Follow Us Twitter Link | Email Us email us | 1.888.745.2520

Archive for the ‘Middle management’ Category

Answering Some Thoughtful Questions from Management Consultant Robert Morris

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

By William Seidman

I was recently interviewed by management consultant Robert Morris. Our conversation was posted on the  First Friday Book Synopsis,  part of ”The Employee Engagement Network.” I’ll be sharing some of the highlights (some edited for brevity) here.

Today: What I know now that I wish I’d known when I founded Cerebyte, the major challenges our clients face, and the difference between leadership and management..

Morris: What do you know now that you wish you had known when you founded Cerebyte?

Seidman: Our most valuable insight is this: how hard it is to establish an innovative product and process even if everyone says they want it and even if it has incredibly strong proof points to support it. More specifically, we thought there would be an openness to innovation in the area of performance improvement because almost every organization talked about the need to improve performance and there was widespread agreement about the ineffectiveness of the available approaches (e.g. training classes) at improving performance. However, there was actually a tremendous amount of resistance to change, even if everyone thought it was a good thing to do. It was only when the science actually caught up with what we had been doing, and became widely accepted that the resistance to change decreased.

Morris: Although there is great diversity among Cerebyte clients, in terms of both size and nature of business, which major challenge do all of them face? How specifically does Cerebyte help them to respond effectively to that challenge?

Seidman: They are serious about making the changes in their organization required to significantly improve performance, usually in a particular focus area. In many cases, it is a “change or die” situation for them so motivation and disillusionment with traditional approaches are high. We help organizations improve performance, faster, more completely, more predictably and at less expense than has previously been possible.

Morris: Do you differentiate leadership from management?

Seidman: Yes, though primarily in the leadership programs we develop for our customers. To us, leadership is much more about creating a compelling vision and providing the support and resources that enable the team to achieve the vision (in our terminology, it is about guiding “transformation”) while management is much more about the administration of the business (i.e. “transactions”). We find that this difference is most important when there are significant challenges to the organization. Managers retreat from performance improvements to a survival mode - Did I make my numbers today? -whereas leaders look at the challenges as an opportunity to drive the organization forward, even if it means taking some significant risks.

In addition, we know that “operational excellence,” which is the focus of management, is a subset of leadership —  so if you have great leadership, you get the best of both worlds. It doesn’t work the other way though. Managers, even good ones, literally think differently than great leaders and need extensive education to become leaders.

Are Your Managers Planning, or Are They Pedaling as Fast as They Can? Think Again.

Wednesday, July 14th, 2010

By William Seidman

 

I’ve recently read two very good books: The Innovator’s Dilemma by Clayton Christensen and and The Knowing-Doing Gap by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton.

 

Christensen and Pfeffer and Sutton each tell the truth about what happens when organizations try to change – and why it is so hard to change.

 

Christensen describes how institutions develop infrastructure that is focused, to the exclusion of all else, on today,  emphasizing current issues over planning for the future. These hidden biases and barriers to thinking ahead tend to be the factors that most undermine change.

 

It makes sense that a company’s daily pressures to make short-term numbers demand quick action, and that this be done in ways that have worked before.  But it doesn’t help with tomorrow’s challenges — not one bit.

 

Vitally important changes are all but impossible to accomplish when managers are preoccupied with filling orders regardless of what might lie ahead.  I think of the bumper sticker I used to see, “DON’T HONK. I’M PEDALING AS FAST AS I CAN!”

Pfeffer and Sutton take this idea a step farther,  showing how management teams know about these issues and even know what they should do —  but don’t do it because, again,  of pressure to satisfy immediate needs.

 

An exasperated colleague said to me the other day, “Sometimes you just want to shake people!”

 

We try to break down these barriers by using existing leadership and showing, convincingly, that there’s a lot more to sustained success than “pedaling as fast as you can.”

 

Band-Aids are Quick but Are They Enough?

Monday, April 12th, 2010

 By William Seidman

I recently worked with a management team that was in extreme pain. They wanted immediate relief.  I got them to admit that it had taken several years to create this painful situation.

It’s human nature to hope that a workshop and a simple prescription — a piece of new software or a brief training — will heal everything. Sometimes I’m asked for a redesign of an entire business process.

But I often find that what is actually wanted is some analysis and some conclusions that justify moving the problem from the suffering team to either another one, or … anywhere else!

When revenue targets are fixed, headcount and other costs are declining, and the core of the business process is dependent on unreliable software, the math won’t work, and neither will the logic.

There is an out though. It is to step back and do a deep redesign based on these parameters. That’s what  we proposed. It’s not lightning-fast, though, and the team wanted something quicker-acting.

