Paul, great that you took on an area as tough as the refuse collection and you clearly had a style that fitted well with the organisation.
The approach shown in the TV programme is a recklessly short-term one. Like you, I recommend to every organisation I work with first that they talk with their clients/customers and second that they communicate with their (frontline) staff. Like all good science that’s where the primary data comes from.
Like you I agree there is often good reason to trim management (and operational) processes to make them more efficient but your approach was reckless for 2 reasons.
1. It was reckless regarding the damage caused to individuals and their careers. Your approach drove one man into early retirement and who knows what the consequences of that are. (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/ocp-14-4-374.pdf)
2. The methods you used to move people out of their jobs were unorthodox (often a good thing) but it is surprising that Blaenau Gwent haven’t faced legal action for the way the process appears to have been handled.
What was most depressing about the approach was the one-sided nature of your consultancy. You asked front-line staff to vote on who should manage them, but what about asking the managers about who they want to manage. If you have worked with the public sector you will know that as well as the surplus-to-requirement managers, there are also many talented, dedicated managers who are trapped with ineffectual staff. The process to remove staff who add little to the organisation is often so expensive and time consuming that even very good managers will shy away from it.
I am all for big and bold approaches to improving work – as you say it’s not good enough for people to be doing jobs they hate for all their working lives. But in my view, it is also not good enough to be reckless with people’s lives and livelihoods, particularly when your research approach does not come from a point of equipoise. I’d love to hear the evidence for the approach you recommend.
I started with BGCBC over two years ago when the CEO invited me in to talk to the Senior Management (All of them, so the "oneside approach" comment does not stack up) as I do with all of my organisations.
This was NEVER about getting 'rid' of managers (people), only management (the thing they get paid to do). If you get frontline staff to realise that they know the job best, that they can change it to do things better, then the results are amazing. Despite the impression from the programme it took two to three months to gain trust from the staff (managers & Frontliners), to get them to understand they can change the ‘system’ and deliver a better service to the people of Blaenau Gwent.
I also have never come across the 'public' vote as I did with the mechanics. However, they wanted their vote to be 'captured' on TV something which I am sure you will agree I did try to dissuade. The man 'voted out' agreed to this process prior as did all the managers in an intensive 3 day session.
The ‘democratic leaders’ in my thinking and now in BGCBC, are capable of influencing other people to do things without actually sitting on top of them with a checklist. But all this requires trust, openness, communication, risk and creativity, which are founded on the leaders being from within the social network of the organisation.
My dislike for ‘management’ is nothing personal bytheway. It is about how we think about what management and managers are, and about how we act and behave in our role as manager, it is not the person. I attempt to realise this in my work and the development of an organisational architecture that accepts direction is needed in the organisation without causing harm to the people within. This was maintained throughout the programme.
You are correct in that senior managers were not replaced as one retired (it was a great opportunity for him to go with cuts looming), one left and wasn’t replaced right at the beginning, but his salary was used to hire 4 full time letter wardens and the same with others, although I accept a little was used to pay the frontline staff more, but this was to equal out injustices in the pay scales.
You also have to re-focus your approach as my work suggest we cannot be efficient in organisations only effective. If we like the Recycling and Binmen focus on this the savings almost always follows. But please don't be confused with people and managers. We keep people and stop this thing they do called management.
I have 'ranted' for several years now, changed 26 companies without charging a penny, that just tinkering with outdated, traditional organisations won't work. We must make organisations, human, less-mechanistic and allow talent at all levels to flourish.
I hope this helps, and thank you for taking time to respond. I appreciate the thoughtful debate.
dotherightthinguk - I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you there. I work for an immigration law firm, and we have also done employment cases as well.
My role there is to "manage" the resources, ie the fee earners, to whom I am subservient. As their clerk, I can keep their diaries, chase people who owe them money, negotiate their commercials, purchase office stationary and do the photocopying, but it is those resources who are in charge. Yes, I am the dogsbody.
I have also, for my sins, owned an IT business, leading from the floor, with a team who regularly pulled extremely long hours, including weekends, to deliver.
It was the fact that I worked with my team, the fact that I ensured that they had pizza in, when they needed it, and the fact that I went into bat when it came to them, that allowed the business to work.
There is, of course, in any restructuring, risk. Risk of litigation, risk of people deciding that they don't want to accept a new role, and that they wish that they retained their own "old" seat.
This documentary, in two parts, did have signs that in certain respect, you're only seeing a part of the process, which is clearly the case.
Why didn't the managers get the chance to elect who they didn't want. Probably simple. The managers have had all the time in the world to "manage" the HR, to go through whatever steps they have in their ability to remove staff who were not needed, or who did not pull their weight.
The departments here made changes. Real changes on the ground. Their "managers" came back to do the job which required coordination - fighting for budgets and liasion. But clearly they came back not to sit their telling their team how to do the job.
That is the difference here.
Now lets think about whether it was responsible to "put to pastures new" staff who have worked in an area. Simply put, if they have not been fully engaged, in delivering business need, then they need to be moved to somewhere where they can be fully engaged.
I saw natural wastage, but no unfair dismissal.
Dr P T has done an excellent job. I really enjoyed this series.
A really thought-provoking programme which brought me to your blog. Hope there will be more in future?
