10

ARCHITECTING YOUR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

This chapter will focus on the first of three Company Practices that help foster collaboration: the role of management. First, I will share some insights of Silicon Valley leaders on various aspects of people management. After that, I will offer a number of tips regarding particular management practices.

Let’s start with a story that illustrates how important management decisions are when it comes to creating effective collaboration.

AN EXAMPLE OF HOW FORCED SEPARATION UNDERMINES COLLABORATION

I previously worked at a well-known company in Silicon Valley that produced mobile communication devices and the software that ran those devices. After much consideration, executives of this company made the difficult decision to sequester employees working on the physical device from those working on the software. It was only done because some of our customers demanded it.

Some of those customers wanted to purchase our physical device and operate it with software from other companies. Others wanted to use our software on physical devices sold by other companies. Each of those sets of customers was customizing our products to work differently with products from our competitors. They were concerned that we could gain an unfair advantage if we used information about how they were customizing our product to work with products offered by our rivals. In order to appease their concerns, our leaders agreed to separate our two groups into discrete divisions that had very limited communication with others.

Employees worked very well with others in their division, but did not collaborate with colleagues in the other division. In fact, the separation was so effective that very few employees at any level of this company understood the details of both products.

This caused serious problems. Staff in the physical device division would contact software employees and say, “We need you to do X with the software.” The software folks would push back, saying they couldn’t do it for a variety of reasons that they were not at liberty to explain. The same happened in reverse. The software folks made requests of the device employees, which that group said they were unable to meet. This resulted in stalemates.

Eventually issues would bubble up three or four levels until someone finally made a decision. Often those decisions were better for the customer than for our company. Because of our decision to partition, we were not benefitting from producing both software and hardware related to the same device. In fact, we had less influence between our two areas than outside companies had with us.

Every company that is faced with dilemmas of this nature has to figure out what the best decision is for their unique circumstances. There is not one clear-cut answer that is right for everyone in this situation. For us, the right decision was to relax the separation between the divisions. We realized that isolating the two divisions from each other didn’t make good business sense for us. We let our customers know why we had to make this change. And we made it.

Things didn’t improve immediately when we brought the two divisions back together. Sequestering them had been so effective that it took quite a bit of work to reverse. Even though employees bought into the notion of collaboration and did it very effectively within their division, the walls between the two groups had caused enormous rifts that had to be actively mended.

We hosted a number of workshops to increase collaboration between the two divisions. We emphasized how we needed the two groups to work together. Management modeled how to collaborate with colleagues in the other division. Over time, the walls came down and employees began collaborating as well across the divisions as they had been doing within their own division.

THE TAKE-AWAY

This story is an all-too-real example of a strategy that not only hurt collaboration, but also hurt the company’s profitability. Clearly, executives knew that this strategy would keep employees from working together. For a period of time, though, they thought it was worthwhile financially to do it.

Sometimes it’s hard for management to see that a certain policy or practice is bad for collaboration and the company’s bottom line. In some cases, the problems are visible to employees long before management realizes their damaging effects. Not only do leaders need to actively look for such situations, they should ask employees to let them know if they notice this happening.

Now that we’ve seen how important management practices are to collaboration and company success, I would like to share some insights on effective managerial practices that Silicon Valley leaders relayed to me. As you read, think about which of these are relevant to your company.

MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHIES SET THE STAGE

   “Since our new CEO joined the company several years ago, we have a new philosophy. He inspires us to see that we’re truly all one team. Before he arrived, each division did their own thing. There was no central glue. Things were not only not collaborative, they were adversarial. He’s changed it tremendously. We now have a ‘Customer First’ philosophy that brings us all together. We are able to create shared goals for projects. It helps us work together rather than working against each other.”

   “This company has spent the last three to four years evolving from a company that makes and sells certain products for money, to being a company that centers on our customers. This was an executive decision made a few years ago. We make sure that everything we do is best for our customers. This helps us be more empathetic to customers. It also helps us to have greater empathy for other staff. Both are very good things.”

