Speaker A Authorities. So our question was, we've been talking about the manager once removed in a manager, what are the employees accountability and authorities? And then do we hold a manager and employee equally accountable after that for the results that were produced? So he's making it a two part question. Which one? But, and I'm sorry, I'm looking at the second question. Just repeat the first question. Okay, so accountability, the accountability of an employee is to work with full commitment on the manager's. Everything that manager assigns to give your manager your best advice, which includes but is not restricted to, hey, boss, I can't do that task, not the way you assigned it, or hey, boss, I can do twice the quantity or much better quality. Would you like me to do that? Or, Boss, that's about the dumbest use of me I can imagine. I think you ought to be using me. So there's a whole variety. So I work full commitment on every task that's assigned. I give my manager my best advice, I stay within policy. Maybe you should add the early warning responsibility. That's early warning is part of best advice. So you've given me a task with an 18 month deadline. When we talked about it, that seemed quite reasonable. I'm two months into it and I'm saying always, this is not what I thought it was, boss, I'm going to need more time or less quantity or lower quality or more resources. So all of that is part of best advice. The authority of an employee. We'll take Strat one as an example. You're not managing anyone is really the only thing I would think of as an authority is strictly there are rights you have, but they feel to me different from authority. You've got the right to go to your mor when you're in constant dispute with your manager. So Barry is just being unreasonable with me. I need to be able to go to Jenny, his manager, and say, I cannot work. This is not working. And you will now discontinue that conversation until the three of us can talk back together. That's really what it's about. No, my output in terms of your second question know at the end of the year, you come to me and you say, herb, this is what you accomplished, account for it. Is that a good use of your capability? I said, Why are you asking me? Everything I produced? I produced because Barry told me to. When I thought I could do more, I said to Barry, I can do more. He's the one who then adjusted the goal when I said, I can't do that much. He's the one who decided and then adjusted the role. So everything I produce, I'm just producing. What Mary said. And if you have one of these bonus plans where at the end of the year my compensation depends on what percent of his tasks I accomplish, the only acceptable answer is 100% every time I'm about to fall behind. I told him, and he dealt with it every time. I could go ahead. I don't go ahead on my own. That's insubordination. I've already rented my capability to him. Not up to me to decide where it applies. Five.
Speaker B Okay, well, another one question is sort of the only example that we have is the manager finds the task or who defines the problem being solved in the initiative that's being created. And I guess we're wondering if that's always the way, and if that is always the way in that kind of top down, driven way, then how does that enhance collaboration and creativity in the workplace?
Speaker A This is where best advice comes in.
Speaker B Do I have to wait till you ask me? No.
Speaker A If I have some advice to give you? You're my manager and I have some advice to give you, and I don't give it. That's insubordination. So as soon as I have an idea for something else that I could be doing you're not working on this project. I don't see much payoff with the costs, but I could be working over here. After that conversation, you may decide to assign that task to me.
Speaker B Yeah, but what if the workers or the employees have a project that they'd like to see?
Speaker A That's what I'm saying. So if I have one and Barry's.
Speaker B My manager, I say, Barry, I should.
Speaker A Be working on this. And he says, no, because the deal I signed was here's this capability, how do you want to use it?
Speaker B So if the manager is not to write an individual and creativity and progress in the idea from the employee just simply dies.
Speaker A If I'm saying, this really bothers me, that's when I go to my mor and I say, I'm not a boss who doesn't appreciate whatever he did yesterday. We hired engineer because he wanted to do Lean and he has a lot of capability. That's green physics. He wanted to do that work. His boss says, everything's going fine. It's cool. I'm going to do that. I have an idea what I want to do. And if he doesn't want to do it, I got to find another job. And you got to decide as a company, is that a loss? Is this someone you should put in a different place? Is there a problem with the manager? Lots of possibilities, but the notion that I as an employee will decide what I do breaks the deal. It's the same as though you bring your suit to a tailor and you want an adjustment, and the tailor puts shoulder pads in, which you didn't ask for. I just thought it would look that way. And you can understand the reason why we want managers to be brighter than their support is to have those decisions be reasonable. I just wanted to add there was a good modeling today. It wasn't over by Jenny, but she mentioned when she did her side step that she meets with her people every week. In the requisite system, your communication is much more sophisticated and often so therefore, if people are having these ideas, they're communicating them because their manager is forcing that communication. And I think that that's one thing that I've seen when we do requisite work, I've seen communication go away up. I've seen people get their ideas heard more frequently, because in other systems, you may not see people meeting one on one for like, a month, six months, a year, but in Requisite, you're constantly meeting and forming dialogue. So I think that that's something.
Speaker B I.
Speaker A Just want to clarify. When you said people have an accountability to give their best advice, it would seem to me that they would also then have the authority to do so absolutely. Before you the same thing with the right to appeal. Yes. If they have that, then they also have the authority to use their judgment to say, at this point, I've gone to my manager and I have the authority to go higher and notice that my manager needs to be held accountable by his manager to accept and listen, not agree with, but listen for my advice. The insubordination is not disagreeing with my boss, not voicing. The disagreement I have is insubordination. But this is exactly what I did this morning. When you set the rule that I am not allowed to question, and I question, the answer were do not question. What was that this morning? The first thing I did this morning after you made the rule and you said, this is not all right. And the reason is this is not a work. This is now a step out of.
Speaker B It.
Speaker A And there are 50 people in the room with needs, and we've got a plan, and we've got two days to get through it. So we are exercising our judgment to say, what's the best way to get through it? Yeah, but we also modeling Elliot John's theory and part of the theory. Okay, the modeling. Remember this? And this was on one of the questions. Elliot gave us three things. He gave us a conceptual framework, which is part of what he gave us a science. Gave us a science. So here's some things about human capability that are kind of interesting, some pattern influence. And he gave us an engineering. They gave us an engineering, which is templates and models to solve real life problems grounded in that science. The science is psychology primarily, and it applies to people, where people the engineering is determined for a managerial accountability hierarchy. You don't run your neighborhood association that way. You don't run your family that way. There are things that are useful in the model, but you also don't run a workshop that way. To the extent it's useful for modeling, terrific. But that you need always to be able to question your manager doesn't mean that everyone, every participant needs to be able to question unend the facilitators.
Speaker B This question. If we're no longer evaluating performance performance appraisals based on the results, and now it's based on the employee having done his best, how do we determine that he is doing and has done his best?
Speaker A Okay, so if the appraisal is not output based and it's a little worse than what you're saying, if it's not output based, then we all don't count output. But the accountability is to do your best. As a manager, what are you assessing here? What are you determining? And all along, you as my manager are all along saying, her, are you slacking off?
Speaker B But why would you say yes? I've had that happen with a manager.
Speaker A There was one point, and really what was happening was I was looking for my next job, and he was a good manager, and I trusted him, and I said, yeah, I haven't slacked off and I'll blow my socks up. And there may be situations where you're saying, so one issue is this am I slacking off? But the other issue is how effectively am I working? Because my bonus depends not just on that, but if I'm in a mid stratum three role, where within, you know, am I really working at mid stratum three, and where within that am I working? Because my bonus depends on that. So your question is, how do you, my manager, know that I'm really working at mid three or wherever I am? And the one word answer to that is judgment. You know what mid stratum three work is? My output may be lower than Sheila's, it may be higher than Sheila's, but you know, mine is higher than Sheila's. You may know that Sheila is working in a tough territory and I'm working in an easier territory. And you've got the judgment to be able to discern, am I working more or less effectively than she is. Now, that has got to feel a little OD in a culture where we where we worship objectivity. But I want to get your input on this.
