HANDLING HIERARCHY

Once upon a time, hierarchy was invented, and for very good reason. The idea was that as you have an increasingly complex organization, you need to know who is in charge, who will make the tough calls, who will be the tie-breaker when there are disagreements, who will ultimately be accountable.

Theoretically, it seems this would be liberating. Why? Well imagine you are the person who is 'in charge' of that particular area, if not the entire department, division or company. The organizational chart enshrines you as the boss. You therefore know you have the authority. It would seem likely then, you don't need to pound your chest, preen or prance, or act haughty and officious. After all, why play-act what is actually the case?

Moreover, it would also seem likely, that as you're ultimately accountable, you'd want to get every iota of intelligence you could bring to bear on the key issues -- and hence you'd be naturally motivated to consult others. You'd be keen to have everyone's buy-in and commitment, because you know the danger of initiatives that falter because there are different agendas in play beneath the surface. After all, what is there to fear? When you've heard enough, you would just take a decision. When you've rallied enough, you can demand execution and performance. After all, as the hierarchy confirms, you are the boss!

Or so, the theory goes. However, the terrifying reality is that somehow, hierarchy has produced the opposite result. It has produced terrified bosses, who it seems can't take a scintilla of really direct feedback without unraveling and holding a life-long grudge; it has mutated relationships so everyone is 'politically correct' and office politics replaces real communication and often in fact distracts from real work.

Somehow, horror of horrors, what was originally meant to liberate, has castrated. Hierarchy the structure has somehow morphed into hierarchy the relationship. And that's the Trojan Horse that continues to muck up business after business around the world.

Imagine a senior management team. Before I go any further, it should be clear that most senior management teams are anything but 'teams'. Some are just dysfunctional (jealousies, undermining behaviour, etc.). More often they are an assortment of individuals who promote their own interests, and often broker deals 'offline' with the CEO. The appearance of a team is a patent sham in such cases, and everyone knows it. Why? Because most of them are on the same hierarchical level and rather than have honest communication (you see their boss is also present), they apply the treacle in private.

So the boss says, 'I wonder if our colleagues in marketing have considered the following idea...' The Marketing Director suppressing his instinctive gag, instead says, 'Interesting idea. We've considered it too, and it has some merit. Now we can go that way certainly. There are some concerns though that we should be aware of. It doesn't mean they can't be handled, but...'

What he meant to say was, 'I think that's a terrible idea. Here's why...'

Now there is quite a bit of ground between his sugar cane reply and the frankly blinkered reactivity of what he may have actually meant.

However, absent hierarchy, he might have been honest: 'We have considered it, and we're really uncomfortable with it. Let me tell you why. Of course maybe there's something I'm not seeing here, and we can then discuss it.'

Let's take another instance. Say a fairly senior global leader feels his boss won't allow feedback. But when his boss takes decisions he really disagrees with, he 'wraps' his feedback in so much tinfoil, that no one can know what his boss really feels, about his feedback, or anything else for that matter.

His boss says: 'Let's call a meeting of our global leaders next Monday to sort this out.'

(His direct report actually thinks: 'Another meeting! Everybody will be up in arms. If we'd only implement what we've already decided, we wouldn't have to keep meeting so often.').

He actually says: 'Do you think so? We've met recently, but I suppose you clearly feel...'

As this is said tentatively, the global boss jumps in: 'Yes I do clearly feel that people still aren't clear and they're confusing others. Do you think that's good enough?'

Not wanting to go on the line on this, the direct report capitulates and says: 'I was just worrying about how busy everyone is, but if the understanding isn't there, clearly we have to take action.'

The boss: 'Good, I'm glad we agree. Let's set it up right away.'

The direct report goes off muttering under his breath, and has clandestine moaning sessions with other peers, who are indeed quite expressively (in private of course) exasperated by endless meetings and analytical round-robins.

Imagine if hierarchy were not perverting the relationship. Imagine if instead, the direct report had spoken as if to an esteemed colleague, but as a friend, or at least a friendly acquaintance (as they know who's the boss, they really don't have to jockey for position): 'Actually I think we'll have an uprising. Our people are really tired of travelling, and they need time with their teams and markets. I know it seems as if people don't understand, but I think they understand the theory, they just want to know we're serious about implementing it. I think our prioritizing a few key situations and coaching our leaders on coming through as per what we've already agreed, quickly and decisively, will really move mountains now.'

If the boss trusts where this is coming from, and really believes this is his colleague's best judgment on behalf of their company (if he doubts this, this direct report shouldn't be a senior leader in such a key advisory position), then they have a fascinating and potentially fruitful conversation ahead of them.

