Executive accountability

“Wow, that felt like some real work!”.  Gareth had just put the finishing touches on planning the work of his area with a true focus on results.  He was GM of an Operations Division.

“Why is that?” I asked.

“Because you made me not only take each 3-year result and write down where it needs to be in 18 month’s time to be on track, you then made me write down where it needs to be in 9 months, then where it needs to be in 3 months!”.  Gareth looked both exasperated and pleased.

“How did you find that?”

“Annoying!” he replied.  “I kept thinking ‘surely a GM doesn’t have to go down to 3 months’.  Then I remembered your two points – that I’m the only one accountable for the whole Operations Division, and if we’re going to use the natural timespans that work organises into, we have to be serious about it and let our people know where the Division needs to be each quarter”.

“Exactly!” I said.  “Same applies to CEOs – they might set results for the organisation out 7 years, but if they can work these results down through the timespans to the 3 month organisational results or milestones that would show we’re on track…..things really get moving”.

“That would be some serious alignment!”

“It is.  If you’re willing to do the work.”

“So….am I done?” Gareth asked.  “I think I know your answer” he continued with a wry smile.

“You know me well.  The answer of course is no!”

“Of course it is.  So what’s next?”

“Now we write down the results you’re going to need each of your Senior Managers to deliver by 30 June 2017, that is, 18 months away”.

“But isn’t that their job to work out? Gareth asked.

“No.  It’s their job to advise, suggest, recommend.  But in the end, it’s your call.  And you know why?”

“Because I’m accountable”.

“Yes..but for what?”

“For their results”

“What else?”

Gareth looked at me quizzically.

“Every manager is accountable for ensuring that the efforts of their people are put toward delivering results that create true value for the organisation. That their efforts are not wasted.  Which ultimately means that they are valued.   You were picked by the CEO to run the Operations Division because she thinks you’ve got the capability to do that, to determine which results will create the most value.  It’s what you’re actually…..”

“It’s what I’m actually paid to do.”

How do I work out a reasonable efficiency target?

“OK” said Danni, GM of Operations with about 600 people under her.  “So I’m accountable for the work of each of my Senior Managers, which means I’m accountable for how efficiently each of their areas runs”.

“In the end” I replied.

“And their work is about making and implementing decisions that will make their areas reach the level of efficiency that we need”.

“Yep.  Outputs per input.”

“I know you like to talk about results” Danni went on.  “So how do I work out what’s a reasonable result in terms of efficiency for each of my Senior Managers?”

“How do you do it at the moment?”

“Well…….if I’m honest, I guess I pretty much agree with what the Senior Managers say is possible.”

“And they may well be spot on” I answered.  “But tell me this” I answered.  “When you were getting those renovations done on your house last year, how did you work out what was reasonable?”

“I guess I had a think about what I thought was possible, asked some builders, then asked some friends who had been through a similar thing.  Then I asked for what I wanted.”

“And what are the equivalents for deciding a reasonable result to expect for efficiency?”

“My Senior Managers of course.  But also I suppose conferences, consultants, colleagues, seminars, workshops, books.  All of those things.”  Danni was thinking hard now.

“So that meeting with the improvement consultants last month that three of your Senior Managers went to…..” I let it dangle in the air….

“I should have been there with them.” said Danni.  “I needed to listen, learn, then make my own judgement on what to expect over the next 18 months from my Senior Managers”.

“Exactly.  That decision is the work of a General Manager.”

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?”

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…

Continued…Cross-functional relationships: Start with one!

Ethan was ready to start making life better for his people by sorting out how their roles fit together across the organisation. I suggested he start with the role of Quality Engineer. He reached for the phone.

“Don’t do that” I jumped in. Ethan looked surprised. I continued; “it’s not up to your Quality Engineer to decide the work system, it’s up to you. We’re going to get her input for sure, but first, tell me what you are ultimately holding her accountable for”.

Ethan didn’t answer.

“We’ve found our starting point.”

“OK….” Ethan said. I needed to explain;

“Work occurs because someone gets someone else to start doing something, wait before doing something, or stop doing something.”

“Sounds reasonable”.

“And why do they do this…why does it happen?” I asked.

“Because…it’s their job?” Ethan ventured

“Yep. Or to get right to the bottom of it, they feel they are accountable for a particular thing happening or not happening, so to make sure they can do what they believe they are accountable for, they go and talk to someone else”. Read more…

Cross-functional relationships: start with one!

Ethan was enthused and exasperated at the same time.

“OK, I can see there’s this model for sorting out our cross-functional relationships.  Tears, tars or something, and a lot of words like audit, monitor, coordinate and stuff like that.  All sounds great.”

“You don’t seem to think it’s all great” I offered.

“Well it’s not.  We’ve got a million of these relationships.  Everyone talks to everyone, and to go through and work out every role relationship in the place would take a decade, and wouldn’t it just turn us into a bureaucracy anyway?”

“Sure would”.

Ethan looked surprised – “but you’ve seen this stuff work before”.

“Yep”.

“So what do I need to do”?

“We fix one“.

“One?”

“Yep, one”. Read more…

How to take the confusion out of your people’s career development

There is a simple way to sort out the career development of your own direct reports – stop doing it!

Asking a manager to take accountability for both the output and behaviour of their people as well as considering their future aspirations is asking a lot.   But….people knowing that the organisation has someone concerned with their future beyond their current role (even if it means not leaving the current role)  is a key part of creating the trust that ultimately sees people being willing to provide their full commitment.

So who is that someone?  We use the Manager-once-Removed, put forward by Elliott Jaques in a number of his works.   The Manager-once-Removed, or MoR is your boss’s boss.  Your skip-level manager.  We make each MoR accountable for building the pool of talent that sits below their own people,  that is their skip-level reports.   Read more…