July 19th, 2024

When we consider the job and tasks of a manager, they are extremely important to the successful operation of a company. However, it is just one role of many and the roles on the operational side are just as important as those on the managerial side. This equalness in importance is not reflected in modern day structures and incentives.

Think about it, does your company have a separate and closer parking lot for managers? The not so subtle message here is that these people are more important than everyone else. If we look at incomes, are managers the highest paid? These types of structures and incentives created a feeling of “us vs. them.” So what? What’s the problem? Well, in my opinion, this creates the following problems:

• Unbalanced responsibility – The general idea and the reason managers are paid so much is that they are willing to take on complete and full responsibility – for everything. This encourages employees at the operational level to avoid going the extra step to take responsibility for solving arising challenges on their own.
  
  
• Endless escalation games – If an employee at the operational level disagrees with another employee at the operational level, they will often escalate their disagreement to their manager so that they can solve the issue. Those managers will even escalate the issue further if they are unsure. If everyone took full responsibility for their area, then this escalation game, which slows everything down, could be largely avoided.
  
  
• Unbalanced power – Similar to the topic of endless escalation games, an operative employee may not be taken seriously by someone higher on the hierarchical ladder, simply due to their “lower” position. To be taken seriously, the employee would have to go to their manager and escalate the situation.
  
  
• Unnecessary distance – Everyone’s role is important to make things work and effective teamwork will therefore play an important role in the company’s success. The “us vs. them” dynamic does not help this team dynamic, being that it feels like there are two teams. This idea of two teams is even promoted in writings on modern-day leadership, such as in Patrick Lencioni’s book “The Five Dysfunctions of Team,” in which he mentions that managers should have their “first” team (their fellow circle of managers), whose interests are prioritized over everyone else (their employees).

  I think that most of Patrick Lencioni’s points are in the book are accurate and helpful and the book is a very well written. When I first read this idea of the first team, I didn’t even question the concept, being that I have (like so many others) been a bit blinded by the way things are currently done. However, when I talked to my friend Alex about this concept, he mentioned to me that he didn’t agree with this point. He asked why does it have to be one or the other? Why can’t everyone in the team be on eye-level, which includes their employees. After thinking about his, I completely agree. This simply creates more unnecessary distance between management and employees and gives the employees the feeling that they are of secondary importance.

I could go on with further points, but I think you get the point. I am not saying that everyone in the organization should have the final word. This is still the task of the manager. However, this doesn’t mean that the employees’ ideas or input isn’t as important as those from management. Changing the status quo is painful, especially for those that have something to lose (management). However, I think if management really looks at the situation, they could have a lot to gain by seeing all roles in the organization as important theirs. A company in which everyone feels responsible and is a full member of the total team will undoubtedly perform better than a company characterized by “us vs. them.”