© Happy Melly ♦ version 1.00 ♦ management30.com

Manage the system, not the people

Or,

These are the typical work-related questions around the world:

• How can we motivate our workers? • How can we change the organization’s culture? • How can we change the mindset of managers? • How can we get teams to take responsibility? • How can we improve teamwork and collaboration? • How can we get managers to trust their teams? • How can we make the business more agile?

Most organizational change questions have the same form:

“How can we change other people?”

We get better, happier organizations by changing ourselves instead of others.

When people don’t focus on improving themselves, is it any wonder they’re always complaining about each other?

For many organizations, a common practice is that they are managed like machines. We call this Management 1.0. In this style of management, leaders assume that improvement of the whole requires monitoring, repairing, and replacing the parts.

It was engineers who developed scientific management, the command-and-control style of leadership that was quite successful in the 20th century.

Engineers developed most management frameworks with upfront design, top-down planning and command-and-control structures and processes.

Frameworks work well with predictable, repeatable tasks (by machines).

They don’t work with creativity, innovation and problem-solving (by humans).

Bad idea:

Moving people between departments as if they are replaceable parts.

Command-oriented, low-freedom management is common because it’s profitable, it requires less effort, and most managers are terrified of the alternative. - Laszlo Bock, Work Rules!

Do you know examples of

Management 1.0?

The misery of workers worldwide (managers included) is personified by the fictional character of Melly Shum, who has hated her job for more than 25 years.

© 2013 FaceMePLS, Creative Commons 2.0https://www.flickr.com/photos/faceme/8345123691

Fortunately, many managers have realized that the greater challenge is working with people, not with machines.

In a Management 2.0 organization, everyone recognizes that “people are the most valuable assets” and that managers have to become “servant leaders”. But, at the same time, managers prefer to stick to the hierarchy.

How to deal with middle/senior managers and colleagues in staff functions is in all likelihood the most challenging issue you will face in a transformation. - Frédéric Laloux, Reinventing Organizations

Do you know examples of

Management 2.0?

Some people think of an organization as a community or a city. You can do what you want, as long as you allow the community to benefit from your work. We call that Management 3.0.

In a community or city, everyone is (partly) responsible for contributing to its success and a few are responsible for the whole.

Management is about human beings. Its task is to make people capable of joint performance […]. Management is the critical, determining factor. - Peter Drucker, Management Rev. Edition

Most creative workers don’t realize that they are also responsible for management stuff. Management is too important to leave to the managers.

The only thing left to do for managers is to grow and nurture the whole system.

Good idea: setting up an internal crowdfunding system that enables innovation by any worker.

Do you know examples of

Management 3.0?

Management 3.0 is not yet another framework. It is an ever-changing collection of games, tools, and practices to help any worker to manage the organization. It is a way of looking at work systems.

Energize People: People are the most important parts of an organization and managers must do all they can to keep people active, creative, and motivated.

1

Empower Teams: Teams can self-organize, and this requires empowerment, authorization, and trust from management.

2

Align Constraints: Self-organization can lead to anything, and it’s therefore necessary to protect people and shared resources and to give people a clear purpose and defined goals.

3

Develop Competence: Teams cannot achieve their goals if team members aren’t capable enough, and managers must therefore contribute to the development of competence.

4

Grow Structure: Many teams operate within the context of a complex organization, and thus it is important to consider structures that enhance communication.

5

Improve Everything: People, teams, and organizations need to improve continuously to defer failure for as long as possible.

6

We can only improve worker happiness when everyone feels responsible for management and when managers learn to manage the system instead of the people.

Management 3.0 = Managing the system, not the people.

Management 3.0 = Better management with fewer managers.

Delegation and Empowermentmanagement30.com/delegation-boards

How can we get people to self-organize?

How do we delegate responsibilities?

The English verb “to manage” was originally derived from the Italian maneggiare, meaning to handle and train horses. - Kurtz and Snowden, “Bramble Bushes in a Thicket”

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/237133296_Bramble_Bushes_in_a_Thicket_Narrative_and_the_intangibles_of_learning_networks

The Self-fulfilling Prophecy Trap People behave according to how they are treated. For example, when the manager always changes what people deliver, why bother making it perfect? Thus, quality of work goes down, and the manager sees confirmation that more control is needed...

To Control or Not to Control Central control of a complex system doesn’t work, because the central node of a network cannot possibly contain all information that is needed to make good decisions everywhere.

Each worker has only an incomplete mental model of all the work. And the same goes for the manager! That is why it’s best to distribute control among everyone.

