Managing Up

We can all see ourselves through a variety of lenses. We are a son or daughter. We may be a sibling. We could be a parent and/or aunt or uncle. In the same way as there are a plethora of roles we can hold within a family, our work life has comparable multi-dimensionality. As a supervisor or manager of people we are a boss, an underling, a lateral rank coworker, and a colleage from a different department to different people within our company. Our communication style is different and the degree of professionalism or candor we exhibit are throttled based upon which role we are inhabiting in each particular interaction. While these psychological gymnastics occur daily without any conscious effort or awareness for most people, mapping out all of these behavioral modifications and emotional variations for one individual - let alone an entire organization - would be a daunting task. I don't believe Neuralink technology is quite there, but I foresee that type of technology being integrated with Microsoft Teams to track and analyze the enterprise's emotional ecosystem in the future.

Now let's shift away from the psychological element of the workplace and jump into the tactical. Just as priorities are different for us in different family roles, they differ with each work role as well. Each of us tends to have a default role that is our primary work identity and where our thinking is generally centered. We are creatures of habit and it is only natural that we develop blindspots in areas that are lower priority and for whatever reason unlikely to be brought to our attention by coworkers. Everyone is vulnerable to this as nobody has infinite presence of mind or hours in their day. Our boss is just as human as we are, therefore will have their own blindspots dependent upon which areas of the business they must prioritize. As their advocate and supporter, we have an opportunity to shine in this regard.

Time and again we will inevitably notice on our own or catch a whisper in the wind of some area of concern that a coworker feels our superior is not paying sufficient attention to. Before taking action or bringing the issue to anyone, our duty is to first analyze. Consider how this backburner issue fits into the ecosystem of activities and priorities of the business. Who or what are being impacted by ignoring this issue? What positive changes could result from a more proactive approach? Who would be responsible for the additional work? Answering these questions effectively requires a systems-thinking approach.

A useful tool in applying systems thinking is the book Thinking In Systems: A Primer which posthumously extrapolates upon work in the field of systems dynamics by Donella Meadows. A core concept the reader will take away is that behaviors of a system are intrinsic to the system itself as opposed to being the result of an external force acting upon it. In the context of the management of our business operations, this tells us that an issue which has historically lived on the backburner and not been a concern worth discussing in meetings or being addressed by our superiors is likely not a gross oversight by upper management. The system has been functioning without requiring a dramatic push for improved efficiency in that area. I would not recommend attempting to change any part of the system to address this issue without first consulting your superior. If there is no indication that the issue is of vital importance, you could do more harm than good if unintended consequences of your moves negatively impact a key area of the business.

If the blindspot issue is not longstanding but rather has recently surfaced after the launch of a top-down organizational transformation initiative or any change to the system of business activies and responsibilities, it is more likely that you will have a duty to take action. When a system grows or changes, roles and responsibilities will be adjusted. The prior planning is not expected to provide a perfect blueprint for exactly how things will settle out. The transitional period will involve everyone working as a team to call out and assign responsibility for gaps in management coverage which emerge. While at least a handful of moving parts are still in the air your primary tool will be communication and collaboration. In times of adjustment, be vigilant of your own assumptions. New lines are being drawn with regards to who is responsible for what. These changes need to be formally called out in order to prevent redundancy as well as things slipping through the cracks.

You may have worked at a facility where there was a large banner with a slogan to remind all who would see it of an exciting new corporate strategy roll-out - maybe even coffee mugs and t-shirts to match. The banner and merch are meant to help the corporate mission trickle down to the lowest levels of the organization. The difference between the lowest levels of the company feeling sincerely inspired by the messaging or feeling that it is merely the latest empty justification by the C-suite to congratulate themselves lies in the coherence of the organization.

