As people and people who create organizational-systems of work Managerial-Accountability-Hierarchies purpose and the Goal means very much to us. So much that if the goal is not explained to us and we make choices, we will create the goal to match the choices we made. Creating purpose out of the work we did, because nothing is more demotivating than thinking all of our hard work was for naught.

You’ve experienced this before, you decide to take on a task that was poorly delegated by your manager. Your working hard, because that’s what you do, an obstacle happens and you must make a choice. You decide, then your manager shows up and says “No, No, No this is all wrong I wanted _____ and _____.” This could have been avoided. In the beginning if you knew the goal and when you hit the obstacle, the choice you might have made would have been clearer, because you would know what the goal is.

What to do.

Phrase the goal in a way that everyone understands, use language that is concrete and known by the people who are tasked with completing the goal.

• Be specific about what the outcome will be (the Goal)…
• Allow people to make choices within the path the complete the goal. BUT they have to know the goal or objective in order to make choices along the path.
• Manage and work with people to determine a measurement for success/progress and failure/regress on their path to complete the goal.
• Coach people to develop better ways to make choices and learn from what they are doing.
• Supply the necessary resources needed
• Develop the necessary follow-up and check-in procedures

Much of this will be dependent upon the role the person is in and their ability to handle the complexity of the goal. For example a person who can only handle a project goal for 1 month of less, will never magically be able to complete a goal that should take 1 year or more.

If you, as a manager, are finding that people are not achieving the goals and there is a clear understanding from both parties what the goal is. Then you need to revisit the time-span on the goal. Perhaps create shorter tasks within the goal for the person to achieve.  

What do you think?

Do you have a story of when you were convinced you were on the right path only to have your manager tell you, you were totally wrong?

When faced with a challenge, how do you know you are making the right choice?

michael cardus is create-learning

Sitting in the office of the Dean of Students for a High School, talking about a Scholastic-Leadership program I am leading with the Administration, Faculty and students, he said “Mike we need to return, for lack of a better word, back to basics.” He said this almost apologetically.

That made me wonder –

What is so wrong with going back to basics?

People fear the that as they become managerial-leaders the idea of ‘The-Basics’ is something they should have already established.

But you see time and time again…that these basics are horribly described and defined within the organizational structure.

For example Goal-Setting, you cannot get more basic than that. Companies and individuals collectively spend millions of dollars a year on Goal-Setting tools, training, coaching, development, etc… Plus which basic Goal-Setting is the ‘basics’ of that organization? Perhaps your manager uses SMART while my manager uses QQT/R while the CEO was trained in some other method.  Just google goal setting method and you get over 13million results.

Like Elliot Jaques wrote in Requisite Organization

In this conceptual Babel, our field is like alchemy in the 15th and 16th centuries. Our gimmicks are like the search for the philosopher’s stone which would change dross to gold.

 What’s the point?

My point is that we need to focus on defining what the basics are. When we identify what they are, create a shared organizational knowledge base of training, coaching, and access to these basics. Then actually use these basics as they are intended to be used.

My argument is that instead of going ‘Back-to-Basics’ we need to ‘Define what the basics are’ then we can get back to them.

Most organizations, managers and employees don’t even know the basics you are talking about, so they have no idea how to get there.

What do you think?

How do you define ‘Basics’ of your organization, teams and management? When some-one says “We have to get back to basics here.” Do you know what that means? Really? How might you create solutions to the problem outlined above?

michael cardus is create-learning

image By JD Hancock

• Click on the image to enlarge.

This image above explores the differences between an Organizational Structure that has NO managerial-leadership coaching and an Organizational Structure WITH managerial-leadership coaching.

The image on the right reflects the ‘Cascade-of-Planning’ model or in Lean Manufacturing the Hoshin Kanri used in the Toyota Production System. The difference is where the manager and subordinate interact.

WITH OUT Coaching

• Interaction happens in limited time-frames and generally only when something goes wrong.
• Accountability is forced down the hierarchy and the idea of failure, development and growth is often frowned upon.
• Management is quick to blame employees and see the ‘people as broken’.

With Coaching

• Interaction is regular and expected, once the manager is accountable for the output of the subordinate, then give-and-take must happen in task delegation and work being accomplished.
• Accountability is on the Manager to ensure that subordinates are working to their effectiveness. Improvement in decision making and problem solving leads to improved innovation and work of the team.
• Management is able to examine the process-system that the work is being done in and determine what is stopping this person from doing their best.

What do you think?

