A well-oiled machine

In a job I held in the recent past, I worked on a very high-functioning well-organized team, that operated with great efficiency and success.  To the "clients" we served, no single member of the team was stronger than another, but I attribute much of this viewpoint to the successes of our communication and understanding of roles, responsibilities, knowledge and ability to recognize each other's value.  The office was a small office--only three of us to serve a team of three advisors and more than 25 faculty.  And while sometimes we stepped on each others toes, it was normally for good reason, and borne of this overlap were great ideas and processes to simplify our work and unify our outbound "products" (i.e. requested information, budgets, logistics, events, etc.).

In this team my colleague and I (I'll call her Sally for the sake of anonymity) answered to one boss (I'll call her Harriet).  Sally had a defined role in which she handled anything associated with graduate studies.  Nothing happened on the graduate side of the department without Sally's approval.  Similarly, I handled everything on the undergraduate side of the department.  Harriet managed Sally and I and everything associated with human resources and the financial processes (as these naturally connect to the undergrad and grad side of the department).  Admittedly, this is a somewhat oversimplification of our job responsibilities, but should provide enough information that you get the picture.

While I did use the words "one boss" in the above description, I should clarify that that is not the type of structure our office had.  Technically speaking, we worked in a simple hierarchy and Harriet reported directly to the Department Head.  But a hierarchy is not how we operated on a daily basis (probably due to the lack of need for daily Department Head supervision).  A more accurate description would be: our staff of three operated as an all-channel network like that described by Bolman and Deal.  Let me describe further...

As part of my job, I also directed people to the appropriate point of contact who could give the most accurate response.  In a sense, I "conducted the train," if you will, and as a result I solved much of the "assignment problem."  By establishing me as a conductor, Harriet made a conscious decision that I would need to know what everyone else knows.  Harriet sent an announcement to our clients informing them that all questions should initially be directed to me.  From there, I would send them to the correct contact.  This allowed me to avoid knowing the answer to every question and instead, who could appropriately answer the question.  This division of responsibility narrowed our fields of focus, and then we were accountable for knowing the minutiae associated with our field.  As a result of our focused knowledge, rarely did we receive a question that we could not answer immediately.

If a faculty member asked a question to which we did not know an answer, our skills continued to prevail.  By quickly consulting with one another, we developed responses that combined our knowledge of University processes/policies/procedures and provided superior responses to invariably tricky questions.  Without fail, we could produce an accurate response.  The key to our facade of perfection, was a result of our efforts to know as much as we could and share it when the time was right.  I should mention that the close proximity of our offices (located in one suite) may have been a significant factor in the ability to quickly and easily communicate and provide solutions.  There was no need to wait on a set of correspondences or clarifying terms--we simply walked in to one another's offices and asked questions.

A parenthetical note:
I should mention quickly, though, this idea of walking in to one another's offices probably produced a certain number of inefficiencies.  Interrupting one person's work to get their input definitely creates some wasted time.  On the other hand, answering difficult questions with a team of colleagues, generates new knowledge and creates a sense of community among the team.  I should also mention quickly that the transaction costs in terms of monitoring each other was extremely low which probably led to a happier boss and less stressful work environment.  From the time I was hired, I noticed the team was comprised of hard-working individuals and there would be no question as to who was pulling their weight.  If one of us needed assistance, the other two quickly offered their expertise.

The last thing I would like to mention is that our personalities clicked.  While this is not something we discussed in the context of this class, I think it is important to mention.  With such a small team, had even just one of us not felt a sense of responsibility to the team, the result would've been catastrophic.  While technically Harriet was our boss, she would better be described as a member of the team with the responsibility of making the final decision on discretionary matters.  I suppose part of her responsibility would have been to take action to correct poor performance by any member of the team, but our superior staff was not subject to such action.

Overall, our team could not have been described as anything less than a well-oiled machine.  We operated at a peak level of efficiency and quickly corrected problems that tend to exist in poorly functioning teams.  I would be so inclined to suggest that our team was "self-managed."

Opportunism: best-served bored

I will use my posting of this very blog as an example of a time I did not act opportunistically.  Today, while working my normal 8AM to 5PM hours, I had the perfect chance to take advantage of the fact that my boss, and three colleagues from the office were not at work.  As a result of their absence, I was the only one in the office and could have taken the opportunity to work on things like school-work, catch up with my friends on social media, or just sit back, relax and enjoy a show on Netflix.  Alas, this is not what happened but, even though I checked off a number of items on my work tasklist, no one would've been the wiser.