   “Jesus, Lao Tzu, and other famous leaders throughout history have helped us to see that telling people what to do (and pushing them to do it) isn’t nearly as powerful as guiding others to reach those conclusions themselves. These leaders were right. You don’t build a great boat just by building it. You do it by inspiring folks to want to go to sea. You do it by connecting the mission of the company with the work that individuals do.”

   “Collaboration is ‘context over control.’ That means we’re not trying to force a particular perspective or a prescription for how things have to be done. Instead, we set context. We have this business goal and this need. How do we work together to achieve it?”

   “Leaders need to set context in ways that make sense to a diverse staff who have very different styles. Looking across an organization, you see a lot of left- and right-brained folks. You need to make things meaningful to all of them. Our great leaders do that. They share both the facts and the inspirational stories that engage us emotionally. And state things in several different ways to engage everyone.”

VALUES: “OUR MANAGERS CARE DEEPLY AND SHOW IT”

   “Our managers care deeply. They care about staff as well as the organization’s purpose. They do their best to set teams up to succeed. Then, they delegate the work with high expectations. It works.”

   “Our CTO [chief technical officer] taught me ways to build trust quicker. How to walk in another person’s shoes. Some are surprised that I learned these soft skills from a CTO. This man has superb emotional intelligence as well as technical chops.”

   “Leadership sets the tone for how teams interact. If you have an obstructionist leader, that sets a negative tone. This company has a collaboratively driven leadership team. It’s genuine, not forced or make-believe. Not working well together is just not tolerated. The executive leadership team works very closely as a team. They work really well with the next level of management. And so on. It sets the tone for all of us.”

   “One interviewee demonstrated a crucial lesson. She instructed me to make an ‘ok’ symbol with my thumb and index finger. ‘Now,’ she told me, ‘touch your chin with those fingers while making that symbol.’ As she spoke, she demonstrated visually. But, as she told me to touch my chin she touched her cheek. I did the same. She summarized the lesson. ‘What leaders do is even more influential than what they say. If the two conflict, people put more weight in actions than in words.’ ”

CREATING INSPIRING VISIONS: “WE COULDN’T WAIT TO GET HIS VOICEMAILS”

   “The executives at my previous employer were inspiring. They could conjure up an image and make it live in people’s brains. They were amazing story-tellers. They used metaphors, talked about what was important to them personally, and connected stories to our core values.”

   “One of my favorite bosses had a wonderful way of communicating. He didn’t just talk with us once a quarter to announce results. He put out a Friday morning voicemail message. During one six-month period, he related our work to the building of the Brooklyn Bridge. (‘If you think you have a tough job, think of what was required of those bridge builders.’) We couldn’t wait to get his next Friday voicemail.”

   “One of our executive’s key messages was: ‘Team up, you cannot get this job done by yourself.’ He urged people to work together and keep trying.”

   “He shared so much about himself that you felt you knew the guy. That made us much more committed to him and to the company.”

   “She didn’t beat people up. She did whatever was needed to support employees. She still held us accountable, respectfully. And we loved that.”

PRACTICES: “WE SHIFTED FROM AN ANSWER ECONOMY TO A QUESTION ECONOMY”

   “It’s about building alliances across the organization to get the best out of everyone. We work together across disciplines to get things done.”

   “It starts with everyone on a project having shared goals. When different groups have conflicting goals, all they do is work against each other.”

   “Managers at my company used to tell employees what to do, what to think, and how to do their work. Then they learned to ask questions and let others come up with the answers. Now, they have an even more effective style. Folks take ownership for both asking the questions and finding the answers to well-articulated, thoughtful questions. The greatest innovations come from the right questions. We have shifted from an answer economy to a question economy.”

   “We know things work much better if we inspire and involve than if we impose. It works. We have gone from 14 percent employee involvement to 92 percent. That’s made a big difference to employees. And managers too. Problems that we thought were intractable aren’t intractable at all.”

   “Leaders sometimes need to say ‘We have to do this.’ We have a positive history built now, so when that happens, folks are okay with it. They understand and say let’s get it done and move on.”

   “I make sure my teams have information. I constantly try to provide context.”

   “I protect my teams. I keep the politics and noise away from them so they can do a great job. I’m the filter, sending the things through that they need and keeping the rest out.”

