A CEO offering a sincere apology directly to a customer can often breed better customer loyalty than any other action. A sincere apology offered to an employee when the CEO has made a mistake will mend more bridges than any other action.
iii. Organisation and Teams
People often mix the WEIRD philosophy with Holacracy. WEIRD is not Holacracy. In fact, it is almost the opposite.
Holacracy creates circles of self-organising teams using a very detailed framework of how these circles should interact with each other. Goals and purposes are set by higher circles which are then passed down to lower circles. There is much emphasis on the administrative procedures to be used internally, with little emphasis on external – ie customer – interaction. Each circle of holacracy involves weighty democratic procedures.
WEIRD on the other hand is not a democratic process. People are encouraged to take and be responsible for their decisions after seeking advice. It emphasises the need for employees to be able to make, and take responsibility for, decisions that will have a direct financial impact on the company.
However, whilst individual decision-making is vital, people still need to work within teams.
Any change process can only work effectively if people are willing to accept it. About a year before we started our change to WEIRD, I tried to re-focus the company organisational structure around projects and products rather than departments. I failed, as nobody was interested and didn’t see the need. So, I put it on the back burner and kept it in mind.
A year later we started our change to WEIRD; people understood the need for change and though it was difficult, that change has been successful. However, I decided to keep the departmental structure unchanged so as not to have too many moving parts at once.
So WEIRD 1.0 was based on retaining department (or project) heads, using their experience to act as a coach to team members, rather than a manager.
Their role is to act as a point of contact for that department, ensuring that all the parts are heading in the same direction and that these relate to what else is happening in the company. They also take the lead on strategic thinking and ensure that cross-communication between departments stays on track.
A year on, people are beginning to see the disadvantage of departments which create silos of ‘them’ and ‘us’ and encourage blame – “We couldn’t sell more as ‘Development’ didn’t deliver on time and ‘Support’ screwed up with a major lead.” Development and Support in this case are not individuals and therefore easy to blame without getting personal. More importantly, communication does not flow effectively because department heads are left with the sole responsibility to communicate. Finally, budgeting is calculated on how much each department needs to do its job for the year rather than relating this to profit.
We have now progressed to WEIRD 2.0 – the move from departments to teams. People move into and out of teams depending upon the product (we have internally split our products by type of customer) or by project. Joining a team is voluntary, but if a team member’s input is required at all in that project, it is expected that they will be in that team. Some team members may play a very minor role, whilst others could be working within that team full time. Some people may be in ten teams, others only in one. The team is not managed by any one individual, but coordinated by someone who may or may not be the most senior person in terms of experience
If the objectives of the team start to get muddled, the team will split itself up further so that the role of each group is clear. We have about thirty projects or products running at any one time. Some will involve one or two people; most include about eight and occasionally (for the implementation of WEIRD) they will include everybody (split into more manageable sub-groups).
Any person can suggest and take the lead in forming a new team, and each team has its own budget and its own profit and loss account. When a new team is formed which requires budget, the coordinator of that team will confer with other team coordinators as to what monies can be moved into a central pot for new products or projects. This ensures that budgets don’t stay allocated when they could be better used elsewhere.
The best part about splitting the company into teams is that, as most teams will include people from different departments or geographical regions, employees are forced to talk to those outside their own department which improves company communication.
F)
OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”
Abraham Lincoln – Former US President
i. Transparency of company financial information
There is a tendency amongst most CEOs and managers to hoard information – especially financial information. Information is power after all. However, the excuses given for not providing financial information to employees are never about power but:
“It’s confidential, competitors might get hold of it.”
“We don’t want to worry employees.”
“Only senior management need it as only they make the decisions based on the financial results.”
“We’ve always kept our financial information confidential – why would we change?”
Let me debunk these in quick succession.
If a CEO can’t trust their employees not to give financial information to competitors, then why are these employees working for the company?
Employees (in fact everybody) will always assume the worst based on gossip and Chinese whispers. By ‘not worrying’ employees, they will almost certainly cause more anxiety. Furthermore, not worrying employees is at best paternalistic, at worst condescending. If employees can be trusted to work within the company, there is no reason why they shouldn’t be trusted with financial information.
Decisions are made all the way down the chain – every day. Why do only senior managers get to make decisions based on all the facts? Without the financial information, it is impossible for others to make informed decisions.
