Search for control dispersion nodes (how to stop doing stupid work and transfer it to another)
It happens that the decision is not executed. Or it is performed so enchantingly that no one would undertake the task at all. It happens in any company, and, of course, it happens so regularly with us. The task was to reduce the number of such situations on important projects.
Why can everything go through the ass? First of all, because the decision was developed by a person who had no competence, authority, or simply was not supported by those who will implement it all. That is, even if the decision is three times correct - it is necessary that at least the performers understand its correctness.
It often happens that there are not enough pieces of power or responsibility. And here, in the tenth year of the company's development, we suddenly found a working model in order to understand right away what is missing. That is also the same mess, but a little less.
So we drove to grandfather Itzhak Adizes. He has a whole university of management. I must say that this was not the first university of management that we met, but it was there that we were given both the theory and practical tools. Because enough to do everything on the knee, there is a scientific organization of labor, and Adizes is its prophet. Taking into account the overwhelming level of pathos, all this really gave religion, but as it turned out - it works. At least, in comparison with what we had.
So, in theory, we need a thing called CAPI - it’s a group of power, authority, and authority. In a small and (as we already have) medium-sized business, this capital is usually owned by the founder. In a sense, he can create what he wants, for the needs of his black soul. And it makes no sense to be offended: this is his grandmother, and even if he didn’t take into account someone’s opinion, let him squander and have fun. Everything that he decides is always iron-based at least by this fact. The founder can not be wrong due to the nature of the organism.
And then there are two problems:
- First, when the decision comes down to a lower level, disputes begin. Yes, within the unit, the unit manager can do what he wants. But with a project that affects two teams, the graters begin. And there is no one who can make a final decision ...
- ... so everyone is running over the top with all the more or less significant questions. That is, the decision-making infrastructure receives the wheel and spokes architecture with an irreplaceable central hub.
He is the point of failure. It is also the “bus” (in our case, “motorcycle”) factor. In Russian practice, this is called the “brick factor” - it is determined by how many people in a company need to throw a brick on the head so that this company cannot continue to exist.
In the “all run through the top” model, one such brick is enough.
The second question is related to repetitive processes. There are two ways not to do stupid repetitive work:
- Write a script and then support it stupidly and repeatedly.
- Or entrust this work to someone who is able to do it, and at the same time his time is worth the least.
The script is often expensive because the time of the people who write it is expensive. In addition, there are many non-repetitive or non-algorithmic tasks for which a person is needed. He must choose.
This is exactly what the decision-making model looks like. Poeticly, it sounds "the decision is made as close as possible to the client." In terms of economics - with the minimum cost of time of the participants. Such participants, who have the minimum sufficient power, authority and competence to solve the problem.
With the theory decided. It remains to draw an owl!
The selection procedure is as follows.
Suppose there was a task in order to make a leaflet for the exhibition. We go to the most important thing - the founder. We say: will you make a flyer or delegate? He - what are you, stubborn? Of course, I delegate, I have a general distribution manager in control. We ask him: will you do it yourself or delegate? He is delegating, of course, I have the head of the corporate division, Anya, in submission. Anya delegates to the head of the design team Luba. Lyuba delegates this task to the coder. Maker: I have no one to delegate, so I will do. I can do anything you want, just give a technical assignment, photos and food.
That is, the man was found. A person needs three components that he cannot manufacture himself. For each of them, we run the same selection mechanics again. We go to the founder: you will do the TK? And so on.
As a result, it turns out that a warm company from a layout designer, a corporate department manager, a PR manager and a photographer can make a flyer. Please note that in this example, there is no leader anywhere who approves this leaflet. Because once he decided to delegate his piece of work to a subordinate, he trusts the result.
This is a rather unusual moment. It turned out that we also delegated incorrectly. More precisely, there was no methodology, and everything was done intuitively, and then it was shaken. When you assign someone a piece of work, you give two things:
- A responsibility
Powers are when a person has the right to make a decision. Responsibility is when he is fully responsible for the outcome of this decision.
That is, whatever result a subordinate brings you, you agree with him in advance. Otherwise, this is not a delegation, but joint work. I'm not saying that this is bad - it's just a little different. And in our chain "who will make a leaflet" would appear not your subordinate, but you personally. And you would answer personally (although everything is early for the actions of the subordinate you are responsible as a leader).
