Not Good To Be King
My first professional, wear-a-suit-and-tie job was for the world’s largest computer company. At the time it had 360,000 employees across all continents – not bad for a company that got its fame by manufacturing and selling typewriters.
As a young buck I had an early opportunity to speak with a high ranking official of this venerable company, a division president I recall, but it was a long time ago. Something he said to me at the time made me wary of the conversation, but it stuck with me, even though I was not sure at the time how to really assimilate its meaning. I was working within a function that provided leadership training to managers in the division, so the conversation was focused on leader qualities.
This extremely powerful, sickeningly high paid, navy suit and wing tips Ivy Leaguer told me that he was frustrated with the fact that, by climbing to the position he was now occupying, he had lost any real control over the organization that he was in charge of. At the age of 22, and a student of organizational psychology, I was dumbfounded. I was still getting a grip on the concept of power and this did not fit with what I was learning.
Flash forward the better part of three decades and check out a study recently published by a large audit and consulting firm. In the report outlining the interesting results of this executive survey is a bar chart listing the factors executives believe are the biggest barriers to their ability to affect change. The longest bars in the chart place the problem squarely at the feet of other senior level and middle mangers in their organizations. In other words, senior executives believe they have lost control and the rest of management is in their way of actually having an impact on things.
So, I am a little embarrassed to disclose that I remain dumbfounded. I didn’t buy it then, and I still don’t buy it now. Is it possible that you lose your ability for influence just by virtue of your rank at the top of the organization chart? No, I think not. Business leaders do have plenty of control but some may be at the helm of a ship where the controls are challenged.
Sometimes I get frustrated with my boat. Shifting into forward can involve a moment of delay. Turning while in reverse can lead to a position I had not intended. A bit of wind and current can easily thwart attempts at docking with dignity. In tight maneuvering spots, such as in a marina surrounded by expensive boats tied up in their slips, sloppy controls, especially in compromising conditions, can lead me to believe that my boat is in control of me, rather than the skipper being in charge. Improving the controls or improving the navigational skills of the skipper are the solution.
So, what does this have to do with executives believing their mid-mangers are the problem? I question whether the skippers have the right controls in their hands or whether they are trying to steer with loose rudders. Good leaders will fix the controls. Leaders that blame their mid-managers are trying to steer the ship and may not even realize their controls are compromised.
When it comes to CRM, solid steering requires a clear customer direction and metrics to determine how well objectives are being achieved. If the plan is in place and measurement systems working, then it will be clear if parts of the ship are causing drag. Those parts need to be corrected. The skipper is responsible for making sure the corrections happen. If not, the skipper is accountable.
On the other hand if the plan and measurements are not in place, the ship is going to be hard to steer, but it is not mid-management’s fault. The skipper is responsible for making sure the ship is properly outfitted. If not, the skipper is still accountable. Under neither of these circumstances are mid-managers the problem.
I think the blame is incorrectly assigned. My bet is on the rudder being loose. If the controls get tightened up, it will be clear where boat isn’t performing. Then the skipper can take action.
Ahoy