Let’s turn the last question around. Why wouldn’t a CEO wish employees to see the financial details of the company (apart from the feeling of power)?
An answer to the last question could be that if CEOs are able to take decisions on the basis of information available only to them, nobody else can question that decision. If all information is available to everybody, then anybody is qualified to question any decisions made in the organisation – including those made by the CEO. Some CEOs think that they need to be right at all times, but they will gain far more respect by admitting they are wrong or by asking advice from those who can help them make a better decision.
Making financial information available to all employees is always easier in the end. The truth may be unpleasant at the time, but most people can handle the truth – it’s lies they struggle with. Likewise, most people can handle a bit of bad financial news if they feel that they know what is going on. What is far harder to handle is sudden financial shocks which will affect somebody’s job and possibly their livelihood.
Therefore, the power of sharing all information should not be underestimated.
However, sharing the information does not necessarily lead to employees being interested in it. Employees will not usually search for the company’s financial information unless persuaded to do so. We have tried to break down the information into easier key performance indicators that we review each month, but still I am concerned that so few people actually know or care about the financial situation of the company. One way of addressing this has been to create and impart financial information that is useful and relevant to each team.
ii. Company policies (eg holidays, expenses, flexi-hours, training)
As mentioned earlier, at Pod Group we avoid company policies where possible. Here, I will provide a little more description on how we achieve that:
a) Holidays
We keep no record of when people take holidays. If somebody is taking holiday, they update the shared calendar. Checking this calendar is
normally the second action after asking, “Anybody know if David is in today?”
The only thing that we ask is that if people are going on holiday, even if it is a last-minute decision, they make sure that they are not going to leave their colleagues having to do more work as a result of their absence.
Our holiday policy did initially cause a problem. When we started, we needed to encourage people to take holidays. Is this still the case? I’m not sure as we don’t keep records, but I certainly feel the need to remind people to take more holidays.
b) Expenses
We don’t check expenses. We don’t approve expenses. There is no point giving a daily expense allowance – some days a sandwich is sufficient, other days a three-course lunch. This will depend on location, mood, client meetings – in fact too many factors to account for.
So, we tell people to spend their money as they would normally. Then claim it back. Employees should be trusted with expenses in the same way as any other decision they make for the company.
c) Flexi-hours
I still haven’t worked out the best time to come into the office if I want to find people. Some people are definitely morning people and others you wouldn’t want to see before they’ve had at least two coffees. Thankfully those people generally don’t arrive until they have had their two cups of coffee – which could be around 11 am.
By letting people find their own rhythm, we find that people work better – forcing people to be working by a certain time or working within specific hours doesn’t take account of other circumstances in each person’s life. As a parent, I know the value of being able to take my children to school. For others it might be incredibly important to wake up slowly, or to go to the gym when it is quiet.
d) Place of work
The ex-Yahoo CEO, Marissa Mayer, much to the annoyance of many staff, insisted that all employees return to working in the office when many were used to working at home.
As with all things, I firmly believe flexibility is required, but sometimes having people in the same place can improve communication exponentially compared to remote working. There are a number of very successful companies where all staff work remotely, so clearly it can work, but our experience is that more can be achieved in an hour’s face to face meeting than a morning of video calling.
That said, it is more important to encompass flexibility with regard to place of work. When doing tasks that do not require communication with others, I will generally work at home. One of our CEOs lives in a remote location – working from home is his only option. One of our operations staff spends January in her home country every year. We have a reasonable number of employees who will combine a couple of weeks’ holiday with a month working in their home country.
As with all things WEIRD, if you let people decide for themselves, they will find the solution that is best for them and the company.
e) Training
In theory, undertaking training in order to learn and develop skills is a must in any organisation. However, training can add stress as the day job still needs to be completed. Our training policy is rather like our holiday policy – do as much as you like; we’ll pay for it.
Sending people on obligatory training courses is a sure-fire way to breed resentment. Some people do not want to go, and as a result they will not concentrate or learn. The time and money will be wasted and then they feel more stress from having to catch up on their work.
If, however, you leave people to choose the most appropriate training courses, maybe with some advice (which they are free to ignore) from HR, they will be motivated to learn and will manage their own work much better.
If people feel responsible for their work, they are loath to spend time doing something that may not have a direct impact on productivity. Some people love to be taught, others prefer to learn on the job. Either way, it is always beneficial for people to decide for themselves what and how to learn, even if it isn’t directly related to the employee’s work. If the company pays for it and allows the time off to do it, it will be viewed as one of the best company benefits they receive.
