Are you struggling with dissatisfied people or a dissatisfying process?

I was recently asked to perform an “attitude intervention” for a group of VERY unhappy Federal employees.  The process began like a James Patterson novel with all the evidence pointing to a single culprit.  Team members consistently used words like hurtful, demeaning, belittling, blame, fear, reprisal, micromanaging, dishonest, inconsistent, unapproachable, controlling, forgetful, favoritism and defensive to describe their work experience.  They were without exception absolutely certain of the source of all their problems, the Boss.  No, not Bruce Springsteen, but someone they were sure whose “Glory Days” had long since passed and they had no “Reason to Believe” it was going to get any better.  But was this really a problem with a single errant manager or are these symptoms of a larger systemic problem?  More importantly are these same issues present in your organization?

In the interest of full disclosure I need to reveal that immediately upon completion of our final day of training it was decided that my services would no longer be needed.  Both myself and the senior manager in charge would need to be looking for new employment.  Several layers up the chain of command a new sheriff (not really an official of law enforcement) had been brought back from retirement to get things under control.  Though I did not talk to him directly it was conveyed to me that my plans for increasing autonomy, encouraging engagement and promoting mastery were not appropriate for “Blue Collar Employees”.

 I would suggest that every employee, regardless of age, experience, or the color of their collar, deserves the opportunity to do what they do best every day.  If we are to upgrade our leadership to match the realities expressed in science we must abandon the antiquated organizational pyramids of the past in favor of systems that move authority to the front line value adding zone.

 “The systems we have are perfectly designed for the results we are getting.”

The problems I observed in this office and so many others are not people problems they are process problems.  This is not to say that there are not serious personal issues at play, but they have been created because of a process that rewards misbehavior.  When team members are given no control of their time, tasks, teams or techniques, the only outlet they have for expression is temperament – and the temperament that gets the most attention is an ugly one. 

People solutions to process issues are temporary at best 

It is easy to blame people.  Given the proper motivation we can catch even the purest among us doing something wrong.  What could be easier?  Take a tiny slip out of context, blow it all out of proportion conjuring up images of malicious intent or pernicious incompetence and voila – you have a perfectly persecuted patsy.  No fuss no muss and there is still time for lunch.

What you know DOES blind you

In this case the evidence was irrefutable.  Senior management knew the problem firsthand as they had each done the job in question themselves.   Bosses, bosses’ bosses, and even the bosses above that all had done this job before.  It was simply a process of elimination.  The jobs were the same; the employees were just newer better-paid versions of what had been there when they were in charge.   So why are there so many unhappy people?    It must be the manager.  “Off with his head!” as the Red Queen would say in Alice in Wonderland.  Problem solved.

 Is there a variable that was overlooked?

Are people really the same?  I would suggest that these are the same misperceptions that have led to recent uprisings in Syria, China, Egypt, Russia and our own Occupy movement.  The world is a different place and the people in it are nothing like those of yesteryear.   The top down pyramids of the past were designed not for engagement but obedience in a time when creativity was an exclusive franchise for the fortunate few and unquestioned authority a symbol of power and superiority.

The problems are systemic

Current systems are designed by those in positions of power to keep them in positions of power.  Current leaders are responsible for selecting those that will follow in their footsteps.  There are committees involved and plenty of well intentioned checks and balances, but based on results these systems don’t enhance accountability – they dilute it.

I do not disagree that there should be teams evaluating potential supervisors.  I do think it would be helpful to evaluate both the composition and authority of those involved in the process.  Here are seven problems I see with having leaders select their successors:

 1)    Who among us is self assured enough to want to select someone that will do markedly better than we had done in the same role?

 2)   None of us is even capable of seeing the extent to which we delude ourselves.  We all lie all the time, and the person we are best at lying to is ourselves.

 3)   There are almost 100 biases listed by Wikipedia, each that distort our perception of reality.  None of us see the complete picture and the shortcuts we take inhibit our ability to see potential options.

 4)   The most difficult addiction to overcome is the habit of doing the wrong things well.

 5)   Those in leadership positions are often farthest from the work being performed and therefore the least equipped to assess the need for process improvement.

 6)   Top down decision making increases the value of a limited number of positions which stimulates unhealthy and often dishonest competition while creating unnecessary layers of control.

 7)   Sustainable transformation in any organization cannot come from the top down or outside in, but must come from within the culture itself.  The team must want to solve their own problems.

As you consider new leaders maybe it is time to consider a new role for leaders.  There was a time, and there are still moments when an authoritarian style of leadership is accepted, even effective; but as an organizational process it is counterproductive at best.

 Daniel Pink in his latest book Drive, The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us sites three preeminent needs necessary to creating high performing teams.  Those are Mastery, Autonomy and Relatedness.   I would suggest that none of those are adequately supported in a narrowly defined, strictly controlled hierarchical process.

 Leadership is not a privilege but a solemn responsibility to employees, shareholders, customers, community and the world at large.  Each employee deserves the opportunity to do what they do best every day.