In Honor of Middle Managers...an Excerpt from Thriving in the Middle

“Wouldn’t it be great if we could do our physical fitness all in one year then be done with it? The way we currently address management development makes about as much sense.”

—Mike Cook

RESTORING THE LUSTER TO MIDDLE MANAGEMENT

Distinct from senior/executive levels of management, the operational (senior, middle, or frontline) manager operates much of the time “in the moment,” with responsibilities that have immediate and often conflicting deliverables. In many instances, the issues they face cannot be put off without incurring undesirable consequences. The ability of people in these positions to work successfully under conditions of increasing complexity and in the face of often-continuous ambiguity is a requirement of the modern work environment.

Operational-level managers oversee execution in most organizations. They operate on the often-hazy divide between strategic and operations management. They are the source of what the customer identifies as “delivering the goods” in virtually all companies. their development is, therefore, a strategic concern and critical to the overall needs of the larger organization.

For at least the past two decades, there has been a great deal of attention and allocation of resources aimed at reducing the number of operational-level managers in businesses. This attention and its desired effects have been well intended, yet often misguided. The overarching consequence today is that operational-level and frontline managers have more responsibility and fewer resources with which to achieve results.

Working harder to keep pace with demand has a natural threshold, and quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns as mounting job stress leads to reactionary practices and ill-conceived decision-making. The pressures to reduce expense and increase effectiveness are legitimate; however, the unintended consequence of these practices may, in many ways, offset the bene- fits achieved. As expectations of operational-level managers continue to expand, these individuals need new thinking. New thoughts will lead to new actions, and managers will become more effective, stronger leaders while fostering greater accountability, responsibility, and the inclination to initiate among those employees they manage.

An entirely new intelligence is needed in our organizations to deal with the complexity that now is simply the world of business. This new intelligence will be more community-based; less individual-outcome focused, and be built on the development of powerful working relationships, collaborative skills, and perspectives. is new intelligence has already been distinguished in works such as Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships by Daniel Goleman, Wired to Connect: Dialogues on Social Intelligence by Daniel Goleman et al, and Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success by Karl Albrecht. e work that has been achieved to under- stand social intelligence is important. However, the frames of references in which the initial work has developed are either individual or honoring of current hierarchical models. Both represent additive knowledge (incremental improvement) being developed within current constraints rather than launching into entirely new operational constructs that offer the opportunity to generate performance at unprecedented levels. e current set of operational-level management skills and mindset is, for the most part, insufficient to the problems of the 21st century’s often ambiguous and always fast- paced business environment. Managers must learn ways to lead more for engagement than compliance. They must delegate, develop, and reward frontline employees, with an eye towards building the capacity of frontline workers to make sound decisions and take effective action from a community perspective in the face of increasingly complex challenges.

I hear you saying, “Yeah, yeah, yeah…but how?” I am going to suggest that rather than ask me “how” you ask yourself if you are willing to transform your beliefs and approach to management development. If your response is “yes”, then we can proceed because nothing short of a transformation of beliefs will be sufficient to get where you want to go.

The first of the beliefs to be transformed is that of both the importance of and nature of mid-level management.

Mid- level managers are not those who failed to make it to the top, they are those who are best suited to manage in the middle.

It is my firmly held belief that operational-level managers are both a key element of operational success as well as the catalyst for any organization to work smarter. In order to develop these core contributors to operational success, a new appreciation of what it means to “manage in the middle” must be created and supported. Any such approach will orient thinking towards the customer first, hierarchy second. Managers will begin to see their world primarily flowing at them from the customer’s desires rather than senior management’s directives. The development of middle managers will reflect this reorientation, and become much more like the work itself, rather than the heretofore methods of varying degrees of simulation. Such an approach will break the cycles of:

• Managers being sent to development programs rather than choosing to attend

•   Increasingly unaffordable developmental programs requiring extensive travel costs and time away from work

•   One-size- fits-all immersion style (week-long residential) training with limited relevance to specific manager’s challenges and offering little or no framework for applying course content on the job

•   Solo study of online material offering no practical value, and lacking the added benefits of collective sharing of experience and learning the description that follows represents a breakthrough in thinking and execution of the professional development of operational-level managers. Through thousands of hours of action research embedded in real-life management environments, a set of observations has emerged that connect seemingly trivial or unrelated conditions:

•   Most managers hold operational-level positions.

•   Most of these individuals will remain operational-level throughout their careers for legitimate reasons, not for lack of opportunity or talent. Their talents are uniquely suited to this level of management.

•   There are distinctly unique skills involved in being a strong performer at the operational-level of management over time.

•   Managers who are driven to attain a senior-level position will leave an organization rather than accept long-term employment in the middle or front line.

•   The primary value of operational-level managers is the development and retention of talent within an organization.