Speaker B We allow 20% bonus people hear that. Yeah. And historically, every time I perform review time at the end of the year, which is about the time of year and the financial year, I've looked at people's performance review that we run twelve months ago and said that they need to deliver X, Y and Z. And we go through this process of ticking off whether X, Y and Z was delivered and if they weren't delivered usually go through this sort of subconscious process. Because as a manager, I know that reason why I wasn't. So I had to make up an excuse why in terms of trying to set what I did at the beginning of this year. And again, I took it to my manager CEO in order to get approval to do it was I said to Tommy, this year I'm not going to set a performance plan which is going to list the tasks that need to be done. I said at the end of the year I'm just going to make my judgment on the performance of my team. And he said that that was okay. He had me trial and I've discussed that with all my direct reports who were all entirely happy with that. And at this time of year I'm sitting down and I'm looking at what they've delivered during the year, but also what they've not delivered and the challenges that they've had to get over. And I'm making my own subjective judgment, which is what I'm paid to do and it's at the end of the day what everyone's up to. So there's a huge amount of effort that people put into trying to come up with objective performance of assessment. And at the end of the day, it's my view that the majority of it doesn't work. And people end up and you just end up making their own judgment and trying to backfill the answer that they want in terms of performance across. So I'm very comfortable with that. My team are very comfortable and also it might be a bit different if I work in a bank and what's your sales for the year? But I still believe that the majority of those types of sales are just encouraging follow behavior and is not actually encouraging.
Speaker A Would you allow your employee to go up to the manager over you on your judgment?
Speaker B They have that right.
Speaker A They have the right to go over the manager to the Mor to appeal judgment is tough. The orthodox requisite approach in terms of all of this is the Mor meets with the manager and says what's your rating of the effectiveness? What was the effectiveness delivered by each of your people and compares all the way across won't change an individual that Jenny has rated, but may say, Jenny, you're a really tough marker, I'm going to move everyone up a notch. Would it be fair to say that judgment and subjectivity can only work in a high trust environment because Rs tries to provide that there's the answer critical.
Speaker B I actually think that one of the things I found most liberating working with the Reckless organization is the recognition that managers are paid for the judgment. That's what I'm paid for. Whether I have an attempt at an objective performance management system or not doesn't really matter. I still have to apply my judgment to reply. So I think if we think that these attempts of objective performance management are anything other than a different way of find managerial judgment.
Speaker A Sorry, we really need to be moving. Question how to identify a role and the way I suggest thinking about that I've said that An Mor gives a manager, a subordinate manager, a resource which is their subordinate, literally. What you my manager, give me, you the Mor, give me as your subordinate is a subordinate role, but you can only recognize that post factor.
Speaker B Okay.
Speaker A No. So you give me a role and then with someone, and we've got to fill it with someone who's capable of doing it. So the question is, while we're identifying a role, we're identifying what the resource is that you are giving me, and I think we're going to get into this more tomorrow. But what specifies that is you're giving me someone to place in the organization. So we know who their mor is and their manager is, who their subordinates are. I say to you, boss, I need someone to do the marketing for this department, for this unit, and to get coffee for me and to shine my shoes. And you say, no areas of accountability are marketing. You can't have someone who can. And what you're doing is you're saying, what are the types of tasks that you're going to allow me to assign this person? Not what the tasks are, but what the types of tasks are, because that's the kind of resource you give. You're going to say, here's the level of that role. I say, I need a high strategy person. You're saying, Give me a break. For what? We talked about a low free incident. So we talked about that, and then it curves the tiers that we talk about task initiating role that specifies what the role is. And what we're saying in this is this is part and feeding what the specific tasks are. I am now going to be delegating to that person. I may change them every day, but this is what consequences we back to one again. Was there anything else underneath that question? I'm satisfied with the answer. I thought we had a conversation offline because I think I might be able to offer you something better, because that's an after the fact. What I heard is, let's put it this way. One wouldn't build a dishwasher that way. Say again? You wouldn't build a dishwasher that way. Well, we'll take that offline. Okay.
Speaker B So this is around behavioral science and EQ, and what are the options for people with the personality other than just a consultant?
Speaker A So the question, if you heard it, is we've talked about skills, knowledge and experience. We talked about cognitive capacity. We talked about values. Where do personality conflicts come in?
Speaker B Emotional quotient. The EQ, which is far deeper than just personality. Yes, but it involves social intelligence, the situational awareness, some of Gardner's multiple intelligences that really relate to the interpersonal work of on your manager. We have to relate to each other every day. You also have to relate to everyone else in the team. You have to relate to my manager. I've got to go off just that day to day sticky stuff. Being human, there's not a lot of work, there's not a lot of reference to EQ, and none.
Speaker A Which might say.
Speaker B No, but why isn't that included? And then the second part of that is, what do we do with I'll just go and answer that from a manager's point of view rather than theoretical. One of the things that set up structures and rules of engagement in entire organization that make it a lot clearer as to what we expect people to do and what we don't expect people to do. I've had an example when I came to the role currently I had a number of people who were fixing the special and because we hadn't engaged their skills properly by setting the organizational framework correctly, we relied on these people to use their relationship skills to actually get anything done. So they were given the accountability fixed process in business, but they were given no authorities to do so. So the only ones that were effective had to leverage their relationship skills to persuade others to do what they thought was the right thing. One of those people I started had zero skills in the area. I'd almost called him close, took Autistic and I felt it was like having a VA engine in the business that had the drive shaft totally disconnected. And by using the reference of organization principle and by need to invite appropriate integration to integrate his process skills with the line managers, you're able to actually get working appropriate work. So what I believe is that if your organization is requisite, the need for high level of EQ amongst your staff members is reduced, doesn't mean it's eliminated. And you've always got people who've got some sort of defect that means that they are not appropriate for their role. Whenever I have one of those situations and I'm talking to Sheila about it, I'm always looking at various solutions and courses I can send and Sheila's always saying to me at the end of the day, you're not accountable for the fact that they've got some deep psychological problem. Managers are very limited. It's very difficult to tell yourself once doesn't go down too well and at the end of the day from the role, ideally moving into another role that they can deal with.
Speaker A My degree in clinical psychology from Harvard, a doctorate is useless. This concept of love relationships kind of goes way down once you have fully trained in all these areas. But he felt working was not a primary.
Speaker B Okay.
Speaker A Those values are, you said, a record right in front of the book. They'll list you need these values in place. Don't bother reading the book. You have raised a point that has significant debate within the oral community. And again, what's in the book and I certainly have found a confidence in a whole lot of this, is that a lot of the research done by psychologists how many of those psychologists know what you learn today, right? How many of them are working from these models? Certainly when I got my PhD in psychology there's no awareness of any of this. So EQ could be whatever that term means. I have no doubt that it's terribly important in your relations with your family members, with friends, with neighbors. There are different boundaries set here and there are different accountabilities. So when you talk about a defect, do you mean an alcoholic who cannot come to work sober? Well, that's again what an employee assistance program is for. Are you talking about someone who's rude? Well, we have a policy in this company that everyone must treat everyone with respect. And so if someone is rude to people who's accountable for that, their manager and their manager has to pull them.
