Browsing Tag

management

Stuck in the Middle: Fence Mender

I appreciate [tag]Robert Frost[/tag]’s questioning of why fences make good neighbors in [tag]Mending Wall[/tag]. It seems like a construct at opposition to getting along and a free existence. It is however, not so in more effective business, groups and organizations.

Many leaders and individual contributors are very focused on building, mending and extending their fences. This too seems oddly inconsistent with a friendly little workplace, but alas it is how it is. Perhaps fence mending is a corporate culture issue as much as a personnel concern.

So what type of fences exist in corporations? Organization, process and the ad-hoc fence – all of these magically remove accountability of ownership when someone throws something over the fence. The fence mender can be a leader or a individual contributor, as a mid-level leader this is an persona which if effectively dealt which can dramatically improve the execution and [tag]cross-functional[/tag] execution.

The fence mender is consistently proving the value of fences for lack of ownership, since they are consistently defining the fence with forwarded emails and copious “cc-ing” of folks, hoping that someone will pick it up.

Real easy to improve interactions in this mode – just ignore it or follow up with the mender and clarify alternative next steps for that person to work. The other way to change this organizational behavior is to find revenue risk or to optimize the process (less boxes and arrows). This behavior existing in both Product and Process roles, which I’m not sure I agree with some of the conclusion/assertions, I do like the construct, since in Howard’s description most Fencer Menders are in product jobs, from what I have seen, but the most damage (revenue or risk can be done process-centric roles.

Since a fence mender can be a worker bee too, it’s just an opportunity for growth. If you manage the fence mender, it represents an opportunity for embracing accountability and personal ownership of an issue which has found it’s way to you.

As a rule, if a customer, team member or manager (actually these are all customers if you think about it) reaches out to you it is implied that they are looking for the Menders assistance – and assistance to closure. So in fact a fence mender is anyone in the organization who is willing to flip things “over the fence” and use the fence or the public throwing over the fence as an excuse for why something didn’t go well.

In the Vassal organization ( A Vassal leader is not one we have examined yet – but think BIG organization), there are even fences in the same organization and even within smaller groups/team. Typically these organizations are horribly overstaffed and each person has a very small zone of ownership, skill requirement and little to no accountability.

In principle, a Fence Mender organization is overly [tag]process-centric[/tag] (way too many [tag]swim lanes[/tag] and boxes), lacking creativity (I do what is in my box) and generally the domain of the mediocre (just get it out of my box). To that end:

‘Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it
Where there are cows?
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.

– R. Frost

It appears the only person who is given offence is the “customer” in need of something. So why is it that fences make good neighbors?

September 14, 2007 by
(1)

Stuck in the Middle: The Visualist

A good amount of people in most workplaces work a real day’s work, but there are few/a small handful that believe being a pass-thru entity who provides verbose email updates qualify as work. The visualist is mainly focused on visibility and will eagerly sign up for any action. That’s when the real fun starts.

FAST FORWARD: Meeting end +30 minutes: The visualist stops by the office and meanders his/her way to a discussion on “who might know this” or “who might know that” or “who could”. After the information is divulged in a way that he or she can comprehend – they disappear – so they’re kinda magician’s as well.

Action item due time -30 minutes: Visualist stops by and plays back their assessments of the status, asks for input and thoughts around next steps. You give it up and – WHOOSH – gone like a phantom.

Status Meeting -12 minutes: Some how in the time you chatted a 3 page missive is sent which is effectively only 3 bullets of update, 2 bullets of next steps and a bunch of “here’s how tough it was” and “thanks to xxxx”. Ah the visualist value add – bloated communication, kudos and poor word choice.

Meeting: He or she boastfully brings in their update printed and reads it, like they aren’t sure they know it outside of the script.

So the fun part with this type of self-proclaimed leader starts when you go for the details. Go into the details, he or she will need to publicly engage the person who did the work or state they need to follow up with the work doer for additional validation and clarity, after fumbling towards an answer.

The other slightly mean thing to do is to send them off to the wrong people, this only works with short deadlines. Or goof with them on next steps… So while the stuck series speaks to leadership and middle management influence, the visualist is typically a climber who believes they are a leader. I mean they typically are in the office early.

These people typically think note taking and action management with the leadership is leadership. Some time’s note taking is just note taking. Typically these peoples ego’s will provide a quick burn from which only a phoenix will rise.

September 5, 2007 by
(0)

Stuck in the Middle: The Collaborator

The Collaborator sorta sounds like a super hero – not so much, but I can see the spandex garb in my head, so I’ll run with it.

