Go-around managers

They are focused! They find a way to get it done. Obtaining results is the only thing that matters. At first glance this may seem desirable and sound like someone you might want to have on your team and in your organization. It could and it may, but it also describes the "Go-around manager."

Go-around managers, go around. They skip one, two, three and sometimes more levels of hierarchy to get something done. They live by the motto "if you want something done right - you have to do it yourself." Go-around managers deal with symptoms and use band-aids vs. working at the root with permanent solutions.

It looks like:

• Senior executive sending communication directly to the front line with a specific request rather than communicating vision through their direct reports and encouraging innovation and ingenuity.
  
• Managers continuously going around supervisors to get things done out of frustration because the supervisors are not getting them done.
  

This approach may get results, in the short term. However, it does nothing to solve problems long term and counteracts leadership development. Leaders inspire and influence others to obtain the desired results.

Your go-around managers may be getting good results, but when they leave, and everybody eventually leaves, those results stop.

Leaders develop leaders. Go-around managers do not.

Go-around managers

You tend to get what you expect

We generally receive what we expect. In other words are expectations are usually met.

If you expected 2009 to be a terrible year – it probably was.

If you expect your kid's marks to be low – they likely are.

If you expect results to be low . . . you get the point.

Expectations are not always what we communicate directly – with our words, but rather implied by what is between the words and through our actions.

If I say that I think the economic outlook is bright, but pull back spending in every area, my actions are exposing what I really think.

If I tell you that I think you are managing well and doing a good job, but continue to hold back authority and responsibility – what am I really saying?

The good news in all of this is that it works both ways. If I expect the good and the positive, I will tend to get it. If I expect my team to improve their performance and results, they will raise the level of their game to meet my expectations. If I expect any individual team member to rise to their greatest potential – they will.

It is impossible to fake it. They (expectations) are impossible to hide. So how do you change them?

It is a change in what you believe . . . and that is a big part of who you are.

You tend to get what you expect

If your boss wants you to wear matching uniforms . . .

Are you surrounded by people that do exactly as you say and never question any decision, directive or course of action that you initiate? That is fantastic! If you're a military leader. The ability to follow orders and exercise obedience makes a great soldier. However, if the members of your team are not carrying rifles and wearing the same camouflage outfits, and they conform as described in the first sentence, you have a very serious problem.

The existence of a team of blindly following and staunchly obedient troop members is possible for two reasons - both of them attributable to the leader.

1. Subordinates who always agree is likely due to a lack of self-starting qualities and the ability to think for themselves. They are attracted and congregate because . . .
   
2. Some leaders make it clear that agreement is the only option, accomplished by making examples of those now former team members who did not agree.
   

"The problem with our organization is a lack of execution," is a common reason (excuse) provided by leaders. This is a disappointingly transparent statement, which says, "If you would just do exactly what I tell you, we would be successful." In combat, execution is everything; in business, it is an important part – but it is not everything.

People have a need to create, innovate and take on increasing responsibility. They want to try their own ideas, have authority to make their own decisions and have the ability to make a difference. Great people will migrate to organizations that allow them to exercise their ingenuity. Great success is impossible without great people.

Have you ever seen a team, run like a military, achieve any significant or lasting success in the civilian world?

If your boss wants you to wear matching uniforms . . .

Tough Love

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if your kids are still living at home at the age of 40 – it is likely not their fault. It's yours! Neither is it the fault of your employees in business, if they are completely incapable of making a decision without you! In parenting we call it tough love; in business it is called empowerment, but they are quite similar.

I overheard an executive making a call to one of her subordinates. She was communicating that a CEO, apparently important to their business, was going to be in town. This executive wanted the subordinate to be present during the meet with the CEO. The executive provided the usual details regarding time and location, but then she instructed this person on what to wear!

Sure, there is a chance they will show up wearing a wife-beater and rubber boots, or their prom dress from the 80s – but that isn't that how we learn?

Tough Love

How a popular business theme is taken out of context

In their book "Good to Great," Jim Collins and Jerry Porras talk about "the tyranny of the 'or', the genius of the 'and,'" and found that companies that make the leap from good to great refuse to believe that they can't have it all.

Low prices and high quality

Fast and cheap

Quality and quantity

Excellence and cost effective

This profound, easy to understand theme, has unlimited application in life and business. And, because its' meaning is so logical, easy to pick up on and . . . so noble sounding, some have taken this idea out of context. Great companies find a way to have both. Conversely, people in leadership positions that only stumble across this great phrase - with no understanding of the foundation of the principle – simply start demanding the and; they seem to be thinking, if the way you become great is do it all – I want it all, and, tell me all your great ideas and I will demand they be done. Massive difference between "find a way," and "demand."

