The Upwardly Mobile Monkey

I was reminded of the "other" monkey parable at a recent national Summit of Chief Executive Boards International. Here's a link to the first one: http://www.chiefexecutiveblog.com/2008/02/parable-of-monkeys-persistence-of.html

This article has to do with upward organizational mobility of monkeys. Ever have someone come into your office or stop you in the hallway or on the plant floor and tell you about a problem? And ever leave that conversation with yourself owning that problem? Happens all the time, doesn't it?

Or maybe it doesn't happen to you, but to one of your managers -- accepting upwardly-delegated problems from his subordinates. Perhaps you can use this story with him.

Next time that happens, turn on your imagination for a minute. Visualize that problem as a monkey on the back of the employee. He's been carrying that monkey around for awhile -- ranging from a few minutes to several days or weeks. He's tired of it, and may not know how to get it off his back & returned to the floor where monkeys belong. Or he's tried a few things to get rid of it, and it's just kept its furry little monkey arms firmly clasped around his neck. Got that picture in your mind?
Having not been able to unload that monkey, the employee is now looking for someone else to carry it around for awhile (he doesn't really care whether the monkey ultimately gets dropped to the floor -- just that it won't be on his back any more).

And then a magical thing happens. In your "go-to-guy", problem-solving way, you say something like "I'll take care of that." And that monkey leaps off the employee's back and onto yours! And then his furry little monkey arms are clasped around your neck. And the monkey is thrilled. Now he gets to ride around bigger offices, fancier cars, better clubs, etc. than he ever would have seen riding on the employee's back! He's moved up the organization!

And if this is a general habit of yours, he's even got company. There are other monkeys also on your back, and he's got a play group.

Most of us are looking for less stress and more free time to enjoy the rewards of business ownership. These monkeys get in the way of that. Monkeys are actually supposed to be downwardly mobile, handed down from yourself through your senior managers, and ultimately to be returned to the floor by people farther down the organization. If monkey handling is taking up more time in your life than it should, practice putting them on other people's backs.

Here's an article on a way to do that: http://www.chiefexecutiveblog.com/2008/02/want-your-employees-to-be-independent.html

If you have some ways you eradicate monkeys from your back, would you click "Comment" below and share them with us?


>To forward this to a friend, Click Here


Terry Weaver


CEO
Chief Executive Boards International
http://www.chiefexecutiveboards.com/
TerryWeaver@ChiefExecutiveBoards.com
864 527-5917

Are You in Leadership Gridlock?

Another recurring theme in Chief Executive Boards International meetings is the difficulty of developing successors and subordinate leaders.


In working with mid-sized businesses over the long term, it's not uncommon to see a syndrome I call "leadership gridlock". This generally happens over a long period of either flat sales or moderate (single-digit %) growth. Symptoms include:

• You have some senior or middle managers below the CEO or owner


• They've been there a long time


• They've succeeded mostly through hard work, knowing the business, and tenacity


• They're undereducated -- they don't have the educational background you'd now require if hiring a new person


• They're doing OK


• They're pretty much "maxed out" as far as performance is concerned


• They're unpromotable -- they don't have the horsepower to take the next step up the organizational chart


• They're not developing their own subordinates as replacements for themselves
  

The toughest part of this situation is that they're actually doing OK -- they're not failing, they're not doing badly, they're just not promotable. And you don't have a good reason to do anything about them.

Or do you? Here's the gridlock part. If you ever want to step away from the day-to-day operation of the business, you're going to need a successor to manage some or most of these managers who are your direct reports (let's call them "senior managers"). Yet none of them are candidates -- you know that. You don't have a need for another Senior Manager (at least not yet), so you don't see it as practical to add a new person at that level.

And you may be in the same position with respect to their subordinates -- the managers or supervisors that report to them. That 's the second half of the syndrome. "Just OK" managers are typically consumed with keeping their own heads above water -- they have neither the time nor the talent to stretch themselves to bring someone else along.

