?
Until organizations view managerial leadership as a vital component of managerial roles instead of something managers should tack on at the end of the day if they have time, bad bosses will continue to terrorize work environments unchecked.? High potential employees with more options will continue to fire their bosses, and we will see organizations to continue to wonder where all their talented employees went.
How to Fix the System?
So, we are back to fixing the system.? For yet another reason, organizations must institutionalize two levels of accountability, one for the manager, one for the manager-once-removed.
I’m OK.? You’re OK.? Let’s fix the system.? Do your systems value or ignore managerial leadership?
Filed Under Accountability, Corporate Values, Employee Engagement, Executive Leadership, High Potential, Managerial Leadership, Organization Design, Requisite Organization, Talent Management | Comments Off on Why Isn’t your Boss’s Boss Firing Your Bad Boss? More System-Level Issues
Subscribe in a reader