Monday Management - common management problems: the micro-manager

This post continues my common management problem series with a look at the micro-manager, one of the most common reasons for management failure.

All staff know the micro-manager. This is the person who cannot let go real control, who tries to set, control and check every activity. Lacking authority and responsibility, staff cease to be independent workers and instead become no more than arms and legs for the manager.

One common symptom of micro-management can be found in the complaint by managers that staff will not take responsibility, that they have to do everything themselves. When I hear this complaint, I automatically check for micro-management. Most times I find it.

With some managers, micro-management is a deeply entrenched feature of their personality, a need to control. There is often little you can do with such managers to improve the situation. If they are important in their position because of their knowledge or particular skill-sets, you may just have to work around them. Otherwise, you are better off removing them, or at least reducing their staff management role.

The partial or inconsistent micro-manager can be a particular problem, simply because they are harder to spot.

Often insecure, this type of manager would not usually see themselves as a micro-manager. If queried, they would say (correctly) that they do give staff autonomy.

The core problem with these managers is that they are inconsistent. They stand back in most cases, but then intervene on an irregular basis. Having allocated a task with a report back deadline, they then ask before the due date, have you started or finished this task?

The staff member in question who has been trying to set his or her own priorities may not even have started the task. Now he/she finds a worried manager creating worry in the mind of the staff member. Suddenly the staff member has to shift focus, even though something else may suffer.

This can have exactly the same effect as the more extreme micro-manager cases in that staff take less responsibility for their own work, pushing responsibility up-stairs to their manager.

From an overall management perspective, it is easier to help the partial micro-manager improve performance, subject to one qualification: the problem has to lie with the manager, not the firm itself.

Too often, partial or inconsistent micro-management by one manager is in fact a symptom of, a response to, micro-management at the next level up. In worst cases, micro-management across the firm may be a cascade effect from the CEO or managing partner. Here we have a systemic problem.

One difficulty with micro-management is that it can yield high performance simply because the manager in question is so driven. However, it also has great dangers.

I saw a simple example of this recently at project level. The manager in question had to go on leave in the middle of a critical project roll-out. While the rest of the project team had the skills required to continue the roll-out, the project struggled because team members did not know everything that the manager had been doing, nor did they have the authority to take over key elements of the manager's role.

This case illustrates the practical problems that can arise should the micro-manager suddenly leave the scene.

At a more macro-level, the firm suffers because the bad drives out the good.

Unable to work in a micro-management environment, staff leave. Those who remain are less likely to be able or willing to accept responsibility and to provide the drive that the firm may need. Remove the micro-manager or managers, and the firm may go into sudden decline as a consequence.

I have stated the problem, but what on earth can we do about it as a personal level? The starting point for both the micro-manager and the staff affected is to ask why, why does this happen? At my next post in this series, I will look at this questions, the possible answers and responses.

Monday Management - Introducing Common Management Problems

Some years ago I began a series of blog posts on the theme common management problems – and what to do about them. The posts drew from my practical experience as a manager and a consultant. I wrote them because I had found that many people who had acquired some form of management role actually didn’t know what to do in a practical sense.

The problem is especially acute in professional services because so much of the work is individual: individual in the way work is structured, individual in relation to clients, individual in the way performance is measured. There is limited scope to learn how to manage by actually doing. Problems exist even in those areas of professional services where projects and project management are the norm.

Project management is not the same as management, although many project management techniques are also management techniques. A professional discipline in its own right, project management centres on individual projects. These may be simple or complex. They may involve a single person or a much larger team of full and part time people. However, they do not necessarily provide you with the skills required to manage a team with functional responsibilities involving multiple activities with varying time horizons, where the focus is on the achievement of broader results rather than individual project outcomes.

Lack of management skills and experience may be an especial problem in professional services, but it is not limited to that sector. Management is a craft, not a science. It has to be learned through practice. Across sectors, the thinning of management structures has reduced the opportunities for people to grow into management through progressive learning by doing. The problem is compounded by the growing role of specialists in senior management roles and by modern management command and control structures that have reduced the authority and scope of responsibility of individual managers.

Interestingly, the widespread adoption of project based approaches within organisations has further compounded the problem. This may sound counter-intuitive. Surely these approaches play an important role in improving organisational effectiveness? Well yes, but many areas that have moved to project based approaches end by displaying many of the cultural features to be found in professional services. There is the same emphasis on individual matters or assignments; performance assessment becomes narrower; it becomes more difficult to attract attention too, or resources for, issues that fall outside current assignments.