Speaker B Into line at the same time. Rude is a very subjective term and Jenny's demonstrated it beautifully when the role that these types of intelligences would play when she was doing that role play. And you said, as we brainstorm, the first thing I do is I suggest that everyone take four or five minutes and write their own ideas down first. Then I come together with the group. And what that does and you said this, these are not your words, but you said what that does is it gets the really analytical thinkers, it gives them time to process. That's a behavioral preference that you have identified and allowed for within your team because you recognize that there are different learning styles in the room. Whether that's because you've somehow embodied that in the oral work that you do, because you've learned that, or because you've come to it because you have a greater understanding of preferences. Those are very small points that for me is really missing from Ro. And there are different files in which identifying those.
Speaker A And just to give you a point of view from a practicing manager, again, I recall many years ago taking over a division of highly experienced and various technologists in resource development. So we had metallurgists mining, geologists, financial. We needed to get them out to see customers. We need relationship with customers. The one thing that you probably know about service business is that probably 80% of your work comes out of eight customers or ten customers. Energy work. So the relationship management is pretty mythology. Technologies don't manage relationships well. They're like Darth Vader to the degree they don't manage relationships well. If they don't manage relationships well and I need relationships managed for this business, what am I going to do? Get the non technologist to manage the relationships, get somebody else to do it. Somebody who's better with relationships. To manage the relationships I've got to deliver. My person who's delivering the service is a relationship manager. Elliot comes through Melbourne. My first problem interpersonal relationships. Interpersonal relationship management is my topic and I sit down and talk about it. I've been scratching my head about this for some time. These people are not string chickens. I'm talking about people in their mid 40s, mid fifty s and very experienced people, old saying and they look like they don't like relationships. So I'm their new manager and I'm thinking training program I got to get these people a training program. I've got to train these people as relationship managers. So I go through this business with Ellis and Elliot was a very good counselor, or very grandpa, depending on you're receiving it or you're watching. And whenever you discourage something to him, you blurt it and you realize you had done, you stopped. He would say, you're getting why say that? So we went through this cat and mouse check for a while and we ended up at this I think Elliot, there's a relationship management issue here. I think these people need some soft skills they haven't got. And he wrestled me to the floor, eventually said, well, what do you want them to do? I said, I want them to manage their relationship with customers. I want them to be better. He said, did you ask them? My experience with engineers is that they know better or worse than anybody else. Did you ask them? And when you think about that question and you think about somebody's job managing their role, even managing managers, do you see these practices built into their role as expectations? I expect you to manage conflict. Do we see it within anybody's role? Do I think it's a gift of God to manage conflict? Can it be taught? It can be taught. We teach it. Should it teach us to manage conflict, which is essentially managing dialogue? Do some people manage better than others? Probably. Is there a threshold? Probably. Do we forgive each other properly? So before you actually get to taking the back off somebody and trying to press some buttons about can I improve this person? It was like the burden was actually on me, how I'd asked these people to do this work and I haven't at all. If I've asked them, then I can perform Spanish and then I can coach counsel and I can use the word counsel. I've been coached to my expectations, what I see them doing, and now I can see what the skill deficits are and if the skill deficits don't do any good and Daniel Goldman to a point, then I'll get there, but I haven't got there yet. But there's an awful lot of work to do in sorting through the issues we haven't attended to before. We assume that the person is somehow in need of Gene as a human being. In my experience, human beings are better than we actually think.
Speaker B Can I just add what we have been doing with respect to building before we came across records and organizations already run two separate programs to improve the way people work with each other in the organization. And both of those programs I think, have been absolutely fabulous. I think if I was to ever go into an organization a new organization and I had the opportunity to make decisions what programs we would do, I would actually introduce rest of the organization first because I think a lot of the conflict between 14 is as a result of inappropriate roles, inappropriate accountability, and a lot of I would get an organization, and that would get you a good proportion of accomplish. But I'm also very personally committed to people learning what they can and I would probably rather we've had landmarks in Belgium provide coaching throughout the organization, which I think is absolutely communication. So I think there's a roll at the bottom. But I think that often we try and solve organizational skills with relationship building situations. For those who haven't read the first paper on culture phenomenon, I really recommend that paper to you. It really describes often we tackling the system, which is we're trying to change the culture when we should be stepping way back and doing barriers. What you're holding?
Speaker A You clearly hit a hot point here. There's more heat than light. I think I'm in the armor community about this point. There are dogmas on both sides. So when Barrett talks about the training, Sheila does, I'm saying, well that's sort of eqish training, isn't it? So I like your answer, start with the Ro stuff first. But there may be some leftover scientific research that would convince a CEO, please, we don't want to start doing research to convince CEOs that will move an it capital movement. But obviously what we find what you're talking about and tomorrow, but when I talk this morning about a development program through an old manual, let's assume you have any self competitors. You've got some strategy deficits and you've.
Speaker B Got some execution.
Speaker A Deficits and they're targeted they're not something they're targeted execution improvements. When you see those program together at any level in any part of the company, using those three strands, you're seeing the knowledge transfer, the workout and the evaluation. I said we need to run those things in concept. The first piece is the beginning of evaluation. So the first piece for us is to evaluate the organization effectiveness, organizational leadership, and using the framework, put together a trial over a number of years now, some scanning, some very quick telephone intervention, telephone survey techniques to test organizational and we've actually done that for nothing too. And we've taken all the results of the CEO and team or the CEO and we've said, well, here's your leadership effectiveness or 30%. And by the way, here's a risk. We've evaluated your risk to execution. And if the risk to execution is say 0.3%, that sort of means that one in three of the projects that you kick off are going to fail. And we're finding CEO saying to us, how do you know that what's happening to us? So you've got the beginning of business case immediately and the business case is what to do what? Well, let's have a look at the issues you've got and which issue you'd like to tackle. And our approach is one, first, do no harm. Two, try to find a way where the CEO feel. Value for money. Don't face it in the $10 million bill. Don't face it in the middle domain. Face it in the need. In other words, selling the value. Here's what we can do about it. So it's not actually going back into the history of the research. And some of those scans that we've done on some organizations have been horrific technology companies work with recently in Belgium, the face value scanning through the framework is compelling for the CEO.
Speaker B Can I answer that? Business code is pretty easy to establish your goal, there's nothing stopping any of your team implementing effective tasks, understanding how equivalent structure and graph so the implementation costs, most people can't walk onto it, really, because the effectiveness exceeds financial purpose for me. I had my employee, Sheila, for two days to help me run a workshop like this. My tech team and I had options.
Speaker A I'm a little concerned about time now because we're really supposed to be finished at half hour. We are here. You're not going. How do you I mean, you we.
Speaker B Can how many how many of you.
Speaker A Would like us to finish the goal.
Speaker B Round.
Speaker A And how many would like to cut it off right now? Yeah. All right, so 08:00 tomorrow morning, let's go around and just do a quick hit on the second question, and then we're going to go into a review and that whole system, and that will also stir. So where we left off.
Speaker B Where we.
