When executives see themselves as solely responsible for the overall success of their enterprise, subordinates can hardly be blamed for acting according to predictions.
Let's look at a familiar scene in classical American - if I
may use the word - mythology.
Panic and terror have brought all normal activity to a
standstill in some pioneering settlement in the Wild
West. A bunch of bad guys have been scaring the pants
off the innocent, helpless and disorganized townsfolk.
Then an imposing masked figure rides up on a white
horse. He arrives just in the nick of time.
With the right blend of courage and cunning, he
vanquishes the bad guys by being just a little quicker,
smarter and tougher than they are. Then, satisfied that
everything is under control, he stoically rides off
into the sunset.
The Lone Ranger has saved the day again.
But as the adrenaline levels of the grateful townsfolk
gradually return to normal and they prepare to resume
their mundane tasks, they may or may not realize that
they are now no wiser or better prepared to deal with the
next big problem.
When faced again with a major crisis, they'll just have
to hope for a return of the thundering hoofbeats,
signaling another last-minute rescue by the daring hero.
In their book Managing for Excellence, David Bradford
and Allan Cohen write that they often begin their
workshops for managers with an illuminating exercise
that simulates a top-management team.
Bob Young, CEO of a manufacturing company, is faced
with a problem. More and more customers have been
complaining about defective gaskets, a crucial
component in the company's key product. A worried Bob
has called a special meeting of the operations
committee.
The four other members of the committee are apparently
aware of the source of the problem - a change in
suppliers and inspection procedures. But the strong
feelings - positive and negative - they have about each
other and about Bob Young, prevent them from talking
openly about the subject.
The workshop leaders ask the participants to plan how
they, as Bob Young, could run the meeting so that "the
problem gets solved while building a stronger team".
Participants then take turns to assume the role of the
CEO.
As each simulated meeting gets under way, Bob Young's
subordinates - the personnel on the operations
committee - go on the defensive and start sniping at each
other. When he sees this happening, says Bradford and
Young, the "Bob Young" in command almost invariably
begins a heroic attempt to solve the problem single-
handedly.
In the most frequent maneuver, Bob Young takes over the
meeting and starts playing a detective-like version of the
Lone Ranger. He cross-examines each person in turn
about what he knew, what she had done, and what he
saw as the problem. By his tone, posture and questions,
the aspiring CEO conveys the message: "I am going to
get to the bottom of this!."
But as Bob Young proceeds with his solo-rescue
mission, those playing the four subordinates instinctively
get even cagier and more snide with one another. They
either try to push the blame off on each other or cover up,
so they will not be exposed in front of each other.
Even the odd "Bob Young" who is so good at playing
Lone Ranger that he manages to extract all the facts, is
hard pressed to build any team cooperation to solve the
problem. Once he finally grasps the sequence of events
that led to defective parts slipping through, he is stuck
with trying to find a solution that can be implemented by
estranged and embarrassed subordinates.
Bradford and Cohen surmise that the classic showdown
of the old-fashioned Western movie - in which everything
depends on the hero's nerves of steel, complete
command of the situation, agility, and guts - still
dominates the fantasies of present-day managers. After
all, they grew up on cowboys and Indians, war movies
and tough, individualistic male heroes - and even many
women who have made it into middle management tend
to think in these heroic terms.
It hardly occurs to these people that their image of the
Western frontier of old may not be historically accurate.
Presumably, the taming of the West demanded a highly
developed collaborative spirit. Mutual assistance and
team work, rather than flamboyant individualism, must
have been the hallmarks of the pioneering communities.
The picture is hardly one of a helpless society.
But when a leader views others as helpless (like the
townspeople), or evil (like the bad guys), his prophecies
may indeed be self-fulfilling.
If a manager sees himself as solely responsible for the
overall success of his enterprise, subordinates will retreat
to their narrow piece of turf. When people a little lower
down in the hierarchy are treated as weak and as unable
to cope, they shrug their shoulders, gradually lose motivation and act in accordance with
the predictions.
This, in turn, only "proves" to the boss that more "help"
is necessary. Those treated as untrustworthy or incompetent
also begin to behave accordingly, since they are excluded
from everything, anyway.
In all these cases, upward communication grinds slowly
and inexorably to a halt.
So what can we do about it?
Well, let's go back to the case of the defective gaskets,
and see how another Bob Young, with a rather different
management orientation,handles the meeting with his
subordinates of the operations committee. After outlining
the problem, he tells his people:
"You are the guys who best know the situation; you know
what caused it, and you know what the best solution
looks like. Therefore, I want us in this meeting to come
up with the best answer."
Now, no matter what objections his people might have
had to Bob's previous style, at least they had learned to
live with (and around) it. Before jumping in and accepting
his new statement, they test the waters very carefully:
"I don't know, Bob. You know the operations inside and
out. What do you think the best solution is?"
Bob replies:
"This is the kind of issue we need to tackle together,
because then we'll be sure not only of getting this
problem solved, but we'll be able to prevent similar
dilemmas in the future."
A long silence follows. The subordinates hope they can
outlast the CEO and force him to take over. When this
strategy doesn't seem to be working, the head of
production glances over to the quality control manager
and turns back to Bob:
"Bob you are busy getting us major contracts. We don't
have to take up valuable meeting time going around and
around on this issue. Roy and I will meet and come up
with the solution, and I'll let you know tomorrow."
Bob is not quite satisfied with this. He knows that,
despite its appearance of a willingness to assume
responsibility, it is actually an attempt to hide dirty
linen from him.
He knows that the problem is far more than a technical
one; after all, the complaints about the defective product
isn't news to any of them. It is also a managerial
problem, for the matter should have been resolved by
now. He therefore responds:
"Don, I'm sure you and Roy could come up with
something, but I also want all of us to improve our
collective ability to solve problems. To do that, we need
to work on it together, since everyone's involved."
Eventually, the group manages to uncondition itself from
the defensive approach and settles down in problem-
solving mode. One member proposes a good solution,
another points out logistic difficulties in implementing it,
and they work out ways to get round these difficulties.
Problem solved.
But today, the little group has achieved far more than a
specific solution to a specific problem.And the manager
remains a manager; he has merely adapted to the needs
of the times.
Azriel Winnett is creator of Hodu.com - Your Communication Skills Portal. This popular website helps you improve your communication and relationship skills in your business or professional life, in the family unit and on the social scene. New free articles and tutorials added almost daily.