In the last post I mentioned Fayol’s concept of allowing employees to talk to each other across organizational structures.
In today’s firms many can speak across lines of authority without troubles, but does that really unveil the entire picture?
Even if you talk across the org chart – are you uncovering everyone that needs to provide input?
There are many times when an impromptu team is working to solve a problem and they come up with a group decision and put it in place without checking with superiors. This is what Fayol had in mind as he explained that in times where speed or emergency exist, fasts decisions are needed and checking with the chain of command will not work.
I have however stepped into several areas where not checking with the right person has caused concerns. When setting up an initiative related to modifying a workflow, I checked with all those that I knew were involved on the org chart. I asked for input from all of the proper people. I was closing in on presenting my findings and recommendations and was chatting with one of those that provided input when they asked “Did you check with Tom? (not his real name)”.
Tom? Tom had no place on the org chart. He was in another areas of the firm. He had no official connection to the process I was looking at. He would use the process, but did not control any portion of it. But what I was unaware of was the Tom developed the process that was in use some 10 years prior. Tom was the true “owner” of the process and no one was willing to change it unless Tom approved it. So here I was, ready to launch and I had to start from scratch with Tom. (it worked out well)
In matrix organizations like many firms are today there are official org charts and then there are the unwritten lines of control and influence that really control things. Most of the unwritten structures mimic the written ones, but sometimes they do not. I had stepped into an unwritten org chart that included someone that was in charge 10 years ago.
CAD Managers need to be aware of these hidden org charts in firms and seek to ferret them out prior to making changes. Sometimes it is the person you least expect that has the most influence on your efforts.
We discussed how Fayol allowed discussions across the org chart. But can you do that?
Before you start thinking that just because others do it, you can… let’s chat.
I have seen things get done effectively as people just cut thru the organization to find the valuable input and the real people that drive change. They do it by moving across departments and divisions and make things happen. But can you do that just because others do?
It really boils down to who you work for. Does your boss and their boss allow you to wander the org chart and talk to whoever you want? Do they ask you to talk to them first? Do they need to provide approval before you start yapping it up with others from other areas?
Even though a firm may embrace the flexibility of open access to all, there may be hidden roadblocks to actually crossing the lines on the org chart. Keep your eyes and ears open for signs of a controlling boss.
Here are a few:
- They want to know a little too much about the process you use in getting your job done. They are not offering input or coaching, they are just nosy.
- They step into your discussions and take over.
- When they find out you talked to someone they get upset.
- They want to talk to others prior to having you talk to them.
Some of these may be legit if there are political and social landmines that you may step on. If your boss has been around a long time then they may know who can derail your efforts. Give them a chance to prove that they can smooth the waters prior to your involvement. Maybe they can help.
To recap… Henri Fayol (1841-1925) was a French mining engineer who went on to become Director of Mines with over 1000 employees. His company flourished and was the largest producer of steel and iron in France during his days. In 1916 he published his perspectives in the book “Administration Industrielle et Générale”. Included in his book are the 14 Principles of Management. We are on number 9… number 9… number 9 (Beatles reference – hehe)
What Fayol calls “Scalar Chain” is a fancy word for the chain of communication and approval that is set up inside hierarchical leadership structures. It is the line of people you may have to go through in order to get something approved.
If you look at the pyramid of authority you see that each level of the structure has a superior and a subordinate. A and Z are the bottom rung of this ladder of authority. In some firms if A in one department wants to talk to Z in another,they have to get permission from B. B has to ask C and C has to ask D and so one.Then the other side has to kick in V has to let W know that it is okay,then X has to weigh in as well as Y before Z can officially talk to A.
Fayol propounded that this is too restrictive and can be ineffective at times when speed is needed.
Today many organizations have connected the dots be allowing everyone to talk to everyone. The command chain is no longer effective in many cases. What Fayol started is commonplace now.
But does it actually work that way? Is it okay for you to talk to whoever you want to whenever you want? An if you do talk and make a decision, can you really put it into action? Who has to approve what you do? Can B talk to W? Can X give direction to B?
The matrix style organization of today will be the topic of the next few posts.