Speaker A Left off over here. What's the role of commission based individuals? When you are paying for output, you're not paying for effectiveness. It's a different thing. You're not renting their capability. You're buying output from them. Not a problem at all. Insurance companies in Canada starting, I think, in the late 80s, totally moved that system. One caveat when you make someone commission based, don't confuse them with an employee. As soon as you make them commission based, you're setting them up in their own business, and they're not going to just want to come to any meeting that you have to call. So really, that's the problem in commission. In my experiences, I say, I'm going to pay for your output. You get the whole thing going. And then I say, oh, by the way, we're changing our strategy. And if you happen to be a bright person and you're working three to five years ahead and you set up your systems for it, you get a little annoyed at us. So nothing wrong with commission. Just don't confuse them with employees. Team based compensation system, they're just an on starter. You're not hired. Your contract is not with the team. Your contract is with the individual. My experience, the reason why people go to team based compensation is because they don't want to do the management work of managing the individuals on the team. They want team members to hold each other accountable. They don't have that authority. So in the absence of anything else it might be better, but we've got a better idea. So that's on that. Are you thinking about the rationality? Is that your second question? What does trust mean at different levels? You go from the relationship between the manager and employee trust different than between the CEO and all right, so is the trust and the relationship between a frontline manager and a frontline employee different from that of a CEO, an EDP or whatever? Yes and no. I mean, it's still the thing about I believe that you want to and are capable of not doing the harm. I believe that you are going to keep your word with me. I believe I can depend on now I'm going to depend on you. Very different things, but the core of it is identical. When does it have be no authority? So you and I have the same manager. I'm working on a task, and you come in to help me with the task. I have the authority to say, you know what? This ain't working out. Sorry. I'm going to work on somebody else. It's that level of detail. We're not vetoing his appointment to I think that was a little confusing in the chart, but that's all. How can both manager and mor have veto power over an appointment? Well, that was easy. I mean, in the sense both of them can say no, and if anyone says no, it ain't going to happen.
Speaker B The manager wants removed and says, I want you to put my nephew John on your team. And the manager says, no, I vetoed because he's not capable.
Speaker A Okay. The manager, once removed, cannot veto. The manager's veto. The issue is the manager can say, I will not be accountable for this person's outcome. That's what the manager is saying. And any manager can say that as long as we're saying, hey, this isn't sexism. It's not racism. There isn't yeah, there's good trustworthy reasons. What the manager once removed is saying is either I don't want this person in my talent pool. You may like them where they are, but I've got plans for this department. I want someone that can grow or I'm saying, looks like you want to hire your nephew, and I just don't see the capability. There is this number five? Number five. Is there a mechanism to determine what authority is sufficient to deliver accountability? The mechanism is called judgment. There are a few places in requisite organization we'll get to some of this today within a role. We can objectively determine by the time span of a role what the level of complexity is. We'll get to that. In terms of what authority? Both. The question of is this a strategy two or stratum three task? That's judgment. We at the moment have no way of measuring that or objectively determining it, nor do we have if you're my manager and you have given me these authorities and I say I need more, it's my judgment against yours. There's no mechanism and we've already done this. So that's our quick review and there will be more time for questions later, both as a review of the material yesterday and now to introduce this notion of icons. The reason I want you to pay attention to the icons is they are a communication tool or a language that we will be using in the future for problem solving. So it's going to be a little problem solving and diagnosis. It's going to be a little funny at first, but we're going to get used to it. And it's a language that we're going to be using within our group. So I need you to learn these icons because over the next weeks, months, years, this is how we're going to be working together.
Speaker B We want to have an opportunity today to reflect on yesterday. There's a lot of material that we covered and as managers you need to appreciate in your working case. So this is our opportunity together to reflect on it. I'd like you to, I'm going to take you through the icon, just do a quick summary of what we did yesterday. And then what we're going to do is in your team, your intact team, we're going to ask you to take one current organization or leader issue that you have and we want you to think about that problem, current problem, reflecting on yesterday in book and describe it in the lens of this leadership frame. So it helps you to diagnose and we'll demonstrate that before we ask you. We find that when managers get the hang of this, they find it as one of the most valuable tools they have, usually find it very close to them and if they've got problems within a week or two, you'll find they don't need to use it anymore. But it just comes to mind very easily. So yesterday, start off by talking about the overall framework, the leadership framework. So if I was to ask you, tell me what are the elements of the leadership framework, do you remember what organization? So yesterday we spent a lot of time talking about managerial leadership. And remember we said manager, just managerial leadership as a manager to exercise leadership, we don't listen, we don't say that and either have to listen or you don't, that you are required to exercise leadership manager in order to get your winning. And things that we were talking about yesterday, and we will continue to talk about today, such as task science, teamwork management are all things that manage to do every day, every week, every month, every year in order to ensure that they're technical conditions for their this was business and organization leadership. Such things, strategy leadership is a particular strategy of the organization, the structure, the systems that are in place in which these principles are embedded. And this one was relationship management. We had a little discussion that we had today, yesterday when we believe that the relationship is the glue. It helps people day to day in their communication with each other. We think the political part of the framework, this part sets the rules of the organization, how we relate to each other, how we work together in our processes of work this is the thing we do in how we define our communication approach. So why is it important to think that we have each way? Why is it.
Speaker A Provides a common language.
Speaker B Yes provides common language. Why that?
Speaker A Well, it facilitates alignment.
Speaker B Yes. What else does it do? The framework think about managing one remove across an organization.
Speaker A It sets boundaries.
Speaker B It sets boundaries. It sets clear expectations of managers what they must know, be and do. Yes. And therefore when you set clear boundaries, you can set clear expectations of managers what we hold our managers accountable for that stagnant for managers. So it's also valuable for employees that report to those managers because they know what to expect. We get consistency across the organization and when you get consistency and you have you're linking the levels of your organization vertically and horizontally with your manager one moves to crossover managers so you can more rapidly intermediate changes in the organization. You have a discipline and a rigor around this management technology and as I said, central to this will obviously focus on this goal is the manager employee relationship. How would you define the manager employee relationship? What's the word that we use? Anyone just sharpen up.
Speaker A Why is it wrong? Diagram.
Speaker B Not a diagram.
Speaker A Yeah.
Speaker B The intersecting circle inside as an integrated step of concepts they overlap. This is just a picture. Were you an engineer? Well, this was ruled by an engineer, but it was done with a feature to illustrate yes, it illustrates that it's an integrated set of concepts, principle. And actually, even though when we first talk about these demonstrate, we're talking about individually. But what you'll find today is that, in fact, when you look at one particular problem, you're actually integrated one example. And these are not two circles. These represent the manager and the employee with notes. What are the things about manager employee relationship? Yes.
Speaker A You have to create a position where dialogue without a difficult repeat.
Speaker B We need to create conditions where there's open and honest diagnostics and so the determinist is trust and who wait but also we recognize it's a working relationship. In other words, there are boundaries around this relationship. There are rules of engagement, there are accountability and authority for the manager and all uniform the manager isn't actually accountable for this relationship. Why is that? Because the manager has the authority and he says there are many things that impact the ability of the employee to feel that they belong in this relationship. There are at least four questions that are fundamental for a manager and an employee to have here. What are four questions things that we should be thinking about?
Speaker A First question, where are we going?