The collaborator is an interesting [tag]leadership[/tag] persona – on the surface it is a label, mode of operation and general concept which is good – right up until something requires accountability. So let me state – a product, deliverable or just plain anything is just plain better with help. In fact a group can always produce a better product, but there always lingers the [tag]group think[/tag] risk, which ignored, not understood or believed to be a myth by the collaborator. Think Abilene paradox! – agreement is a bear.

Usually the better product is produced through iterations and review, rather than sharing the creative process, model development or production activity. Everyone has a role and value they bring to the table, but the leadership super hero – The Collaborator – believes ALL phases of delivery are best done with 12 people (4 on a dial in number, 6 people in the room and 2 following up after the fact via email). While with a geologist, I just put together some diagnosis concepts, the collaborator requires a little more work to flesh out and help folks understand how to thrive in a collaboration lifestyle – err “workstyle”.

So in a collaborative reality the delivery time lines are COMPLETELY manageable and by manageable – I mean lot’s of headroom, but due to the number of meetings – the whole thing is a little over complicated from a production process perspective. The meetings become a great opportunity to get input – in fact this leader prefers volume of input to validity of input. So in the model – the more commentary the better, I find myself becoming a play-by-play analyst of my daily work life (update emails, update meetings, update blog posts..) and acknowledging each item of input through a series of “let me know sure I fully understand – you believe <insert random input provided by a direct report of the collaborator>” or rapid response email requesting more quality insights which can help delay the next rev of uninspiring delivery.

This is the best leadership model to survive/hide in, all you need is input and participation in the process, since the team will develop all parts of the deliverable. In fact, it is almost preferred to start with a framework, rather than a draft of something – since no single person is accountable in this model. The model by design makes EVERY work product a success and while I never participated/witnessed, I suspect there are [tag]group hugs[/tag] if I was able to attend all of the typical 3 hour review meeting.

Facts, stats and logic are your magic bullet under this leader persona – in fact if you can present the facts in the way that the leader believes it was a product of the team, you WIN and get to participate in future love fests which produce watered down messaging, minimalist risk taking and in general a place to call your own on the Phrog farm.

Jerry Harvey on Phrogs:

  • All organizations have two essential purposes. One is to produce widgets, glops, and fillips. The other is to turn people into phrogs. In many organizations, the latter purpose takes precedence over the former. For example, in many organizations, it is more important to follow the chain of command than to behave sensibly.
  • Phrog is spelled with a ph because phrogs don’t like to be known as frogs, and they try to hide their phroginess from themselves and others by transparent means… For one who has been a person, it’s a great come down to be a phrog.
    • August 15, 2007 by
    (5)

    Stuck in the Middle: The Geologist

    As part of the stuck in the middle series, I will develop multiple personae for examination – the first one is “The Geologist”. The Geologist can be a leader or an individual contributor whose actions of each are on opposite poles of detail – too much or too little.

    The Geologist as a leader, says “Bring me a rock” – most often in business this cliche has many use cases, but in my view its the project sponsor, manager or executive who only knows they need something which has a hardness on Moh scale than talc, but clearly we don’t have time for diamonds or a meaningful/supportable/executable explanation of what is required.

    Don’t get me wrong, I like bullet points like the next person – but not in the project definition phase – conclusions, lessons learns and general presentations – bullet=rock, but not in the “project contract” for lack of a better word.

    Typically this [tag]leader[/tag] will not fully understand what they want – “I want a new “X””. The geologist doesn’t know what it is, but they clearly know what it is NOT. So contributors will go labor, come back and get told “not exactly”, go labor – come back, “nope”, so the loop continues…

    There is a point in time typically when the geologist realizes 2 or 3 of the loop iterations ACTUALLY were close, they synthesize and go home. This can add as much as N-times of effort, had the leader defined his or her wants the first time or understood their wants.

    Now the [tag]individual contributor[/tag] which is a geologist type, endlessly “tumbles” their rock until it is shiny and cool. It’s not at all the right rock, but they have spent so much time that they are convinced it is valuable – kinda of a fools gold deliverable if you will.

    When you get a geologist leader AND executor, you are sure to have over efforted products, content and requirements which will total miss the spirit of the project, but not the letter. After all, the Bullet=Rock, so everyone is fairly happy right until the market launch. Speaking of market launches, this can at times be a great persona for embracing the perfection trap.

    At some point you have to stop the tumbler, make an assessment and deliver goods – even if it is a ROCK.

    August 14, 2007 by
    (4)