   “I was sure that mentoring and coaching your team and growing your people would not change in an Agile environment. But it did change, hugely. Previously, we thought we were enlightened managers. But we really weren’t. We had little time to coach and grow folks. Agile gives me the space to do those things because the whole team owns the product. My role is to support employees and enable them to create that product at whatever quality is needed.”

   “You have to care in a different way. Managers need to really understand team work and effectiveness and value the principles of Agile. Not just do Agile, but be Agile.”

   “Managers become facilitators of the team’s work. We become leaders rather than directors or delegators.”

   Yes, we still have hierarchies, but we’ve removed the barriers between groups. Managers have changed from directing individuals and functions to leading teams.”

   “As a leader, it’s no longer our job to say ‘Go do this.’ It’s more about ‘Here’s where we are going, how do we get there, what might get in our way, and what we should we do about it?’ Seek that input and discussion.”

   “I have worked in command-and-control-style companies. I just can’t work in places like that anymore. I have a more collaborative style. I believe you get what you manage to. When employees come and ask me what they should do about something, I answer them with questions to get them thinking.”

   “I’ve never had or been a command-and-control manager. It’s more, ‘There are your priorities. How are you going to fulfill them?’ Then you are evaluated against how you fulfill them.”

   “Sometimes staff who are having disagreements go to their manager and ask him or her to make the decision. Now it’s more common for the manager to resist doing that, suggesting that they figure it out themselves. If it’s really breaking down, then the manager will eventually step in.”

   “Previously, it was top-down. If you happened to run over folks to get things done, the manager wouldn’t call you on it. That doesn’t fly today.”

   “Accepting everyone’s ideas all the time can lead to disastrous results. You end up with mediocrity. It’s great to encourage new ideas. But there also needs to be a process to help the really good ideas flourish.”

   “Leaders have to use persuasion power. If I am a product leader, I have to be able to convince folks that this idea is better than that one. They don’t have to agree with me just because I’m their boss. I think this is quite healthy.”

   “Managers now manage the quality of the effort. And they help their staff manage their careers. They assist folks in figuring out the next the career move, and what skills they will need in order to get there.”

   “As a leader it is my responsibility to ensure we’re focused on the right things. It’s also my team’s responsibility to notice those things and bring them to my attention. I see myself as a facilitator, hiring and bringing together a group of people that can do the job well.”

   “I give folks the space to have private discussions with me; ones that stay private. They can have verbal diarrhea and we move on. Folks need a place to vent. And they need a sounding board to help them decide what to do about the tough stuff.”

   “Our staff works hard, long hours. This is not unusual for start-ups. We don’t have the luxury of a lull following intense periods of work so folks can relax a bit. We know this is unsustainable for the long term. Fortunately, employees are committed to our company. They understand how important it is for us to get a footing in the marketplace. We make it advantageous to them to indulge us this way.”

   “We are still growing our management staff and helping them to learn. We’re not perfect. But we realize what’s important and are working on it.”

   “Some of our leaders are able to delegate the work, trust staff, and let go. Others are still learning. They still get enmeshed in the details. They still micromanage. That’s a bad thing. They are learning not to because it leaves folks feeling less empowered.”

CORRECTIVE PRACTICES: COACHING NEW BEHAVIORS AND BEYOND

   “Resistance to change can work against getting better. I was at a company that wanted to implement big upgrades at a customer support center. The change would eventually make the work easier. But there was a lot to do to get there. There was incredible resistance. You heard, ‘Everything is working. Why do we need to change it?’ Finally, one manager decided he was going to champion the change. He drove it through. He wasn’t autocratic. He sat down and explained why it was a good idea and people listened to him. After the fact, folks expressed how much they appreciated that he took that role and made the change happen.”

   “It goes back to a story I heard from a management expert years ago. He used that children’s story Green Eggs and Ham to describe the change process. ‘The guy is chasing Sam I am, encouraging him to eat the green eggs and ham. Sam I am resists. Says he doesn’t want it. The other fellow keeps trying to persuade him. Sam I am keeps resisting. . . . Finally, he’s worn down and tries it. And loves it.’ This can be your change management bible. You have to be persistent and consistent.”