Recently, Udemy offered all of their courses for a ridiculously low price and collectively we signed up for about twenty courses. Will all of the information learned be utilised? I don’t know, but it was fascinating to see what interested people as well as how they often chose courses which, while (mostly) related to the company, were certainly outside the sphere of their present role.
Expensive courses with little perceived value can cause as much tension as a perceived over-inflated salary. Therefore, peer pressure will ensure training value for money.
iii. Roles vs tasks
People like roles. It gives a sense of value and security. “This is my role, I am an expert and I can do things related to this role.”
However, within a role exist tasks and by focusing more on these, it is possible to get people to expand the role to fit the tasks instead of restricting themselves to those tasks that fit a role.
Roles fit within departments, reinforcing an attitude of “we are the best people to undertake any tasks related to this role”. As roles are easily defined within a job, people naturally want to defend a role so as to protect their job security. If other people could undertake parts of the role, it may make the job redundant. This leads to a hoarding of information to hinder the ability of others to do part of the role. This is one reason that companies have communication problems.
In a hierarchical organisation, although employees can be responsible for a task, their manager is normally responsible for the role and employees are uncomfortable working on tasks outside that role because the lines of communication and responsibility are unclear.
Focusing on tasks rather than roles therefore avoids many problems.
Often a task (or a series of tasks that make a project) will fall across different departments. Making employees responsible for a task removes the need for departmental management and encourages employees to work with people from other departments.
So how is this implemented in practice? The first and simplest step is to change each employee’s role into a list of tasks with a catch-all at the end, eg ‘…and any other tasks that the employee wishes to undertake that would benefit the company’. However, to reduce resistance on the part of employees when removing the security of a role, they must be the ones to define and agree the tasks.
Next, employees should be encouraged to get involved in tasks that lie outside their department; and when starting a new task or project, they should be encouraged to consider whether somebody from another department could add experience or a different perspective.
Similarly to the advice process, pushing tasks across the company may slow the work down initially, but this is easily outweighed by the speed of subsequent integration, improved communication and the success of the completed task.
Eventually, people will stop thinking of their roles in terms of department roles, but rather as a series of tasks that make a role that has an influence on many parts of the company.
iv. Decisions
The decision-making process is the hardest part of WEIRD.
Within Pod Group, each person in the company can make any decision, including an investment decision. There is a caveat to this – the decision must not put the company at risk. Those making decisions must first seek advice from appropriate people. As every person in the company has access to all the financial information, the decision-making process undertaken by that individual should include the financial implications of that decision. A CEO should not overrule a decision, as this would undermine the WEIRD approach.
That is the theory. The practice is harder.
Generally, when somebody wants to make a decision that will involve money, they will talk to the financial manager who needs to understand that they are not expected to give an opinion; otherwise all decisions related to spending will depend upon whether or not the financial manager thinks it’s a good idea. Therefore, the role o
f the financial manager is to request money from the CFO or the CEO to support a decision made by somebody else in the company.
The advice process involves not only receiving (hopefully) good suggestions, but more importantly bringing others into the decision-making process. It is worth seeking the advice of those you think will be against your decision. Talking through the positives and negatives with them makes it clear that their objections have been taken on board. Having done this, it is very likely that rather than objecting, that person will now be an advocate for the idea. If other people see that the main objector is now a supporter, others will probably back the idea as well.
I can look back at all the decisions that I made prior to starting the WEIRD process and tell which of those decisions I made alone. Regardless of the profitability or practicality of these decisions, none were fully supported by my colleagues – and thus did not achieve their potential. During the writing of this book, a couple of times I tried to push a decision faster than my colleagues were willing to accept it, and each time I backed off as I realised that it would be a failure without internal support.
This is not a process of decision by consensus – which generally results in weak decisions because the original idea is watered down to please everybody. After taking advice, the decision needs to be made and owned. If it turns out to be a bad decision, this is not the responsibility of those who provided advice – but of the decision maker.
However, a manager or CEO should always applaud a decision made – regardless of outcome. For an organisation to progress, employees should be encouraged to make decisions without fear of blame.
The hard part of WEIRD decision-making is for managers and the CEO to refrain from taking control. People will always defer to somebody perceived to have power over them. Therefore, a manager or CEO needs to ensure that:
The Weird CEO Page 12