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.  

Why active listening is important to all professionals

Just back to duty and still very saddle sore.

The only really professional thing that I have done this week was a consultation for a manager seeking advice on how to manage a particular problem. This got me thinking.

Most professionals know, I think, that the capacity to listen is a key professional skill. This holds equally true for a lawyer, management consultant or doctor. The problem for most of us, however, is that time is limited and that as soon as we identify a problem we switch into problem solving mode. See problem, fix problem.

The difficulty here is that the first identified problem or problems may not be, often is not, the key problem. This is true whether dealing with individual or corporate problems. Too often, the first identified problem is either one of a number of problems or simply a symptom of a deeper underling problem. So we need to probe through active listening.

Active listening involves several different processes.

One is simply the gathering of information. We do this by listening and by asking questions. We also have to analyse the information as we go along. What does it mean? What additional information do we need? This leads to further questions. 

We also have to test the ideas we are forming. This may be done by asking questions or by summarising, testing our conclusions with the client.

Summarising can be used as a validity test, but it is also used to change a direction in the discussion. In this second case, we summarise and then ask a question, taking the conversation in a new direction.

We can all consciously practice these steps.    

Problems with authority and responsibility - are you guilty?

I have written a fair bit on this blog over time about problems with delegation. A key problem lies in the the grant of responsibility without real authority. This often links to a related problem: constant changes and interventions that further undermine the authority of the person meant to be doing the job.

These problems are often linked to two of the management styles I have discussed: the micro-manager and the over-enthusiastic manager.

You can check whether or not you belong to either class. Simply take a small handful of delegated jobs and monitor your own involvement. Actually write down what you do.

The observer always affects the observed. The fact that you are monitoring your own behaviour will affect that behaviour and for the better. However, you can tell what type you are by your gut reactions.

Does the act of standing back make you uncomfortable? Do you find that you have to discipline yourself not to give staff new assignments before the previous ones are completed? Do you, in fact, have a tendency to delegate and then forget, fail to follow up? Do you give one set of instructions and then actually countermand them?

You cannot change your personality, but can change the way you manage your personality. All these things give you clues that you can use to improve your own perfomance.
     

Common Management Problems in Professional Services - Entry Page

This page provides a consolidated list of posts in my common management problems series:

November 20 2006: Common Management Problems - the isolation of being boss
November 23 2006: Common Management Problems - the overenthusiastic boss
March 12 2007: Common Management Problems - managing up
March 18, 2007: Common Management Problems - dealing with poor performers
March 27, 2007: Praise from Martin Hoffman for the Common Management Problems Series
April 6, 2007: Common Management Problems - dealing with poor performers 2
October 21, 2007: Common Management Problems - issues of communication and trust
July 5, 2008: Common Management Problems - micro-management
August 17, 2008:Common Management Problems - responsibility without authority

For a related set of posts looking in detail at one key problem in professional services management, see Wednesday Forum - Depression and the Professional.

Common Management Problems - micro-management

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.

Staff who cannot work in a micro-management environment 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.

Previous posts

Those interested can find a full list of the posts in this series here.

Causes of project failure - lack of central control

Photo: The PC-9/A is the two-seat single-engine turboprop aircraft that is the major basic training aircraft for the Australian Defence Force (ADF). The PC-9/A is best known to the public as the aircraft flown by the Air Force Roulettes in aerobatic displays at major events throughout Australia.

This post continues my short comments that began with Causes of project failures - responsibility without authority on the common reasons for project failure.

Some years ago the Australian Defence Forces began the development of a new basic trainer aircraft. The project ran over time and budget, a not unusual result with a Defence project. In this case, the over-run was so bad that an Inter-Departmental Committee was formed to review the project.

The Committee concluded that the project should be cancelled. Instead, Australia purchased the Pilatus PC-9.

A core problem with the project lay in the absence of central control. The Air Force as client kept wanting changes to the design of the plane. There was inadequate central control to resist these demands. The core design was never frozen, while costs blew out.

How often have you seen this, where the client keeps changing its mind?

