Making Tracks

My previous post challenged two assumptions: that career progression equals (management) promotion, and the division between labor and management. I wondered: What could be possible if we changed the existing paradigms?

Every group of people trying to achieve something together needs leaders who have the interest, talent and skills that are not readily found in a single individual: the abilities to think strategically and tactically; the skill to communicate to a wide range of people; the talent to solve problems analytically and creatively; the skills to coach and develop others; the ability to shape work, communicate it, and monitor it; the skill to hold others accountable and celebrate their successes with sincerity; the ability to be self-critical and the humility to own up to failures and learn from them; a sincere and passionate interest in the needs of others.  Additionally, managers must also possess credible technical knowledge in the areas in which they work.. Although none of these abilities are rare in themselves, they are not commonly found altogether in a single person – and yet, these are surely the minimum requirements of managers.

That’s a tall order. Now think of how many of these super-talented people a business needs. Using the typical division of labor thinking, every work group (departmental shift) needs a manager.  This could be 10% - 20% of the workforce, even if this set of skills weren’t resident in, for instance, 10% of a given population.

This is the point at which businesses begin to loosen standards, and promote into management roles some people who should not be managers, due to their lack of interest in the required work, misapplied talents, or undeveloped skills. This is the path taken to the Peter Principle, even though we know it’s a path we don’t want to tread.

What if we didn’t have a category of workers called ‘managers?’ If we were making a completely new organizational design, we could unbundle all of those attributes listed above, and add in all of the attributes and responsibilities that the business requires in order to function and thrive. It could look something like this:

Supplier relationships	Customer relationships	Order processing	After-sales service	Product selection
Product analysis	Sales analysis	Process analysis	Work design	Scheduling
Process monitoring	Internal communications	Internal feedback	Coaching	Strategic design

If we removed the limitations imposed by the organizational chart and its salary structures, we could then consider what skills could be bundled into individual jobs, and how we could group those jobs into meaningful work groups and structural relationships.  Roles that require the scarcest talents and skills, and those that make the most significant contributions would be most highly compensated.

In the end, we may still have some manager roles, and some leadership roles – the point is not to get rid of these roles but to loosen our thinking from traditional assumptions. We may also discover a way to create non-management roles that are equal to management track roles in their potential to fulfill and reward. The exercise could enable us to adopt something of an artisan model, in which individuals hone craftsman-like skills within a business context.

A more incremental approach is to consider alternatives to management when you think of the exceptional employees who work for you. If you manage people because of your interest in helping others achieve their goals, you probably give a lot of thought to those outstanding employees who make your department and your company great.  If the employee is clearly interested in and has the native talents to move into a management role, your task is a familiar one: give the employee the training and opportunity to develop necessary skills, and select for management progression those who prove proficiency. If the employee is a terrific performer but lacks the interest or talents necessary for management, challenge yourself to consider how you can provide financial rewards and skill development within the context of that individual’s interests and passions.

In the traditional corporate mindset, management is highly valued because managers define value. In an artistic or artisan mindset, craft rather than management is valued (hence the natural tension in the business of the arts).  Placing a value on the individual’s talents and skills, and discovering ways the individual can best make use of them, could open up untold possibility for individual and corporate fulfillment.