Staff have always complained about managers and management. However, the volume of complaints seems to have risen significantly over the last two decades. Importantly, managers themselves complain about the difficulties they experience in managing properly, in simply coping with the demands placed upon them. A surprising number of those in apparently managerial roles express actual dislike for the management process. Their focus is on their personal performance, on the things that they have to do themselves. The need to deal with people, to be responsible for others with varying needs and personalities, is seen as an impediment to their own performance.

If project management is not the same as management, nor is administration. All managerial roles involve a degree of administration, another thing that many professionals complain about, but that is only part of the manager’s role. Administration focuses on rules and systems, while management focuses on the organisation of resources and especially people to set and achieve objectives and to undertake specific activities.

Finally, management is not the same as leadership, although a measure of leadership is a necessary part of management. A leader may or may not be a manager. Indeed, many of those who see themselves as leaders are in fact extremely bad managers! There is a certain irony in the parallel rise in emphasis on leadership and governance at a time when management as such has been in decline. These trends are connected, for governance is a control on leadership that has become more important as management has declined.

Can management be learned? Yes. Like any other craft, management skills can be learned, although management abilities (the final capacity to do) will vary between people. The keys are knowledge and practice. For that reason, I am drawing together and updating my previous posts to provide practical guidance to all those who wish to improve their management skills.

Postscript

I was asked about the current fad for activity based working and the associated idea of bossless teams. How do these fit with the type of argument I am mounting?

Later I will write something on both. However, for the present, activity based working is popular in certain larger professional services or certain financial firms where work is predominantly individual, or involves small variable teams. The term really relates to office design as much as it does to the organisation of work, although the first affects the second. It can be a productive approach.

Bossless teams rely on particular group dynamics and types of work and on the surrounding culture to be effective. I think that they actually first appeared in certain manufacturing activities, although I stand to be corrected there. Again they can work in particular circumstances, although in the end there is always a boss!

In terms of the fit with my argument, the best way of organising work will always depend on the type of work. I don't think that either detract from my focus on the importance of management.

I would be interested in reactions from readers in terms of their own experience with these different forms.  

March employment data suggests continuing weakness in the Australian economy

 

The latest Australian employment statistics suggest continuing weakness in the Australian economy.

The graph from the Australian Bureau statistics on the left shows employed persons. You can see how the seasonally adjusted numbers shot up then down. These stats are very volatile, but its quite a big fall.

A better feel is given by the numbers. In summary:

• Employment decreased 36,100 (0.3%) to 11,592,700. Full-time employment decreased 7,400 to 8,111,300 and part-time employment decreased 28,700 to 3,481,500.
• Unemployment increased 25,900 (3.9%) to 686,900. The number of persons looking for full-time work increased 30,900 to 501,900 and the number of persons looking for part-time work decreased 5,000 to 185,000.
• The participation rate decreased 0.2 pts to 65.1%.
• Aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 5.0 million hours to 1,627.3 million hours.

The graph on the right hand side from unemployment. You can see the kick-up in the seasonally adjusted rate. The unemployment rate increased 0.2 pts to 5.6%.

ABS normally prefers to use trend estimates, because these flatten things out. But both seasonally adjusted and trend show an upwards drift in unemployment.

During the week the Australian currency measured by the trade weighted index reached a new high. So long as quantitative easing continues in certain advanced countries, the dollar is likely to remain high with consequent pressure on domestic economic activity.

With so many Australian workers now on contract work, the fear of unemployment also exercises a downwards effect on spending and on economic activity.

FTI to acquire Taylor Woodings?

Back in September last year, US based FTI Consulting announced that it had acquired the assets of KordaMentha (Qld) (KMQ).

Founded in 1992, Brisbane based KMQ had operated under a licence agreement with KordaMentha since 2003 and specialised in turnaround and restructuring, corporate advisory and corporate recovery. The acquisition added nearly 70 professionals in Brisbane and the Gold Coast and market FTI's entry into the insolvency marketplace. It was a bit of a blow to KordaMentha. They have re-established in Brisbane, but the web site states that the Gold Coast office is being operated out of Brisbane. 

Now the Financial Review reports that FTI is close to finalising a deal to acquire insolvency firm Taylor Woodings to further extend its reach. Insolvency is interesting because its one of the few professional areas where service and market conditions actually facilitate multidisciplinary working. 