ReplyDeletePaul, great that you took on an area as tough as the refuse collection and you clearly had a style that fitted well with the organisation.
ReplyDeleteThe approach shown in the TV programme is a recklessly short-term one. Like you, I recommend to every organisation I work with first that they talk with their clients/customers and second that they communicate with their (frontline) staff. Like all good science that’s where the primary data comes from.
Like you I agree there is often good reason to trim management (and operational) processes to make them more efficient but your approach was reckless for 2 reasons.
1. It was reckless regarding the damage caused to individuals and their careers. Your approach drove one man into early retirement and who knows what the consequences of that are. (http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/ocp-14-4-374.pdf)
2. The methods you used to move people out of their jobs were unorthodox (often a good thing) but it is surprising that Blaenau Gwent haven’t faced legal action for the way the process appears to have been handled.
What was most depressing about the approach was the one-sided nature of your consultancy. You asked front-line staff to vote on who should manage them, but what about asking the managers about who they want to manage. If you have worked with the public sector you will know that as well as the surplus-to-requirement managers, there are also many talented, dedicated managers who are trapped with ineffectual staff. The process to remove staff who add little to the organisation is often so expensive and time consuming that even very good managers will shy away from it.
I am all for big and bold approaches to improving work – as you say it’s not good enough for people to be doing jobs they hate for all their working lives. But in my view, it is also not good enough to be reckless with people’s lives and livelihoods, particularly when your research approach does not come from a point of equipoise. I’d love to hear the evidence for the approach you recommend.
I started with BGCBC over two years ago when the CEO invited me in to talk to the Senior Management (All of them, so the "oneside approach" comment does not stack up) as I do with all of my organisations.
ReplyDeleteThis was NEVER about getting 'rid' of managers (people), only management (the thing they get paid to do). If you get frontline staff to realise that they know the job best, that they can change it to do things better, then the results are amazing. Despite the impression from the programme it took two to three months to gain trust from the staff (managers & Frontliners), to get them to understand they can change the ‘system’ and deliver a better service to the people of Blaenau Gwent.
I also have never come across the 'public' vote as I did with the mechanics. However, they wanted their vote to be 'captured' on TV something which I am sure you will agree I did try to dissuade. The man 'voted out' agreed to this process prior as did all the managers in an intensive 3 day session.
The ‘democratic leaders’ in my thinking and now in BGCBC, are capable of influencing other people to do things without actually sitting on top of them with a checklist. But all this requires trust, openness, communication, risk and creativity, which are founded on the leaders being from within the social network of the organisation.
My dislike for ‘management’ is nothing personal bytheway. It is about how we think about what management and managers are, and about how we act and behave in our role as manager, it is not the person. I attempt to realise this in my work and the development of an organisational architecture that accepts direction is needed in the organisation without causing harm to the people within. This was maintained throughout the programme.
You are correct in that senior managers were not replaced as one retired (it was a great opportunity for him to go with cuts looming), one left and wasn’t replaced right at the beginning, but his salary was used to hire 4 full time letter wardens and the same with others, although I accept a little was used to pay the frontline staff more, but this was to equal out injustices in the pay scales.
You also have to re-focus your approach as my work suggest we cannot be efficient in organisations only effective. If we like the Recycling and Binmen focus on this the savings almost always follows. But please don't be confused with people and managers. We keep people and stop this thing they do called management.
I have 'ranted' for several years now, changed 26 companies without charging a penny, that just tinkering with outdated, traditional organisations won't work. We must make organisations, human, less-mechanistic and allow talent at all levels to flourish.
I hope this helps, and thank you for taking time to respond. I appreciate the thoughtful debate.
dotherightthinguk - I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you there. I work for an immigration law firm, and we have also done employment cases as well.
ReplyDeleteMy role there is to "manage" the resources, ie the fee earners, to whom I am subservient. As their clerk, I can keep their diaries, chase people who owe them money, negotiate their commercials, purchase office stationary and do the photocopying, but it is those resources who are in charge. Yes, I am the dogsbody.
I have also, for my sins, owned an IT business, leading from the floor, with a team who regularly pulled extremely long hours, including weekends, to deliver.
It was the fact that I worked with my team, the fact that I ensured that they had pizza in, when they needed it, and the fact that I went into bat when it came to them, that allowed the business to work.
There is, of course, in any restructuring, risk. Risk of litigation, risk of people deciding that they don't want to accept a new role, and that they wish that they retained their own "old" seat.
This documentary, in two parts, did have signs that in certain respect, you're only seeing a part of the process, which is clearly the case.
Why didn't the managers get the chance to elect who they didn't want. Probably simple. The managers have had all the time in the world to "manage" the HR, to go through whatever steps they have in their ability to remove staff who were not needed, or who did not pull their weight.
The departments here made changes. Real changes on the ground. Their "managers" came back to do the job which required coordination - fighting for budgets and liasion. But clearly they came back not to sit their telling their team how to do the job.
That is the difference here.
Now lets think about whether it was responsible to "put to pastures new" staff who have worked in an area. Simply put, if they have not been fully engaged, in delivering business need, then they need to be moved to somewhere where they can be fully engaged.
I saw natural wastage, but no unfair dismissal.
Dr P T has done an excellent job. I really enjoyed this series.