Don’t just stand there…move!

I was a part of a conversation between two different parties today, a corporate office and a local office, regarding technology at the local level. Local had a set of needs, and corporate had a plan. It went downhill from there.

Local asked for a simple automated order entry button for their website. Corporate explained the process involved in getting the button developed and the ultimate problems with the button request. Local asked for an online map so customers could easily find the branch offices. Corporate hastily shot down the idea, providing instead an explanation from the “corporate guidelines”. On and on this discussion went, with local requesting, corporate hedging and the conversation floundering. Finally, without a resolution to any of the requests, local gave a resigned sigh and a “sounds good to me” at the end of the conversation.

In almost any organization, local is the hub, the center of fulfillment to the organization’s purpose or its bread and butter. There is no need for a corporate accounting department if there is no revenue coming through the door. No need for regional administration if there are no schools to teach the kids. It is local whose head is on the chopping block if the site doesn’t perform.

So why the constant struggle of two differing views between corporate and local?

The further corporate gets from local, the greater the danger of falling into an echo-chamber. Corporate decisions, processes, strategies and activity become justified based on past action, “the way things have always been done”, not based on connection to local. Group think becomes a pervasive mindset at corporate, developing unquestioned activity that “sounds like a good idea”. Outcomes move further from local needs and closer to what corporate believes is necessary.

I’m sure you’ve seen some of the following examples play out in some form or fashion within your organization:

Local says:	Corporate responds with:	Instead of:
“This is what I need”	“But this (something different) is what’s best for you”	Listening to the group of workers closest to the customer.
“I need it now”	“Let me tell you where your request fits on the timeline…”	Putting yourself in the shoes of the local organization, feeling the hourly pressure, demands and urgency.
“My staff doesn’t understand the technology”	“It’s okay, just spend a few days [of productivity] going through this training” [and then another several months of going through the adjustment phase]. “You’ll get used to it”.	Building or purchasing an easy to use, intuitive system for end users that will enhance rather than detract from their productivity.
“Why do we have to keep manually reporting these numbers to you?”	“Because we said so” or “Because the CEO wants to see them”.	Building or purchasing a system that automates tracking and measurement, taking the burden off of local.
“Here are my concerns. What can we do about them?”	Nothing. Empty [demoralizing, deflating and disheartening] air.	Appeasing the worry, providing a listening ear and then making changes.

Corporate quicksand can swiftly suck a person into processes, paperwork, Gantt charts, timelines and scoping discussions that drown out the urgency and relevancy of local market requests. The echo-chamber confirms the actions and can put corporate on a trajectory of decision making with outcomes that make local frustrated, resigned and listless.

So, to all of the “corporates” out there, if you’re reading: listen first and second, and act third. Strive to see things from a local perspective. It’s okay to ask questions to understand their point of view.

The opening at the opposite end of this tunnel sure looks small from this vantage point, doesn’t it? Being this far away, it’s easy to lose perspective. But the minute you start walking towards the end, your perspective changes. Pretty soon, the opening becomes larger, more focused and more understandable. The closer you get to the opposite side, the farther you get from yours. And the closer you get to their side, the smaller your original perspective will seem.

Filed under: Myopia, Teamwork

Managing Bullies

No one likes a bully. Bullies are manipulative, mean and controversial. What’s even worse is when you have to work with one on a team or in a department. When you have to work with a bully, things can be difficult. What makes it even more uncomfortable is when you work with a bully that holds control over one or many managers in the company, and for whatever reason, the manager fails to acknowledge, stymie the impact or punish a bully for their harmful behavior.

Over time, employees get weary of working with a bully and waiting for a manager to do something about it. This problem will pervade the work environment like a gas leak, silently suffocating the valuable workers; killing their motivation, forcing employees to look for another job or enabling key employees to be apathetic about their performance. At some point, the solution will have to come to a head.

A common response from management when dealing with a difficult person is that they (either consciously or subconsciously) do not want to disrupt the status quo by punishing the bully. The problem is, however, that during the manager’s indecisiveness, several things are happening:

• Valuable workers become apathetic and frustrated
• The bully gains in legitimate and perceived power
• Product or service quality starts to suffer
• Employee turnover starts to rise

In essence, what a manager is saying when they do not manage a bully is that they value the bully over the good employees. Just how much do they value the bully? What will be the tipping point? Will it take one month of lost productivity to decide to manage the bully? Is it worth 6 good workers leaving the firm? What about 15 good workers? Why even sacrifice one good worker for the bully? What about the time it is going to take to onboard replacements for the new workers? What about the lost respect for the manager from the employees that choose to stick it out with the firm, and choose to wait out the changes?

Managers are responsible for enabling a work environment that allows many different personalities to work collectively and productively on a daily basis. The way that the manager treats each employee sends a message to the rest of the group about the perceived value that the employee brings to the group. When bullies are allowed to keep working at a company without change, for whatever reason, it ends up demoralizing the people that work hard and add value to the company.

There will be a cost for management to make a decision about the bully. There will be a cost to action or inaction. Which cost is a manager willing to pay?

Filed under: Bully, Management, Teamwork