Policy, programs, control and complexity - ICAC on problems in NSW public policy and administration

I fear that this has been a sadly neglected blog. In this, the first post for 2013, I want to return to a common theme in my writing across all platforms, problems in current approaches to management in both the private and public sectors. One part of my message has been the way that organisations are drowning in their own systems.

The trigger for the post was a November 2012 article in Corruption Matters (Number 40), a twice yearly publication from the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption  intended to raise awareness about corruption related issues, Can those at the helm see where they are going? If you want to see the original, go here, click on publications by date and then click on November 2012. I agree that it's not a very user friendly approach; to many pdfs!

While I disagree with aspects of the analysis in the article, it does illustrate some of the points I have been making. For that reasons, I am reproducing it in full with commentary.

The article begins:   

"Almost exactly 20 years ago, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler described the importance of uncoupling policy and regulation from service delivery when it comes to driving transformational change in government; that the act of “steering” the boat, if you like, works best when separated from the act of “rowing”.

The idea that those who steer should be separated from those who row has been taken up with gusto throughout the public sector; although not necessarily in the way envisaged by Osborne and Gaebler. Theirs was a call to action for a decentralisation of authority by separating the macro-level function of government from the micro-level creation and administration of public programming. In other words, have government influence direction in a broad sense in order to empower frontline agencies and communities to solve their own problems by creating and delivering services that resonate with the needs of their specific audiences."

Comment: I actually have some problems with the Osborne/Gaebler approach because operations and policy need to be integrated and inform each other. Indeed the article recognises this. Part of the problem is that what constitutes policy gets totally confused. The simple steering/rowing classification fails to recognise the distinctions between different types of policy and operations and is, as we shall see in a moment, part of the problem. The article continues:   

"The reality, unfortunately, is that in some cases agencies and communities are stripped of this power almost completely. Frequently, almost all aspects of policy, procedures and program design are centralised within  distinct policy groups (those under the guise of steering), with little discretion devolved to staff in the operational units (those rowing). A cursory examination of almost any agency’s organisational chart will show a policy group in head office that is separated from the operational group."

Comment: Boy, did that strike a chord. However, it's much more complicated than that. A whole variety of delivery aspects get centralised, from policy through risk management to communications and reporting. As soon as you classify something as "policy", and this includes organisational policy, then it gets complicated. Create a policy or indeed oversight group, and it has to do something to justify its existence. The article continues:

"Disconnected policy

The result is that a disconnect can develop between the policies, procedures and programs directed from above and the operational realities of service delivery at the coalface. Operational staff are often unaware of he relevant policies, are unable to comply due to on-the-ground realities,or deliberately work around these policies to achieve the necessary outcomes.

For example, the Commission has seen corruption inadvertently facilitated because one policy in a given organisation, which required delegation and signature-checking for a transaction, was made impossible because of a supplier-payment timeframe dictated in another. In other cases, corrupt individuals have claimed the complexity of a policy was such that they could not understand what gifts were permitted."

Comment; Again, this struck a major chord.  You make me responsible for delivery. Then impose policies and procedures that mean I can't deliver. Of course if I'm serious about my job, I'll find a way of working around the problems created. That does open the way for corruption by unscrupulous staff. Sometimes, however, it's actually the only way in which audit trails and accountability can be preserved as honest staff fight to create ad hoc procedures that will meet the intent of policies and procedures despite the formal detail. The article continues:

"Often procedures for tendering cannot be followed in remote areas because there are neither enough suppliers nor staff to run the tender process as it has been designed. In one case heard by the Commission, a policy required an academic to be responsible for staff security vetting in specific situations, which did not work out."

Comment: I put this next paragraph on it's own because it has a certain personal resonance. I'm not sure that Sydney based ICAC staff would know what a remote area was. There are no tertiary institutions there. My own alma mater was recently the subject of an ICAC inquiry, but while its headquartered outside Sydney it cannot be classified as remote. But more importantly, rules laid down in Sydney designed for big urban centres can have unforeseen consequences.

I recently listened to a discussion on a building program in remote areas. The tender rules required a specific approach intended to protect subcontractors. The program manager said bluntly that either people would lie or we could not build. The builders did not have the financial resources to comply with well intentioned ideas. The article continues:    

"In some human service organisations, there are tens of thousands of pages of policies designed to cover every future operational eventuality and in response to almost every previous problem encountered. This so exceeds the cognitive capability of any staff that they cannot, and do not, follow much more than the broad intent that is communicated by their manager.

