How many ways are there to get stuff done?
As leaders and managers our job is to get others to, hopefully willingly, get stuff done.
But have you ever stopped and thought about the different ways of getting stuff done and how usefully you (and others in your organisation) employ different methods?
Brian Joiner, a renowned management thinker and writer, has defined and examined four “generations” of management:
1st generation management is management by doing. Probably the oldest and obviously the simplest way of getting things done. It ranges from the enthusiastic …“Great I’ll do that” to the desperate …“I’ve had enough… I’ll do it myself”. Regardless of the temperament with which it is adopted it is limiting; both to your own capacity (you can only do so much) and to the capacity of others (they don’t learn). It has been said (here and elsewhere) that a critical job of a leader is to develop the talent of their potential successors. Management by doing plays no part in this worthy objective.
2nd generation management is management by directing. Management by directing played a crucial part in my early life as a young engineer; it is basically the way in which apprentices (and any other ‘newbie’) is taught; the ‘master craftsman’ (or some other local oracle) gets to leverage their time by getting others to do some of the work. In doing so they pass on their knowledge and knowhow so that the apprentice develops their skills but at the same time compliance the required standard of work is maintained under the watchful and nurturing eye of the experienced guide. However, management by directing applies at all levels mentoring within an organisation, not just with apprentices and newbies.
3rd generation management – Management by results. The what (needs doing) by when approach. As long as people are clear on “what by when” then they are often (but not always) happy to get on with it…”sales up by X% by this time next year”, “profitability needs to be Y% per job or product”. However, different managers with different priorities, in different parts of the organisation can inadvertently create havoc within an organisation with people working on competing objectives pulling the organisation in different directions.
All three approaches are valid and found within most organisations; but the key question is “is the approach being employed undertaken because the managers think it is the right approach …or because they simply don’t know a better way? Take a look around at both your own approach and those of your peers…see what you think.
Management by results the most sophisticated of the above examples and is widely taught on management courses and in top flight business schools. And without doubt has its merits; usually in organisations with little or no interactions between the parts; but most companies have critical interactions between not only the different internal departments but also customers and suppliers; the quality of the work sales team win is directly relevant to those in the operations department picking up the contract and delivering on the promises made by the sales team, and the quality of the work undertaken by the operations teams is directly relevant to any after sales or after care team.
One example of where this is usually (not always) spectacularly poorly managed is in the field of building management. The architect designs a building, the contractor builds it and the facilities management company takes over the running of the building once the build is complete. However, the contractual arrangements are usually such that the architect rarely gets to speak to the facilities people to see what worked and what could be improved should they undertake a similar project again.
The work we do is all very circular, complex, interactive and connected but rarely treated as such.
Additionally, management by results often hijacks the objective of the company; to deliver products and services that satisfy the customer. The “how can I help the (internal or external) customer” mantra is usurped with the “what’s in it for me” mantra. Just look at the banking crisis that continues to rumble on years after the nearly catastrophic event.
Management by results also has some other serious flaws; if we want growth, higher sales, lower costs, increased productivity, fewer problems and complaints …. There are three ways in which this can be achieved:
- Distort the system: Distorting the system is about achieving the desired result, but to the detriment of some other part of the process or system. As an example, sales meeting their targets by securing work that sits outside of the company’s technical comfort zone or geographic reach. Alternatively, when work is a little lean one team, or product line, surreptitiously encroaching on the activities of another.
In a wider context think about the NHS …hospitals planning the easy operations first to ensure the waiting lists remain low, or GP’s ensuring that all appointments are granted within 24 hours …by only allowing you to book an appointment on the day!
- Distort the figures: Distorting the figures is at best what might amusingly be called “creative accounting” at worst falsifying the figures. As another example; On large scale construction projects the project manager may be reporting monthly the difference between budget and actual costs and the likely final profitability of the job. In some instances “known” (to the project manager but no-one else) any savings are undeclared and “saved” to cover any unforeseen “mishaps” that might occur later in the project. Alternatively, in a sales environment, if a sales person has met his budget in any month any additional orders may be “saved” to give an early boost to next month’s figures.
