Erich Schmidt presents in his talk what might at first seem counter-intuitive for those seeking to improve leadership, but depending upon how one approaches what he says, it makes a great deal of sense. Certainly, in a military organization, what Schmidt describes about the company moving forward without a great deal of management intervention is the ideal state that is pursued. By having a chain of command and the backing of a couple hundred years of culture, there's this expectation for better or for worse that the boss said to do it, so it's up to the subordinates to try their best to make it work. On top of that, being an all volunteer service, people opt into the organization and choose to play by its rules. However, like Schmidt said, the manager is going to be trying to assist them if needed. The subordinates are resources for the leader to accomplish objectives given to them or created by them, and in turn the leader will be there to help get assistance from on high or to provide additional resources that their subordinates need to succeed such as tools, money, or additional political firepower.
I also think his thoughts on the idea of a discord and deadline make sense. While it might fly in the face of schools of thought that call for harmony and agreement, discord is what it takes to identify the best and worst of a given plan while also identifying ideas. Deadlines as well, while in some cases an artificial construct, ultimately acts as an excellent motivator to get things done. Like all things though, there needs to be a certain balance and moderation between these factors. Too much discord and there's nothing but unproductive discussion, bad feelings, and no solution offered. Be too soft or too hard on a deadline, and either things won't get done or your people will be set up for failure by not being given adequate time.
I might even argue that, although we don't do it explicitly, my organization practices the 20% rule on an ad hoc basis. While there is a set duty day, unless there's a critical tasking most people are left to their own devices so long as things are getting done. As long as projects or tasks are on track and one is good about generally being present for duty and available, one is free to go in and out of the office to make any necessary appointments, get a haircut, or once in awhile leave for an extended period of the day to take care of a family issue. We also do tend to have lots of discussion about issues, often right up to the deadline, especially if the issue involves coordination and input from multiple units.
So, overall, this isn't an unreasonable way to view work as people do it in my workplace. Admittedly, there are numerous other regulations on how we actually conduct business and live our lives compared to most anyone in Silicon Valley, but much of the same basic principles apply. Given that, it doesn't take any particular courage for any leader in our organization implement, as that's just the way it is. However, there is a learning curve for younger officers to willingly back away from the work at hand and leave the better seasoned enlisted personnel to be the technical experts and do the job. It requires a measure of courage then to trust in this system of delegation and let it work. There is also a learning curve in accepting that something will come out of what initially seems like endless bickering and brinksmanship, until a solution seems to come out of nowhere at the eleventh hour.
Having said all that, this particular approach could backfire if too many individuals within the leadership structure don't allow the system to work. Rampant micromanagement at any level could cause the self driving machine to come to a halt, and overbearing leadership may create too much discord or time pressure. You may even have a case of too many subordinates that lack the personal drive and initiative to truly operate independently without a lot of intervention or hands on work by leadership, which in of itself creates a further drag on resources.
For me, I'm mainly taking away some perspective on my present situation. Yes, I work for a very large organization that's part of the federal government...that's an inherent recipe for a great deal of bureaucracy and the frustrating scenarios that fuel the likes of comics such as the Dilbert series. However, now that I stop and read Schmidt's thoughts on how Google runs their business, although my organization doesn't have quite the same reputation for employee freebies and the like, the basic operational theories seem to have a great deal of correlation, which is somehow heartening. I'm also taking away a reminder that discord is not necessarily a bad thing, and this serves as another one of a handful of examples I've heard about where its desirable. It is certainly an idea I hope will provide me with greater patience when facing disagreements and logjams at the office, and will keep me looking for the best solution with the end objective in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment