Ultimately who is accountable for each of your areas being efficient?

Danni was General Manager Operations in a 1400-person organisation with about 600 people under her umbrella.   The new Board had made it clear they required a renewed focussed on ‘efficiency and effectiveness’.

“OK” Danni continued, “so I’m accountable that the work of my various areas is effective, meaning creates value for the organisation, and my Senior Managers are accountable that it’s done efficiently”.

“Nearly” I replied.

“Only nearly?” Danni laughed.  “I thought I was getting somewhere!”

“We are” I continued.  “But remember from the workshop last week, what is each manager accountable for?”

“The results of their people”.

“Which means ultimately who is accountable for each of your areas being efficient?”

“Well I guess that means me.  But now I’m confused”.

“Fair enough!” I agreed.  “But hang with me.  The work of each of your Senior Managers is to make their areas run more efficiently.  As in achieve a better outputs to inputs ratio.  And work is about making decisions to reach an outcome.  So your Senior Managers are paid to identify then choose a pathway that will see the outcome of a more efficient operation achieved”.

“Go on…..” Danni said, nodding slowly.

“But…..how much of an improvement in efficiency is considered to be a good job…..the result they are expected to achieve…..that’s your call”.

“Why my call?”

“Because you are…..” I began.  Danni smiled and joined in….”accountable for the results of my people“.

Which ‘e’ word are General Managers accountable for?

Danni was General Manager Operations in a 1400-person organisation with about 600 people under her umbrella.   The new Board had made it clear they required a renewed focussed on ‘efficiency and effectiveness’.

“So which one do you hold your Senior Managers accountable for?” I asked.  “Efficiency or effectiveness?”

“Well both!” she answered.  “It’s not enough that they just do things right, they need to make sure they are doing the right things”.

“And who decides what the right things are?”

“What do you mean?” Danni asked, her brow furrowing.

“Well….let say one of your Senior Managers asks to invest $150k in improvement consultants for a six month project that will deliver a three-year payback of $1.5 million.”

“Sounds good to me.  Approved!” she smiled.

“Hang on a tick….what if the service that is being improved is one that we would call, using Drucker’s words, ‘yesterday’s breadwinner’.”

“Well, $1.35 million over three years sounds pretty good”.  Danni was fast with numbers.

“True” I agreed. “But what if those improvements required most of the people who are involved in that  series of projects you were telling me about to find tomorrow’s breadwinners?”

“Well….that would be a genuine strategic decision.  Classic resource allocation.  What’s  savings of $500k each year compared to the value of new products?”

“Would you let your Senior Managers make this decision?” I asked.

“Nope.   I’d get their inputs, hear their disagreements.  But the final call – that’s what I’m paid for.”

“And which ‘e’ word are we talking about now”.

“Effectiveness”  said Danni with a confident nod.  “General Managers make decisions about what are the right things to do.”

“Which means….”

Danni had it:  “Senior Managers make decisions that make sure we do it right”.

Which one do you hold your Senior Managers accountable for?

Danni was General Manager Operations in a 1400-person organisation with about 600 people under her umbrella.   The new Board had made it clear they required a renewed focussed on ‘efficiency and effectiveness’.

“What does that mean” I asked.

“You know, do more with less, headcount, that sort of thing” she answered.

“So what sort of stuff will you be doing”?

“Well everyone is talking the usual suspects.  LEAN, Six Sigma, process maps….I can see a lot of boxes and arrows in my future”.

“That sounds like efficiency to me” I continued.  Where’s the effectiveness?”.

“Well I like the traditional definitions.  Efficiency is doing things right, and effectiveness is doing the right things”.

“So which one do you hold your Senior Managers accountable for?”

Why is HR advice optional but the system isn’t?

“What’s the difference between advice your HR person David offers your managers on raising staff engagement compared to the systems and practices he has set up to help them with it”?  We were getting close, I needed to press Jason on this.

He frowned with concentration.

“Well…lets start with what they have in common” he began.  “Both are designed to help them in doing their natural role as managers, which is to build a team that’s engaged”

“Yep.”

“But while I don’t expect them to follow every bit of advice David gives them, I do expect them to follow the systems and practices David set up”.

“Yep.  So what’s the difference? Why is one optional, and the other one isn’t”

“I actually don’t know!” he said with surprise.

“Let me ask you this.  When David set up the systems and processes to help raise engagement….did you look at them?”

“Of course I did.  David was new at the time.  He didn’t know our industry yet, he didn’t know us.  He did a great job with what he was able to learn, then we all provided input.”

“Who signed off that that it would be a good system  for your business to raise engagement?”

“In the end, I did.  I’m the one on the hook for the engagement levels in the whole business.”

I stayed silent.  Jason looked up.

“The staff engagement practices…. it’s not David’s expectation that they’re followed.  It’s mine.  That’s the difference”.

So what happens if your managers don’t want to follow the staff engagement system?

Jason had decided that it was  his managers that were accountable for lifting the level of staff engagement, not David his HR guy.  He had also decided that if his managers didn’t want to take David’s advice (David being an expert in this area), then that was fine with him.  David was still accountable for offering his advice, or giving it if asked, just not for whether his advice was followed.

Sounded nice.  But I had a couple more questions.

“When we were talking about what leads to staff engagement last week” I began, “we agreed it wasn’t just individual actions of managers, it was also related to the systems and processes your managers work in”.

“Mmm hmmm” Jason offered, a smile starting.

“And you said it was David who put together these systems and processes”.

“Mmm hmmm”.  The smile continued.