•   People with similar challenges benefit from a community learning experience where they can share experiences and practices on a regular basis.

•   The mystery of how to work smarter, not just harder, has not been adequately addressed in most organizations. Think for a moment about the type of leadership your organization needs from your operational-level managers these days. Now ask yourself this: “What do I really think the odds are of us consistently getting the performance we are counting on from our operational-level managers without doing things differently?”

If you answered something that approximates “pretty low,” then what if...

•   You could link managers’ problem-solving ability together like computers can be linked for greater processing power?

•   Management development could become process-driven rather than event-de defined?

•   Development took place in small doses over time, rather than large doses in concentrated time?

•   Operational-level managers were developed to become the best operational-level managers they could be with-out concern for upward advancement?

•   Development and the application of learning took place in a near-real-time experiential environment using actual situations faced?

•   Managers derived most of their developmental benefit from conversations with other managers facing similar issues? If these outcomes sound like good value for your organization, you are probably working in an environment like most places, meaning that most places would recognize the opportunity being described.

Why Aren’t There More Leaders?

When I am talking with business owners about their primary concerns, without question the #1 issue they raise is the challenge of finding good people.  The term “good people” has more than one meaning. Sometimes it means, “People who will work for what I want to pay.” That can indeed be challenge because “good people” always have options and working for what you want to pay may not be attractive to them. That’s another story. If we set that aside for now…

The more challenging question of finding “good people” might more accurately be framed as, “How can I get more leaders in my company?” This is an issue worthy of a lot of discussion. For years, when it comes to leaders and leadership most business owners have been  “looking for their keys where the light is.”  This is sometimes referred to as “the street light effect” and it is a trap we all fall into; looking for answer where we already have the most understanding rather than challenging ourselves to learn something new. In the case of leaders and leadership the tip-off that we’ve been looking in the wrong place might be the amount of literature, books, videos and articles that have been published on the topic. Amazon currently lists over 190,000 titles with the word “leadership” somewhere in the title. Really? And still we will write more books about leadership.

There are those of course who believe leaders are born and not made. If we all thought this there certainly would not be all this writing which seems to indicate that there are not enough natural born leaders and there is a big market for knowledge of “how to create more leaders.”

A quick word for all the “natural born” leaders…I know you are out there. Mostly you were born with a desire to be in charge. That doesn’t make you a leader, it just makes you bossy but it is a start since you will naturally step up to assume leadership in order to be able to control a situation. If you’ve been able to maintain your leadership role over time you’ve learned something about what I will be talking about in a moment. Your primary challenge is to discover how to develop more people who, like yourself, willingly step up to both responsibility and accountability without that annoying “need to be in charge” thing adding unwanted noise to every situation. It can be done but patience will be the order of the day.

Last week I was meeting with one of the business owners I coach. For months, he has complained about a lack of leadership from his senior staff. He would say to me, “they just don’t get it, why can’t they just do it the way I do?” Unfortunately, when we are disappointed in someone else’s performance there is often a default to a handy explanation like “poor work ethic” or “sense of entitlement” or some such which is much like looking for the keys where the light is. Unknowingly my client was almost correct, he just didn’t know how close he was or what to do about it. In effect, when he said, “They just don’t get it” if he had recognized that the truth is, “they just don’t see the world the way I do”, he would have been closer to being able to address the issue.

From my own experience, it now seems to me that the way we differ in our “seeing ‘of the world plays a large part in differences in performance and in this "leadership" we so eagerly seek.

We all know modestly talented or intelligent people who seem to make very good leaders. We also know very smart or talented people who could not lead themselves, much less others. So how come? Default explanations lie “work ethic” don’t seem to make a difference.

In a book titled, ‘The Three Laws of Performance: Rewriting the Future of Your Organization and Your Life’, authors Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan do an uncanny job of offering us a view into an alternative reality. In their view, it is the way people see the world more than the intelligence or talent they possess that determines the performance we see from them.

I am constrained by space here to say a lot more so I’ll let the authors say it for me and maybe you’ll be tempted to read their book…

·      “First Law of Performance: How people perform correlates to how situations occur to them

·      The Second Law of Performance: How a situation occurs arises in language

·      Third Law of Performance: Future-based language transforms how situations occur to people”

Very likely these words are more confounding than clarifying. That’s because the keys are not where the light is. Read the book!

Is it Good People, or the Right People, that are Hard to Find?

A common lament I hear these days among employers and managers I speak with is how hard it is to find good people. Depending on the day and the time available, I will see whether the lamenter has an interest in “unpacking” the issue. Often this is simply a sign of frustration and there is no need for further discussion. Other times there is a keen interest in looking more deeply into the issue in search of remedy or insight. And yet other times it becomes obvious that the manager or employer speaks with a sense of entitlement along the lines of “Why aren’t good people lining up to apply for the good jobs I have to offer!”

