Matchmaker, Matchmaker

Once upon a time . . .

Ms. Thorton is a CEO of a manufacturing company. Corporate headquarters are located in the south, in a metropolitan city. There are 1500 people currently employed. The company began as a family-owned business in 1940 by Mr. Thorton, Ms. Thorton’s father. In the 1980s, the decision was made to become a public company. Today they have four locations in major cities spread throughout the south.

Ms. Thorton has seven senior executives directly subordinate to her. She is satisfied with the way six of her subordinates have carried out their work. However, she has experienced difficulties with one of her senior executives, Frank, who holds the role of Financial General Manager (FGM).

Frank has been employed for Ms. Thorton for six months. When he was selected for the role, he had been working for a Fortune 500 company for 10 years. His résumé had reflected a great deal of experience in finance, and his titles had suggested a high level of capability. During his interview he was articulate, confident in his abilities, as well as having the experience that Ms. Thorton needed, at a price a small company like hers could afford.

Despite Frank’s experience in a large, successful company, and despite the positive impression he made during the interview, Frank has been a disappointment to Ms. Thorton. He provides monthly reports as required; however, the reports are just a mere recitation of numbers. There is virtually no analysis, no projections, and no recommendations on process improvements. In summary, it seems that it does not occur to Frank to draw out the long-term implications of his own reports.

Frank's reports are an emblem of Ms. Thorton's frustration. From her perspective, he asks many unnecessary questions but fails to ask important, tactical questions. Ms. Thorton finds herself spending too much time with Frank which she needs to attend to more pressing matters. She frequently thinks that, given the amount of time she spends with Frank, she would get a higher quality product in less time if she did the work herself.

On the other hand, Frank sees himself as giving his very best. Ms. Thorton seems to him to be "hard to please," and to him, it appears that she does not understand the amount of work that goes into compiling financial data and presenting it in report form. He frequently feels that she lives in some "ivory tower" and doesn’t understand the real work involved in the finance department. Frank can't remember Ms. Thorton giving him a pat-on-back for a job well done. In fact, all he seems to get from her is criticism.

Frank has a difficult time understanding her frustration. In fact, from Frank’s point of view Ms. Thorton never provides enough explanation when she assigns work to him. She seems to be annoyed at his questions, and she never seems to be confident that he has understood his assignments.

In addition to Ms. Thorton’s concerns, there were complaints about Frank by the other Senior Executives. For instance, Frank's response to a company crisis put him at odds with the other executives. The previous month there had been a shipment of goods that were defective. Every affected customer needed to be called, and letters of apology needed to be sent out. Every senior executive had stayed late and worked throughout the weekend to ensure that affected customers were contacted and apologies were delivered appropriately—except Frank. He had helped out and stayed a few hours past his usual eight-hour day. However, he did not show up on Saturday at all, and worked only a few hours on Sunday. Needless to say, Frank’s behavior did little to facilitate a constructive working relationship among his peers. In fact, one of Ms. Thorton's executives said that Frank seemed not to realize why this extra effort was warranted. From Frank's perspective, he had put in more than "his time" to "help out"; from the perspective of the executive team, the work was finished only when the last customer had been contacted.

constant*information says . . .

Assumption One: People try their best to carry out the work they’ve been given to do.

Whether they are effective or not is a different matter. On this assumption, people come to work to do their best (unless they are pathological, but that's another story), so it follows that there is nothing more employees can do to affect their results. Only managers—who are accountable for the work and working behavior of their subordinates—can do something about the effectiveness of their people. That's why we focus on systems and methods rather than people’s personalities and quirks.

Assumption Two: If it doesn't induce confidence, it's bad for your organization.

Every principle, system, process, procedure, policy, and practice must pass the “confidence-inducing ” test. The confidence-inducing principle states the following:

If X is something you are thinking of doing, then
If X increases confidence in the managerial system
Do X
Loop

Decreasing confidence (especially knowingly!) can only make your organization weaker.

Start Here: What's the work?

Ms. Thorton is not in the business of managing people. She is in the manufacturing business, and managing is a means to an end. Therefore, it all begins with understanding the work that the Board of Directors has given Ms. Thorton and the context under which that work must be accomplished.

Our Tools

Is it hot or cold?

First of all, it matters what "it" is. But it's just as important to have an objective way to share information about "its" temperature. Just as you'd use a thermometer to measure its temperature and obtain a socially shareable result, we use particular tools that are based on empirical study to analyze and describe particular processes.

Level of Work in Roles

We use Time-span of Discretion to measure level of work in a role. Because this instrument uses ratio-scale measurement (which is a fancy way of saying that we have a way of "pro rating" work so we can make comparisons across different levels and roles in an organization), we are able to compare roles and determine the level of work a role encompasses.

Current Potential Capability (CPC)

Current Potential Capability (CPC) is a tool that reveals the level of work an individual is capable of handling effectively. CPC can be distinguished from knowledge and acquired skills, and is essentially what prevents you from picking your neurosurgeon by flipping a coin. CPC is used to help you match applicants to roles and in succession planning.

What does all this get us?

As a result of measurements, assessment data, and interviews conducted by constant*information’s managerial system’s analyst, Ms. Thorton now knows the level of work encompassed in each of the senior executive roles. That information will be important if she chooses to grow the company and/or if one of her team members leaves the company and needs to be replaced. More importantly, this allows her to assess the "match" between the CPC of her executives and the company's roles.

Ms. Thorton now sees that there is a discrepancy between Frank's work in his role and his current potential capability, and she is now positioned to discuss this discrepancy with him. She can now see that it is not Frank's failure but the  mismatch that is the source of her frustration, and that Frank's skills and abilities could better serve the company in a different role.

Moreover, this approach, which analyzes organizational process in terms of roles and levels of work rather than personalities, reframes the notion of a "working relationship." The quality of the manager-subordinate relationship is not dependent on whether the two like each other. Rather, the focus is on adherence to the required behaviors defined by their roles.

The moral of the story . . .

With a lot of effort and commitment, you can act against nature—but not for long.

When the right systems are instituted, that is, when systems are compatible with human nature as well as human needs for confidence and safety, working relationships among employees at all levels of the company become constructive and serve to further the strategic direction of the company established by Senior Executives. At constant*information, we call such systems requisite organizations.

Your work is making the world better.
Our work is helping you succeed.