“And you just said that if your managers don’t listen to David’s advice on staff engagement, then that’s fine with you because it’s not him that’s ultimately accountable, it’s the managers”.

“Mmm Hmmm”.  The smile dropped a little.

“So what happens if your managers don’t follow David’s system?”

The smile disappeared.

What happens if they ask for help and then don’t do what HR suggests?

“So where are we at?” I asked Jason.

“Well, first, I’m going to make my line managers accountable for lifting the level of staff engagement rather than David my HR guy”.

“Makes sense” I replied.  “So what’s David going to be accountable for?”

Jason smiled.  “I think I’ve figured this one out.  David’s accountable for helping them lift their staff engagement.  I want him to be their expert, their consultant, their coach.”

“That makes sense too” I nodded.  “Now let me ask you this…what happens if they ask for help and then don’t do what David suggests?”

Jason frowned.  “Well, they have to.  David’s an expert”.

“But he’s not an expert in what they’re trying to produce.  He can’t be expected to be aware of all the issues in the area that are being dealt with.  There might be a perfectly good reason why they might not listen to him.  What do you do then?”

Jason rubbed his forehead.  “Give me a minute”.  I waited patiently.  Twenty seconds passed, then he suddenly  looked up with a smile.  “Nothing!”, he exclaimed.

“Nothing?”

“Nothing!” repeated Jason.  “If the managers don’t want or aren’t able to take David’s advice on staff engagement, then that’s their issue.  They know it’s their job to get the level up. I’ve given them the resource in David, but in the end, if they don’t need him, then there’s other things David can do that will be valuable.”

“Sounds like you’ve got a clear idea of how you want this cross-functional relationship to work.  Who’s accountable for what, and who can ask who for help”.

“Yep” said Jason.  “And I know what you’re going to say next.  I need to get them together and explain how I see it, get any input, then unless I hear something that changes my mind….implement it”.

“Nearly.  Just a couple more questions”

So if David my HR guy isn’t accountable for the engagement of my people….

“OK….”  Jason was thinking this through.  “So if David my HR guy isn’t accountable for the engagement of my people because their managers are…..”

I raised my eyebrows and nodded to keep the thoughts coming.

“….then what do I need David for?”.

“Good question” I replied.  “Not as in ‘good rhetorical question’, but genuinely….good question.  So what’s the answer…why do you need David?”.

“Well like I said, I want David to create an environment where staff are engaged.  But we’ve just said he can’t do that because he’s not accountable for the people he needs to get engaged.”

I nodded.  “True.  So answer this for me….are your managers in their jobs because they are specialists in staff engagement?”

“Well maybe Max”  Jason responded.  “He’s always been able to get a group of people switched on.  But as for Jenny and Kristy, Jenny’s there because she knows exactly how to set up a sales team and drive performance, and Kristy has always been great at the technical knowledge which works because her team is about quality and resolution”.

“So tell me this….if you inform Jenny and Kristy that you’re expecting a 15% bump in engagement next time the staff survey is run….how are they going to react”.

“I’ve chatted to them before about this.  They both feel that they’ve maxed out given the nature of their teams and their other goals.”

“So if you’re serious about raising staff engagement, and if they’re the ones accountable for it…..they’re going to need some help?”  I nodded along with Jason…”Would you happen to know anyone?”

Jason smiled.  “I think it’s about time I reintroduced them to their new best friend….David”.

So if a given person isn’t engaged…..who’s problem is it really?

“I’m getting concerned about my HR guy, he’s just not getting any movement on our staff engagement no matter how hard he’s trying”.  Jason was worried.

“What are you not seeing?” I asked.

“Engagement!”  He replied.  “Interested people.   People actually wanting to work here.  Work harder.  You know, just be into it”.

“And who do you hold accountable for that?”

Jason didn’t appreciate the circle.  “David” he said.  Slowly.  “My. H. R. guy.  Because the ‘H’ stands for ‘human'”.

“Got it.” I replied.  “So these people who are not engaged the way you want them to be…who are their managers”?

Jason didn’t hesitate: “There’s three managers.  Jenny, Max and Kristy”.

“And what were we saying is the accountability of each manager?”

I could see a change starting.  “We said managers are accountable for the results of their people and how well they work together”.

“So if a given person isn’t engaged…..who’s problem is it really?”

How to lift accountability without losing connection

Implementing a Requisite approach has the benefits of clarity of expectations and authority to get work done which in turn liberates people’s natural desire to be useful.  This is generated from the concept that it’s the managerial role that is accountable for the results and behaviour of their directs (regardless of who they may do a particular bit of work ‘for’).  This accountability naturally requires the managerial role to ensure clarity and authority are in place.

So far so good.

But…there is an unwanted side effect we need to avoid – the relationship disconnect.  It’s easy to accidentally adopt an approach of ‘that’s their job to do it, and if they can’t, that’s their problem’.  You might think that you would never take an approach like this, but I’ve seen it happen in well-meaning circumstances in a genuine attempt to provide freedom and autonomy.

The missing (and balancing) element is another Requisite fundamental – the managerial role exists to add value to the work of their directs. Read more…

Next instalment…Cross-functional relationships: Start with one!

Ethan was focussing on the cross-functional relationships of his Quality Engineer. We’d established the role was accountable for engineering standards being met such that all work passes inspection from government regulators and any other external audit functions we may choose to bring in.

“Each role relationship attaches to an accountability” I explained. By setting up a clear role relationship for each accountability, we can give your Quality Engineer the authority they need to get their work done.”

“Wish I’d had that years ago” Ethan smiled. “Let’s do it then. What’s the role relationship?”.

“A couple more questions for you and we’ll be there”. Read more…