Speaker B Where are we going? Which is about conflict for the work. What is conflict for my work? How does it fit? Second question. Yeah. What's my job? Who's my manager? Who's accountable for my output? What my accountability, specifically for which I'll be mentioning? What are the authorities that I have to enable me to make decisions about? What are the role relationships that I have outside of this team with other parts of the organization? And have they been clear? Are they clear? Have they been clarified with the other parts of the organization? Is the purpose? And the third one, where are we going? What's my role? How am I doing? Yes. And who answers that question? The manager that he answered that question daily, monthly, weekly, monitoring the task, getting feedback from the employee. And the final one is what's my future? Where am I going? That one would say is actually answered by the manager on the list. Where am I going after this role? In another role. This I call represents trust and vendors. And why is that important to the organization? What actually means? I trust with them. Trust me. I can tell on you to do what you say. I can count on you to do what you say. And that as a manager, you will be following the established process. You will be representing the organization so that if I move from one department to another department, I can set a different style in my manager. But what I can also be assured of is that a manager will act in a way that's consistent with the organization required promises that are made. Besides, what is this one about? We're defining work and what is work? How do you define that? It's the exercise of judgmental, discretion. What is absolutely critical is that it is the exercise of discretion which goes to the core, the fundamental concept that employees come to work or leave a space. What we are doing here is ensuring systemically that we have the conditions in place to enable them to release that capacity. And one of the most important tools that a manager has is so what's the C and the P important for context and purpose? Without that, without context, what is the likely outcome of that? It reduces results because you said reduce that, because context does the question of why am I doing this? What's the issue or problem that we needed to address that actually gave rise to this particular task? And it also enables the individual to start looking to establish their pathway and to make their decisions without having to refer consequently to the manager. The manager defines provided context. And as the manager, the manager has left purpose. Was that clear statement? One statement about the deliverable, the outcome, the measures of that. We need to be sure that we describe a good job, which is, in terms of Q and two, quantity and quality. The other is resources. And the resources is important because they all play on each other. If you want certain quality, possibly your resources and it will also impact your time. If you want something going shorter time frame, it may impact you both quality the quantity as the resources. The other important thing with task assignments, with resources is that if you are resourcing your resource requires you to talk people from other parts of the organization. They immediately inform the manager that you need some cross functional work, which means the work needs to be authorized by a manager in another part of the business. The elements, the quality is useful to think about quality in terms of the things that we can improve. In the example we gave in your pack there it was about an alignment process integrating a specialist role in the team and there the manager, Jen in this circumstance had assigned it in broad terms, so the assignment was very clear. She said that in qualities she wants a shared understanding of the process that the specialist role will use and the accountability for each role. She said I want an understanding of typical interactions and decisions that will be made by the specialist and the line manager in relation to the specialist role. And I want to make sure that our team has an understanding of key success factors for this new specialist role and I want identification of each role to enable the role. We know specialist roles roles often have a hard time in organizations when we not feel about a chance of medical authority. And what she was basically saying, she wasn't saying to me how she was defining when we had aligned this role.
Speaker A What we would have done.
Speaker B And of course the timing, you don't think the timing of the task in other words, we give it whenever we think. We make the individual make the judgment about when they can do it, rather than the manager being specific about how it fits in the overall plan. We then find a manager. What's the definition of a manager? A manager is the person who's accountable as any other employee for their own system effectiveness. In other words, committee 100% their capability to do the work they are, but they have another special accountability that doesn't come to what. Are they also accountable for the output of other people? Yes, they are accountable. Specifically the manager being accountable. Manager being also accountable for building an effective team that reports to that manager such that the team can deliver on the output as a whole that function. Which means that their manager integrates the work of that tenant. Managing the Interstate in order for a manager to be accountable for the output, what are the minimum managerial authorities that the manager needs to have? That means that needs to be able to be in a position to make an assessment about the possibility of the team to fill the requirements. The role is an access to the organization that has been designed in order to deliver on the purpose of the function and the organization. And therefore the manager must make their best managerial judgment about. Which means that no other person should be imposing C on the team unless this feels that C can fulfill the role. If he did do that, Bean could not be helped. What we defined is functional behavior occurring. We could predict that Bean will either be passing the work on to others, in which case inappropriately. Whichever way you look at it, CPOM doesn't work. We don't have the right condition to operate. The A is assigned and B is the only person within the context of this role who should be assigned tasks to C because B is required to make judgments about C's performance and to deliver on the output for the team as a whole. So therefore part of the integration and managing the workflow and deciding what type of task each day C and C peers need to work on is being counted with A. So the work should be directed to B, and B decides whether it's C-D-E-F or G. Done. Given that obviously as part of the work the role design b has already assigned a set of typical tasks for C to perform and the organization knows that, then obviously people go directly to see because it's within a way context boundaries of the work, the art are huge. In fact, there are three elements to our can anyone remember those recognize the work? That's non monetary coaching feedback. Finally making a judgment. A manager is required to make a judgment about the effectiveness of their employees in carrying out their accountability. So that deciding and when you and you the manager only in the performance review make that decision. You can now do that either a you appointed them, b you decided and you've been managing that work, you've been close to their work, you now make judgments about their effectiveness. Therefore you are the person who should be deciding their award within the boundary.
Speaker A One thing I've had in my company the reviews are always their problem because they are subjective. We develop a system by which it's very simple review and the person does his own review. I'll do the review. Same questions, they answer the same questions. We sit down and compare and I say 90% of the time we're almost in complete agreement. And the dialogue comes when you have those areas where they think they're doing a great job and other time they might think they're doing a better job than they think they're doing. So people sometimes are afraid to evaluate someone who they won't hurt their feelings. But truth is they already know.
Speaker B What you're doing. You're creating the environment by giving the employee an opportunity for reflection and personal to come ready and prepare for that conversation. But at the end of the day the manager go down, make it adjusted. Oh, I wasn't aware that you have to deal with those issues. And this is still studying. But I think personally that good performance review system will always require the employee to prepare for that review in such a way that they're looking at the same tasks, the objectives, the preparation is around how did I go? And also a good review I believe, which is now detailed. That kind of system design is to also have an opportunity for the employee to say what got in their way? In other words, they're choosing their pathway, what got in their way of realization. And I the manager, what else can I do for you? What should I keep doing for you that works? What's getting in your way? I'm really interested to know. That what we are saying though, when you're asking the four questions, when they are completing their work in an ongoing basis. And as we said, in a requisite organization you're having regular one on one that should be coming up all the time. So the tradition we're talking about is being created. All the environment animals initiate removal control. Does that mean that B can dismiss deeds of the organization? No, it doesn't. The only person who decides what happens after the person has been initiated a role is a manager and probably within, certainly within due process and within the system of the organization there will be certain procedures or protocols to follow. But what we can must demonstrate to A is that B has followed due process and B has therefore been clear about role requirements. Match capability to role, have a development plan, inductive training stage of being sure that it's trusted. You see a test, the manager wants to move role in relation to C, what are the three key things that A manager wants to remove pays attention to? The first one from the cohort the manager wants to remove is looking at other things other than capability to build future roles. They are building the talent, they are part of senior management team that's accountable for future capabilities and they're building the talent. So they are accountable to make a judgment about the potential of this person in this role. The second thing that the manager wants to really accountable for in our role is fair treatment. If C believes judgment has been made that is unfair. The first thing he should do is exhaust, it would be open dialogue. But if he still feels that the judge is on set, he needs to have recall to the manager once removed and the manager wants to move will decide. And the third thing that manager wants to move out, which is a struggle in an organization for linking the level is the manager wants to move be accountable for the quality of leadership. The levels are those that's absolutely critical in an organization because where you have teams of team, there's your manager wants to remove if A is accountable for lead output as a manager, but A is also accountable for the whole function as B manages that team and so does B with their team. So we are linking the levels of the organization vertically through the managerial hierarchy and also horizontally within these functions. So if A attend to the consistency, the quality of the leadership at B, D and E level, then A can be assured through that A is managing team through their immediate direct support level. And then we said, okay, well, what in place as a team has been defined specifically as a group of people who must interact in order to achieve a common goal. And this model that we talked about yesterday basically said that there are steps, there are six steps. Context and purpose is important. And the key thing about this model in terms of an accountability hire is what is valuable in looking at the relative role of team leader or manager and team member or direct report. They have different accountability and different authorities. Both authorities, what those the result, the outcome gets the task accountable for the outcome and the result and therefore is also accountable for the social process within this team to enable team members to contribute. Just as the manager is accountable for the social process within their own team here. So when they're working on a particular problem, this team working process is important for dealing with a particular problem solving problems. So the team leaders accountable for the outcome, what are the team members accountable doing their best work to contribute to that process that delivers the outcome. So what is important is that where the team leader sets the context, provide for context and purpose, the team member has a specific accountability here. Understand to understand. Because if I'm going to be able to contribute all of my capability, I better understand the context and the person so that I can start my own pathway of thinking that enables me to contribute. In the critical issue part, the team leader is accountable to ensure they set the right conditions that the team members can contribute effectively. And what we saw in the process yesterday was I'm going to allow you some time to think about this, but I'm going to hold each of you accountable to give me your thoughts, your contributions on these issues about this problem. Then I will gather all of those, I will listen and gather those. Then I will order in such a way that I will decide finally what the key issues are and the subordinate issues so that we can make up the options, we can look at the desired outcomes and options and I will finally make the decision about which way we go. But when I make the decision, I will I'm not making it outside the room. I heard a really interesting anecdote at a workshop last week where the general manager was saying that he realized he needed this whole framework. When he was talking to his team members and they were talking, one of the managers was talking about his work. Now this manager manages air traffic controllers and their managers. And he said all about technical work. And the general manager said, what about your people work? What about your managerial work? I've only got about this much time for that. They said, well, how do you do that? You've got a team of air traffic controllers and managers that you're managing here. And he said, I do it at home. He said, how can you do people work at home? So you can't do it by remote control. You actually have to engage.