When you give someone authority, you must give not only the opportunity to say no, but yes. More precisely, at first you can delegate only “no”, but then, when a person does the job, you can give the right to “yes”.
If you play it safe, you get a person who knows why and when you have to refuse the project, but don’t know what you need to cling to and do. Because scary. We have always had the right to “yes” and the right to make a mistake in culture, but we passed it orally, and at some point something went wrong. I even have a chapter in the book about a damaged phone - ““ Not “Go to train ...”, but “Welcome” ”- how information is distorted during transmission”. Journalists love to quote her very much, this word is pleasantly warm. Here we also thought “welcome”, but in a number of cases it turned out different.
The watchman at the entrance to the building is afraid to let in extra people: he is not praised for being missed correctly, but is being scolded for those who have passed. An example is the security incident in Vnukovo, which did not allow the ambulance to the dying man to go outside the line.
The “no” right is always clear. The right to "yes" is more complicated. It’s like a lawyer who doesn’t say why you can’t do it, but how to do it correctly, and how much this service costs from the entertainment menu of the administrative code.
So, if you delegate to a person to make a decision, then this should be any decision. Including very scary positive ones. These are powers.
More need power and competence
The first of the remaining components is power. Power differs from authority in that authority is the right to do or not do something, and authority is an opportunity to make sure that the result will be done.
That is, when you address a person with a task, but for some reason he does not refuse you and does it well. We call it the two-carrot system, front and rear. For example, if the counterparty passed the project a week before the deadline - the premium. If later deadline - incomplete payment. By the way, works great for repair engineers and sites.
Part of the power is the right to punish and encourage for results. The second part of power is the ability to convince a person to help without engaging other levers, that is, authority.
When people come together in a project team, they have a formal leader. He is responsible for the result. In order for him to become a de facto leader, he needs real power. For this, it must be convincing enough, or it must have a bonus and a debuff for the execution or disruption of the project for everyone. Or give support to them. Or come up with something else.
The authority is much more effective than material incentives (after all, in the company everyone wants about one), therefore, we need a procedure for negotiating with the project team. About her separately later. The result - the project team works out a common solution and appoints the project manager as the dictator for the implementation.
The next important thing is competence.. That is the knowledge to make a decision. For example, here's the task: do we open all the games in the store in principle? And we open after the client directly asks - or just during the process of explanation?
From my point of view, we open everything, that is, each item in the store should be open (read, if there are 800 SKU in the store, then there will be approximately 700 units of markdowns). I can make this decision myself, but then the sellers will come to rest and will not open the games themselves when it is needed. And the buyer will be angry with me. So what I have to do is: find an experienced senior point to get a look from the store. Find a purchaser. Find someone else who can add information to the solution. And then use the mechanics of democracy.
Democracy is totalitarian democracy. The business term is somewhat different from the political. Decisions are made democratically by one person in the dispersion structure, and then executed totalitarian in a hierarchical one. Before making a decision, there is a procedure where everyone’s opinion is taken into account and entered into the decision. Or is this person clearly explained why it is not necessary to do so.
How can one make a decision democratically by one person? Oh, this is also a great invention of the scientific organization of labor. I really like the example of one builder who decided to dismiss his employee because he appeared drunk at the entrance. The whole brigade stood up for the guilty - everyone wanted his boss to "otmazats" and not apply the TC. Then he asked a simple question:
- We need two who will vouch for him. Come drunk again - I will deprive the prize.
Strange as it may seem, immediately the team from the “chief deer” stage passed to the constructive stage. And I realized that he would get drunk, and very quickly. And we must decide now.
The head is a dictator. But the voices of all could change the plot of the situation.
With the theory for now. We have learned to single out groups of people who, according to a separate project, can not run over the top, but negotiate among themselves. It remains to put them at the table and make sure that they do not kill each other. For this we need a practical tool for implementing these CAPI commands.
This story itself allows you to run small project teams between departments and divisions. And gives everyone the opportunity to influence the decision. And this is damn important when the company becomes big and continues to grow.