"Visualize the organization as a body of knowledge, with each member contributing. As a collection of knowledge these pieces of expertise can do little to fulfil the organization's mandate or potential. Only when they are connected do they become purposeful."

Leslie Bendaly - Organization 2000

Imagine the following scenario. We have an attractive product / service line in a rapidly expanding market, characterized by many small competitors but no serious leader. The Company is well established, led by the founding entrepreneur with a stable core of dedicated staff in every area - marketing/sales through engineering, production, customer service, administration and human resources.

Current business volumes are healthy and there are several very interesting expansion opportunities to be explored. While there's a need to increase management bench-strength, there's a clear vision and burning desire to succeed. The strategy is clear - a General Manager is needed who will take responsibility for current operations, freeing up the President to investigate and implement longer term options.

The President meets such a person. He has industry experience, excellent credentials, large organization exposure, an affable personality and is both intelligent and mature. From the start, there's an apparent buy-in to the challenges and an acceptance of accountability for the role to be played. The 'chemistry' feels right, experts are consulted and the decision is made.

Following a short 'honeymoon' period, which included many demonstrations of the 'preferred style' of operation, a number of searching discussions on opportunities-in-general, intended focus, priorities and related objectives, authority for day-to-day operations was formally transferred from the President to the new General Manager.

Serious problems were evident from the start. Needed action was slow, sporadic and erratic. Many 'mis-communications' occurred along the way, and style differences and 'personality conflicts' arose too frequently. As a result there were incremental interventions on the part of the President, an erosion of vested authorities, several embarrassing confrontations and considerable frustration on both sides.

Reconciliation of individual issues was attempted, together with weekly 'pep talks' and the realignment of priorities. The downward trend continued and escalated. The final outcome, as you might guess, was separation, the loss of an investment conservatively estimated at sixty thousand dollars plus, an unquantifiable measure of staff disillusionment. What went wrong?

The President's perspective centered on some agonizing questions:

Did we hire the right person? Is it possible to know who the 'right person' would be? Can anyone make the transition from a large corporate culture to a smaller, entrepreneurial culture successfully? Is it possible to change an impersonal, 'autocratic' style of management to a people-centered, 'democratic' style? Is my leadership style the problem?

The General Manager had an alternate perspective, perhaps no less valid:

Was the job misrepresented? Did the organization really know what it was asking for? Why would key staff not adapt to the professed need for change and growth? Why would the President subvert my role? Didn't they expect me to be different? Isn't that why they hired me?

What are five things that could have averted this 'tragedy'?

• Preparation of objective Position Specifications for the position at the outset

There's always a danger, for entrepreneurs particularly, to 'trust their gut' when it comes to matching people to roles. In the early stages this works well, and if it doesn't we never get to hear about it. When the organization reaches a certain size, with significant vested interests among key people, a more rational approach is needed. There's no 'right' answer, only an acceptable one. Agreement must be reached on both hard / objective, and soft / subjective criteria for the role so that each key person can relate to the costs and benefits implicit in the appointment of an 'outsider' in a pivotal role.

• Commitment of current key staff to both GM concept and candidate

The next logical step is for ownership in the execution of the decision. Acceptance of the concept is not enough to assure commitment. This is achieved through active participation in the selection and subsequent integration activities by all those whose interests are affected. Frequent feedback, open dialogue and frank expressions of opinions are essential at this stage. There can be no 'hidden agenda' left unexplored.
The acid test is always, "What is the impact / benefit on the organization as a whole?"

• A free flowing Orientation period with ongoing 'proving' and feedback

Once there's agreement on the best person for the job, the challenge is to integrate this person into the organization as effectively as possible. The process here is assimilation not replacement, merging not take-over, consensus building rather than conversion one way or the other. As the integration is affected, the resultant new positions need to be 'proved' or accepted as viable and valuable. The integration process certainly will not be comfortable, for all traumatic growth creates discomfort and even pain. Discomfort cannot be suppressed, it must be resolved.

• Negotiation of an explicit Mandate - a license to act - before 'hand-over'.

In any pivotal role, there has to be freedom to act. Progress is not possible if there are tight restraints or protective devices to safeguard feelings or interests. Clear Objectives (deliverables) are defined within the agreed-upon Scope of activities for the role, and resources and limitations are set for their accomplishment. Finally, Timelines and Reporting strategies are negotiated. This creates a Mandate - 'tram-lines' within which the person can exercise a reasonable degree of autonomy in pursuit of the Objectives.

• Introduction of a Performance Management strategy with regular Status reporting.

There are always four vital perspectives that attend delegated authority, namely the Health of the organization, the Growth being achieved, the current Critical Issues and the nature of any Initiatives being taken. A Status / Variance Report format that includes the expected performance, the actual performance and the corrective Action Plans where needed is set up and sustained. Detailed discussions can focus on those items in the Report that warrant such, and other less sensitive matters can be safely left alone. This avoids the age-old specter of 'micro-management' to the benefit of all.

For more detail and practical help, please visit our Website and/or call us at (519) 766 1178. We would be pleased to discuss, constructively, your particular concerns and challenges.