What scientists call distributed control is usually called empowerment by

management experts.

Many people are wrong

about empowerment.

The Dictators“Workers should be empowered by managers so that they take on more responsibilities, feel more committed, and be more engaged. The managers decide who is empowered, and who is not.”

The Anarchists“Workers are already empowered by default. Nobody is needed to grant them powers. There are no managers, only leaders. And they inspire workers to exercise the powers they already have.”

Empowerment defined

empower /əmˈpou(ə)r/ 1. (authority) to give official authority or legal power to (by legal or official means) / to invest with power 2. (ability) to promote the self-actualization or influence of / to supply with an ability

“I authorized (empowered) a team member to take control of our company’s bank

account.”

“I help my team members with their ability (empowerment) to manage our social media

marketing.”

Dictators know and understand only the first meaning of the word empowerment (authority), while anarchists favor only the second meaning (ability). In most organizations, we need both.

We aim for a more powerful system, not better-controlled people.

We aim for a more powerful system, not better-controlled people.

(And besides, creative workers cannot be controlled anyway.)

The more educated people are, the less

effective authoritarian power

is.

Empowerment requires delegating decisionsManagers often fear a loss of control when teams take over decision-making. And creative workers sometimes have no idea how to take responsibility.

?

The Accountability Trap Quite often, it only trickles down. In traditional organizations, “superiors” seek fulfillment of their own goals over the fulfillment of others, and they hold their “subordinates” accountable without acknowledging that they themselves should be held accountable for the success and well-being of the workers.

Empowerment is a reflexive relationship between two equal partners. We should replace superiors and subordinates with control-givers and control-takers.

Giving and Taking Control Quite often, when managers delegate work to people or teams, they don’t give them clear boundaries of control.

A manager should make it perfectly clear what the person’s or team’s level of control is in a certain area.

Handing over control also works the other way around because of the reflexive relationship of empowerment.

By distributing control in an organization, we not only empower

workers, we also empower the managers.

The expectation is that the frontline teams do everything, except for the things they choose to push upward. - Frédéric Laloux, Reinventing Organizations

The Seven Levels of Delegation

Delegation is not a binary thing. There are more options than being a dictator or an anarchist. The art of management

is in finding the right balance.

1. Tell You make a decision for others and you may explain your motivation. A discussion about it is neither desired nor assumed.

2. Sell You make a decision for others but try to convince them that you made the right choice, and you help them feel involved.

3. Consult

You ask for input first, which you take into consideration before making a decision that respects people’s opinions.

4. Agree

You enter into a discussion with everyone involved, and as a group you reach consensus about the decision.

5. Advise

You will offer others your opinion and hope they listen to your wise words, but it will be their decision, not yours.

6. Inquire

You first leave it to the others to decide, and afterwards, you ask them to convince you of the wisdom of their decision.

7. Delegate

You leave the decision to them and you don’t even want to know about details that would just clutter your brain.

The 7 Levels of Delegation is a symmetrical model.

It works in both directions.

Consult is the opposite of Advise.

The 7 Levels of Delegation is a symmetrical model. It works in both directions.

The 7 Levels of Delegation is a symmetrical model. It works in both directions.

Sell is the mirror of Inquire.

Dictators say, “You are not allowed to do anything except what I authorize you to do.” Anarchists say, “Go ahead, take whatever control you want!” The better choice is to say, “You can do what you want except for the areas where I place some restrictions.”

Delegation Boards

Delegation levels are applied to key decision areas. The “right” level of delegation is a balancing act. It depends on a team’s maturity level and the impact of its decisions. Delegation is context-dependent.

A delegation board enables management to clarify delegation and foster empowerment for both management and workers.

A delegation board gives managers “something to control”. It is better that they push around the notes on a delegation board rather than the people in their organization.

The Micromanagement Trap

Lack of delegation because “it costs time”. Delegation of control should be seen as an investment. There is a transaction cost involved, and it may take a while to get a return on such an investment.

Delegation increases status, power, and control. A system with distributed control has a better chance of survival than a system with centralized control.

Want to work with your peers to solve problems facing today's change management? Learn to increase employee engagement at a Management 3.0 workshop! https://management30.com/events/

Management 3.0 = Managing the system, not the people.

81

Andrii Pavliukov / andrii@andriipavliukov.com

Andrii Pavliukov is licensed Management 3.0 trainer and Agile Coach at andriipavliukov.com with many years of experience working with and on variety of organizations from small to enterprise scale. The main focus of Andrii's trainings is application of Agile Leadership practices in different contexts