A little background that may be relevant to this situation, and then I'll explain my rationale for working instead of "playing."  I took this position just 6 weeks ago, and consider myself quite new to the role.  This role is one I earned by proving my ability to perform at a previous department and then applying for an open promotional-rank position.  Despite possessing the knowledge and skills to complete the tasks required of me, the ways in which my colleagues (and the department) operate still presents me with a tremendous learning curve.  Additionally, it should be noted that I am responsible for a number of critical departmentally sponsored events this semester, including accreditation, an alumni event in Chicago, and a new lecture series sponsored by an important (wealthy) alumnus.  Since joining the team in my new position, I was tasked with all aspects of these events which have proven to be more than time-consuming.

That's where I was at the beginning of today--caterings to confirm, people to contact, designs to review, people to research, all for the small list of large events.  So, when I arrived at work today, and realized I would be the only one in the office, I realized the world was my oyster.  Who would've known if I was just playing on Facebook?  Who would've known if I spent a couple of hours typing up this post?  The answer was clear: no one.  But what happened, you ask?  I worked on my list.  But why, you ask, when I had so much freedom?  The answers are many, but I will attempt to address them below.

First and foremost, I have a LOT of work to do, and while I know I could've pushed myself harder on Monday to get more done, I decided I didn't want that kind of Monday.  Monday's are stressful as it is--tons of emails to answer, people to meet, etc., I just didn't want to make it worse.  I think this is one of my biggest motivators, personally.  I like to "spread the wealth," try not to make any day too difficult, or worse than it has to be.  I already feel that I have a high-pressure, high-stress job, why make it worse?  This type of motivation comes only from within.  Self-motivation is hard to find, but it is nice to know my Monday won't be so bad.

Next, and maybe this really is more like the first reason I completed "work" while at work: it makes me feel good.  I find much of my self motivation is getting to the end and feeling accomplished.  I also have a personal system of rewarding myself.  If I get to a certain point in my work, I get to take a break and have a snack.  Today, that was after I finished reviewing and sending a mass-mail to a number of potential donors and important practitioners in the Chicago area.  This type of motivation probably doesn't work for everyone, but I know that forcing myself to be patient leads to the greatest rewards, not only physical, but emotional--feeling good--too.

Another reason for working on, well, work, is the external motivation: if I prove myself at this job, I can earn another promotion.  Of course promotions come with raises, so essentially the motivation there is financial incentive.  I can talk myself into doing most tasks that I deem difficult and overwhelming, as long as I focus on the long haul.  I write all of my accomplishments down so I can review them at the end of each year and take note of things I should mention at interviews.  It is a great feeling to add something to the list.  Now, I know that today wouldn't have been the end-all, be-all for possible future promotions, but what I do know is that I have been a manager before.  I know what it's like to return to work and learn that your associate hasn't completed anything while you were gone.  While one time may not lead to termination or even punishment, a series of non-productive days leads to difficult discussions.  I want to be promoted, and difficult discussions will only present a roadblock in that plan.

I also find that I work each day because it makes the days go by faster.  If I have to work for another 40 years, I might as well do something to make the time go by quickly.  Being bored leads to opportunism, and I hate being bored, days go by much slower.  I suppose this is an internal motivator, but it also makes me feel like I get home sooner.  And hanging out at home with my family is a huge motivator, so this is also kind of an external motivator, too.

Lastly, I worked on work today because I have a moral obligation to do so.  I know that I'm being paid for every hour I am at my desk and I know they aren't paying me to play on Facebook or write this blog post.  So, in order to not feel guilty, which sure is a STRONG internal motivator, I feel the need to work, and work hard, even when no one is watching.

I feel all of the reasons I have presented above are similar in some ways and different in others.  Some are internal motivators, some external.  Some are emotional and some are ethical, but it is the combination of these things that drives me to work hard every day, and push myself to excel.

Organizational Structure (at Walmart)

I know, I know, Walmart is like one of those giant elephants in the room no one ever wants to talk about, but I'm going to (probably more than you want to hear about) because I spent 5 years there as a salaried manager.  And while it was difficult, and I was treated with little-to-no respect, there is much to be learned from my experience, and so much that fascinates me, specifically regarding their organizational structure.  Don't get me wrong, they are inefficient to the point of debilitating, but somehow they work, and somehow they operate with these bare-bones staff.  They save on staff costs (for better or worse) like no other.  They seem to be overwhelmingly compelled by the "ratchet effect" similar to what the USSR faced just before their collapse (Milgrom & Roberts).  Always reducing costs, increasing profits.  The driving force behind the retail giant is an organization with a clear structure, designated roles and responsibilities, and yet no boundaries separating the leaders from the worker-bees, rendering these divisions of labor useless.  (Leading to inefficiencies too numerous to name)