Is this point of interaction amongst management and employee important? Have you ever had a manager who was great at coaching you to add value to your work?

Interested in enhancing and developing a Managerial Coaching Process within your organization and team? Looking to improve your existing managers coaching skills? Click the Box Below.

michael cardus is create-learning

Inspired by Toyota Kata

Handling complexity is at the heart of competence to find solutions. How managers solve problems is in turn at the heart of how they are regarded by their staff, and also the strength of their managerial-leadership. To have managers that understand complexity is crucial for an organization to survive and thrive.

This is the solution to increasing your ability to work with complexity and change.

Outcomes

• Gain competence in Information Complexity that will lead to improved decision-making and problem solving for the organization;
• Gain competence in Problem Complexity that will lead to greater success in achievement of long-term organizational goals and organizational innovations in services, processes and procedures;
• Assess for subordinates and self, the Current-Actual-Level of Information and Problem Complexity;
• Assess the Organization’s Current-Actual-Level of Information and Problem Complexity;
• Increase quality completion of goals and task assignment, due to proper delegation in the proper way with the proper level of complexity and change;
• Use Tools and Methods to coach and mentor subordinates to flourish into their potential and increase their own ability to handle complexity and change. This leads to a stronger succession plan for the future of the organization.

Situation

Managerial-Leaders are challenged by the need to deal with some of the most complex issues in the organization requiring decision making and problem solving, even at times when the future is unclear or uncertain.

Innovation and critical thinking are essential skills. The ability to handle organizational complexity goes beyond strategic planning as managerial-leaders need to take action and increase their ability to deal with ambiguity and complexity.

The best strategic plans cannot be implemented without the skills to engage in critical thinking, manage organizational complexity, make decisions, innovate and solve problems. Decisions have to be made to address current issues as well as those what will arise in 2-5 years. Many aspects have to be considered such as Federal/State/Local politics, changing regulations, increasing or changing staff and customer needs, vendor issues, overlapping systems with differing needs and priorities, as well as staff competencies and training needs.

This training program supplies senior leaders with evidence-based tools and strategies to navigate change and the increasing complexity that exists within organizations. Role competence requires that senior staff lead the organization through times of complexity, high levels of ambiguity, and change.

As a person is promoted within the organization, the concrete, day-to-day operations become less important and the conceptual, year-to-year operations become more important. Very few leaders are trained and able to handle this change from day-to-day operation to month-to-month to year-to-year. In order for the organization to thrive and last, long term plans must be made to address an often ambiguous future.

Content will supply Managerial-Leaders with the knowledge and tools to make the best decisions they can through times of complexity and change. All people in organizations work with complexity and change. Senior staff must be capable of understanding the more complex systems, translating the plan and goals to their subordinates, then ensuring that the subordinates have the necessary ability and resources to complete their work and handle their own complexity and change.

Time Frames

The ideal process time is approximately 18 hours of classroom training with 12 hours of consulting, and application coaching. The training, consulting and coaching are best used over a 6 to 8 month period of time. This way Managerial-Leaders have the opportunity to test, apply, and learn from success and failure in the field. Contact Mike (1-716-629-3678) to discuss options and your organizational needs.

This is meant to be real-work on real-complex organizational problems.

If you are looking for something shorter below is the break down of the workshops. Plan on each taking approximately 6 hours of training with 4 hours of consulting and coaching. Contact Mike to discuss options and your organizational needs.

Content

What is Organizational Complexity and Change?

Overview: Complexity is determined by the number of factors, the rate of change of those factors, and the ease of identification of the factors in the situation. Complexity is separated into two categories

1. Information Complexity: Human work is concerned with the use of judgment and decision making. The complexity of the work will be expressed in the complexity of the information which a person uses in problem-solving.

2. Problem Complexity: The complexity of a problem does not lie in the complexity of the goal, but in the complexity of the pathway that has to be constructed and then traversed in order to get to the goal.

Content will focus on gaining understanding of Information and Problem Complexity, its direct application to senior staff, and illustrate a systemic process of moving the organization toward achievement of long-term goals.

Determining the Current-Actual-Level of Information and Problem Complexity

Overview: Leading through complexity and change within an organization requires a thorough knowledge of the organization as a whole and peoples’ Current-Actual-Level and comfort in dealing with complexity and change. Once this is known then the proper plans and skills for making change happen and managing can be matched to the right team, person and process.

Content will cover the 5 step formula for determining Current-Actual-Level of information and problem complexity. Steps to properly match organizational goals and objective within a time-frame that makes the work achievable. Additional focus will be spent on managing change and creating solution focused steps to build upon organizational and people’s existing strengths, developing a culture that continually improves through complexity and change.