Stay tuned…
Centralizing critical functions was Fayol’s idea of how to make an organization more productive and efficient. Fayol did not think that the subordinate employee was just a worker bee and had nothing to bring to the organization, but he did feel that centralized command and control were more effective.
This is contrary to the ways of today when empower employees and decentralize many functions and decisions. Some firms press the org chart flat and push as many decisions down the ladder as they can. They talk of how the front line employee can make command decisions. Many firms talk a good game, but few can pull it off. Most end up with a mixture of decision paths that allow employees to make the call and also require them to move the decision up the tree to others.
Fayol really did support an organization that could make the right decision at the right level. I have worked in large firms and small firms. Smaller firms appear more nimble in the decisions that can be made. Larger firms tend to have structures that require “checking in” with many people and committees prior to a bottom line decision.
CAD decisions need to be left to the right person making the call. It is up to the CAD or BIM Manager to provide enough information for decisions to happen. Providing the needed understanding of how files and models are intertwined and what effect a decision has on others helps users make the right choice. Expecting a right choice in the absence of proper information is foolhardy.
I like to use the following general guideline for who can make the call on specific CAD related issues:
If it impacts just one file – the user makes the call. What layer is used. What color is this.
If it impacts multiple files – two or more users can discuss and make the call.
If it impacts an entire project or a client deadline – the Project Manager makes the call using input from multiple users and the CAD Manager.
These are general thoughts and provide no hard and fast rules.
For many many years the tension between employer and employee over fair pay has worked itself out in ways that range from great workplaces to those that encourage the workers to revolt. It is incumbent upon the employer to set a fair wage and for the employee to agree that the wage is fair. If the employer sets a wage too low they may not get many takers. If an employee expects too much they may not find an employer willing to meet those expectations.
Fayol also recommended that companies provide housing and such. The concept of the company town. That does not work much today as workers can and will define their living situations apart from the firm they work for. It can still be seen in migrant farm worker populations still today.
So what does this have to do with CAD and BIM Managers? Are they paid well enough? You tell me with a comment? Are you making a fair wage?
On an expanded idea,what are you “paying” those that help you? Do you offer something to those that assist you in getting things done? Payment is not provided as part of their wages,but you can still provide something that assists in the fairness and balance of them offering to assist you in getting your job done. What can you do that costs nothing and yet “pays” those that help you?
Praise: Pay them a verbal compliment.
Recognition: Tell others how they have helped you.
Honor: Add the names of those that help you to your written reports to management.
Lunch: Take them to lunch. The company might pay you back and even if they don’t you may want to do this for those that really help.
Gift Cards: Another way of paying them back. Keep it cheap. Starbucks, Amazon, etc.
Write them a card: Not a mushy card. Just a hand written note to them telling them how much you appreciate their help.
Are you a “Company Man”? Not that you have to be a man to do that. It is a term used for those that have sold out to the company they work for and will do anything for that firm, even lie or cheat. The “Company Man” will sell out his friends and coworkers to get ahead. That is not what this principle is all about.
This concept is that the individual employee should subordinate their personal goals to achieve the goals of the firm. Taken to an extreme, this can be very negative to the individual. When forced upon the employee, this can prove to be oppressive. The employee should balance their individual aspirations, goals and plans in order to work well with others. No one wants to work with someone that is not a team player.
This is not a requirement to just blindly do what you are told by anyone that is above you in the pecking order. It also does not mean that the individual complains, drags their feet or derails initiatives just because they do not like them.
CAD and BIM users need to subordinate their desires to avoid the standard and use the company wide guidelines. Individuals must take a back seat from time to time in order to make progress as a whole. The firm you work for has strategic plans that call for employees to muster their efforts in one direction or another. The employee decided to follow or to go in another direction.
Companies are looking for those that can align themselves to the firms vision and help make progress to those goals. Employees that contribute and sacrifice are seen as more valuable. It is a balance each employee has to wrestle with. Go along with the firms means and methods, work ethic, demands and such – or choose to go to another firm (or start your own).
Falling after the prior two principles of unified leadership and direction comes this one – sacrifice for the team. Everybody does this to some level. the prima donna’s do not and may soon find themselves on the street is they are too inflexible.