They decided that, rather than really repairing some deep damage, that they’d do some shuffling of the pain and hope it solves the problem. My prediction is that they will be back talking to us again in 2 months. The pain will be worse, and now they will have lost 3 months.

It’s a scary way to manage.

Why There’s No Twitter Version of Successful Leadership

Monday, August 10th, 2009

By William Seidman

More on the issue of instant gratification versus “grit”: determination and consistent hard work:

Recently I was working with a VP of sales who wanted to train his 11 regional vice-presidents (RVPs)  how to lead through a significant change initiative.

The regional VPs had mixed feelings: they were under real and immediate pressure to make their numbers,  and recognized that leadership couldn’t happen without grit.

I asked them if they thought there was a Twitter version of leadership — 140 characters and instant leader. They laughed and realized that - like so many things worth doing - this was a long-term project.

But one of my colleagues thinks we should simply give up and stop trying to get people to move beyond instant gratification.

What do you think?

Sustaining Organizational Change and Change Initiatives

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

By William Seidman

Sustaining the organizational change that your company or group has spent a lot of time and money to implement can be really tough. Many years ago at HP, a first-level manager talked to me about how hard it was to keep the business running while learning a new business process. He was echoing the complaints from his group.

His manager, who was also my manager,  sat him down and asked him a question: “Are you a manager?”

My colleague answered, “Yes.”

Our manager then had a very simple response: “Then manage it!”

The first thing the organization needs to do, from the top executive down, is to actually expect people to find a way to manage the situation. The second thing is to give people some training in how to lead an organization through a change.

This training usually has two parts:

Authentic Commitment,  a belief in the usefulness and validity of the change 

Continuous Demonstration of Tangible Support, in which the manager is taught how to walk the talk of the change

Additionally, managers need to be held explicitly accountable, with both rewards for effectively managing and penalties for focusing merely on keeping the business running.

Obviously, if the executive team is less than actively supportive of the change and of the ways and means to sustain it,  the organization cannot improve.

Sustaining Change When Your Managers and Supervisors are Pedaling as Fast as They Can

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

 By William Seidman

Sustaining a change to a large organization can be difficult.

At Cerebyte we’ve made great progress in getting the end-user (the sales person, service person, etc.) to buy into and want the change. The problems arise with immediate and second-level supervisors. Without their active support, changes can’t “stick.” So what’s their problem? I see two factors:

1.  Managers are so focused on keeping the business running that looking ahead at the several weeks — or, more often,  the several months — often required for a substantive change is not something they do.  Nearly all of their resources, and most of the resources they supervise,  are just about daily survival.

2. They’re usually untrained in balancing the demands of running the business each day with developing their organization for the future.

Change initiatives only rarely survive these persistent obstacles.

Manage Relationships and Then Get the Work Done

Monday, July 20th, 2009

By William Seidman

I’ve been working with two people in big companies who are feeling frustrated. Both are very accomplished, successful individual contributors who are getting marginalized by their organizations. In one sense, they are creating the problem for themselves; they think that simply working hard, and achieving tangible results, will gain them the respect they desire.

They are not really managing their environment, though. It feels odd to both of them to have to manage their manager and their peers.

A hard truth is that success in an organization has much more to do with managing the relationships around you than just getting work done.

I suggested that both re-think their role into managing their program rather than just working.  It’s not easy, but it is the only way to success.

Middle Managers, Middle Management, and Leadership : The Accuracy of “Dilbert”

Monday, April 13th, 2009

By William Seidman

One of my colleagues used to insist that he didn’t know anyone who got up in the morning saying “My goal for today is to be completely mediocre.”

Clearly he hadn’t been talking to some of the middle managers we’ve all known. What is it about middle management? Why is it so often seen as drags on productivity, creativity, and positive change? Cartoonist Scott Adams has made his career lampooning middle management with Dilbert.

In my discussions with middle managers, I’ve learned some things. One manager told me that his goal was just to survive each day. Another asked me not to talk about our program to anyone - he didn’t want expectations raised!

Middle managers have a difficult job; they are expected to both represent the organization to the workers and to lead the workers at the same time.

I am currently working in a program in which the workers - under middle management - want to move forward and add value to the corporation. But the middle managers are so concerned about daily survival that they constantly and consistently subvert the workers and the program. (Again, think “Dilbert.”)

Ironically, this retrogressive behavior puts more short-term survival pressure on the middle managers. It’s bad for the company and bad for the managers themselves.

There is very little true leadership in middle management in almost any organization. Is the very idea of middle management structurally flawed, philosophically flawed, or … ?

 
Better Tag Cloud