Leading through Complexity & Change in Action

Overview: Once the foundational knowledge and organizational understanding of Information and Problem Complexity is understood, there are a series of tools that can be used to implement the process. Managerial-Leaders will use these tools to solve and handle complexity and change that they are currently dealing with. This session will provide a feedback system to enhance the decision making and problem solving of the participants.

Content will cover the use of Plan:Do:Check:Act models for setting short term measurements of success and failure. Examining various complexity and change tools to assist the leader in understanding, planning and ensuring the proper level of focus to achieve organizational goals. Additionally participants will use a Coaching for Performance Model to develop subordinates to better work with Complexity and change, creating a stronger succession plan within the organization.

How your organization, management and you manage complexity & change will move you into your potential.

Click the box below to be the reason success happens.

michael cardus is create-learning

image by by DenisHennessy

Manager: a person in a role in which he or she is held accountable not only for their own personal effectiveness but also for the output of others; and is accountable for building and sustaining an effective team of subordinates capable of producing those outputs, and for exercising effective leadership. (Jaques 1998)

Part 4 of 4 Authorities That Every Manager Must Have: Authority to decide personal effectiveness appraisal and merit recognition

4 Minimum authorities that every manager must have in order to be an effective and trustworthy managerial leader.

• Part 1 Authority to reject a subordinate to fill a position
• Part 2 Authority to de-select a subordinate after due process
• Part 3 Authority to decide task assignments
• Part 4 Authority to decide personal effectiveness appraisal and merit recognition

If we are to hold a Manager Accountable for the output of their subordinates. Managers must have the Authority to decide personal effectiveness appraisal and merit recognition.

4. Authority to decide personal effectiveness appraisal and merit recognition

Emphasis on the phrase ‘To Decide’. The decision is determining and deciding the level of effectiveness of a subordinate in their role at work. All that can be expected of people at work is to do their best, the manager is to be held accountable for the output of their team. This decision of is the employee doing their best can only be made by the direct manager. If during the effectiveness appraisal, or sooner, the manager determines that the subordinate is not doing their best, then the process of coaching and possibly de-selection takes place. The other area is merit recognition, pay increases based upon the effectiveness of the employee. Again the manager is to decide the proper level, based upon the effectiveness appraisal.

What Do You Think?

If as a manager you have the authority to decide upon performance appraisal and merit recognition, how might that improve your work? 

michael cardus is create-learning

There is no such thing as a leadership personality, even in the so called leadership of cult leaders. – Elliot Jaques

To be competent in your work you must have the ability to handle the complexity of the role, value the work being done, skilled knowledge to complete the work, necessary wisdom that comes from experience coaching and learning, plus behaviors that are not too extreme and too lacking to get the work done.

Often in hiring and promotions for Managerial-Leaders personality traits are given too much weight in the decision.

Just because he is caring or exudes great charisma for the work does not mean that he has the competence to handle the position. Managers who are nice and caring BUT incompetent are dangerous to the organization. Incompetent managers ESPECIALLY if they are nice people-KILL any progress, morale and productivity of employees. Managers need to be competent. Personality quirks need to be within a normative value, not too much and not too little to be damaging to getting the work done. Bob Sutton make this point here.

People will follow the charismatic leaders for the wrong reasons, and will follow along behind, rather than with them. This happens because the Charismatic leader lacks the competence to set the framework of understanding that is needed for going-along-together (cascade-of-leadership) teamwork. (Jaques, Executive Leadership 1994)

What to do?

Competent Managerial-Leaders are able to gain the trust and support of others, this is earned through adding value to other peoples work and showing a combination of competence and respect for personhood. Trust and respect comes from practicing actions and showing that you value the knowledge and work of others. Trust does not come from falling into each others arms

Some people will be better than others at gaining confidence. We all day-in and out, work to increase the trust and competence of the work all people do. The most important thing for anyone to do is be competent and have the ability to handle the complexity of your work, rather than working to smooth it out with some personality style.

The personality style will fade as people begin to see if you are competent or not in completing your work

The greatest way to increase Trust in yourself and Management is to complete your work in the Quality and Time-Frame specifications. Your ability to be competent and handle the complexity will outweigh any personality style you have. 

What do you think?

Is there such a thing as a Leadership-Personality? Have you experienced a charismatic or carding or ‘nice-guy’ manager who just was incompetent? How did that affect your work?

michael cardus is create-learning

image by mhaller1979