How the myth of “superman manager” causes organizational stagnation

Summary : nearly everybody knows that the role of manager will have to evolve. But there’s still a gap between words and action. The fact is the common mental representation of managers, that’s been been built when people were students and is predominant in the workplace, which, combined with a culture of visual control makes people prefer visible activity. By sustaining the myth of the instant-action man versus systemic-oriented people and mistaking hindsight for inactivity, organizations make the germ of stagnation proliferate in their core.

Whatever we can do, some images die hard and stay deeply anchored in our minds. Among them, the “superman manager” that saves the enterprise every time something goes wrong. Of course this image comes with many other ones in the background : someone who do things, someone who acts, someone always busy.

 

Of course, few managers are still convinced by this image. On the contrary they often say that they can’t do anything more, that they’re overwhelmed with work. But, even if t’s surprising, it seems that this image is still very present for younger, most of all students. But that’s quite normal while they have few experience of the reality of work, tend to idealize their future and are not very comfortable with the difference between omnipotence and leadership.

Note that this is clearly the opposite of all the conclusions that are drawn, nowadays, about the future of managers. Someone who’s more focused on leadership and facilitation, who operates in a subsidiarity model…in short, the antitheses of what’s in people minds.

So what ?

What would you think of an applicant saying, during the job interview : “I want to empower my team so they’ll be autonomous in their day to day work and would only rely on me for things that need me to intervene as a hierarchical support or decision maker. By doing so I’ll have more time to help and support those who need and take hindsight to think about how to improve our performance tomorrow. By doing so, not only I’ll improve both their performance and employability but I’ll trigger a continuous improvement system ” ?

Attractive at the time of enterprise 2.0 and social business, isn’t it ?

I had this discussion with a couple of people last week and they told me : “of course, this is an unavoidable future. But no one will give a job to someone with such a program because they’ll understand “pay me a high salary for doing nothing”. Moreover, in the open space, this manager who would avoid being overwhelmed to take hindsight would lokk lazy because not looking hyperactive and busy. Anyway, who would say “My purpose is to be less and less indispensable in day to day operations to have the means to work on sustainable performance improvement”. People are paid to be indispensable. If they are not, why hiring them ? And the snake is biting its tail once again…

We came to the conclusion that we were not able to understand the difference between “do” and “act”. We need people who act but we also want it to be visible so employees tend to focus on immediately visible actions rather than on things that may have visible results…later.

In fact the mental image of managers and culture of visual control makes us mistake :

• business for busy-ness

• acting for doing

• leadership for inactivity

and makes us think that

• A supportive attitude is not management

• leadership does not deliver anything

In other words, tomorrow’s managers, even if many organizations would like them to emerge as soon as possible, are not acceptable in the open-space today and have many chances to be dismissed after the first job interview.

The whole representation of managers has to be rebuilt because it has an influence on people’s choices and behaviors even if they’re convinced that something new is needed and, sometimes, are missioned to implement it.

Meanwhile, organizations keep on replicating behaviors that makes them stagnate.

At the beginning of the servant leadership era, organizations will have to understand that Superman, with his tight blue suit and his red cape, is both outmoded and square.

 

 

Toward a new hierarchy of norms in the workplace

This is a sequel of my thoughts on enterprise 2.0 and ERPs. It’s obvious that not everything has to be put into processes and given to machines that would run them endlessly and blindly….and than not everyhing has to be left to the wisdom of employees has well. An happy medium has to be found. In fact “middle” may not be the right word since it would mean a compromise that would not satisfy anyone and would add more issues without bringing any solution to past issues.

Let’s start with a kind of legal comparison.

Our friends jurists know something called “hierarchy of norms”. That means that different of norms exist, promulgated by different kind of authorities with some automoy provided any of them respect the one that hierarchically above.

That’s quite the same in the workplace where we can find :

- the constituion : everything the organization can’t depart from and is about legal, security (legal, of people, of goods…)

- the law : everything about how things have to be done. Processes etc…

- local regulations: within a department, a team, a manager can organize work as he want provided he respects the two above mentioned levels.

We may even push the comparison further.

- customs : this is what makes people make things in such a way because it’s always been like that. No one decided that, it comes from the past and the power of habits. This is partly due to the corporate knowledge, partly to knowledge transmission between generations of workers, partly from mimicry.

- jurisprudence : the way corporate norms are interpreted when they’re not precise or clear enougjh. Jurisprudence works until a new process or a new rule comes that makes it useless or contradicts it.

In the workplace as in the legal world, each of these elements comes from different authorities, have different ranges of enforcement, and are not sanctionned the same way.

