Another stupid decision (thanks re-org!)

Recently I was talking with a client about a reorg that had just taken place. Every business unit and function had been impacted with some combination of headcount reduction (a.k.a "becoming more efficient/lean") and new managers had been promoted into new roles while entire functions and reporting lines were re-drawn.

As we explored the implications of the reorg, Mark* shared a smorgasboard of frustration, ranging from not clearly understanding why the decisions has been made, to how the (new) functions had been structured. Clearly communication could have been better. But the biggest frustration impacted Mark on a deeply personal dimension. It was about his new manager, the person who could/would influence his work every single day and who would - ultimately - have one of the biggest impacts on his career.

Why can't I have a competent manager who I can trust? Seems like we get one or the other, but never both."

It appeared to Mark that in their zeal to implement the new structure, the decision-makers had decided to consider trust and competence as almost mutually exclusive qualities. Some managers were technically really strong. Others were great at understanding and navigating human behavior, and building trusted relationships. Only a few had a passing grade in both. With significant implications.

The "empty suit" who cannot build relationships and isn't any good at the job is a recipe for disaster. We all know the adage ~ people don't leave companies, they leave managers. And Mark knew more than a handful of colleagues who had updates their résumés for precisely this reason.

Somewhat troubling to Mark and others was the sizable contingent of newly promoted managers who were technically strong (good at digital marketing, or stand-outs in the newly formed lean manufacturing pods) but who weren't particularly good at managing people. Their teams satisfied themselves that perhaps they could learn something that would help them do their job better, even if the working environment wasn't great. The prevailing thought was that they'd use what they learned to find something new once the org changes has settled. They were getting their résumés ready too.

The stupid decisions that leaders had made - to prioritize technical ability over a command of the behavioral dimensions of people management - resulted in only a few managers who were well respected. Those teams were destined to perform better - but some of the more significant intended outcomes of the reorg (efficiency, speed) would never be achieved. Poorly managed teams aren't characterized by speed, outcomes, or progress. Time is wasted on politics and confusion instead. And individuals invest great effort in lining up the next opportunity within a more stable and fulfilling environment.

We've seen this play out many times before: those same leaders (who had made some of these stupid decisions) would become even more frustrated at the pace of progress and the disengagement of their teams, prompting suggestions and pontification about the need for yet another re-org. And thus commences a pointlessly-fulfilling cycle of ill-informed action and outcomes.

Downright Stupid

We have an abundance of data. We have years of experience. We have formal models and mental models. But the bottom line is that while a decision may, on the face of it, appear to be a smart one, if it does not consider human behavior there's a good chance that it is downright stupid.

*The situation described is very real; Mark is a pseudonym.

Russell Raath works with teams to make better decisions in their desire to perform differently with speed and scale.