In short, the uncoupling of steering and rowing at this micro-level can result in policies, procedures and programs that are not suited to operational realities. Control of operations is neither by traditional policy prescription and compliance nor by devolved accountability for outcomes. All too often, the result is wasteful, low quality services. In turn, the waste, complexity and unworkability that stems from disconnected policies becomes conducive to corruption."

Comment: What can I say? Sigh, it's true!, although the problem really lies not in the uncoupling of steering and rowing, but in the attempt of the steerers to over control, to move into areas that are not properly their space. The problem is further compounded by multiple layers of steerers, multiple decision and control points. The article continues: 

"Integrating design and operations

The waste, mistakes and overall escalation of costs that results from the separation of design and operations is a central concern for personnel in the manufacturing industry. Far from seeing a benefit in separating the steering from the rowing at the micro-level, the approach of “designed for manufacturability” (DFM) aims to bring together those who design the product with those who make it. By designers understanding operations and vice versa, a product can be designed that the operations function of the organisation is suited to making. Costs and waste are reduced, and quality improved through a joint focus on, for example, simplicity, fewer parts, standard parts, ease of fabrication, minimal handling and use of modular components.

To integrate the design and operations functions of a given organisation requires significant organisational change. Culturally, the division between the designer elite and the operations staff has to be broken down. This is often difficult, as organisations may exist as silos with few connections between them. There is often a physical separation of designers from operational managers that must be overcome; as is the case with the physical separation of policy staff and operational staff in government. When coordination mechanisms are consciously developed to link design and operations, they often function for a short period at the initial stages but tend to revert to the designer-driven norm as the product is modified and upgrade – again not dissimilar to initial rounds of consultation by policy units followed by top-down directives."

I found this writing a little confusing. Design for manufacturability is a two stage process, both requiring better integration with design, manufacturing and sales staff. The first stage aims to get products that deliver better results at lower manufacturing costs. However, once the product hits the market, the process continues with the aim of further improving functionality while reducing manufacturing costs. The process takes place within a framework of corporate policies set by management.

Expressed in this simple way, we can see that policy development and then implementation can be equated to to the manufacturing process. Again, we have an issue linked to the meaning of the word policy. In equating policy to design, there is a danger that the main message - the need to achieve better integration of policy and operations - will be lost. The problem lies as much in what are now called governance systems, the framework within which policy operates and which equate to the corporate policies within which the manufacturability process operates, as in normal policy operations.

In the big organisations, the mega departments, that now dominate the public sector, you find a hierarchy of policy areas that actually suffer from very similar problems as operational areas. The result is a bit of a mess that cannot easily be resolved through better integration of policy and operations. If you actually map one of the main policy fields and its supporting programs, you will find a complex and somewhat crazy spider web of reporting lines, decision points and policy/service interactions that nobody really understands.

The article concludes:

"While there is no doubt that uncoupling steering and rowing at a macro-level is important in driving transformational change, such an uncoupling may become dysfunctional at the micro-level. For a single frontline officer to require multiple and vastly different performance reports from the one non-government organisation that is providing services under several contracts with the one agency can be seen as a symptom of problems generated by the separation of program design from operations.

Another symptom is the prevalence of policies that run to tens of thousands of pages in length or a child protection officer, in a remote location, that sleeps in their office with at-risk children, against policy, because there was no other option. Separation of the function of steering – as intended by Osborne and Gaebler – from the accountable, devolved responsibility for operational outcomes is sensible. But the separation of micro-level policy and program design from operations under the guise of steering may well be counterproductive and conducive to corruption."

Comment and conclusion

I agree. In narrowing the focus to the separation of program design and operation, the article focuses on a real problem. The examples given are real. However, the old saying that a fish rots from the head is germane.

The malaise that the article refers to starts at the top where the interaction of theories of management and governance interact with institutional structures and politics (politics is just as prevalent in the private sector, although the form may be different) to create the framework within which the delivery mess occurs. Without change at the top, reform further down the chain becomes very difficult.

Australia in the Pacific century

Interesting short piece by Robert Gottliebsen (Obama spearheads an Asian coup) in Business Spectator on the implications for Australia of the US's re-engagement with Asia. The key point is that Australia risks being sidelined. 

