Managing to failure?

There are hundreds of books out there with the title, or subtitle, of something like "Managing to Success". The different methods all work, so why is it there are still people out there who seem not only to ignore these methods but actively shun them? I say those people are "managing to failure." Perhaps some management expert has used this phrase before, but I've never seen it and, if it ever crops up after this, remember you heard it here first.

So, what is "managing to failure"? What I mean by that is the manager, or team leader, assumes their staff will fail to meet expectations. Here is a simple example (taken from a recent job experience; all names are removed to protect everyone's privacy).

Each month I and several others within our area graded the quality of support we each gave. For example, my specific responsibility was managing the contract between my company and its outsourcing clients. Others reported on user ID validation, hardware and software inventories... you get the idea.  We received a reminder on the first Monday of each month, and our reports were due by the fifteenth of the month.  For most of the accounts I had, the person responsible for delivery of services would not contact us unless the grades had not been reported by, say, the 10th.  For one account, however, by the second working day after the announcement the account's service manager was reminding us (again) to do the grades, and if they were not entered by Friday (five working days) that person accused us of not being responsive.

As you can see from the above example, the delivery manager I spoke of assumed we would not enter our grades unless we were told regularly to do so.  For all contracts I supported all grades were in on time for the entire time I was responsible for grading, regardless of the managing style of the delivery manager for a given account, so there was no valid reason for this manager to act as, well, a slave driver.

By standing over us, demanding immediate response to an assignment which did not require an immediate response, the delivery manager showed both a lack of trust in us to do our jobs and a lack of respect for our professionalism.  One might think this person's management would frown on browbeating us for our responses, but instead praised this manager for being "on top of things."

Over my career I have worked for a few managers, team leaders, or coordinators like this... and invariably they are looked at as being excellent leaders.  I say this is wrongheaded, because it is a very inefficient management style.  Further, it is not in keeping with most companies' stated HR directions, which usually state "our employees will be treated professionally."  While the latter is obvious, the former requires some explanation.

First, people resent being browbeaten.  The vast majority of people are hard workers who will give their best and complete their assignments on time, even if left alone; in other words, they are self-responsible and do not need baby-sitting.  Most of us just want to be given our assignments and then given the resources to complete them.  Someone who is managing for success does that; a person who manages to failure will not, because he or she assumes the people under them will not perform unless they are watched constantly.  I don't know why managers do this; I assume it depends upon the person doing the managing.  A few possible reasons are a fear of being blamed for a team's failure, a perception of being considered a better leader if they are vocal, or positive reinforcement from senior managers who follow the same belief, that is employees are lazy and must be forced to work.

Second, when people get treated as described above and the resentment of such treatment builds, many will move on to another team.  That means a loss of experienced team members, which leads to lesser performance from the team.  Further, those who do not or cannot move perform less well as the pressure to perform increases; this is a well-known phenomenon.  The net result is an inexperienced team of people under a great deal of stress, a certain recipe for a poorly-performing team.

Note that last statement carefully; in effect, a person who manages to failure notes their team is performing poorly, puts more pressure on their team, in turn leading to even worse performance, which leads to more pressure, worse performance... in a downward spiral.

I have seen this happen over and over, and witnessed it several times first-hand.  And yet these "driving leaders," managing to failure, are often praised by middle management.  In those situations I've witnessed, often the response from middle management is, "They must be good managers, look how hard they push their team!"  A laid-back manager, even one who gets better performance from their team, is often perceived as being less capable because they do not appear to push their team.

In my experiences as a team leader (excepting my first attempt, which I was unprepared for and anyway was dropped into it without any notice), I found if I treated my team as if they were adults, let them do their jobs without hassling them, and in general show them respect they performed better than if I treat them as if they cannot or will not do their jobs.  It takes time to do that, of course; one has to learn the individual personalities of one's team before being able to know who is best at what tasks.  However, I think it's worth it.  After all, the result is not only a better team but a happier one, and that leads to higher productivity.

Now, I should point out one thing which causes even good leaders to fall into this "managing to failure" mode:  not enough staff to complete all required tasks.  During times of "resource actions" (i.e. layoffs) many leaders fear for their own jobs, and pass along that fear to their teams by becoming more aggressive in trying to wring performance from their team.  The big problem with that, besides the negativity I discussed above, is this:  the team members are already under stress from their own fears of being terminated, which can cause a lower efficiency and interfere with completing tasks.  Again a vicious cycle develops, as the fear of being terminated increases.