Such hierarchical nonsense doesn't just play out within companies. It also damages relationships with customers. There are two extremes here. During British Airway's recent problem with its caterers, I got so fed up of being misled by their 'customer service,' I tried to call one of their company directors whose name I was given for the purpose of lodging a complaint. One of the people at the switchboard said, 'We don't put anyone through to our Director.' Notice here the imposition of hierarchy where none should exist! The fact that he's their Director may impress her, but it's utterly silly to me as a premium customer (with Gold Card from them in hand), trying to let them know how they can retain my loyalty!

Yes, I understand it may be impractical to put every seething customer through. However, in this case, I had been given his name, and there was a recurring problem with the service I was paying for. At the very least: 'May I put you in touch with his colleague who is fully empowered to help you?'

The other extreme is where the customer gets unruly, unpleasant and starts getting abusive, rude and downright dictatorial. I had a client request that we send a member of our team to conduct some interviews for them, in preparation for work we would be doing with them. As this client was a past relationship, I agreed, asking only that they cover expenses, as they were a long flight away. The MD asked us to go ahead, we made arrangements. When we sent in the invoice for the travel and related expenses, an HR person wrote back saying: 'We refuse your claim for expenses and are very annoyed by it as we never agreed to it...'

Leave aside the merits of either position here. Certainly nothing in the sending through of an invoice should provoke such a reaction, without checking facts. This is the opposite reaction that hierarchy provokes, where we bark orders at those we think should be subservient to us, even as we continue to 'moisturize' those who are senior to us and who we feel can benefit our careers.

Without succumbing to excess 'politesse,' all they need have said is: 'I'm afraid we have a misunderstanding. We didn't understand you'd be invoicing us for expenses. Was this agreed?' Better yet, had she double-checked with her boss, and read the correspondence, she needn't have written to us at all.

Of course speaking to a boss so many levels up may have been so beyond the pale, that she may just have acted on the 'say so' of her direct boss, who can always default to, 'I wasn't told.' This is not leadership, it's carcass protection. How much time do we waste and siphon off from value delivery because we cannot possibly treat each other with respect and openness -- no less no more?

On another occasion, I saw a PR agency literally pleading with their client: 'Look we've agreed everything, can we please get your written commitment? I really would like this to be a relationship of mutual respect...'

The person she said this to was mortified. He had no idea it was coming across in this way. A very non-hierarchical leader, he felt that it was 'in process'. He had no idea that it was being relayed as a bargaining chip, or being leveraged by his organization to make this agency sweat a bit. Now perhaps the agency deserved it. But I've seen the same, 'vendor dynamics' being applied, the same 'haggler's psyche,' with the very people we want as partners! We want these people fully motivated to bring us their passion, their creativity, their commitment. Treating them like scroungers at our table is going to produce that? If we're the one who's paying that means we're doing our suppliers some kind of favour? You can be assured that these people keeping their 'partners' dangling, if their boss wanted something they wouldn't be left panting for weeks. As we've said, this is the other edge of the hierarchy sword. Either obsessive kowtowing or else haughty indifference. Both undeserved. Both counterproductive for what we're really after.

And to show how pervasive this is, we can see this even in families, in the case of parents. Parents are clearly 'the boss' in many ways. Children need them for survival, for having a place to live, for food, for money, for basic instruction, for authority to do all kinds of things until they are legal adults, etc. So why do parents act as overbearing potentates, as such controlling pompous asses, even if thankfully benevolent ones at times? Why is that 'style' or 'mode' considered advantageous? Remember, we're not advocating that the hierarchy be overthrown, that parents not keep that authority there for when it's needed. But why lead with that? Why continually trumpet in an abrasive and rebellion-fostering way, what is quite self-evident and can be far more subtly asserted?

And so we loop back to the problem with which we began. How does hierarchy the structure, the source of clarity, mutate into hierarchy the relationship? And even where there is no such natural hierarchy, i.e., customers to suppliers and vice-versa, why is it invariably asserted -- even to the detriment of what both parties clearly want to achieve?

It seems sadly true that hierarchy has mutated because it plays to our essential insecurity. Because that 'boss' is also the source of my security, my future, my advancement, I feel I have to endear myself to them. I also assume that most bosses like people who are just like them. Happily, some confound this expectation and jolt us into value-delivery and reality-engagement. But many more, play along.

When I am the boss, I like to be flattered, to be affirmed, to feel I'm doing well. So I tend to believe the 'yes men' are actually perceptive, rather than playing politics. My vanity leads me to believe that all this acquiescence is the result of my compelling vision and insights and persuasiveness, rather than just the genteel adulation of sycophants.

So, somehow we have to break out of this. How? There is only one known, reliable antidote, of which I'm aware. And it is so obvious, so evident, that it is almost impossible to see. Ready? The solution is: to build real relationships.

Mortified at the outrageous simplicity of the proposition? Well, it's the only thing audacious enough to work. To understand this, let's look at something about the nature of feedback. Everyone says with a holier-than-thou smirk: 'You have to be able to take open feedback.' Try giving it to that person, and see what happens!