I'm not sure that's right, but it is a risk. Over on my personal blog I have been musing from time to time about the changes taking place globally and the implications for Australia. It's a sort of check and update thinking series. We all have to do this from time to time.

This morning (Art, pop music & a dash of fracking) I mused in part about the implications of the US's growing energy self-sufficiency. The US is a very big economy. I know that seems self-evident, but we tend to forget it in all the discussion on the rise of China. As the US changes direction, it has a lot of economic levers to attract Asian interest.

How this might affect Australia is unclear. Here Mr Gottliebsen's point is worth considering. Australia may be a member of the G20 and may have passed Spain to become the world's twelfth largest economy, but it's still a small economy. 

Focus not on Asia, but on the Pacific. Where might Australia fit in a world where the economic centre of the Pacific gravity shifts to the US?  Should Australia be talking about a Pacific rather than Asian century?   Just a thought.

Keddies and the need to revisit billing practices

My major post yesterday was on my personal blog - Sunday Essay - Keddies and the importance of values. That post looked at the growing avalanche affecting the partners and former clients of Keddies, previously a major Australian personal injuries law firm. The post includes links to previous writing on my part as well as external sources.

In writing the post, I looked back over my previous posts on alternative professional services billing practices. It's probably time to revisit this. There is no perfect answer, but the Keddies approach actually bet the firm. 

The future for the Australian economy

Note to readers: This column appeared in the June/July edition of Australian Business Solutions magazine. It was written just before the budget. It's not on-line, so I have re-published it here.

In my last column I spoke of the economic forecasting mess. Since then, the International Monetary Fund has released its latest forecasts on global growth. This was greeted by some in the Australian media with glee - “Australian economy leads the world” screamed one headline.

The reality is a little different, for the IMF is actually a good example of what I have been taking about. In recent years, its forecasts have been all over the place like a dog’s breakfast! So what did the IMF actually say? Well, not quite what the headline would suggest.

To begin with, the IMF suggested that there was some strengthening in the global economy, although this was heavily qualified in some ways with recognition of the various risk factors. But what did the IMF think of Australia? The IMF actually projected some further weakening in the Australian economy. We are still forecast to do relatively well by the standards of other developed nations, but hardly well enough to suggest that the Australian economy leads the world!

But in all this confusion what can we actually say about the Australian economy? The first and most important point is that world commodity prices will continue to weaken, reducing returns on our major exports. Why do I say this? It’s simple. The structural imbalances that developed in the global economy over the long boom are still there. They will take time to unwind. So long as they continue, global economic growth will continue to be weak. In turn, this means weakened demand for commodities.

Yet despite the fall in commodity prices, the Australian mining investment boom will continue, if at a lower level than previously forecast. Work already under way guarantees that. This means, in turn, that pressures on the non-resource sectors will continue. However, it’s not all doom and gloom.

A very significant proportion of the inputs required for all those new mines and supporting infrastructure, over 40 per cent, will be imported. With lower export prices, the current account deficit will grow. This will place downward pressure on the Australian dollar.

The Australian dollar may not go lower than now, but it will go lower might otherwise have been the case. Both export and import competing industries will be better off as a consequence. There will be more time to adjust.

But the story doesn’t end here. World growth may be slow, but it is still positive. This means that the total marketplace for Australia’s non-resource exports will grow. Importantly, the fastest growing marketplaces will continue to be in our immediate region, which gives us an advantage. The decline in commodity prices will also increase the relative return on non-mining investments, encouraging investment outside mining.

Taken together, we are likely to see a smaller resource sector than would otherwise have been the case, a larger non-resource sector.

For the present, the Australian economy should continue to grow if below the trend rate - and the biggest immediate economic risk? It’s actually the budget!

By the time you read this, we will know what Treasurer Swan has in mind. Looking at the numbers, the size of the apparent spending cuts required to return the budget to surplus will place considerable downward pressure on economic activity. That pressure will be felt most by the non-resource sectors of the economy, just those sectors adversely affected by the mining boom. That would be a pity.

Coming back online

Just a short note to say that I have largely been of-line for personal reasons. I am now coming back on-line, so you can expect more regular posts here.

Australian budget day

A post on my personal blog, Australian budget day - what will I examine?, briefly looks at tonight's Australian budget. I will bring the follow up post here tomorrow.