Star of Interdependence

It is a truth universally acknowledged that an organization depends on its employees («its people»). This THEE framework provides a clear map with more details of this dependence than is usual.

Who Looks After What?

Management is the agent of the organization i.e. something distinct and apart from employees. No-one has yet suggested managers can be computers, so it is ironic—a twist of fate perhaps—that management posts must be filled with people who are employees, i.e. employed to bear both the burden and the brunt of management.

Put another way:►

Employees suffer little conflict. They look after themselves first; and look after the organization insofar as it enables them to look after themselves. Read more.

Management is supposed to look after the organization first: but a conflict of interest arises because the management expected to look after the organization first are employees expected to look after themselves first.

Twist of Fate

This interdependence of management and employees, with the buck stopping with management is made clear by the Star diagram where reporting on employees-CG4 is the central Centre.

Every Centre (except setting work expectations-CG1) impinges on reporting on employees-CG4. Any Channel to these that goes wrong can dramatically impair the effectiveness of the organization.

The Star's axis driver is Satisfaction. On balance, the reports on employees determine whether the benefit obtained from them is worth more than the efforts and incentives to retain them. So fate adds another twist.

The Star's axis servant is Restructuring. When things seem to be going wrong, restructuring is the method for bringing capability and work into balance again. Handled well, i.e. handled using THEE principles, it is powerful tool.

Failure of an Employee = Failure of Management

The failure (i.e. negative report) of an employee may not reflect their failure, but rather a failure of management: 

► did management provide too much or too little autonomy?
► did management match the person to the job properly?
► did management develop the authority structure well?
► did management restructure in the face of emerging difficulties?
► did management overdo the special consideration?
► did management provide inappropriate offerings?
► did management define roles well and systematically ?
► did management adhere to its own policies and rules?

The answer to any of these questions affects the significance of the report. That assumes the reporting is clear, in depth and penetrating. It is often easier to produce reports that are crude, bureaucratic, superficial or emotional.

Q: What is the commonest reason for a CEO calling in a management consultant? A: To organize the firing of a senior colleague.

The upper pair of Channels (from CG6) ensures a comprehensive account.
The middle pair of Channels (from CG5) involve management justifications.
The lower pair of Channels (CG3) determines management credibility.

---

► See the Diamond of Bureaucracy.

Originally posted: 30-Nov-2011