Causes of project failures - responsibility without authority

Recently I had cause to look at some projects that had failed or were, at best, on the point of failure.

In my series on project management - see Project Management for Professionals - entry page - I looked at some of the steps involved in effective project management. Here I did not deal with one of the main causes of project failure, the allocation of project management responsibility without authority.

You cannot run a project properly if you do not have the authority to do so. Too many organisations allocate project management responsibility, but are not prepared to over-ride existing decision structures in the way required to make the project work.

I do not have a solution to this. It just is.

The only advice that I can give to project managers facing this problem is the need to be prepared to drive things through, to force decisions. If the organisation will not meet the requirements dictated by the project, then you really have no choice but to stand down.

Project Management for Professionals - entry page

Now that I have again started to write about project management, I thought it sensible to establish an entry page that would bring together my various posts on project management. Later I will add linked themes to introduce you to related issues.

The posts are not intended for the professional project manager, already skilled at the craft. Rather, I hope that they will provide an introduction to the ordinary professional or manager in a professional services firm interested in the way that project management can help improve performance.

The Project Management Posts

• 2 October 2006. Multidisciplinary Working - Introduction
• 28 November 2006. Project Management for Professionals - Introduction
• 4 December 2006. Project Management for Professionals - What is a Project?
• 6 December 2006. Project Management for Professionals - Conceiving and Defining the Project
• 8 December 2006. Project Management for the Professionals - Planning the Project
• 4 December 2007. Project Management for Professionals - Implementing the Plan
• 3 January 2007. What Lawyers (and other professionals) appreciate
• 17 January 2007. Towards a Discipline of Practice - the Ndarala challenge
• 18 January 2007. Project Management for Professionals - Completing the Plan
• 28 August 2007. The Use and Abuse of Standardisation - Introduction
• 5 March 2008. Project Management in Professional Bodies

Project Management in Professional Bodies

Well, back from my break and ready to go again.

Several years ago I was involved in the introduction of project management approaches across an organisation.

The idea made a lot of apparent sense. Much of the work of the organisation, a significant professional body, was in fact project based. Application of structured project management approaches should improve efficiency at project level, while also making the organisation's work more transparent and accountable.

The move failed. There were significant short term gains, but application collapsed because the transparency and accountability created came to be seen as a threat to the authority and autonomy of the organisation's governing bodies.

Part of the problem here lay in the fact that many "decisions" were not in fact decisions at all. Some reflected political and professional interplay within the profession and were really markers of that interplay. Others fell in the "it seemed a good idea at the time" class.

The governing bodies were quite comfortable with all this because the process accommodated all the personal, political and professional differences to be found in any profession. The introduction of project management approaches failed because the transparency it created interfered with the internal political processes.

Common Management Problems - issues of communication and trust

In an earlier post, I spoke of the role that communications and trust played in providing a framework that would encourage passion.

Communications, because without this errors occur, fears build up. Trust, because this encourages people to go that extra mile. The two are linked in that poor communication is nearly always associated with reduced trust.

I was reminded of this recently because I saw a simple case where the two factors came into play.

The facts are simple enough. A staff member applied for an internal promotion. The committee decided not to interview her. No one let her know. She found out because she asked another candidate had he heard anything about interviews, only to find out that interviews were being held that afternoon.

The candidate in question was mortified because she had not been told, more so because her colleague immediately realised that she had not been selected for interview.

This type of simple example occurs fairly often. In this case there was no ill intent. The person who should have told her simply got swamped. Yet the damage that was done will be permanent.

My point in all this is that in managing your people you must be straight with them, sensitive to their feelings. This includes passing on bad news. If you are straight and communicate properly, then you will find that your people will not only do better, but will also cut you some slack, forgiving you for mistakes that you are bound to make.

Previous posts in this series are:

November 20 2006: Common Management Problems - the isolation of being boss

November 23 2006: Common Management Problems - the overenthusiastic boss

March 12 2007: Common Management Problems - managing up

March 18, 2007: Common Management Problems - dealing with poor performers

March 27, 2007: Praise from Martin Hoffman for the Common Management Problems SeriesA

April 6, 2007: April 6, 2007: Common Management Problems - dealing with poor performers 2

Designing a simple performance appraisal system - implementation issues

This, my last post in this short series, briefly discusses the practical issues that can arise in implementing the system I have described.

From experience, three main problems are likely to arise.

First, people have to be given the skills to make them comfortable with the new approach. This is best done by means of an initial workshop in which the system is explained, with staff given the opportunity to experiment through role pays.

As new staff are appointed, they too need to be given access to information about the system. In the case of people who will be required to do appraisals, one way to help them is to get them to sit in on one or two appraisal systems.

Secondly, any new system requires time before it is properly internalised. Too often, management focus shifts to other issues, resulting in lagging effort.

Third, the approach must be kept both focused and as simple as possible. Too many firms start adding things in, complicating the overall process.

Remember, the whole point of this system is performance improvement, but in a way that should aid both manager and staff.

Introductory post.

Designing a simple performance appraisal system - sample policy statement

This post in the series sets out a sample boiler plate policy statement designed for immediate use in a professional services environment.

PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

This paper sets out the approach to performance appraisal.

EMPLOYMENT PHILOSOPHY

Service to the client is central to our work. To this end, the firm undertakes to provide a supportive working environment and to assist the individual staff member to enhance his/her skills. In return, the firm expects individual staff members to be prepared to learn and to seek to improve performance

OBJECTIVES OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL

Consistent with the firm’s employment philosophy, the objectives of performance appraisal are to improve individual performance and job satisfaction. To this end, performance appraisal needs to be a structured process during which the individual and firm jointly:

• assess performance during the previous period against the objectives set for the job, identifying achievements together with any significant shortcomings
• identify any problems that might be hindering the individual in achieving improved job performance or satisfaction
• review future objectives
• agree any actions required to improve performance or job satisfaction.

Under this approach, each performance review provides a base for subsequent performance reviews.

KEY APPRAISAL PRINCIPLES

Effective performance appraisal is based on a number of key principles:

• improvement focused: performance improvement is central to the process
• non-disciplinary: performance appraisal is not concerned with discipline or disciplinary approaches
• fairness: the approach must be seen to be fair by all those involved
• transparency: the approach needs to be open and well understood. There should be no hidden agendas
• joint: the appraisal is a cooperative review not just of the individual, but also of the firm and its systems as they affect work
• needs based: the review has to take into account the needs of both individual and firm
• realism: the review needs to be based on realistic expectations on both sides
• non-threatening: a structured review process can be a frightening experience for both the staff member and his/her supervisor. It has been known to make staff physically sick in the period immediately prior to the review. To minimise this, it needs to be carried out in a cooperative non-threatening fashion
• delivery: both firm and individual must be prepared to deliver on any commitments made during the performance review.

RELATIONSHIP WITH PAY REVIEWS

While there is a relationship, the performance appraisal process should not be confused with pay reviews.

Performance appraisal seeks to improve performance and involves very different issues from those relating to pay. In the majority of cases pay issues should not be dealt with during the performance review. Inclusion of pay reviews within performance reviews nearly always twists the focus away from performance improvement.

FREQUENCY OF APPRAISAL

The first appraisal should be carried out three months after appointment. Thereafter appraisals can be carried out at three or six monthly intervals.

WHO SHOULD DO THE APPRAISAL

Note: this section will need modification depending upon firm structure. Partner reviews involve different issues and are not fully covered here. With senior staff or partners, there are sometimes advantages in using an external facilitator.

The appraisal team depends upon reporting lines.

The partners should carry out appraisal of the CEO/Practice Manager/Office Manager.

A team of two consisting of the direct supervisor plus another nominee (Office Manager, partner, HR person etc) should carry out other staff appraisal.

STRUCTURE OF APPRAISALS

Appraisals at all levels should follow a common format.

Prior to the appraisal, the team should meet to discuss the issues involved and to review previous appraisal.

