Some time ago I read former Secretary of State James A. Baker’s book on his time at the State Department. Baker served under the first President Bush during the tumultuous years of the late 80s and early 90s.
The book was fascinating to me on many fronts, not least of which was discovering that some of the future stars of diplomacy were key members of Baker’s team. Prominent figures such as future US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, future Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and future Chief Middle East Peace Negotiator Dennis Ross were key players in Baker’s inner circle.
There was one point Baker made which, although not surprising, was unusually candid for a diplomat to make. One of major challenges Baker faced during his tenure was “managing the building” as he put it. What Baker meant by this was the management challenges of directing the people, processes and systems of the State Department itself.
Not that the fall of the Soviet Union and the first Gulf War were insignificant topics for the Secretary of State to think through, but Baker clearly believed that management of the State Department bureaucracy was important enough to be mentioned alongside these momentous events as a major challenge.
Anyone who has directed a medium or large scale project knows the challenges of managing people, processes and systems. Indeed there comes a point in a manager’s life where he must become adept at “managing the building” as Baker put it.
Look, we all know that generally the best lawyer does not become General Council, the best accountant does not become CFO and the best salesman does not become VP of Sales. Sure technical skill is important to a certain level, but beyond that it’s the ability to “get things done” in an often chaotic, conflicted and ambiguous world that becomes a key differentiator amongst leaders.
The most technically competent manager is doomed to a spectacular failure if he cannot convince, cajole, motivate or otherwise coerce the “machinery” underneath him to support his vision for his department or business.
So the question begs, “How is this best accomplished?”
A key device for getting the orchestra of people, processes and systems to play in tune is a well understood and followed set of policies.
Now before we go any further, we need to state clearly that most corporate policies are grossly overgrown, disfigured beyond recognition by each successive “administration” and generally poorly followed and understood by most.
When it comes to policies we have lost our way. There are a few reasons why polices have degraded to the state described above, but one particular reason stands out. We have falsely designed our policies to address all situations that they could possibly be faced in a business environment.
How can companies allow this to happen?
The narrative explaining this phenomenon goes something like this. An employee makes a mistake or simply handles a situation in a way that those above him would have handled differently. Rather than examine the character of the decision and the judgment of the employee, a policy is issued that attempts to address the specific situation the employee dealt with.
Over time this cycle is repeated ad infinitum until corporate policies have proliferated to the point where their sheer volume cannot be digested, they conflict with one another and any attempt to follow them becomes a pursuit that drains attention away from the core business.
The following is a partial laundry list of symptoms that occur when policies are used to manage daily behavior:
- Employees become conditioned to being overwhelmed with directives. Being unaware of some missive from Corporate is now seen as acceptable and inevitable.
- Professional judgment is discarded in favor of “rule following.” This in turn leads to myopic management in the best case and management paralysis in the worst case
- The excessively detailed policies rarely comport with circumstances on the ground and a voluminous amount of policies typically begin to contradict one another. This creates a sense of confusion and a feeling that, “Whatever I do will be the wrong thing.”
Aggregating these symptoms breeds a dangerous phenomenon that those in law enforcement call “contempt for the law.”
When laws become so voluminous, unfair and contradictory, people do not follow them anymore. In addition, when people become accustomed to not following policies or laws it can set the stage for greater departures from the policy or norms. Conversely, when laws/policies makes sense and are enforced it creates an atmosphere of order.
Mayor Giuliani’s administration in New York City was famous for bringing down violent crime in general by cracking down on lower level crimes such as vandalism, loitering and small time drug dealing.
The best approach is to have a small number of well crafted policies that deal with approaches to business problems at a high level and then vigorously enforce them. Attempts to prophesize all potential situations employees may encounter and then develop prescriptive remedies for each of these situations will rarely be successful.
After all did James Baker have a policy for how to deal with the disintegration of the USSR? How about a policy describing the steps to take after the invasion of Kuwait?
Certainly not.
Baker’s primary focus, like any good manager, was to select top talent, establish communication protocols and make sure everyone understood the goals of the Department. Everything else was left to professional judgment.
Have a great week,
Michael Bechara, CPA
Managing Director
Granite Consulting Group Inc.
Loading...