The situation is made worse when the team is already short-staffed and is being overworked.  I will not specify any given situation, but I will say I've been in that situation three times over my career (team is short-staffed, management piles on more responsibility (trying to do "more with less"), and under leadership which is managing to failure).  It is situations like this in which those getting laid off are actually envied by those keeping their jobs.

What a strange situation:  a person keeping their job is envious of someone who is being let go.  This is becoming all too common in companies which pay too much attention to the bottom line and not enough to giving good service.  To me, it's a sign of poor management, from the front-line team leads all the way back to the vice-president level.  If a service company provides good service at a reasonable cost the stock price increase will follow; if the stock price increases by abusing the service employees, eventually that bubble will burst and the company's service will no longer be sought out.

Goals, views, and making time for everything.

I belong to a very good web site called SparkPeople. There is a new book out by its founder, Chris Downie, called "The Spark"; it's bright orange so you can't miss it. There is so much to do and learn, both in the book and on the web site. The good part is the web site is free, no strings. Check it out and please feel free to check out my Spark page.

At one point I discovered I spent too much time there, so I cut 'way back. However, cutting back had some fallout I hadn't anticipated: I lost track of tracking my nutrition and exercise, which in turn led to some minor backsliding (particularly on the exercise part).

Don't get me wrong; I am still exercising and eating healthfully, using lessons learned from The Spark, but I exercise a lot less than I should. I found the web site a good place to keep track of my exercise and nutrition, so I make time (about twenty minutes) each day to log my activity and food intake.

I'm writing this as a related blog entry to my most recent SparkPeople blog. I wanted to share some things about what I'm doing now with those who are not on the web site. The following things are important to me right now.

1) I am finally buckling down to my master's thesis. If I don't finish it by the end of the spring semester (this May) I will have to repeat courses... and I cannot afford that.

2) I am seriously evaluating my career from scratch. I am taking "find your ideal career" courses, talking to people, building my network, and looking for certification paths. At fifty I'm too old to waste my time on stuff I don't really like; there's so much to do for the next fifty or so years. This means a great commitment of personal time for a month or so, and then a moderate commitment of same for the rest of my career.

3) Speaking of things to do I am writing several books. Two are fictional, one is a humorous look at my family (and yes, they've all bought into it, but I'll wait until they've grown up to publish it), and two are about the two things most people won't discuss: one about religion and one about politics. I have experience with being published, though not for a long time now, and it's time to go back to that.

4) I've decided thirty-five years of "putzing around" is long enough; I want to contribute all I can to society rather than just skate along. I have talents, I should share them. My mother's been really contributing for over fifty years, politically and through volunteering; I've been doing it for a long time, but only in a haphazard sort of way. I'm not doing it for the recognition; I'm doing it because it's the right thing to do... but it does take time.

5) I need time to design our retirement home. I've got my SparkPeople dream house; doing it for real will be much tougher. Psychologically it'll be good for me too; my property is three miles from my favorite beach (a five-minute drive); where I live now it's an hour one-way. Since I work from home I need time outdoors badly; where I'm moving it's warmer than where I am now, so I can go outdoors more often.

6) And finally, saving the best for last, more family time. My kids got me hooked on World of Warcraft. Now I don't intend on playing during the week, and not for more than a couple of hours each weekend... but that's time I'm now spending doing other things. I can play along with my children and I do, so this is still family time, after a fashion (my wife has no desire to play this). To make up for that, we have a family game night during the week; then all four of us can play together. Plus we're back to eating as a family; for two years we just grabbed and went. It wasn't takeout, I cook a lot, but we didn't sit together; we all went our separate ways. No more.

So you see, I have a lot of stuff to do. I am making room for SparkPeople in my schedule because it's a wonderful web site and a great resource for healthful living, but I can no longer spend hours each week on it.

"There is no try. Only do, or do not." - Yoda

Giving back

One of the greatest human inventions is civilization; more strictly, forms of government. Anarchy works really well if you're the strongest and top of the heap; unfortunately there's always someone gunning for you, so you must be ever vigilant. Look around at the animal kingdom. For almost every animal it's every animal for itself. Mating aside (and even then, sometimes) the vast majority of animals have no society at all.