The typical supervisor or manager operates in a silo caught up in the weeds of day-to-day activities. They are not thinking about the company's high level strategy and how each of their actions relates to it. This is due to a lack of organizational coherence. Harvard Business Review Press' groundbreaking book The Essential Advantage: How to Win with a Capabilities-driven Strategy by Paul Leinwand and Cesare Mainardi lays out the undeniable value or organizational coherence and the cost of incoherence. To achieve coherence, an organization must identify its key capabilities and determine which capabilities fit together as a system to make up the company's unique way to play in the market and thereby provide them with a "right to win". The core idea is that any activities which do not support the chosen capabilities system are sources of organizational incoherence and weaken the organization in the long-term. For example, if a company has a red herring division that is profitable but does not fit into the core capabilities system, it is a threat to their organizational coherence and is better off being sold to a company where the capabilities align - then investing the proceeeds into further focusing and strengthening its core capabilities system.

You are likely not a top-level executive in your company and may be feeling that this type of thinking is irrelevant to the people in the field who are busy getting the real work done. The dismissal of and eye-rolling toward high-level objectives is exactly what prevents the objective from being fully realized. It is often not a purposeful act of insubordination or rebellion when the lower ranks dismiss what they perceive as expensive lip service probably intended to impress investors and appease out-of-touch HR executives. I assure you that the CEO and top-executives who authored these lofty objectives sincerely mean to inspire every level of employee and unite the entire organization. But consider the logistics of the CEO personally meeting with and selling the ideas to each unit of employees. Not only would this be a major undertaking, it would not be as meaningful as employees hearing it from someone they know and trust on a personal level. Imagine a celebrity endorsing the company mission and then imagine your father or a trusted mentor explaining it to you. That is the difference and why you - the leader who your people know personally and trust in their daily life - have more power to influence your direct reports and coworkers than the top executives. This reality must be recognized and communicated down every level of management from the C-suite to the boots on the ground. Each manager has to interpret what the high-level objectives mean for their department and communicate it to their teams. Not one time and then back to business as usual. We have a duty to embody it and weave it into discussions and assignments to consistently lead our people in a direction that makes the entire organization coherent.

If every manager hands out the slogan-branded merch and then goes back to business as usual, operating their department as a silo, there can be no organization-wide coherence. No amount of breathtaking presentations or visits from the CEO will bring coherence without managers at every level taking the initiative to lead their team accordingly. Coherence on a large scale is what makes a company great and what makes regular working-class people proud to be a part of a company. It is the commitment to lead and not merely manage that sparks a fire in the hearts of a team. Anyone at any level of a company has the ability to ignite a torch that transforms a work team from "just a job" into a powerful source of purpose and meaning that they are proud of.

....

The modes of communication between different levels of an organization may seem like entirely different languages to someone who is only familiar with their own level. Technicians and others directly in the field have slang and industry-specific jargon for the tools, equipment, and techniques they work with daily. The supervisors and managers they report to are familiar enough with the technician jargon to automatically interpret it into formal descriptions they will use to communicate with the suppliers and consultants they deal with. Another level up, the upper management speaks in terms of financials, strategic alignment, and sales projections.

The upper management and the techs in the field have very different work and therefore very different ways of communicating and solving their work problems. As the supervisor or manager between, we have the critical role of translating in both directions. The direction and strategy determined by the upper management and business leaders must be the compass that guides the technicians. However, the techs cannot be expected to understand how the upper management planning specifically applies to their day-today activity. It is the responsibility of the supervisor or manager of the technical experts to understand how the company objectives determine the work of the technicians and to communicate it to them in their style of communication.

In the same way, the upper managers who have the duty to control finances cannot be expected to differentiate between various options of tools or equipment needed by the technicians. A blind approach may be to simply buy the cheapest option or to go with the most expensive in hopes of delaying investing in another replacement as long as possible. However, the correct method is for the technicians - who understand the tool or equipment most intimately - to share their opinions with their direct supervisor. Then the supervisor can balance the value of each option with budgetary considerations and the impact it will have on productivity and communicate the decision they believe is best for the company to the upper management.