If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, you
will spend your whole life disappointed with our shiny slippery wet friend.
The same thing happens when we evaluate executives,
managers or technicians and get confused about their real main
responsibilities. We claim to know what their responsibilities are, but the way
we act, suggests we don't really know them at all, causing all sorts of
problems.
Indeed, the more these roles tend to overlap, the more
confusion exists; resulting in a lack of efficiency, lost revenue, and a negative impact on
P&L.
The difference between the three is so basic, yet so
many people either miss it or forget it, so let me share my vision (at least)
on what the core responsibilities of each role should be:
a) Directors/Executives
l Be aware and anticipate
future trends likely to impact
on the business/company, in order to adapt the organization in a timely manner
(“timely manner” meaning neither before nor after, as such mistiming
is just another example of failure to correctly anticipate the future).
l Ensure alignment,
between functions, companies, partners, headquarters, and other stakeholders in
the Market.
l Create an inspiring
Long-Term Vision. Build a powerful story of transcendental purpose.
l Challenge initiatives. Coach key people via meaningful
conversations.
l Ensure sustainable growth by
consistently exceeding business targets and stakeholder expectations.
l Values and Compliance role model, embodying and promoting the right behaviour across the
organization.
b) Managers
l Foster values,
compliance and agreed behaviours, ensuring the right cascading down of the
same across the organization.
l Ensure alignment
inside the function and also across closely connected functions.
l Key link between
strategy and operative, through tactics design. Act as the principal
transmission chain from top level to bottom levels and vice versa.
l Maximize resources available in order to exceed agreed
targets.
l Coach teams via
meaningful conversations.
c)
Technicians
l Make things happen
from a technical point of view. Propose the way to put into operation all the
actions described in Tactics.
l Execute and track technical activities, always being up-to-date with the latest knowledge in the field.
l Suggest alternative
or new ways of working to optimize any implementation.
Most of the time quality performance is not about
doing extraordinary things, but doing ordinary things extraordinarily well.
This also applies to the clear definition of roles and expectations.
Ask yourself whether your organization (and especially
each relevant person) has a clear definition of who exactly should do what.
Remember that doing the job of an under-performer has
a double negative impact: we are doing someone else's job (undermining their
chances of personal development) and we are not doing our own job, the one for
which we are being paid. This is a huge source of inefficiency across
organizations. When this happens (because we are reluctant to see / admit /act
against low performance), we tend to think we are helping someone but, in the
end, we are not helping anyone, we are only reducing the competitiveness of the
organization (which may well have a significant negative impact, mid to long
term, on all staff).
My suggestion, therefore, would be to: clearly define roles and responsibilities
(without overlapping and grey zones) and stick to them religiously. This
way, you will avoid a considerable amount of disappointment and enjoy a whole
lot more success.
(special thanks to Andrew Dodd, for English corrections. Thanks, my friend :)