See the "gridlock" part? You've backed yourself into a position of having zero degrees of freedom -- the "just ok" senior managers are, by their very existence on the organizational chart, blocking the promotability of junior managers or supervisors who report to them. So you can't promote anybody. You can't develop anybody. Worse yet, everyone sees that, which actually drives away people of ambition, promise and talent further down the organizational chart. They see the gridlock of non-promotables ahead of themselves and decide to go elsewhere, rather than try to bull their way up through the organization.

I've used the word "gridlock". The obvious metaphor is a large city traffic jam with cars stuck across several adjacent intersections. Nobody can move because nobody can move.

Another metaphor for this condition is that little 4 by 4 puzzle game we used to play in the back seat of the car (my age showing here). I'm sure there's an electronic version, but once upon a time it was a field of little plastic chicklets that you manipulated through the one open square in the 4x4 matrix, until you got all the 15 numbers arranged in order. The key to that game is the open square. Take that away, and the game is unplayable.

The end game of a gridlocked organization isn't pretty. You probably can't grow it, since the key players are already operating at capacity. You can't exit it, either, because you know there isn't anybody in line to succeed you. And what if you suddenly became ill or had an accident that prevented you from running it yourself? Would the business, in fact, survive that situation?

So, what can you do if you find yourself in "leadership gridlock"? First, you must redefine the problem. The problem is breaking up the gridlock, rather than running the company "as is". You have to create an open square. Probably by juggling the organizational chart to make room for someone else. Sometimes this necessitates dropping someone back a level -- perhaps putting a struggling manager back into whatever he was really good at that got him promoted in the first place.

Secondly, you'll have to bite a bullet or two. You have to either replace one of the current players or add a player, dividing up some of the current responsibilities to make a place for him. Granted, adding a manager you don't think you need will be a hit to the profit statement. Perhaps you can teach yourself to look at that as an investment, rather than an expense. And then you have to go find that person, probably engaging some help to do a thorough search for the right player. And then you have to make sure that the existing mediocre players don't convince the new player to slow down to their pace (see: Parable of the Monkeys -- The Persistence of Organizational Culture ).

You don't really have an option -- leadership gridlock is a slow, painful death by a thousand cuts. If this describes your situation, you won't like the result of inaction.

If you find yourself (or have found yourself in the past) in leadership gridlock, click on "Comment" below and let us know how you solved (or are solving) that problem.

To forward this to a friend, Click Here

Terry Weaver


CEO
Chief Executive Boards International
http://www.chiefexecutiveboards.com/
TerryWeaver@ChiefExecutiveBoards.com
864 527-5917

The #1 Planning and Organizational Troubleshooting Question

In an earlier article, I mentioned my personal favorite strategic planning question. It's also my personal favorite organizational troubleshooting question. Particularly when working on a problem that's not new -- something you've been working on for some time without meaningful progress.

The question is: "What's getting in the way?" Asked exactly that way -- verbatim -- "What's getting in the way?" It works for several reasons. First, it depersonalizes the issue. It's not somebody's fault (that would be WHO's getting in the way?"). It's just a question of symptoms.

There's a second reason it works -- it doesn't require a solution. It's not "What's the problem here?" That question requires analysis and troubleshooting -- something not many people are very good at. It's not "What do we need to do about this?", which not only requires analysis and troubleshooting, but also invention of a solution -- something even fewer people are good at. Certainly not on the fly.

Have you ever noticed, particularly in a management meeting, how something comes up -- maybe just an idle comment -- and someone else jumps in with "What you ought to do about that is .....", and then the conversation spirals off into a debate of the first proposed "solution" -- to something that may not even be a problem, and also unlikely to be a root cause? In fact, this "jump to solution" is generally a poorly-thought response to a poorly-defined problem. Or a non-problem. Curiously, this behavior is most endemic in organizations populated by problem-solvers.