Speaker A I think one comment going back to this management manager. One of the key things that companies don't realize is that A, if B gets a heart attack, he's going to be down to the level of C to find placement. So he has to have a good relationship with each one of those. He's really looking for who's going to be next.
Speaker B So the comment there was that A, the management needs to be close enough to this group of people to be able to make judgments about they are looking constantly looking at the fit for the next role. And I think Elliot describes sitting on a block spending some time with So in organization. We had a very deliberate system where the manager, once removed, had a formal interview regularly with seed, with seed in the assumption and it was a proper structured interview process where they actually had a formal way of talking about C's aspirations and where they wanted to be next. And in fact, the manager once removed told C where they saw C potential and made adjustments about where he or she saw C. Right now ready. Now ready. Maybe two years. What do we need to do to get you to the next role? So there's a development plan that the manager wants removed in consultation with the manager agreement, which is about future roles. And in order to be able to make those judgments, the manager wants to move, has to find ways not just in the formal interview, but have regular conversations with team. And what we found in our organization was the manager once removed would do things such as if there was a weekly meeting that Beans was having with this team of team, the manager once removed would be asked to be invited to that. It's very important not to undermine the manager in those meetings and change decisions that have been made, et cetera, which is often can happen to allow the manager to exercise their leadership, but to observe, to sometimes give them additional context. All those who said the manager wants to move should be present at Project Closer, where they're reviewing the effectiveness of project, giving feedback to each other. If that's a natural and normal process, then. People are used to the manager once removed appearing and it's not an unlimited process in one organization. The next week that we worked with in North America, this manager attended every single workshop similar to the one we're doing today. That the manager met to a certain level so that he could give context, but also so that he could see how effective his manager was in meeting their int through task assignment, the team working process to provide continuous support. They're also observing the whole team working and two days of team is a lot. So he saw that as his critical in the last.
Speaker A Yeah, I'll ask the question, but I think it's just going to be a different thing. But looking at that model person B, it belongs to two triangles, right. So they're a member of a team and they're a leader of C. I know it's going to be a judgment thing, but on average, just to give a sense, obviously B has some competing things. How much time should they be spending.
Speaker B In each percentage wise is a member of their collegiate group and as a member of, for example, if I'm a.
Speaker A Manager and let's say I know B, I need to balance work for manager A as part of my stratum team, right? And then I also need to lead that other and I'm just wondering roughly I know it depends. I know there are factors.
Speaker B Yes. The manager once removed in talking, in actually designing the structure here with the manager, is actually making, judging and will decide how much time this group needs to spend in the leadership work of this leadership team. Because this is specific work, religious work, and will decide what is appropriate and in the judgment, depending on the function, the numbers, the size of the function, the geographic location, all of the burn facets that they're going to be taking into account. But one of the organizations now that's 5000 people that we're working with says 20% approximately, is a guideline that you should be spending in this work. It is critical work because it's about improvement work. They should be spending in this executive system leadership teamwork, of course, leadership at each level, the first level.
Speaker A So the reason why I ask that is because I find in our organization and I project many others, that that number is far. It's more like 80 20 the other way.
Speaker B Yes, but also the people work between people work, the technical work, programming work. You say all roles have those components. It depends. If you're a manager and you have a team and you've got a team here, say you've got a team of say, eight and they've got teams of ten, you've got a pretty sizable neutral recognition unit, your people work is going to be higher than the time that you're spending on the technical work. And what you've probably done is appointed specialist to help people programming. So, you know, appointing specialists to do that work for you, but your people were proportionate to be higher than someone who has got a much smaller team of say four people with more reaches direct report. Because then you are working with the system that we have at BSc. The manager one removed must as part of the system talk to their coordinator one removed once, at least once formally in every two to three years. And that's measurable. But that any person, any C can ask for an interview with AIDS if they have a career issue or their treatment issue, of course, and they would have a response with interview. And what we found in that organization is that if people understand and of course A will decide with B who are the key what are the key roles and the capability potential of these people, the people they should seek first. And B will know people agitating quickly. They will recommend who they so that you can have a reasonable program in place. And what we found was when the people knew that there was a program in place and that manager wanted to demonstrate consistently that they were sticking to a roster of schedule, they were comfortable with that and they also knew that if they had problem able to see the manager wants to remove.
Speaker A That. The reason why I brought that up is I find that if node A does not tell node B rough approximate around what they want them to spend those times, they will default to spend time working with A and C because that's their career. They'll be able to shine the people below them can't promote them.
Speaker B So the comment that was said a doesn't actually hold B accountable specify that period of time managing their team, then B tends to look after their own career interest. And what we're saying is a is saying if you're looking after your career interests, I want to see you as ex manager and leader of these teams and this is what it will look like when you're doing a good job. In other words, the definition of the role. Okay, sorry, I just want to finish this. And now I'm going to ask you to do some work on your team. Small things, very small. Is there a recommended number or range.
Speaker A Of direct reports for managers? It depends, no more than 70 in a tiny pool kind of situation. 70 from there goes down and Charles.
