| I think you'll find that if you look below the surface you'll find
that a lot of decision-making is taking place at all levels, all
the time.
A little bit further below the surface, you'll also see that what's
being decided upon is a lot of nonsense that's easy to discuss:
alternatives that do not consume (or consume equally) scarce resources
such as time, money, and staff.
When it comes to hard decisions with real costs and hard decisions
that will make or break personal careers, don't look for these to
flow easily. Accountability is foreign to DEC's culture.
Your employment in a big company like Digital is essentially
contradictory: we have the necessary bureaucratic, foot-dragging
structure of a FORTUNE 100 company, with a "bet the ranch" tradition
represented in the near-mythic founder. There ought to be prizes
awarded to people who can identify entrepreneurial activity within
the corporation, much less succeed in such a venture.
|
| From a very good book on management style: (triggered by Pat's comments
on accountability in Digital)
"You can't talk about leadership without talking about responsibility
and accountability; as far as I'm concerned, you can't separate the
two. A leader must delegate responsibility and provide the freedom
to make decisions, and then be held accountability for the results.
It seems simple enough, but leadership often runs into roadblocks
right from the outset. Frequently it's the fault of the person
who delegates. That's because he does it with his fingers crossed.
He goes through the ritual of delegating but he just can't let go.
Perhaps he has second thoughts about the decision, or maybe he's
afraid that he's weakened his own power base. Whatever the reason,
he intends to keep an eye on things. Soon he is breathing down
the neck of his newly appointed manager, scruntinizing every action,
criticizing every decision, allowing little or no room for expression
or experiment. He renders his manager helpless and then holds them
accountable for the results. The poor guy doesn't have a chance.
He stops trying to be innovative, and by not exercising his authority,
returns the decsionmaking to his boss. He becomes an implementer,
which is probably what he was before his promotion. The people
who work under this manager know that he's powerless - and they
resent it. They want to work for a winner. His promotion may have
added something to his paycheck, but it can never be enough for
what it cost him in self-esteem and peace of mind. He was victim
of the "captain of the ship" syndrome, in which the person at the
top assumes all the responsibility."
I've seen more and more of the "captain of the ship" syndrome in
the field over the past 5 to 6 years. Our management style seems
to be separating responsibility and accountability.
The book quoted without permission? "THE IBM WAY" by Buck Rogers.
I am reading it based on good comments here or in MARKETING. It
is indeed an excellent book. A bit selfserving for both Mr. Rogers
and IBM but very well worth your time.
Don
|
| At least in the field, Digital's management style has NOTICABLY
become more authoritative, more top-down. As a matter of fact,
as a manager interviews for higher-level management positions, his/her
authoritative style is one of the most important positive points
to help him/her get the job.
This has come about in the past, say, two years or so. A district
manager, for example, used to run a district EXACTLY the way he saw fit
within certain loose guidelines. At the end of the year,
accountability was measured in numbers. Since Digital management in my
opinion was exceptionally good, this worked extremely well. Good
managers were allowed the freedom to be good managers.
Now we are handed down even the most mundane decisions. What training
do my people get? Not my decision. How do I plan that training? Not
my decision. How do I track my numbers? Not my decision. How do I
spend my time? Not my decision. Who's the best person to assign to a
specific task? Not my decision. Etc., etc., etc.
I'm not in a position to judge this trend, at least not publicly.
But it IS there, noticably, visibly there.
Pat
|