Again, think about British Nuclear Fuels some years ago falsifying test results, more recently think about the circa £260m “black hole” in Tesco’s accounting system.
- Improve the system: This is the longer, harder approach, improving the system is the only real and positive means of getting the results we need. Making fundamental changes to the processes employed. As an example I recently purchased a new printer for home from a well know printer company; the first call I made to place the order and establish delivery added value … I parted with money and my credit card details. Delivery was promised for Tuesday. The calls I made Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday to establish where my new printers were added cost. This is a crucial difference, the difference between the two needs to be recognised and understood and the cost of waste in the system, their people having to take non value adding calls needs to be reduced.
The obvious way forward is to adopt is the latter approach, but most leaders would recognise that there is some degree of distorting the system and / or the figures going on in their organisation.
The obvious question is:
Why does this occur?
In managing by results it is the “outcome” that is being measured, and often rewarded; management by results skews our thinking, and if rewarded accordingly, our motivations for doing things.
Rather sadly, in my opinion it is exceptionally rare for people in the UK to be trained in what might be called the 3T’s; the Thinking, the Tools and Techniques necessary to improve the system. In fact, when very recently discussing these ideas with an MBA trained director of an international organisation (who had actually been trained and was very familiar with improvement thinking, tools and techniques) at the end of the conversation she frowned and said “it’s amazing what you forget when you’re just doing the job!”. So, even those that have been taught are rarely given the time or space to apply the thinking. Yet they can be spectacularly powerful.
What’s the alternative?
The alternative is, what Brian Joiner, who coined these “generation” terms has, called 4th Generation Management. Leaders adopting the 4th generation approach are every bit as passionate about results as the management by objectives manager, but they know it will only be sustainable via fundamental improvement.
Fourth generation management avoids the limited capacity, tendency to micro manage and the potential to distort of third generation management.
It is built on three pillars:
- Managing delight – Understanding the customer
- The appliance of science – The scientific approach
- Musketeer management – All one team
Managing delight – Understanding the customer. I was at a recent visit to a potential customer in the hi tech engineering coatings business and they were being pummelled by the customer because they could not turn around the products within the required time frames. This was occurring because the coatings were being applied to very high tolerance parts (the fir tree root of turbine blades) but the finishes were not up to spec. Upon investigation, and a visit by the suppler to the German factory where these blades were being made, it was found that as part of the customers process someone was placing blades in a vice and tightening them using a 2 foot spanner! This was putting an indentation in the blade … which the coating had no way of being able to conform to. So it actually wasn’t the suppliers fault the coating was out of spec’ the coating was simply following the contour of the indented blade. By giving the operative an appropriately set torque wrench the problem was overcome and the customer was delighted. Finger pointing and blame could have eschewed but the supplier decided they really needed to not only understand the needs of their customer but also their customers processes. Needless to say the customer was delighted and harmony restored. The above story providing a convenient segway into the next pillar
The appliance of science – the scientific approach – This is about learning to manage the organisation as a network of connected “parts”. In the above example the supplier had even gone so far as to understand how the customers processes impacted their own, so this “connection of parts” can extend all the way thru the company’s system and into the systems of the customer (and supplier). The point here is that the work any of us do only becomes valuable when it becomes “part of” something else.
Musketeer management (this is my term), “one for all and all for one”, an all one team approach – This is about unleashing the talents of everyone in the organisation. One management thinker, Prof. John Seddon, originally a culture management specialist now suggests “you get the culture change for free” if you sensibly adopt, with your team, the scientific approach. This means involving staff and training them in the 3T’s, the thinking, tools & techniques of improvement. It also means adopting a win-win approach to all aspects of management.
We’ll be discussing more of how this can be applied in the next article.
For additional information please feel free to call me directly on 07976 426 286 or email me on mwoods@statius.co.uk
References: Brian L Joiner, Fourth Generation Management (McGraw-Hill Inc)
The solution It was decided to use Ordnance Survey’s mapping data in conjunction with Integrated Skills Limited’s RouteSmart route optimisation solution and ESRI® ArcGIS.
growth, which removed the need for an extra collection round.
Professional Services 