Talking a back seat does not mean that you are inferior. It is a choice that you make to set aside personal agendas for the common agenda.
Point us all in the right direction and we can get it done.
A concept that Fayol included right after the concept of a single boss or head, is the idea that all those who are dedicated to the same objective should work under on same plan and report to the same person. When the planning is all done and it is time for execution, Fayol thought that all those involved in the execution of that plan would work under one person.Think of this as the concept of a single leader executing a single plan with a single team.
Today you may belong to multiple teams working on differing plans. The matrixed environment of todays firms means that you may be reporting to more than one person. This does not necessarily negate Fayol’s principle. I see wisdom in the bottom line leadership of an effort being invested into one person who leads a team. If there is a separation of duties to other teams or sets of workers, then the reporting should still go back to the main person overseeing the plan.
A CAD Manager or BIM Manager of today will be involved in multiple teams. They may also bring an added value in that they will know what is going on across the firm as possibly no other can. They see all the teams working. They see conflicts of interest in the objectives of teams that may not communicate to each other. They can also let management know that multiple teams and plans are pointing at the same target. By informing others and avoiding duplicate work, the CAD Manager can streamline the firms work and unify the efforts of all.
How many bosses do you have? Please leave a comment and let us know.
Fayol postulated that everyone should have one boss. He reflected that employees need to know that they have one person that will give them directions. He believed that every employee should have only one superior. That the chain of command was a linear chain. That the Org Chart was a pyramid. That was then… this is now.
Now we have matrixed organizations that have a mixture of teams, bosses, superiors, reporting structures and bottom lines. You may report to one person but be on another team that has you reporting to that lead. You may have one project that calls for you to report to one person and another project that requires you to respond to another person. You may even have a team leadership model that has multiple bosses over multiple teams.
Any way you look at it, today is a mixture of reporting structures, flat organizations and shared bottom lines. So is Fayol’s perspective no longer true. I think not. Well at least not totally.
There really is one person that can command your time on any given area of your job. The first and maybe foremost is the person that can fire you. They may be the same person that hired you, but it really is the one that controls your destiny with the firm that matters most. They may take input from others on your performance, but they have to make the call on keeping you around and defending your value.
When it comes to CAD – the boss should be the CAD Manager – I say “should be” because it is not always that way. The CAD Manager should define the CAD and BIM output (quality of files and models). They do not define the content of the design,but they define the production means, methods and standards. If we only lived in a perfect world 🙂
But when it comes down to the CAD Managers world, they need to press forward at being that bottom line. Many will try to take orders from others or give orders to others on the standards, but it is the CAD/BIM Manager that should drive the bus.
How are you doing at being the “CAD Boss”? Are you in charge? Do you make the calls? Can you stop production if things go wrong? Let us know with a comment below.
Rules
Do you like them or dislike them? Maybe it has to do with who made them. If you made them, then you will like them. If others make them then you may not. No one dislikes a rule that they created. Unless of course it is a rule of discipline that will make gains based on your lose – like weight. Make a rule to cut back on eating and you will lose the pleasure and satisfaction that may come from eating, but you will gain the pleasure of losing a little weight.
Fayol thought the workers should respect the rules. That following the rule results in better production. Do you agree?
Most CAD and BIM Managers will agree that there needs to be some guidelines and rules related to production. That general chaos results from everyone doing what they please. But just having a list of rules does not guarantee success. Discipline in following those rules is needed.
Bending the Rules
This is when someone sets aside or flexes the rules beyond the norm. Bending the rules happens when someone decides that they need to work outside the lines and others agree or overlook or do not discover it happening. This results in non standard files and models that are more difficult to pass around or use in a team environment.
Enforcement
It happens when those that oversee the implementation of the guidelines do not pay attention or allow it to happen. It happens slowly, when no one is watching or when the enforcement slips a little. Then it slips some more and then some more. Soon you have a twisted project that does not respond as expected.
Remember that no one will care more about enforcement than you. So every other person is going to do less and less. You have to set the bar high so that others strive to keep up.
Vigilance at overseeing the guidelines is needed every day. As I have said before… Follow the guidelines… Every User, Every File, Every Project, Every office, Every Day
Loading ...