Even if the State may look dusty and unsuited to our world, it’s one steph ahead because it understood a long time ago that constitution and laws can’t rule everything. Once can retort that it depends on the beliefs of the state administration, and that’s true. But it’s the same in organizations : the freedom and autonomy that are given to anyone depends on the top management’s culture and beliefs.

Enterprises, as for them, have always been thinking that the two first levels were enough and, instead of relying on the principle of subsidiarity, they tried to make everything fit into heavy and rigid systems, hence the failure of many projects that were said “structuring” and the limis that are encountered today in terms of corporate agility.

[Read more...]

The organizational double flip

If we try to summarize in two points the challenges businesses will have to face very soon, I’d say “from push to pull” and “from local to global”. It looks like a double flip for companies but it’s not that far from reality.

• From push to pull : employees have to make more and more “unique” things, would it be for his own purposes or according to what clients ask them. Anyone who’s facing a need has to determine what he needs to achieve is mission because no other person know the situation better. In the worst case he crowdsources within his colleagues or outside the organization the best way to achieve it. Upper levels define the framework of what’s possible or not and provide lower levels with what they need. It’s not level n that decides what n-1 has to do but n+1 that supports level n. It’s an application of the principles of empowerment and subsidiarity I’ve already writen about here.

Generally speaking, it also shows that enterprises are deeply impacted by their environment that defines businesses more than being defined by them. Societal and economic phenomenon, even if they don’t drive businesses, give a framework and a line no CxO can ignore. Not to mention social responsibility or even social busness, we are forced to admit that the way things have to be done is seldom an enterprise decision but the understanding of a problematic raised by a non decision-making plauer (employee, client, supplier, society…).

• From local to global : we produce less and less by following a producting line or its immaterial reincarnation, but rather user an adhox ecosystem of value creators that may be me internal or internal people The expression “constellation of value” that is more and more used describes very well a company that instead of driving people connects stakeholders. Whatever, it’s complex because a large part of the activity and of the results depends on what other people are doing. Knowing that what we do impacts the work of many people, often unknown and that our day to day work is also impacted by these people, having a global or systemic view is essentiel. Systemic seems to be a more appropriate word.

Everybody can unsdestrand that in this kind of situation, bending one’s head and looking at one’s show prevent people from doing anything good since they are affected by things without any hope of anticipating and mastering them. I would loke to know if those who don’t agree to that drive their car keeping their eyes on the number plate of the car they follow. Most of all when the weather is bad.

Having a systemic view makes it possible for people to ancitipate. Anticipate is the right word, better than foresee because complexity is unforseeable by nature. On the other hand complexity is understandable and it consequences car be anticipated provided people are autonomous enough. I won’t explain once more time how focusing on local maximums instead of global optimums badly impacts the overall performance and what are the consequences of a change of scole on management, evaluation etc… but it’s an issue that explain, more than the fear of change, many barriers to change and organizational transformation. These are logical barriers : people are blocked by the consequences of what companies want them to get rid of.

By the way, thinking systemic is also admitting the validity of the previous point.

Many things are said and writen about business issues, what companies should do or not. Whatever how you will call what will be done, what’s sure it that it will have to empower this double flip.

Is there a 2.0 way to draw an org-chart ?

When talking about enterprise 2.0, something we offer hear is “sounds interesting but our company is not designed to work this way”. Understand : we decide to do something and we “push” it, don’t even think of allowing a bottom-up flow to exist in this context. Of course, that causes gaps, the company isn’t able to meet clients and employee’s needs right away, many realignments being necessary while the exchanges that would makes it easier are not facilitated at all. In  a colorful language, companies use the existing pipes, hoping all pieces will fit together at the end.

That’s why I suggested to think about a Service Oriented Organization, which starting point is not the top of of the pyramid but the goals the organization has to achieve. Don’t forget that the purpose of any company is not to keep people busy or give to what already exist a reason to live but to meet the market’s expectations, even if it means to change what already exist.

Now let’s play a little game.

[Read more...]

Talking with Michel Hervé about turning the pyramid upside down

You problably don’t know Michel Hervé and that’s a pity since thy guy is really worth being exported. This entrepreneur is well known for his book “from the pyramid to the networks”  (unfortunately only available in french) that describes the way he run his business, has he says, in a participative and democrat way.  Something that’s like Ricardo Semler runs Semco, if you’ve heard about him.

I had the chance to spend a whole afternoon with Michel Hervé and talk with him of many things. Despite we often speak or attend in the same events, we never had time to sit down and talk, now that’s done.

There’s so many things to say that I could fill a book with, but I’d like to focus on two points of our discussions. The principle of subsidiarity and why connecting people through information is so important. [Read more...]