The Hymenoptera (ants, bees, wasps), termites, and naked mole rats have a social structure of a very high degree; nevertheless their structure is so tight there is no freedom to leave it. The entire life of a bee, for example, is planned out. The youngest perform tasks in the hive, such as feeding larvae; storing nectar and honey; and cleaning the hive. Next they move toward the nest entrance: doing guard duties, fanning the nest, and collecting nectar from foragers. After some time doing this they start taking short flights to "learn the neighborhood". Then they forage, collecting nectar and bringing it back to the hive, hundreds of trips a day. Finally, after five short weeks of life they drop their wings, walk away from the hive, and die. All worker bees follow this pattern, and it is never broken as long as the hive remains intact.

Some species, including our closest relatives the great apes (AKA Family Hominidae, the chimps, gorillas, orangutans (and us, of course)) have looser social hierarchies. Consider the dog and its wild ancestor the wolf as a good example. There is an alpha male and an alpha female, a beta male and female (#2 in the hierarchy), and an "omega dog", the lowest-ranking animal. I call these hierarchies looser because it is possible for a lower-level member to move up the ranks. In general the alpha male rules the group, until he is overthrown or dies. This is broadly equivalent to a tyranny or monarchy in human societies.

(I know there are exceptions. Some animals, such as the hyena or elephant, are matriarchal; that is, they have an alpha female instead of an alpha male. The point I want to make is the relatively limited social structure, not which sex runs the group).

Humans, on the other hand, have invented several variations on the social structure beyond the animal-like hierarchies of monarchy, tyranny, dictatorships and so on. From simple feudalism to democracy, human society allows its members to contribute as they are able (or, at least, as their leader feels they're capable of contributing). As one of the most free countries in the world, people in the United States have a distinct advantage over simpler societies: we can take advantage of individual skills in ways the other forms of government cannot. For example, if the king of a monarchy tells you to farm you farm, even if you have the intellect of Einstein or Hume. While it is possible to break that cycle if you're skilled enough, only the very best can contribute beyond their semi-fixed role.

With this advantage comes responsibility. We set up our form of government so people with the will to do so can contribute beyond simply doing a job and doing it well. In short, we have an obligation, even a duty, to contribute our best skills to the country's benefit.

The flip side of that, of course, is the duty not to block contributions. It is difficult, if not impossible, to contribute beyond your own self-interest if your every day is a struggle to survive.

In a classic blame-the-victim strategy, conservatives will have you believe all poor people are poor because they're lazy or otherwise unwilling to work, and that's so obviously wrong it amazes me people believe it. The United States has an unemployment problem, and yet our government is still giving subsidies to companies to send jobs overseas. It's not just conservatives doing this; those laws pass the House and Senate with bipartisan support. The U.S. has fallen victim to something called "corporatism," or "what's good for the corporations is good for everyone." If you're curious about this term and what it means, both its definition and its affect on us citizens, see the book Life Inc. by Douglas Rushkoff.

Anyway, even if you are a victim of corporate downsizing, outsourcing, mergers creating vast holding corporations, or simply cannot find work because you're overqualified, there are still ways to contribute back to your fellow citizens. Here are some of the ways I contribute, none of which cost more than a bit of my time.

• Donate food to local food banks, help distribute it, or volunteer as a cook or server for civic functions.
• Join a local committee. I am on the Inland Wetlands commission within my town; our "job" is making sure wetlands are protected according to the laws and regulations of my state and town.
• Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Recycle everything your state and local government will recycle. Compost vegetable waste as well as putting cans in the recycling bin. Did you know you can recycle even those big, ugly styrofoam inserts electronic devices come packed in?
• Write your elected representatives with ideas and comments. Form letters and signed petitions are ignored; write personal emails to all of your reps. Get to know them.
• Write letters to your local newspapers.
• Vote intelligently. Try to meet the candidates; at least, take time to understand the issues.
• Volunteer at a local state park... parking attendant, nature guide, maintenance person, whatever they need.
• At work, go out of your way to spread knowledge and help across all departments. Contributing ideas whenever you have them.
• After you've read them, donate books to local school libraries and nursing homes.
• When asked on the street for handouts I try to get people help (if they look like they need it) or give them a name of a person who can get them a job. Sometimes I've offered people my lunch. I don't hand out money; that's only a stop-gap. You all know the proverb "give a man a fish...".
• If you have a computer, run the World Community Grid software and donate its downtime. WCG uses your computer's downtime to help solve world-wide problems such as cancer, dengue fever, and growing a better rice to feed people. Find WCG and download its software here: www.worldcommunitygrid.org.

