Line-Management

The focus in this section is on the «management of organizations» which is to be distinguished from the management of achievementthat largely dealt with in relation to decision-making-PH'1 within the Action Domain.
See a review.

Line Managers & Accountability

All organizations show stratification into levels of management associated with some form of accountability between individuals working at these levels. Getting accountability right is the prerequisite for combining and maximizing both management control and staff creativity in the operation.

Powers

Line-management authority is the strongest possible form of managerial authority and accountability. The (line-)manager («boss») is assigned total responsibility for results and therefore depends on the work-output of subordinates. In using this authority well, the manager naturally leads subordinates.

The relationship comes from four simple core powers ►

  • to set the contextual goals, priorities, policies, standards (i.e. limits are here),
  • to judge the abilities and potentials of each subordinate,
  • to assign duties and tasks to subordinates accordingly (i.e. autonomy is here),
  • to assess training and development needs of each subordinate.

Additional rights are essential Closedincluding:

Relationships

There should be just four line-management relationships in operations: 
WL5 ↔ WL4, WL4 ↔ WL3, WL3 ↔ WL2, and WL2 ↔ WL1.
(Accountability for WL5 work and higher is mediated via governing bodies.)

It is all too common to have confusion about what responsibility exists at any work-level and how accountability and authority operate within and between work-levels. The inevitable result is: inefficiency, poor quality, staff demoralization, and a waste of energy and resources.

  • Because any level of management should be about the management work done at that level, the organization's hierarchy should be based on the levels of work-responsibility framework-PH'5QH2.
  • Because accountability is about the legitimate use of authority to control staff activities, line-management is found in the expectations of employment framework-PH'1CsH. Go there for a range of other necessary authority relationships.

Fundamental Principle

Line-management should be set up so that individuals are in roles which are explicitly set one work-level apart.

Rationale: The levels specify progressive contexts. So line-managers, by focusing on their own content, do the context-setting for their subordinates (often themselves line-managers) and this naturally enables the maximum degree of autonomy.

The line-manager, having previously worked at the lower level, understands the responsibility and can assign appropriate tasks authoritatively. Such a line-manager can also effectively appraise subordinates and arrange for suitable training, while being accountable for their performance. He can also use the power to zoom into their work and give suggestions or instructions. When blockages are severe, he may alter fundamental parameters of the task or even cancel it.

The one-level-higher boss is busy and lacks the time to work in his subordinate's arena. However tempting to intrude (because it is so much easier doing lower level work), this would distract from doing the essential higher-level tasks.

ClosedWhat happens if the line-manager is working at the same level as the subordinate?

Capability Issues. In these cases, the manager is always at a higher grade and paid more. The boss is probably more expert and may feel superior, but that is an obstacle rather than an asset if both have similar capability. Time and energy are wasted tip-toeing diplomatically around each other. Sometimes the boss is more experienced (i.e. senior or older), but less capable or knowledgeable. That is the set-up for battles of interpretation about the situation and about what can be done.

Micro-management. In the nature of work, each person does a task in their own unique way. All that matters is whether the task is completed satisfactorily. Two people at the same work level will handle the same task differently. If one of those two is the boss of the other, then the boss is liable to interfere and micro-manage. Any small gain from the boss's greater expertise is more than outweighed by demoralization of the subordinate. Autonomy is weakened and creativity falls as the subordinate attempts to second-guess the boss rather than apply their own talents.

Humiliation. Bosses working at the same level are commonly unable to alter the parameters that count—timing, staffing, funding, outsider cooperation—because these are determined at the higher contextual level. So such changes will be argued for at second-hand and involve additional meetings. This is inefficient. A frustrated subordinate is liable to by-pass their nominal boss and go to the context-controlling «real boss», who can fully understand the issues and resolve them. This is humiliating for the nominal boss.

There are two complementary elements in ensuring line-management is properly designed to ensure the optimal functioning of any management system:

  • Work Expectations—Correct specification of the progressive contexts, including basic expectations and management tools. (Time-span alone is simply insufficient.)
  • Staff Capability—Determination of who can carry responsibility: taking line-management seriously, ensuring proper appraisal, and handling personal development over time.

Originally posted: 10-Jan-2014