With the first group, there is no need for discussion, they are simply venting and then will get back into the hunt for talent. The third group, they have a lot to learn but are not exactly in a learning mode and I am not in the habit of trying to change people’s minds. Over time my experience is that these people learn things the hard way, if at all. However, in the end, the market, like gravity, will sort things out for them.

Now that middle group, therein lies some fertile ground.

Let’s start with the term “good people”, often spoken as though there was some universal standard for this category of potential employee. Used to be, when I was in my youth, in a different economy, that the standards for “goodness” were pretty easy to satisfy. Many job requirements in that economy looked something like, two, hands, two feet, two eyes, can follow basic instructions, will show up and do as they are told etc. In those days, the requisite conditions were so ubiquitous that when, following my first day of employment at Oldsmobile, I asked if I could be moved to a different place on the assembly line, one that didn’t require as much heavy lifting, I was given my immediate release. As I left the plant I noted that there was a long line of other “good people” waiting outside for a crack at that good job. And they were, good jobs for the times. And they also were, good people for the times. Those days, though not entirely behind us a certainly fewer than they have been by a lot.

Good people are hard to find these days because unlike the era when we were sorting through a stack of needles, getting rid of the hay, we are now in a haystack looking for needles and we need different tools to do our sorting.

What I would say is today, wrong person in the wrong job, you won’t experience much success. The challenge is much more complex. Here are a series of questions we might be asking before we start looking for any new people.

·      Are you prepared to listen to new applicants to see where they may be going in their life and why working for you would make any sense at all for both you and them?

·      How likely are you to be interested in what they might really have to offer your business or contribute in addition to the job you are trying to fill?

·      Are you prepared to offer an environment where “good enough” is not good enough? Talented people want to be challenged, not simply used.

·      Can you accept that people are unique and need to be acknowledged not simply for the job well done but for what they bring to the business?

·      How good are you at keeping your promises to employees? The new generation of workers expects integrity.

·      Will you allow these “good people” to be on the inside, know your plans, share key information, feel like they are helping create the business?

·      Do you plan to adjust and pay for the value you are getting from the person or are you trying to pay the job, i.e., as little as possible?

Careful consideration of these questions sheds a whole different light on the search for “good people.”

Here’s what I must say about “good people”; these people know they are good and they know when you are trying to buy them cheap or are not prepared to make employment work for them as much as it works for you. They also know there will always be a place for them in the work world and whether your job is a “good job” is as much for them to say as it is for you to offer.

I know this last statement has a lot of bite in it but I also know there are plenty of “good people” and you may be looking for the hay and not the needle.

The Last Word on Trust

Imagine being at work, in any workplace, and not trusting people? I don’t necessarily mean specific people, I mean people in general. Unfortunately, I think many of us are there unconsciously. This reality is covered up with “handy stories” justifying behavior that might otherwise be considered paranoid. I think you know the stories I mean, they usually include some element of “well you can never be too careful,” or “if you want something done right do it yourself.” These and similar “stories” are versions of how to avoid depending on or being vulnerable with others.

“Trust is more an attitude about myself, an estimate of my own capacities, my own ability to handle whatever comes up. If I do not trust someone, … , a more accurate statement might be that I am not happy with the way I act or feel when I am around this person.   It is my sense of being out of control that bothers me…”

                       Peter Block, Author, ‘Community: The Structure of Belonging’

Preparing for this post, it occurred to me that for many thoughtful people there are three truths about trust and no common definition. The three truths ar

1.     If I trust, I can count on being disappointed.

2.     If I do not trust, my life will likely be safe but it will feel more like surviving than thriving.

3.     If I am up to anything of consequence—anything that will really make any difference—then I will need the involvement of others. Therefore, trusting is a foregone conclusion: I will trust or I will accomplish very little in this lifetime.

With the above three truths in mind, you would do well to establish a tolerance for disappointment. If this sounds paradoxical to you I empathize. It appears that there is always a paradox to be dealt with where trust is involved, especially if you insist on defining trust as having anything to do with someone else’s behavior.

Unfortunately, in my experience most people do create their definition of trust in terms of the behaviors of others. According to them you must “earn their trust” or some other such nonsense!

While it may seem counter intuitive, as in the case of the Peter Block quote above, there is considerable power in defining trust in reference to oneself. This opportunity is too often neglected at great personal loss and is dealt with masterfully in TRUST AGENTS: Using the Web to Build Influence, Improve Reputation, and Earn Trust.

Consider this:

 A definition of trust that is filled with power is a function of my relationship with myself.

