And yes, delegation sometimes works, others it doesn’t. It helps when employees are well matched to their roles.

Yes, we are humans at work. And I think if we put some effort into creating consistent and clear management systems, we would be much more happy and productive people at work.

Thanks for stopping by and taking the time to comment.

Regards,

Michelle

The textbooks say ?delegate,? trust your people, but there?s no assurance the job will be done right without explicitly stated directions. For some, that?s already micromanaging.

Managers can ?communicate? ?til the cows come home, provide ?context,? and try to ?integrate.? There?s still no guarantee they?ve been heard.

Walking around, eyeballing the situation, and reiterating the key messages needs to be done ? until they don?t need to be done anymore.

Some people ?get it? right away, some think they do, but they don?t really. Some only pretend to listen, then do what they want to do. Sometimes that leads to a problem, but shockingly often, it doesn?t. It?s humans at work.

Often when I am writing blog posts, I think to myself, this seems like such common sense. Yet, common sense does not seem to be common practice!

Michelle

Thanks for the comment. Level 4 cognitive capability is often called “strategic thinking” in competency speak as it is where this integrative thinking ability emerges.

When people hit level 4, they begin to ask the question: What is the strategic intent of X? Level 3 is about operational excellence. So the question as level 3 is: Now that we have X, how do we make X the best darn X in the world? Level 4 is about questioning whether current operations still supports the business unit strategy. Level 3 makes the best of the current operation through continuous improvement.

When level 4 decides that new processes, products, etc, are needed to support the strategy, level 3 generally writes and implements the roll out plan.

Regards,

Michelle

I agree completely that the CEO – or the manager at the top of whatever segmented unit that may be at issue – is completely responsible for the final output. I also think there is often a lot to Chris’s suggestion that some CEOs may actually promote – unknowingly, but also knowingly – the silo phenomenon.

And it is true that thoughtlessly patched-together compensation schemes can cause, or exacerbate, the same problem.

The key is in your emphasis on integration – in every way from process to compensation. The nature of the thinking that occurs at various levels of management is an excellent way to look at this. It has developmental implications too, which, if not properly addressed, sometimes result in what you point out: people in integrative positions who haven’t acquired the requisite approach to management at that level.

Thanks for the thought-provoking presentation!

Thank you for your comment. Yes, holding people accountable for results (numbers) rather than effectiveness is a problem, and performance management is ultimately tied to compensation. So you are right, compensation is another element in play here.

Michelle

I think another culprit is the compensation structure of so many organizations. In an effort to hold everybody accountable for results many leaders/CEOs find the best way to do so is to tie results to compensations. A great motivator, but one that sometimes has consequences that are not always in the best interest of the organization and its stockholders.

-Chris Young
The Rainmaker Group