Responsibility Virus (2)

We looked at some of the problems with responsibility - both in terms of how they are conceptualized in the book 'The Responsibility Virus' and in terms of our own experiences at Space Database. In this post we will examine some possible solutions and ways in which we are designing our organization to better deal with delegation and the assumption of responsibility at various levels.

A major problem that Martin points out is that we do not have a nuanced enough language to talk about responsibility. Either I'm in charge or you are. One or the other. A better approach would be to see responsibility as several shades of grey rather than black or white.

It seems to be human nature to go to one extreme or the other. But if we recognize that responsibility can be negotiated and shared, then there is an opportunity for the over-responsible to develop effective delegation and training by moving a few steps down the scale. There is opportunity for growth and development for the under-responsible to try to move up one or more steps.

How does this apply to the way that we manage projects? We have designed a system whereby there is a cascading set of decisions and responsibilities. We do not try to micromanage every individual on one hand and we do not expect each employee to be entirely autonomous on the other hand. We have tried to match responsibility with the level of information and the degree of control that each individual has.

Starting at the lowest level of detail, we have the consultant or surveyor who is working on one project. This consultant is responsible to fulfill a specific scope of work, but has the freedom to plan and schedule their own tasks. They are expected to report accurate projections on the completion of the work and to provide regular updates on their projects. We provide time management training and tools to help these individuals plan their time efficiently and calculate accurate expected durations.

Information from the consultant allows a project manager to plan and allocate resources for the production of many different jobs. With accurate projections and status information, the project manager can plan work in the most efficient way and allocate new work to consultants at a rate that will neither under or over utilize each consultants time.

With an accurate assessment of the status of all projects, our weekly production meetings gives us all a clear overview of what is happening in all areas of the company and we are able to do higher level reallocation and reprioritization of work based on client requirements and expectations. These meetings also provide valuable feedback to the sales teams not only on the performance and profitability of the various projects but also information on the production pipeline. When will we need more work? When are we available to start new projects? Based on discussions in the production meeting, project managers have a clear idea of what their production priorities have to be.

Effective production meetings provide essential information to plan the longer term strategy of the company. Which areas of the business should be expanded? Where do we need more resources? What direction should we go in. Formulation of a clear strategy provides a guideline for priorities and resource allocations that are made in the production meetings.

In this model choices are made at every level of the organization. People make decisions in the areas where they have the best information and are able to select the most efficient options. A good flow of accurate and meaningful information up through the organization supports decision making at higher levels. Responsibility is evenly distributed and people are empowered to act.

So this is our vision. As with any grand scheme, it is not yet perfect or fully implemented, but I believe we are all starting to see and feel the benefits.

I have developed a power point presentation on our decision making process that I would be happy to share with you. For further reading please refer to Martin's book. It also has a website:

http://www.responsibilityvirus.com/

Responsibility Virus

Do these scenarios sound familiar?

• You have a colleague who is a micro manager. This person tries to do everything themselves or tries to get others to do everything their way. They don't listen to advice. They overwork and complain that they get to help or support. They become increasingly stressed and finally burn out completely.


• You have a colleague who seems to avoid decisions. They seem to lack confidence and defer to others. They seem to be working below their potential and suffer from low self esteem.
  

It turns out that these behaviours are not only related but mutually support each other. There's a book written on the subject by Roger Martin, the dean of the business school at the University of Toronto.
There are a lot of problems described in this book that I recognize in our company. And there are several very good solutions suggested. I will outline the basic concepts here and then describe some of the ways we are implementing the ideas to be more effective and productive.

The book is based on concepts of psychology and clinical studies of human behaviour as well as the authors many years as both a manager and business consultant. The main problem is that when people are faced with problems - with the risk of failure, they will jump to one extreme behaviour or the other. On one hand they will try to take on too much responsibility and try to fix everything. On the other hand they may back off and take little or no responsibility and wait for someone else to fix the problem. The same person may act one way in one situation and another way the next.

Martin argues that the way we react to the threat of failure depends on our governing values. Our desire to maintain control, avoid embarrassment, stay rational and our need to win will drive us to respond in one of these extreme ways:

1. Assume minimal responsibility - avoid responsibility almost completely


2. Assume singular responsibility - take on all the responsibility
   

Both of these reactions eventually result in failure.
Under responsibility lets the situation slide out of control. Avoiding Responsibility assures failure.

1. Over responsibility eventually overwhelms the individual. Ironically, trying to avoid failure through assuming responsibility will lead to failure.


2. Wounded by the sting of failure, the common reaction is to apply the opposite strategy in the next situation - the behaviour becomes cyclical.
   

The situation works within one individual and also between individuals. People influence each other. If one individual takes on responsibility, others will immediately relinquish it. If someone steps back from responsibility, someone else will take over.

Conventional thinking tells us that we are either in charge or we are not. We are either leading or we are following. Conventional thinking leads to the disproportionate allocation of responsibility and inevitably to failure.

At Space Database we have struggled with this. How do we foster a sense of responsibility? As the company has grown it has been harder to 'manage' the work in the office. We tried implementing an additional level of management to oversee production. This lead to a classic example: a production manager took on more and more responsibility and work while other staff stepped back and allowed themselves to be micro managed. The manager burnt himself out while productivity fell and deadlines slipped. We all came down with a bad case of the Responsibility Virus.

In the next post I will outline some of the ways we are trying to manage differently and to delegate responsibility more effectively.