The review should start with a review of the position itself. Firm operations change continuously. There is not a position in the firm that is exactly the same as it was six months ago. Experience has also demonstrated that even the most experienced manager does not in fact know all the features and nuances of the positions reporting to him/her.

It is therefore very important to establish the changing parameters of the job. What are the key features of the position, where are the main work pressures, how has the job changed, what changes might be expected in the future?

The person being appraised should then be asked to discuss his/her own performance. What do they like/not like about the job? What have they done well, what might be improved? What problems do they face in improving performance? What might be done to improve job satisfaction? Where do they see themselves going next?

Discussion can then turn to a discussion of any performance issues identified by the team that have not already been covered. In this context, while self-awareness varies, most people have some idea of their own performance strengths and weaknesses. It is much easier to deal with performance issues that people have identified themselves. A free flowing discussion will generally allow issues to be identified and dealt with in a non-threatening way.

The last part of the discussion should focus on things that might be done to improve performance. Outcomes here can be quite wide-ranging and might include new training, job redesign, improved supervision and priority changes.

The results of the appraisal should be written up by the chair, cleared with the person being appraised and then signed by all parties. Where the person being appraised disagrees with any aspect of the appraisal, then this should be formally recorded.

The results of the appraisal then provide a benchmark for subsequent appraisals.

A suggested form for recording appraisal results is attached.

PERFORMANCE REVIEW

Name:
Date of Appraisal:
Appraisal Team:
Date of Previous Appraisal:
Summary:

Agreed Actions:

Insert full meeting details here

Endorsed as an accurate record of discussions:


Appraiser Name Appraiser Name
Position Position

___________________ _________________

Appraisee Name
Position

___________________

Previous post. Next post.

Designing a simple performance appraisal system - introduction

Almost twelve months ago, I set out the principles that I thought were important in the design of a good performance appraisal system.

While I have seen very few really good performance appraisal systems, to my mind the development of a simple, effective, performance appraisal system that increases in value with time is not hard.

In this context, I thought that it might be helpful to at least some readers if I provided a working example of a system that I know can work. I trialled it originally in an organisation while I was CEO and since then have used it in client work.

The key points about it are that it is simple, focuses on performance improvement and is designed to help staff and managers do their ordinary jobs.

To keep things really simple, I am breaking this series into four posts including my original post:

1. My first post, Designing a Good Performance Appraisal System, sets out basic principles.
2. This post introduces the series.
3. The third post, Designing a simple performance appraisal system - sample policy statement, sets out a simple policy statement describing the system and is intended for direct use.
4. The final post, Designing a simple performance appraisal system - implementation issues, looks at some of the practical problems that can arise in implementing the system.

I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have.

The Problem with Performance Agreements - Limiting staff contribution

In my last post in this series, I talked about ways in which performance agreements limited manager freedom - and responsibility. This post looks briefly at the way in which performance agreements can actually act to limit staff contribution.

The problem can be simply stated. You get what you measure. The more precisely you prescribe, the more you limit activities to those things you prescribe.

Two examples to illustrate my point.

Many professional firms use simple performance metrics focused on yield per hour. They then wonder why their staff are not prepared to become involved in, interested in, other activities such as marketing. Why should they? There is no return from such involvement.

In other types of organisations further removed from direct time based charging, performance agreements often focus on specific activities or projects. You will do x by y. That's fine, but do not expect your staff to do z or k, no matter how important z or k may be.

Talking to staff in this type of organisation, I find it interesting that many actually see performance agreements as a protection. If I do what is in my performance agreement as required, then I cannot be criticised. So negotiation of performance agreements becomes a process of working out the minimum that will satisfy given the particular views at the time of manager and management.

This type of limiting or satisficing behaviour can make it very difficult to really improve performance or to do new things.

This need not happen, but avoiding the problem requires a very particular approach to the development and management of performance agreements, an approach that can be difficult to achieve in most organisations.

In my next post in this series I will look at what is involved in this particular approach.

Introductory post. Previous post. Next post.