By asking "What's getting in the way?", and then keeping the dialog on that plane -- asking "What else?" and then "What else?" again, you start getting the full picture of all of the symptoms. Avoid letting others (or yourself) shut down or divert the conversation by responding to or denying the asserted symptoms. Or debating solutions. Just keep the conversation going until the potential ideas of what's getting in the way are exhausted.

From that point (especially if you've had a white board handy to write down the answers), you're positioned to drill into causes -- asking for each symptom "And why do you think that is?". Again, asking for an opinion, not an analysis or a solution. Continuing along this line, you start to home in on the root cause. Problem-solving techniques such as a "fishbone diagram" are sometimes helpful in working your way from symptoms and asserted causes to root causes.

Then you have something to work on. You have a long list of symptoms, a list of suspected causes and a suspected root cause. You probably also have a decent list of what's not the problem.

Try this the next time you confront a repetitive, persistent problem. Ask "What's getting in the way?", then "What else?" and keep that dialog going. Share your experiences with this technique with others by clicking "comments" below.

For an article on a different way to look at effecting change in your business, see: Newton Was Right -- Effecting Change in Your Company

To forward this to a friend, Click Here

Terry Weaver


CEO
Chief Executive Boards International
http://www.chiefexecutiveboards.com/
TerryWeaver@ChiefExecutiveBoards.com
864 527-5917

Want Your Employees to be Independent Thinkers?

At a recent Chief Executive Boards International meeting, a member was troubled by the fact that his day was constantly interrupted by employees, either in person or by cell phone, asking him for decisions.

Do you hear your key managers (or yourself) saying "I wish my employees would think for themselves" or "Most of my time is taken with answering questions I shouldn't have to answer"? These are symptoms of the "Answer Man" syndrome. It causes unnecessary interruptions, emails and phone calls and causes many managers undue frustration, distraction and stress.

What's the "syndrome" part? These are behaviors, and the manager (or yourself) is the "enabler" and reinforcer of these behaviors. The employees think that's what you want. The reasons are classic symptoms of "co-dependency". Consider the root causes:

• When an employee comes to a manager with a question and the manager instantly answers, the employee has successfully upward-delegated responsibility for the outcome. It's no longer his issue -- he's just doing what his manager told him to do. Employees love this.


• The manager's ego and self-esteem is enhanced by being seen (by both himself and others) as "The Answer Man". This can be a rewarding, fulfilling and self-affirming role for not only managers but also the classic "Go-to Guy" in an organization. Have you made yourself the "Go-to Guy"?

The problem with this co-dependency is obvious, particularly to the business owner or manager who wishes his business was growing and that he was spending less time working in the business and more time working on the business. The business becomes throttled by the capacity of the "Go-to-Guy" to decide everything.

How do you break this cycle? Simple. Practice this. Look for times and places to use this. The next time you get a question that an employee should be able to answer for himself, stop (this is the only hard part). Instead of answering the question, just say: "Jack, what would you have done if I hadn't been here (or available or answered the phone, etc.)?" Chances are, the answer will be close enough -- at least 80% as good as what you'd have said.

Then, you have two great opportunities -- motivation and coaching. Grab the motivation part by complimenting the employee profusely, to the point of his embarrassment (even better if others are present). Say "Jack that's a great plan, I knew you'd have a good idea, and I love it when you figure things out and just go get them done."

If you need to apply some "course correction" or you're still compelled to improve on Jack's plan, start that sentence with "and", not "but". Such as "And you could also ........" This reinforces, rather than negates ("but" is a negative, as in "rebuttal") Jack's self-esteem. It's coaching rather than criticism. Sooner or later, Jack will figure it out -- that you're not going to "play" and he's going to have to get his job done on his own.

Give this a try for a week. Then another week, until it becomes habit. Let me know how it works for you.

To forward this to a friend, Click Here

Terry Weaver


CEO
Chief Executive Boards International
http://www.chiefexecutiveboards.com/
TerryWeaver@ChiefExecutiveBoards.com
864 527-5917