It is my firm believe governments exist to provide services its people cannot provide for themselves. In conjunction with market forces many things are possible. Unfortunately, some things an unregulated market cannot manage, and I think we've lost sight of that. Two of the big ones are health care and jobs. We see the results right now: high unemployment, nearly 1/3 of our population has no health care, people going hungry within ten miles of wherever you are. We're the richest nation on earth; why do we have such problems?

I do not advocate government is the solution; what I am advocating is doing as much as you can, then the government doesn't have to step in. All of the above volunteer opportunities reduce the need for government spending and cost you essentially nothing; why not do them? Sure corporations are powerful, in my opinion too powerful; we are even more powerful, if we work together.

Banks... those bastards!

Banks are really annoying me lately. For crying out loud, they were bailed out with no restrictions, they paid some of that money out in bonuses, and they still won't loan money (which would get the economy growing, which would let them loan more money to make more income, and so on). On top of that they tightened credit rules to the point where people will face debtors' prison, a stupid idea left over from the 18th and early 19th centuries. As to the latter, here's a personal story.

Talked to a bank on Friday about a late payment. Back in November I made a late payment to a credit card (due date 11/11, actual mail date 11/13 (pay day)). The minimum balance due was $80, and I sent $100. Normally I'd accept the late fee and pay that the next month; after all, it was an honest mistake but rules are rules.

The next month's bill said (I thought) a minimum payment of $80 again, so I sent another $100. Unfortunately I did not read it properly; the $80 requested was the payment of the previous month's late minimum. To make a long story short, instead of a minimum payment for February's bill of $80 - $100 I now have a minimum payment of $344! I called the bank on it, and they gave me some cock-and-bull story about how payments are applied to fees first, then to previous month's late minimum amount due, and only then to this month's minimum.

That's bad enough. What makes matters worse: this is my very first credit card. I've had it since I was 24 years old (more than half my life), and have never before made a late payment. Nice. Just when I'm applying for a home equity loan to build a driveway on my second property this stuff happens.

Hey bank, would you rather get a bounced check or a late payment? All subsequent payments occurred on time; the late payment was a one-time thing. How can I possibly pay off the balance if you keep adding fees and hidden costs like this? But I guess that's the idea: wring as much money as they can from us regular people; their bottom line is far more important than good customer relations.

This is why my primary bank is a credit union. I'd drop the card except, with its long history, it helps my credit rating.

While certainly true for just about any large corporation, from banks this is especially egregious. Lending me money at 18% and paying me .8% on a savings account is beyond greed; I think it borders on usury. Bastards.

Letter writing: wither thou goest?

Lately I've read some articles and heard some talk on public radio about personal communication. More to the point, in summary nobody writes letters any more, and many lament the loss of handwriting. Writing as someone who usually got "D"s, with the rare “C”, in penmanship and who's been typing for almost forty years, in some ways that's a good thing. I can print clearly but it's tedious, slow, and the longer I write the harder it becomes to read. On the other hand I can type about forty words a minute with very few errors (thank you, backspace key!) and the print is clear.

And yet I think the discussions made a good point. With Twitter, blogging, Facebook and texting nobody writes any more. Even email seems to have run its course with some people. So I decided I need to write more letters. Many of them will, of course, be emails (I'd rather not waste the paper to send a letter to two dozen or so people), yet I do want to get more in touch with people.

Writing letters is not quite the same as speaking to people, whether face-to-face or over the telephone. Frankly I'd much rather sit down with people; that's so much more enjoyable. Unfortunately distance makes that impossible for some, and so they get letters instead.

Some will argue typing an email is less personal than writing a letter by hand, and I won't argue with that. I remember during and after college exchanging letters (sometimes quite long ones!) with friends from other states, sometimes as many as five or six a year. I still think, though, if I write in a stream-of-conscious style (as if speaking) that is just as personal as typing a letter, which I did sometimes do even if the typewriter was a clunky, old manual which needed a sledgehammer to use the "Q" and "P" keys.

And I have to admit I still have some of those old hand-written letters, some of them from a high-school pen pal from England named Titilope Omomo (if I remember the spelling correctly). I'm not sure where they're packed other than they are in a box with other memories such as knick-knacks, papers, yearbooks, and other things. There's something about holding a thirty-year-old piece of paper and reading words written in pen that's somewhat faded which you can't get from saving emails.

I've decided I'm going to write to my friends more often. Of course it'll be emails, mostly, but sometimes they will be hand-written letters. I'm not abandoning the old ways, just adding new ways to them.