The Problem with Performance Agreements - Limiting manager freedom

In my first post in this series, I talked about some of the problems associated with performance agreements. I now want to extend the argument, focusing on one issue, the way in which performance agreements inevitably limit the freedom of the manager.

The need for good management has never been greater. Yet I sometimes feel that management as such is becoming a lost art, submerged on one side in the current obsession with leadership, on the other in a plethora of limitations.

Management does involve leadership, but leadership is only one element of the manager's core role, getting the best results from the people and other resources at his or her command. It may sound trite, but the real role of the manager is just that, management.

I feel strongly on this one because over the last two decades I have watched a real decline in management roles and skills across a number of different organisation types in both public and private sectors. This may sound extreme, but in some organisations management in the old sense of the word has actually vanished, replaced by a reliance on systems.

The systems based command and control organisation works in the sense that the organisation still operates, but this comes at a cost in both human and business terms.

By its very nature, management is a bit messy. Needs change, priorities shift, crises arise. Further, any manager worth his or her salt generates new ideas while working. Sometimes, often, these are a little outside current ways of working simply because they are new. A good manager tries to test and introduce new things, in so doing working around and through existing systems.

Performance agreements can be used to stop all this type of nonsense by limiting the manager to the specified and the known. Further, in a world of cascading agreements where the manager's staff are also on agreements, those staff agreements have the useful effect of further limiting the manager's capacity to do new things by also limiting staff activity to the agreed and the known.

The command and control approach can sometimes be remarkably efficient in getting specific defined things done. It is much less effective when it comes to doing things or solving problems that fall outside neat pigeon holes, often hopeless when it comes to something new.

A key difficulty from my perspective with the application of performance agreements in a systems based command and control environment is the way it de-skills managers. Management now centres on the management of performance agreements and the performance agreement process. "Managers" who have grown up in this type of environment often lack the basic skills necessary to manage in a broader environment. Worse, they may not even recognise this lack.

Performance agreements need not be like this. It's just that the standard performance agreement process seems to drive them in this way.

Introductory post. Next

The Dangers of Team Building

This dislike (of team building exercises) has gone back many years, but I think it was exacerbated by a particular event. Once, longer away now than I care to remember, I was a little articled clerk, full of enthusiasm and naivety. On our first or second week, our group of articled clerks was sent on some kind of “leadership” or “team building” exercise. I don’t know what exactly the point of the exercise was, but the end result was appalling. By the end of the week, we had gone from being a friendly bunch to a group with massive schisms, full of suspicion and dislike. It certainly didn’t build a “team” mentality; in fact the very opposite. Luckily, I was a bit older, and I’d already been working full-time for over a year before then, so I didn’t take the whole thing very seriously. I have always just wanted to do my job well and go home. From Legal Eagle's The Legal Soapbox.

The above quote is drawn from a rather nice post by Legal Eagle on her dislike of team building exercises. It links across to a post by Marcel Proust reporting on the extremely sad case of Dr MacKinnon.

To me, LE's post provides a clear cut example of the dangers that can be involved in so-called team building exercises, an approach that has become popular in recent years.

My experience has been that most team building exercises do not work. They can have a place, but only if carefully constructed and controlled.

The Problem with Performance Agreements - Introduction

I have just been looking at a set of performance agreements. All very modern, but they reminded me of the problems that I have with so many performance agreements.

The agreements are meant to cover the 2008-2008 financial year. That's fine, but there is no way of actually forecasting just what will happen over that year, nor of the extent to which priorities will change.

The agreements must be related to the formal duties of the positions. That's fine, but most advances actually come from people doing more than their position demands.

In fact, the greatest advances come, as in the skunk works concept (here one and here two), where people actually work around the limitations of formal positions. But you cannot really put this in a performance agreement. The effect is that performance agreements can get certain things done, but can actually stop real development. Unless, of course, those further up in the chain of command already know the best outcome.

The agreement must have defined outcomes, along with agreement as to how those outcomes should be measured. But again outcomes have to be related to immediate roles.