Speaker B Said you shouldn't have a mutual residential unit of more than 250. But I found my experience in organization a bit anxious. When you get to about 180, you start to feel the limit of it. Now it depends again, it depends on the nature of the work, geographic location. The important thing about the team working process is the leader is accountable. The leader is accountable to management process and team members are accountable for giving all of their capability, doing their best work to contribute to that, but they have very specific authorities as well. They can demand in other words, they give us, give feedback. If they think that decisions are being made that move us away from the conscious consensus, they are held accountable to do that. So it's a liberating experience for a team member. This one is about performance, helping managers understand models about performance, that we have the individual who has their own capability and said there were a number of better knowledge, skill, experience and competency processing, and that the individual can, to some degree, with the manager, can change knowledge, can improve. The valuing of the work is pretty much whether they value the work or not. As a manager, you're interested when you're pointing to role, whether they value work, because if they don't value it, you know that it's going to be difficult for the individual to mobilize that connection day on day. I remember being in a role like family that I thought, did I do a good job if I went home each day? Did I earn my peep? Yes, I think I did. I tried to, but keep on me. Died today. Okay, so that innate, and we're going to be talking about that. But that's the individual that affects effectiveness in addition to data manager effectiveness and the organizational issues such as structure, role, relationship, the role of the manager. And then we said, don't forget that there are a number of activities that a manager needs to be taking into account when they are setting a condition behind. These are your systems. These should be your minimum system people system in an organization the definition of a role selection system your induction trading development system your system of house deciding, which comes from the business planning process your system of assessment of performance review, reward, promote and be aware of the manager that you can't decide effectively if you haven't already determined what level of work this role is. Because you're actually making a judgment about what the work is and you're actually making a judgment about capabilities for that work. And then you're assigning work back so that you're not underutilizing the individual or overutilizing. All right, that's just a quick sketch of what I'm going to ask you to do very short, quickly, is to spend a couple of minutes in your team thinking about you and thinking you can match to a problem that you have in the organization. I'm going to ask Jenny to give me a current problem that she has in her organization just to demonstrate it's literally a few minutes. But did you want to tell a story of out? One of the issues that I found when I came into my camera, yarra Valley Water, my company, as many other companies have done, and decided that Six Sigma was a great idea and that we would invest in training Six Sigma people and Six Sigma and structure that we had. So we had a CEO here and then my role was customer operations general manager. We had a visual manager who was like a black belt and we had three six in the special. We also have other parts here motion engineering so that was the structure that.
Speaker A I came across myself.
Speaker B I joined this came into this role entering structure. I also had people running metering et cetera. So the first thing I found when I came in was that this person was at a pretty low psychological state. He felt that he had he knew he was failing and there was about twelve months more budget before there would be a company recess was fair to say that six signal wasn't. I had a brief with one of these guys and I remember about how proud he told me about the fact that he's on this fabulous internal communication program to go out and sell his services to the organization. None of these people could answer the four queues so they didn't know where we were going, they didn't know what their roles were, they didn't know how they were performing although they're pretty sure that they weren't performing that well. One of the difficulties one of the reasons why this wasn't working was because basically CEOs had made these guys accountable for process improvement and actually not foreign institution so they were accountable for process improvement but all the process work was actually being done over here. This is where the factory in my context was sitting, this is where we generated the bill. This is where we add the telephone call. It was sitting under here but even worse than that it was sitting over here in engineering. So you can see that connecting structure was entirely wrong. So this functional set up to assist the entire organization and to do process improvement across the organization but it was inside a wide group so the structure was wrong. There was extremely important task assignment in fact there was not really any task assignment at all but the CEO was basically saying these guys task for fixing these guys job instead of actually he was not making the general manager, particularly himself, particularly his guidance process improvement and town in terms of failures. Draw up the opinion for the manager it so the staff knew that they were failing. We've got this show that if you've got a performance issue it's going to be one of three things is it the organization or is it the manager or is it the individual? Now in this case it was the organization because the organization hadn't set up the appropriate structures to enable everyone but it's probably fair to say that the previous manager wasn't doing his job in terms of actually resulting those issues and those dilemmas so the individuals were actually doing a good job. The other issue we had was that there was pretty low level of trust between well it was probably a lot of us trust all the way down. General manager here. We also had a problem called level compression here. This is based upon level three role with a function level three according to level three role, our organization is like a lot of others are that to be paid properly, you have to manage a team. So we handle specialists really badly, level three specialists across the organization, yet we force them to report into a level three manager. There's a view particularly held amongst my peers that managing people is hard work, takes your time. Therefore, if you can avoid someone being a direct report to you and make them report to someone else, then that much for you. That's certainly not my experience. That's probably international. So when Jesse David take that conversation, CEO understands it, it's a much easier conversation to have. Can you see how you're talking about the whole picture? So what we want you to do is have a go just in your skin. You might want to share have a go and see whether you can use this framework to describe experience. This was a knock this off. How many minutes does that take? Three minutes? Five minutes. This was a problem that had been here in the organization for two years. And when I started to have the role, until I looked at represent organization, I didn't have any answers. I could see all the things that were wrong. I didn't have any answers that were right. And we'll talk about later today. So we'll give you ten minutes to have a conversation and we'll ask for these questions. 20% and where management? Management to actually the folks doing work, how the percentage is actually kind of spirit. So in our model, we kind of put the same thing. And our manager once removed and our manager, they have 80% communication, so they kind of communicate 80% and 80% of the work is done there. Coming down to ourselves, there's a 20% communication that we have with our actual manager. That being said, the direction from the manager once you move all the way down to this level is pretty clear and clear message is we want to bring in more revenue. That's basically our message. So what happens is our folks right here. So what we do is we actually make suggestions and we kind of build the business from we're doing a great job here. This gets communicated to the top. The top will set numbers and says, yeah, you guys actually are doing a good job. Obviously the problem with that is it's not a downward flow, which is sometimes okay, it's more of an upward flow. This is what's working and the manager wants to move please the numbers. So now what's happening is our manager once removed is actually meeting with us for two weeks and the management team is not even involved. He has nothing to do with that meeting. Our manager is actually coming down and speaking to the folks that have actually created this greatness that we were doing. And I'll explain it. So that's why we have this diagram. Manager wants to move the four questions. We somewhat know it from our logo right here, the four key questions. And that's only because there's processes in place for managers to follow. So we have something called the Personal Business Development Plan. So we have that somewhat. And the role we selected, the circle for the role is because we're concerned that our manager doesn't really know what his role is. It's not that we don't know what our role is. Our basic role is improve on the business and use the model that you guys can do great job. That's why we have rules here for our management, not really for us because we kind of know what our role is and how we're going to be doing it. Yes. The reward and recognition is probably missing a little bit for us. That's typical organization, unfortunately, until we change it. So that's our model. Any questions? Awesome. No questions.
Speaker A Would you say that A was coming down to talk to C, the non involved in B?
Speaker B Yes. So our manager, once you move it basically speaks to us and our manager.
Speaker A I think most people know this, you can blow up an organization by not paying attention to how culture functions now because almost in all organizations, if you're not requisite, you have people outdoing. So you have like yourself, a very smart person working at C when you can probably do better than D. So you can blow organizations up and a lot of problems if you're not perfect. So you high level, low level people have to manage up in a way doesn't destroy culture while we're really recognizing.
Speaker B Yeah. So there's advantages and disadvantages to what's happening. The greatness is, yes, blowing up, but so far it's been good. I don't know when it's going to come back down on us and be something like a negative aspect of what we're doing, but so far it's been really good and the direction is now okay.