   “If folks try to dominate the conversation and don’t accept feedback and change in response, they’re eventually left off the team. We may bring them in as experts, hear their ideas, ask questions, brainstorm with them. But they won’t be permanent team members.”

   “Regarding folks hoarding information, you just have to say, ‘Look, that will not be tolerated. If you continue to do it, maybe there isn’t a good fit for you in this organization.’ That’s a key part of management’s job.”

   “When it isn’t working, sometimes we just have to let folks go.”

SHARED GOALS ARE INDISPENSABLE

A number of Silicon Valley interviewees that I spoke with emphasized the importance of shared goals. A few of those comments were included in the previous excerpts.

Most employees in large organizations can give you an example of a time when conflicting goals between teams hindered them from being successful. For instance, one group believes in working on a product until there are virtually zero errors in it while another group places more importance on speedy delivery of the product to customers. Or the mismatched goals might be based on underlying differences in values.

Consider a case in which two groups work together to issue permits for new roads. One group values wider roads and narrower boulevards to aid traffic flow. The other places greater importance on wider boulevards and narrower streets for pedestrian appeal. If these two disparate goals are not sufficiently dealt with upfront, they can prevent the work from moving forward efficiently.

Sometimes the mismatched goals are set by leaders. When that’s the case, employees need to bring the conflict to the attention of management as soon as it’s realized. Quite often, managers will not be aware that they’ve created this problem. If there is a reason that those goals need to remain in place, then the leaders and staff can work together and figure out how to avoid the conflict.

At other times, mismatched goals are created by the groups themselves rather than being decided by management. When this happens, it’s ideal if those groups can work it out between themselves. If that isn’t possible then they need to involve leaders because it can thwart the project’s success.

Having shared goals creates shared ownership and increases the willingness of groups to work together to find joint solutions. Shared goals between groups that need to work together is a start but isn’t sufficient to ensure success in and of themselves. You need more. People also have to buy into the notion that they’re all on the same team.

THERE IS NO PERFECT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Some people believe that the most effective solution to resolve collaboration problems is to require groups that need to work together to all report to the same manager. That solution is based on the belief that if groups are not working together well, then a common boss can require them to collaborate or solve the problems for them. But that’s not a great solution, especially for companies that have more than a few hundred employees. When you are dealing with so many people it is physically impossible to have them all report to one person. It undermines the goal of managers having only as many direct reports as they can effectively coach and work with. It also undermines the notion of stable reporting relationships.

Let’s consider the example of a product development project. Effective development usually involves bringing together employees from design, engineering, manufacturing, operations, sales, and marketing. If your company has a product-based organizational structure, then that structure could potentially allow all of the employees assigned to that project to report to one manager. But when a project is completed it is common for employees to be split up and moved to different projects. If your goal is to group employees that are working on a project under the same management, then you will have to continually change the reporting structure to adjust to those moves. That would impose instability on working relationships between employees and their manager. And still, that only works for the product development projects.

What about other part-time projects employees work on simultaneous with their product development work? Some of those employees might also be working on a project to redesign employee benefits. Other employees from that product development group might be assigned to a project to improve customer service. It is impossible to have all the employees working together on a project report to the same manager when employees work on multiple projects.

Almost every Silicon Valley leader I spoke with agreed that organizational structure cannot be the mechanism depended upon to resolve differences. Instead, the solution is to have a flatter organizational structure in which managers operate more as facilitators and coaches, and where leaders work together among themselves and with a host of groups to ensure that the work is accomplished. When this happens, then the inevitable challenges that arise can be mediated by the employees themselves or by managers that they might or might not report to.

SENIOR LEADERS OPERATING AS ONE UNIFIED TEAM

The top management team of a company needs to run the business together, rather than making decisions exclusively for their teams and lobbying for what will most benefit the groups they manage. When that top management team is indeed a primary team, working together to evaluate, make decisions, provide resources for, and sponsor key initiatives, they further the goals of the whole company. If instead, they are more concerned with maximizing the success of their own business unit, it will create a culture of adversity and internal competitiveness. And it will be impossible to get employees at lower levels to act differently.