In most organisational environments, results come from combined actions by a number of people. This means that the value of the contribution made by any individual depends in part upon actions by others. This is not a problem where the individual is in control of the team, but does create issues where the individual has little or no control over other critical actions.

Setting an individual performance target that is dependent upon actions by others over which an individual has no control has very obvious dangers. For that reason, many performance agreements are in fact activity rather than results based, I will do x by y, with results measured simply by the achievement of x by y. This may aid command and control, but actually does very little to drive improvement.

Now none of this means that you should not have performance agreements. However, those agreements need to be carefully thought through if they are to deliver the results that you hope for.

Next post

A Passion for Management - To err is human, to forgive divine

I have included this quote from Alexander Pope, English poet & satirist (1688 - 1744) because it captures some of my key messages.

Many years ago I was appointed a sub-monitor at a boy's school. I was a day boy, the school largely boarding, and still run very much on traditional lines. As a sub-monitor I took prep and was responsible for general discipline when on duty. At first, I really struggled.

Looking back, I would have been much better off if my role had been defined in management terms as compared to the school's semi-military discipline approach. At the time I struggled as a sub-monitor, I was already a patrol leader in the scouts and reasonably good at it. There I had a different structure, a better defined role with a focus on the development of my patrol, and a place in decision making.

The hierarchical days of the school are long gone. Today we talk of teams, of mentoring, of individual authority, of empowerment. Experts explain why generation y needs to be managed in different ways from past generations. Yet the reality is, at least as I see it, that management has never been poorer.

Now there is something funny here.

When I look at my daughters - 17 and 19 - and their friends, I see management skills at least as good, better I think, than mine were at the same age. The modern younger generation, at least in Australia, with their tribal focus are well able to create and manage activities of all types. That is what they do. Further, they use computing and communications technology automatically as a tool, a means to an end.

It is the generations immediately above that have the real problem.

Those of my generation had the opportunity to acquire management skills in bits through experience. Those who entered the workforce a little later have had to suffer through process re-engineering, thinned out management, the substitution of systems for people, the obsession with that which can be quantified. Their scope to learn management was severely reduced. And management can really only be learned through doing.

In these circumstances management training becomes a second best alternative, a way of coping with a sometimes impoverished working environment.

I find two major difficulties in providing management training.

Number one is the difficulty that people find in applying the skills I teach in any meaningful way. There is simply not the opportunity to practice. To overcome this, I try to show them ways of applying skills outside conventional management paradigms.

Number two is simply fear. Fear of being let down, fear of being judged, fear of making mistakes. This one is really hard. Here I try to explain that to be human is to err, to forgive define.

As a manager you will make mistakes. So long as you have tried, so long as you learn, then forgive yourself. And forgive those working for you who have tried to apply the same standards.

A Passion for Management - Introduction

Many professionals see management as incidental to their real work, something that they must do, really a distraction.

I do not share this view. While much of my recent professional life has seen me work alone, I actually love management and see it as central to my professional life.

All this got me musing. Why is management so neglected? Yes, we have an increasing range of management courses, but these mainly teach business techniques. Why is the act of managing itself not focused on?

We can see this in the current obsession with leadership. Yes, leadership is important. But of itself it does not deliver sustainable results. Adolf Hitler was a great leader. So was Stalin. But this did not mean that their countries were well managed.

We can see this, too, in the current obsession with performance management. At best, a series of cascading performance agreements can be a useful tool. At worst, it becomes a substitute for management. The agreements are in place, let everybody get on with doing.

Yet experience shows that performance agreements as such are a poor tool for achieving sustained performance improvement. At best, and this is actually unusual, they deliver the results specified in the agreement. Even then, they capture only a small part of the realities of good performance.

Why, then, is management neglected?

In simplest terms, I think that it is because management involves managing people and uncertainties, and many are simply uncomfortable with this. So instead of dealing with people issues and uncertainty, we try to remove the problem, substituting systems instead. And this does not work.

Given all this, in the next few posts I want to share with you my own passion for management, explaining why I think that this is a central human activity. In so doing, I hope to give you a few hints and guides based on my own experience that will help you become better managers.