One must actually read Collin's & Porras's entire book to understand how these companies successfully employ ""the tyranny of the 'or', the genius of the 'and'." These special companies - the Great ones - have unique leaders who approach their people and business in a much different way than the ones that never made the leap.

The word genius in "the genius of the 'and'" implies a brilliance in the approach. To some, it is nearly impossible to understand and the reason why many do not successfully apply it.

In reality, it is only a determined individual or group of people, approaching a problem with unwavering determination, as well as an attitude of cooperation and modesty, prepared to accomplish their desire regardless of ego, precedence or culture. In other words, it has more to do with the people applying the principle, than the principle itself.

You don't have to be a genius, either.

How a popular business theme is taken out of context

How I discovered GM’s Planned Obsolescence

I have just encountered firsthand experience of GM's planned obsolescence. It seems there is a bulb burned out in behind my speedometer in my instrument cluster creating an area of darkness in the dashboard while driving at night. I can't see how fast I am going, which I have found, completely eliminates all conviction when I seem to be going really fast. Ignorance really is bliss.

In my attempt to solve this problem, I discover that it cannot be fixed. I have to replace the entire instrument cluster. What used to be a $2 bulb and minimal amount of time will now cost me around $600.00, not including labour . . . for a burned out light bulb. The old one? Garbage. One would think that environmentalists would be all over this and have had speedometers tattooed on their foreheads by now. I haven't noticed a picture of my Instrument cluster on the list of returnable / recyclable items.

Planned Obsolescence is the practice of intentionally making a product obsolete after a relatively short period of time so that the consumer is obliged to buy yet another product at the end of the original product's lifespan. It did work. Consumers were obliged to buy another vehicle. However, for obvious reasons, they decided to buy from a different manufacturer.

If the plan of obsolescence is to replace a product with a must-have better product with more features and advanced technology – great idea. But, how does a group of talented people come up with the idea to build stuff with limited life, that breaks and cannot be fixed, so that people will have to replace in a short period of time?

I didn't have to work at or with GM to know the answer to that question. They have certainly not cornered the market with this phenomenon that conceives and births really dumb ideas.

I know that there were people within GM advising against this idea, suggesting to the senior leaders that this was a bad idea and bad business, predicting and forecasting the potential problems with a plan of this nature. I know this because that is what good leaders do – they stand by their convictions – they do the right thing.

Unfortunately, I also know that there were leaders inside GM who allowed their title and the power that comes with running a large corporation, to go to their head. I know that they didn't listen to what people inside and outside their organization were warning them about.

. . . and, we think is was the recession that brought GM to bankruptcy.

If you don't agree with me on this, then you are either one of those former, close minded leaders in GM, or you don't have a burned out bulb in your instrument cluster that is going to cost you $600.00.

How I discovered GM’s Planned Obsolescence

Agoraphobia

You could call it Agoraphobia - a condition which develops when a person begins to avoid spaces or situations associated with anxiety. Complexity, rules, policies, and procedures grow as organizations grow. Of course, this is necessary. The problem is the barriers and limitations this unremitting proliferation of rules creates.

Real walls

We have a cat that does not know she is a cat . . . at least not aware of the abilities of a cat. We let the cat out into our back yard, surrounded by a six-foot high fence. She never leaves the yard. She does not realize that she, if desired, could jump the fence with ease. Occasionally, other cats will jump into the yard and leave at will. She watches them come and go, but never realizes that she too could leave and explore the world beyond the big wall.

My cat is content with this. The wall is real and creates an element of safety. She is not aware of her ability. It would take risk to attempt to jump that wall. Many people look at rules in their company in a similar way.

Artificial walls

Apparently, dogs can be "boundary trained," or trained to stay within a perimeter that only has a piece of string or line of some sort on the ground. The walls are entirely imagined – there is nothing physically stopping to dog from leaving.

It is equally problematic when people are afraid to step out despite an organization's ability to limit its' rules.

Unutilized potential in any person is detrimental. The enterprise experiences unrealized capacity; the unfulfilled individual will eventually leave.

The challenge is to create balance between the amount of rules and freedom for individuals, encouraging the use of their ingenuity, and be flexible enough to get people with widely varying levels of risk to either step out, or in the case of the "cowboy," to keep him / her restrained adequately enough to protect the organization.

Most tend to lean to the side of caution – this means you will have to push them over the wall – real or imagined.

Agoraphobia