Archive for the ‘People Management’ Category
Empowered or not – A litmus test of organisational culture
In a recent lecture on leadership in software development, Mary Poppendieck relates the well-known parable of the three stone cutters. The story, in short, is as follows. Three stone cutters are asked what they’re doing by a passer-by. The first one answers, “I’m cutting stones”; the second, “I’m earning a living”; and the third, “I’m building a cathedral.” A variant of this tale is related in Ricardo Semler’s best-selling book, Maverick, in which he details how he turned his company, Semco, from a traditional, hierarchical organisation to one in which workers were empowered to make decisions that affected them. In effect, he turned an organisation of stone cutters into one of cathedral builders.
When asked, most senior managers claim that their organisations, like Semler’s, have more cathedral constructors than stone slicers. However, this is their subjective impression which, quite obviously, should be taken with a sprinkle of sodium chloride. What’s needed is an objective test of employee empowerment in organisations. In her lecture, Mary Poppendieck proposes such a test. Here it is:
Question:
What do people in your organisation do when they are annoyed by some aspect of their job?Possible Answers:
a) They complain about it.
b) They ignore it.
c) They fix it.
(a) corresponds to the stone cutter, (b) the wage earner and (c) the cathedral builder. Poppendieck’s point is that when people are empowered to change aspects of their job that they feel need to be fixed, then it is clear the organisation has pushed decision making down to lowest possible level. This situation is desirable for two reasons:
- Decisions get made at the level at which work gets done.
- Everyone in the organisation is able to fulfil their full potential
So, now that you’ve taken the test, do people in your organisation (or team) cut stones, earn a living or build cathedrals?
A tale of two perceptions
Stan was the go-to guy in the IT department. He had a deep knowledge of many technical areas, and had the ability to come up with creative solutions to just about any technology-related problem. Further, unlike your stereotypical IT employee, Stan understood the business (he had worked at this company for several years) and was very articulate. All in all, the perfect IT guy…or so it seemed, until the day Stan was sacked.
His colleagues were shocked, stunned, and many other emotions of a similar shade. They asked the simple question, “Why?”, but got no satisfactory answer from anyone. Management wouldn’t say anything except the official line which was, “Consistently unacceptable performance” – a line his colleagues simply didn’t believe. Getting no believable answers, they indulged in wild hypothesising, which included a conspiracy theory or two. Stan himself wouldn’t say, which only added spice to the speculations.
It turns out the truth behind Stan’s dismissal was really quite simple. Stan was a victim of perceptions – or two perceptions to be precise. Let me explain…
Within the IT team, Stan was indeed the go-to guy. He wouldn’t hesitate to drop what he was doing to help a colleague resolve a technical issue. He’d spend hours reading up on and exploring technologies, writing nifty utilities and even contributing to the odd open source project. All this made him ever more valuable as technical employee. He was perceived by his IT colleagues as brilliant, approachable and always helpful.
Trouble is, folks on the business side didn’t share this perception. They perceived him as being arrogant and unhelpful. A typical complaint from an end-user would go something like, “I told him over two months ago that this report isn’t working, and he still hasn’t fixed it. I asked about it yesterday and he tells me he’s still working on it.”
On digging deeper it turned out that Stan was a serial postponer. He’d continually put off doing work that he found uninteresting. This included any business-related issues, application fixes, new reports or whatever. Stan claimed that his technical workload left him little time to do anything else. So, as the pile of unattended issues on his desk grew ever higher, the business-wide perception of Stan sank lower and lower. He got a couple of warnings which he ignored. Eventually, his manager gave up and put him on a performance management program. Stan dealt with this in the worst possible way. He immersed himself deeper into technical matters, to the further detriment of his business responsibilities. Paradoxically, he continued to grow in his IT colleagues’ estimation whilst incurring the increasing ire of the business. Then one fine day things came to a head and the rest, as they say, is history (as is poor Stan) .
Perceptions matter. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. This is particularly important to those who have to maintain a variety of professional relationships in the workplace. Corporate IT is a case in point: folks who work in IT must be able to deal with technical and business people. As illustrated by the Stan’s story, perceptions should be managed on both fronts. Mis-management of perceptions is what leads to the stereotype of the inarticulate, unhelpful, technology obsessed IT employee. Many corporate IT departments have a Stan or two (or more!) lurking within. Such folks would do well to heed this tale.
Lead, don’t take the easy way out
Over the last few weeks, parliamentary proceedings in Australia have been dominated by debates (if one can call them that) on the price of petrol. In the process, the public has been treated to the unedifying spectacle of a government and an opposition squabbling over a GST cut on excise which, if passed, will reduce the price of petrol by the princely sum of 4 cents per litre. A cut that will sooner than later be swallowed by ever rising oil prices.
Rather, than lead – in this case by telling the truth about hard choices that face us – politicians continue to take the easy way out by looking after their own short-term interests (i.e. the next election). Hence the fixation on cutting petrol prices, even if by only an insignificant amount. The truth is we need to look at long-term solutions such as improving public transport and fuel efficiency while also looking at alternate energy sources. All hard yet necessary options which, if implemented, might well irritate the electorate. Incidentally, regarding the first point, anecdotal evidence suggests that soaring petrol prices have already pushed more people into public transport, thereby putting further strain on an already creaky system. Addressing that, for a start, would be more productive than arguing over a 4c price reduction.
In the words of Ross Gittins, a Sydney Morning Herald columnist – our pollies are too gutless to give us the bad oil . And there lies a lesson in how not to lead, because Gittins is absolutely right: our politicians aren’t leading, they’re taking the easy way out.
Eight to Late 