Speaker A People at higher votes work capabilities stay when they're in lower votes while they're blowing up.
Speaker B Well, I'm accountable, but I'm not. Yes. So hopefully it works. It's working. Why?
Speaker A B isn't even there during the communication.
Speaker B B has been part of the communication, so our management team has been part of the communication. However, the upcoming meeting that is going to occur with our manager once removed, I'm not sure whether he was involved or not.
Speaker A Will we be present in that meeting? Yeah. So A has B running so Rag and he can't come. A has B running so rag. All right, so we see. Not sure what the icon is for that.
Speaker B There you go.
Speaker A Yeah, I'm actually.
Speaker B It'S an amazing group, so yeah. The recognition of reward is not happening. Hopefully it'll happen soon. But working as a team, we found an amazing team so that actually makes it worthwhile because you know you're doing something great. Well, where we're at the bottom, our manager manager and the two other ones.
Speaker A Yes, there's a little bit more to the organization outside.
Speaker B Any more questions?
Speaker A Thank you.
Speaker B Awesome.
Speaker A So as I said, we are moving forward, going to be using the icons. I expect you to learn them. I said before, the reason was the common language. Even more than that, behind that common language, you cannot do a diagnosis of a problem if you do not have the key. If you go to your doctor and complain about what feels bad and your doctor said, well, see, the last few patients who come in these pills have kind of worked with they wanted to try them. If that were me, I would change doctors. But if you read business journals, that's how we do business. Well, this is what worked in companies A, B and C. This is not what worked in the great company. So I guess we have to try it over here. We're not doing that. What we're saying is there is a model of a healthy organization. One of the roles of the ifoms is to focus us when we're trying to understand the diagnosis problems. Say, what are the pieces of this that are out of whack? Just like your doctor wants to know is your temperature 37 degrees or not 98.6, but is your temperature the way it ought to be? Is your blood salinity what it ought to be? The balance of chemicals? There's an ought to and the ought.
Speaker B Isn'T the moral ought.
Speaker A It's that this system so happens that.
Speaker B Each piece connects with the other pieces.
Speaker A In a particular way. Same thing up here. There are ways in which the pieces of the organization fit together and the icons help us focus on whether one piece or another is out of. We are now going to take a ten minute break and we'll come back and talk about structure. Our focus on strategy, otherwise records organization will help us and efficiently implement that strategy. Our point is not to implement requisite organization. We do not have a goal to be a requisite organization, whatever that term might mean. Our goal is to implement strategy. Strategy again, is simply a means to get to where we want to go, or rather the shareholder wants to go. So decide where you're going, determine the work, determine what roles are needed and that's where structure happens. Decide how the roles are related, who manages whom, and laterally, how are roles related. Once we have the structure in place, we'll get the right people into the structure, have policies and procedures to guide the work, and finally leadership, which is what we talking about. Then once we have that in place, then we will be operating. One of the reasons why we're starting with the operation, one of the reasons why we focus on your job as a manager is because all of the stuff is structured is to allow you to do your job as a manager. So the test of structure is, does it help you do your job? Yes. But one thing I don't see here and I'm wondering if it's on purpose or whether so I would see typically processes and tools to guide workers at boundaries. I don't see any reference to any enabling tools. When you say tools, so you have policies and processes, but the enablers of those could be systems. Okay, so the issue is where are tools, computer systems. And so those are resources. So if my VP marketing is saying if I as CEO were to say to the VP market, here's what I needed to do, the VP marketing is going to say can't do that without a computer system. That's part of the R in the Qqrt. So that's the next layer underneath within that, that's part of I also want to say the linearity here is a useful myth. In real life is irritated. So we may even come down to a point of saying, hey, we've got a great strategy, terrific. Here's a structure. The structure is going to do beautiful, really implement the strategy. We can't find any people to fill those roles. Can we do a strategy that fits the people we're able to get? No. Maybe we need to change our vision where we're headed. All of this is interconnected. So business purpose, vision, targets, structure. All of this means the business outcome, the value chain is going to result in value to our customers.
Speaker B Typically what we're doing.
Speaker A And again, this is iterative. But we find it useful to start our thinking with the structure and to and Julian Fairfield has done some excellent work on this and I think you can get some of that work downloaded from the Global Roa website. But you may say our marketing needs to be at strat six to beat our competitors. So we start with that. Where do we want to get to in the future? How big do the roles, how high do the roles have to be in order to get us there? That then determines the processes. Mind you, once we have laid out the processes, we may say, gee, that kind of changes some of these roles here. And that's where the iteration comes in. Two aspects of structure, functional alignment horizontally and then the vertical alignment, the horizontal alignment. You're breaking up a company into development underwriting service. This is really strategy work. Requisite organization is not going to give you a lot of value. There's a few guidelines that are kind of on the level of buy low, sell high. But it doesn't give you a lot of detail as to say, should development an underwriting be the same department? Your strategy is really what's going to help you determine how to break up. There is this is where Requisite organization comes in. And stepping outside of my manager role. This is where training and requisite organization usually starts and this is part of Gary's Sheila's design, is to say no, let's bring it in later. This is what a lot of people think requisite organization is and what our point of view is that this verticality is an enabler for managers to have the manager employee relationship. Verticality, we're saying, doesn't depend on the size of your budget, the number of people you manage. That's not the key thing. The key thing is what is the complexity of the work in the role? That's a starting point and we do not have a good model. There are some other systems we're learning from. Theo is working with one of them that has some more articulation about what makes one task more complex than another. Where we use judgment at the moment, the factors that are entailed in that include is this a task that ought to take a day, a year, ten years? That has one effect on it. Is this a task that ought to take three years, but we need you to do it in 18 months? Compression makes a task more complex. The link between cause and effect, is that certain? Do we know? Can we map that out or do I have to figure that out? Is this a really abstract notion? So the specification of some of the tasks, the quality aspect at strategy four, five and six, you're not going to get down to the concreteness that you will at strat one. So a more abstract task, are there more variables that I have to coordinate? How quickly do those variables change feedback? How certain am I breaking them? All of these are factors and all I can I wish I could give you a better articulated model. All I can say is this is a list of factors that are involved. We can get a bit more descriptive, though, and say because here's one of the things that we've noticed. I'm going to just jump ahead. And this goes back to the 1950s when Elliot Jacks was working with Wilchard Brown in Glass of Males in England. They found that we could have an.org chart, as we have in column one, the chart that when you go in to visit a client, they pull out of their drawer, they say, oh yes, our chart here is out of date and he never really reported to her, and so forth. And it may have, as in this case, what is that? About twelve layers. But what we find, and what's interesting is we find this phenomenon in every function, in every sector, in every culture, and this has been done around the world in many languages. It is not Eurocentric is that we'll find you ask J in column two, who is your boss? And in the English speaking world, very common phrase would be well, my real boss or my straw boss. My straw boss is I. I sign the forms I salute I as I walk in. But when I want context, when I really want to know what's happening, when I want help with my work, I look at and I says the same thing as H. He who's your boss? My real boss or my straw boss? Yeah, I mean, I have conversations with Ed, and I have conversations with when I want to know what's going on and really the clues I take as to who's really sending things, who is it maybe who signs my performance evaluation, it's D and so on and so on. And what we're saying is.
Speaker B In a.
Speaker A Situation like that, let's move to three. Let's have that as our structure, because the confusion in two is too confusing.