The basic structure at Walmart is similar to that of the University of Illinois, hundreds of workers at the bottom that report to supervisors, who report to their supervisors, and so-on, all the way up to the CEO, Doug Mcmillon.  I will just focus on the local structure in this post.  A Regional Manager oversees a region of about 100 stores and about 12 Market Managers, who each oversee about 10 stores and their managers who oversee a team of Co-Managers, overseeing Assistant Managers, overseeing Zone Managers, overseeing Department Managers, overseeing sales associates.  (I can't help but chuckle to myself as I write this...talk about too many chiefs and not enough Indians, it's a miracle we accomplished anything!)  While intuitively it seems the flow of information is straightforward, trust me when I say: "it isn't."  Each person along the chain of managers give instructions to subordinates (anyone lower on the chain) to complete tasks.  This results in questions like "who should I listen to?" or "what does this mean?" or "I'm getting conflicting tasks, which one should I complete?"

Maybe this is blatant, but the structure should operate like this: managers at the top create the largest form of concept and allow ideas to trickle down through the chain, each person adding bits of information until it reaches the bottom where an associate is assigned a simple task that can be completed with the training s/he has been given in the time allotted.  Unfortunately, it is commonplace for managers (not direct supervisors) to direct an associate to a task that is not part of his or her supervisor's priorities.  Generally, this leads to incomplete daily tasks, incorrectly performed tasks, and even tasks that must be repeated to fulfill a different set of guidelines.  It is this repetition that is most frustrating and appalling.  Many times ensuring tasks were completed according to corporate communications rendered useless, because the Market Manager would come to the store, decide he disagreed with the corporate communication, and we would spend hours redoing a project instead of focusing on the next task.

So what am I getting at?  Structure requires boundaries.  It is easy to draw a chart and pontificate on the simple flow of information, but there must be a level of accountability to ensure superiors give direction (or bad direction, in this case) only to their direct subordinates.  There are costs associated with every bad piece of information given to a worker.  Time is the biggest cost for an employer, and should be carefully considered when institutionalizing a organizational structure.

Joseph Stiglitz-No big deal, being a Nobel laureate and all

I can't help but think our obsession with inequality is a result of the tremendous efforts of research, publications, and other media resulting from Joseph Stiglitz's lifetime of dedication to the matter.  Granted, I frequently wonder if academics like Stiglitz get the idea to research such topics as a result of endless complaining and frequent berating of the bureaucracy for their decisions on the matter, but who am I to know.  Back to our economist at hand with a little formal background for all the geeks out there, like me--from the beginning, Stiglitz has been a brilliant and influential economist.  He earned his undergraduate degree from MIT and continued his research there while pursuing a PhD until the late 60s.  It was then he left for Cambridge and studied as a Fulbright scholar for the last 4 years of the decade.  Following formal schooling up to present day, Stiglitz taught at the most prestigious of universities throughout the nation including Yale, Stanford, and Oxford.

On to the fun stuff--Stiglitz's research is world renowned and his list of publications and media outlets is so extensive that his vita is 73 pages long.  That's 73 pages of listing accomplishments, including more than 45 honorary doctorates.  I completely geeked out looking over this CV and anyone that wants to see impressive accomplishments should check it out.  One of the most notable accomplishments of Joseph Stiglitz is winning the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics, for his research on the "analysis of markets with asymmetric information."  I won't bore you with the details of this research, but it should be noted it was investigated with well-known economists Akerlof and Spence.

In conjunction with his successful career as a professor and scholar, Stiglitz also contributed, significantly, throughout political history.  As the chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisors, Stiglitz advised President Clinton on a number of economic matters including climate change.  A topic on which he co-authored a book "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" which received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

I could go on for pages on Stiglitz's accomplishments, but the accomplishment, or research, I find to be most intriguing is that which I feel is most relevant to today's world. In his most recent book publication titled "The Great Divide: Unequal Societies and What We Can Do About Them" he continues on from a book he wrote in 2012, about the inequality of the American Society and how it should be counter-acted.  I look forward to the opportunity to read and understand these publications at a higher level in the near future.  On a side note: there is a video called "Inequality for All" hosted by Robert Reich, (who served with Stiglitz in Clinton's cabinet) that is a nice compliment to Stiglitz's work (and I recommend all of you uber-nerds like me to catch it on Netflix).

Stiglitz is currently a Professor at the Columbia Business School.

Information courtesy of:

josephstiglitz.com
nobelprize.org