Tobin Quereau
Austin Community College
quereau@austin.cc.tx.us
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 00:33:32 -0500
From: Bill Kahnweiler <epswmk@GSUSGI2.GSU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list ODCNET-L <ODCNET-L@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Role Reversal
I can share one experience I had several years ago that might be helpful
to the person who started this discussion (sorry, can't remember who that
was....like Bob M., and billions of folks who have preceded he and I, I
seem to be suffering from memory lapses with greater frequency as I
age...at least as far as I can remember, I THINK that's what's
happening!).....
About 7 years ago, I had a client which was a medium-sized manufacturer.
The VP of Engineering was a technical wizard and a poor people manager and
an even less effective people leader. He had worked for the company since
its inception, which was about 25 years ago. Like in many other
situations, he kept getting promoted because of his technical skills and
knowledge. Over time, he got the top spot in the technical hierarchy..VP
of Engineering. What was in this man's head was extremely valuable to the
business....from product design to manufacturing to equipment repair. One
problem was this company had very unsophisticated systems in place....in
the engineering arena, the knowledge and skills were in this guy's head
more than on paper. So he was extremely valuable to the current and
future health of this company.
The CEO, in my opinion, did not want to deal with the messy interpersonal
dynamics of dealing with his VP of Engineering's lack of skills on the
people side of the ledger. And, I surmised he didn't want to deal with his
own prior decisions (and approvals of lower level managers' decisions) to
promote the guy. To make a long one short, I convinced the CEO, after many
long and arduous discussions, that the VP of Engineering needed to step
down if the company was going to flourish long-term. Why? Because all his
managers, including his direct reports, needed to demonstrate talents in
the "people aspects" of the business. Technological wizardry was necessary
but insufficient.
The solution was fairly simple and painless. The CEO bought my argument
to make the VP "Chief Engineer"--with no one reporting to him. In
essence, the new job required that he use all his technical know how and
did not require him to hire, motivate, lead, discipline, coach, or
appraise subordinates. We kept his salary the same because he was just as
valuable as a VP as he was Chief Engineer and besides, we didn't want him
to leave the organization because of the assets he had in his head! He
reported to the CEO as he did before. So really , what it came down to
was formally recognizing what the VP was doing all along----technical
work and little if any people work.
Was the former VP's ego bruised? Did he threaten to go to a competitor?
Did he sue? These were all very real fears of the CEO. None of them
transpired. In fact, the new Chief Engineer was happier than a pig in mud.
He admitted he HATED the people aspects of his old job (and his
performance in that area was as low as his interest in them) and he was
absolutely thrilled to be rid of those responsibilities.As it turned out,
his contributions to the company escalated because, at least from my
perch, we designed the job to play to this guy's motivations and
strengths....and rewarded him well when he delivered great performance.
And he performed better than he had in the previous 25 years during the
first 6 months on the new job.
For me, this story has a couple of key morals:
*design jobs that play to people's strengths in addition to
meeting business needs.
*demotions can be hurtful to those giving and receiving them, but
they can also work for the individual and the organization in the long-run.
*Time is a great healer of bruised
egos and pride.
*executives (in this case, the CEO) are no more rational than any
other mere mortal. To believe they make decisions solely by the numbers
and other "objective" means is in itself irrational.
*most of the time, our worst fears never happen.
*if jobs tapped people's motivations, skills, emotions, and
interests
to a significant extent, there wouldn't be a need for as many managers as
we still have and there certainly wouldn't be a need for as many internal
and external HR consultants as we have.
By the way, about a year later, the CEO died. The Board asked the Chief
Engineer if he was interested to take the reins. His curt reply was, "No
way." When asked why, he didn't blink an eye and said, "I'm happy where
I am and am doing well where I am. I'd hurt the company, myself, and my
family if I took that job. You can't pay me enough money to take it."
Bill Kahnweiler, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Human Resource Development
Georgia State University
Atlanta
-- Posted to Learning-org by Tobin Quereau <quereau@austin.cc.tx.us>