To make feedback deliverable and receivable, it has to be anchored in a relationship. Firstly 'feedback' doesn't just mean critique. It just means an honest reflection on how we're doing. So that means objective assessments, suggestions, appreciation, real affirmation, and where needed critique, confrontation, etc, the whole gamut and rainbow of caring interactions.

When someone invests time in getting to know us, comes through for us at important moments, really partners with us, then they learn to deliver challenging feedback in a way that makes it through to us. Moreover, because we hear affirmation and appreciation too, we are less likely to think the person is offering a prejudiced or imbalanced critique. We know they see all of us (or at least a 'lot more' of us than most do), and they care about and support us. Hence we're willing to hear what they're saying as something that is for our benefit, that comes from them having extended themselves for us, rather than something adversarial.

So if we build relationships with our direct reports, they'll find ways to tell us what we need to hear. If we build relationships with our bosses, we'll be able to tell them things no one else can.

You earn the right to a relationship with your boss by making your boss glad you're on their team, making them smarter than they would be without you, and coming through in areas which don't compromise your integrity to help them win. You do that, because that's how you help yourself and your team win too.

You earn the right to a relationship with your direct reports by making them glad you're their coach, by leveling with them, by actually sharing some of your mistakes, by creating relaxed openings for you to just chat with them, by helping them gain new opportunities when they do express worthwhile ideas, and by honouring their initiative publicly when they take it.

With customers, when you genuinely want them to win, when you become their trusted advisor, when you invest in their 'success', not just their transient 'delight,' you earn the right to tell them things, home truths they will accept, and even ask for eagerly and gratefully. Their lives are richer because of you, so they'll listen to you.

With suppliers, if you get to know their business, if you decide to be a 'world class customer,' if you commit to ensuring your suppliers win, grow and thrive along with you, they will eagerly collaborate with you in improving what they offer. It won't even be 'feedback,' it'll be 'joint brainstorming' and 'idea generation.' They will even strategize and make resourcing decisions alongside you.

Relative to the family example, this works too. Though it's harder to swallow. As parents, we may balk at this. 'Of course I have built a relationship with my kids.' Yes, quite possibly, but often it's a lousy one.

I can hear the bellows of wounded pride already: 'What do you mean lousy? I don't abuse my kids. They have everything they want. They go to the best schools. They take great vacations. We attend their plays and sports events. Our whole lives are based on those kids...'

Okay, feel better? After the hyperventilation, some reflection may be due. No one is implying we don't love our kids, at least in ways convenient to our notion of parenting. In other words, things we can buy for them, arrange for them, things that don't require us to change or evolve too much.

A relationship is between two people, and both change in the act of relating. Both give up things and both gain things. Many parents sacrifice time, money, energy, health, all kinds of things. They sacrifice everything but ego, self-image, and the hierarchical pontificating that seems to be part and parcel of the parental role.

But a relationship is one in which we appreciate not just what we value, but what it is clear the kids value. It is an interaction where we seek to see all of them, not just the parts we endorse or approve of or find convenient. It is also a situation where we listen as much as we speak, and we listen in particular to the eloquence of their silence, to what is not said. And finally we realize that we can, if we're not careful, make ourselves impossible to talk to, just as bosses do. If children are not constantly buttering up our vanity and dare to say what they feel, however confused it might be, and we slam the door hard on them...they'll go underground with the rest.

We need to give them attention, not as an outcrop of us and our expectations, but for THEM. Children, as with anyone, pick up on secret agendas. When our engagement with them is really on their behalf, not because of our own unlived lives, they feel it, know it, and value it. Even if they don't like it, they can live with it, with appreciation. In short, let's build a relationship with them that reflects the caring we really feel, rather than one that camouflages it.

It should be noted that everything said about parent-child communication here, applies for virtually all authority interactions, and that is why the parent-child dynamic was the underpinning of a major approach to human communication, namely Transactional Analysis.

If we build deeper and truer relationships at work and elsewhere, we'll dismantle pointless hierarchies. Relationships won't muffle the clarity that hierarchy provides or the ultimate accountability. Rather relationships will ensure that accountability is enriched by genuine engagement, communication, the to and fro of healthy idea exchange, creative contention, and both affirmation as well as challenge.

Rescuing us from the black hole of hierarchical relationships while preserving the essential discipline of organizational clarity and accountability, is one of the most critical ballet dances that leaders need to perform. It comes from the courage to add real value and the compassion to care enough for people to help them hear you. It requires the energy to build relationships proactively and then use them for one of their highest purposes: facing and then transforming reality together. That is what the best leaders do, and that's what they invite and expect their teams to do.

Let's join them!

This list is used only to share information with current clients and friends, it is NOT in any way sold or given to other companies or third parties. If you wish NOT to be included in future mailings of this newsletter you may unsubscribe by emailing unsubscribe@sensei-international.com and including the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please email info@sensei-international.com.