 Do I have the confidence in myself to deal with whatever comes my way? Can I interact successfully with various personalities? Can I rely on employees, co-workers or managers who clearly have superior subject knowledge to my own? Can I honor my intentions when interacting with people of differing agendas? And most importantly, can I count on myself to respond and deliver without excuses even when someone has let me down?

This perspective on trust gives reason to think that you can be effective no matter what and no matter who is involved. And make no mistake about it, trust, like we often say about beauty, is in the eye of the beholder…it is a perspective. By adopting this perspective you place the responsibility for trust in your own lap. Your power comes from the fact that there never was anything you could do about anyone else’s behavior except to ask for what you wanted and hold them to account for what they said they would do.

I was blessed to have a manager who operated with me in this fashion early in my career. I made mistakes and each time he dealt with the situation gracefully and responsibly. If he had delegated something to me and it did not get done well he always held himself to account for having allowed me the opportunity to either meet his expectations, or let him down. This is not to say that he did not hold me to account; he did, and from our discussions around my accountabilities I learned from my mistakes. His trusting that he could deal with whatever mistake I might make allowed me the freedom to bring the best I had to offer and rapidly learn what worked and what did not. Of course, like any truly great manager his trust in me cost him in the end; I was promoted and moved on. And of course, he trusted that whoever took my place would eventually be exactly what he needed, until they moved on as well.

Where have you abdicated your responsibility for trust? When will you take it back?

Are Your Managers Taking Knives to a Gun Fight? Sean Connery’s Lessons in Leadership

Are Your Managers Empowered?

For most of his 50+ year film making career Sean Connery entertained audiences by repeatedly playing one type of character; dashing, unpredictable, unmanageable to be sure, we are not quite sure he is a hero but we are glad he works for our side; great stuff for the silver screen but not much of a leadership model. Ironically, his greatest professional honor, an Oscar for Best Supporting actor came while playing the consummate team player, Officer Jimmy Malone in the 1987 movie version of The Untouchables.

In this film Connery’s character assumed the role of “leadership coach” for the young, passionate but naïve Elliot Ness, played by Kevin Costner. In what may be Malone’s most memorable scene he delivers a brief soliloquy on how Ness can best deal his arch enemy Al Capone…

“You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital; you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?”

                                  Officer Jimmy Malone, The Untouchables, 1987

In one instance he delivers his message with the aid of a classic rhetorical question when a gangster draws a knife and attempts to stab Ness and winds up shot dead in the process. “Isn’t that just like a #@&**#? He asks, “Brings a knife to a gun fight!”

Could any message be clearer? If indeed we do need a translation the Urban Dictionary offers this… ‘Bringing a knife to a gun fight- The act of taking an amount of any substance to a gathering which is obviously insufficient.’

A few years back I was reminded of this little bit of leadership counsel from Officer Malone in an exchange I was having with officials at my son’s college. A piece of equipment my son borrowed from the school last spring was noted as damaged upon its return. I was made aware of this situation when I went to pay his Fall tuition, a flag in his record indicated that the damage needed to be paid for before he would be allowed to register.I contacted my son who said he was aware of the damage and noticed it when he originally picked up the piece of equipment. Since it did not affect the functionality of the equipment he didn’t pay any further attention. Unfortunately he should have brought the damage to the attention of the department personnel he was borrowing from, they didn’t see the issue until the equipment was returned; the cost of repair, $120. Based on my son’s explanation I did not see that we should bear the full cost but also recognized that the department had nothing to go on either except one of their employee’s testimony. I proposed to the supervisor who spoke with me that we split the difference equally. It seemed to me that we had on our hands what amounted to a “he said, he said” situation. The supervisor said he was not authorized to make such an arrangement. This is where Officer Jimmy Malone’s words came back to me in a flash of recognition, “Isn’t that just like a #@&**#? He brings a knife to a gun fight!”

Without any forethought I blurted out, “You are kidding right, you cannot make a decision on what amounts to a $60 transaction?” Two levels of management later I was able to conclude the conversation with the department director agreeing to my proposal!

It really doesn’t matter the name of my son’s school, it could be any college anywhere in the country, maybe the world for all I know. It doesn’t even matter that it was a school, it could just as easily have been a manufacturing company’s service department, and the lesson would have been the same.

We ask our managers to lead, to inspire, to direct others in producing results of all kinds and yet we limit their authority in ways that leave them humiliated in front of their charges or the customer. These very same people, who can purchase automobiles worth thousands of dollars, enter into mortgage arrangements for hundreds of thousands of dollars; bring children into the world without asking our permission…need approval for trivial transactions. Why?

Don’t bother to respond. Whatever you are going to say next…that…that right there…is Nonsense!

Engagement and power are inseparable. If our managers are disempowered how can we expect their engagement at anything other than a compliance level? Why would we ever expect them to inspire or be inspired themselves?

• Where have we hog tied our managers and are wondering why they under perform