Key Takeaways:
In Greek mythology there is a story about a ruthless King from Ephyra named Sisyphus who is condemned by the gods to the underworld and forced to push a boulder uphill, repeatedly, until eternity. Although a tragic fate for Sisyphus, his plight in the underworld has some relevance for facilities management organizations in institutional and commercial facilities. When managers feel their organizations are constantly pushing a rock up a hill trying to complete a project only to find senior management criticizing the work or even blaming the organization for poor performance, they feel that same sense of helplessness.
Despite the organization’s attempts to achieve a goal, sometimes managers find they are not supported or celebrated by senior management and may even be berated for their efforts. This lack of encouragement or support is one of the most demoralizing experiences an organization may encounter. All too often the rationale for failure is discovered far too late by managers to make a difference. Managers must learn how to make their organizations “fail-safe,” so this type of failure never occurs.
Managers that have been students of organization theory and management practice are schooled in classic management principles by early experts such as Henri Fayol. Fayol’s teaching helps managers understand what needs to happen for their organization to avoid failure syndrome. His teachings outline the basic principles of parity between the concepts of authority and responsibility alignment that govern how organizations can learn and succeed. No successful management strategy delegates responsibility without authority. An organization that is given responsibility for a task, project or a function but is not given commensurate authority is either wittingly or unwittingly being set up for failure. In instances where this occurs, a facilities management organization is destined to fail. This practice is called dysfunctional delegation.
The most dramatic example of dysfunctional delegation in facility management occurs when the organization is permanently or temporarily configured as a matrix organization for cross-functional projects. In these organizations, staff report to multiple managers as well as project leaders. Staff may be assigned to participate in a matrix-based effort that cuts across different organizations reporting to the same manager, or a matrix organization that involves multiple departments across the corporate structure. In many cases, a manager may be accountable for delivering a project on time and within budget but has no authority to establish deadlines, assign and reassign resources or direct team priorities. Staff in these situations recognize their matrix project manager is powerless and begin to respond to their “real bosses,” instead of the project manager. They view the project manager as nagging them to work on a project rather than as a leader of a special group. Organization researchers Windi Peck and Bill Casey have studied this phenomenon in organizations and labeled it the Nag Syndrome. They view the lack of authority to make decisions in an organization as one of the driving factors for project failure.
Sometimes, especially in large companies, corporate executives intentionally avoid assuming accountability for a risky goal given to an organization by designating the organization as the “fall guy.” By placing a manager in charge of a goal without commensurate power, failure to succeed can be blamed on the organization’s performance rather than senior management’s lack of leadership. Essentially, the organization becomes the scapegoat. If the effort succeeds, top management accepts the kudos but if it fails there is an easy target to blame. This practice often is referred to as cowardly leadership and promotes a culture that is toxic for the future of an organization.
Companies with limited opportunity to test the skills of potential leaders may ask the manager to place staff members considered for a more senior position in a sink or swim situation to determine how it is handled. Although it may be a naïve approach, senior management and maybe the manager expects the individual to prove their leadership capabilities, often at the expense of the entire facility management team. Unless the individual is given the appropriate resources and has an outstanding relationship with colleagues and other managers, this approach borders on a “set up to fail” approach. It is one thing to establish stretch goals for an up-and-coming staff member, but to set them up with an impossible assignment is the epitome of poor leadership. A manager that consistently allows staff to be placed in untenable positions at the request of senior management usually means the manager does not have a strong relationship with upper management, so the organization’s staff struggles to achieve success.
Articles are written about why facility management teams should use failure as a learning tool to avoid making the same mistakes again. There is a difference, though, in failure based on diligence, but a lack of adequate training versus one where the organization has been set up intentionally to fail. There are ways managers can insulate their teams from catastrophic failures that leave the organization demoralized and with a less than stellar reputation throughout the company. Dr. Jean Hurpe, DBA, MBA, wrote a piece for LinkedIn related to this topic and posed the question “Where do we (organizations) draw the line between accountability and systemically setting people up to fail?”
The most important step for a manager to failure-proof the staff is to create a culture where there is psychological safety. Amy Edmondson of the Harvard Business School defines the concept as a shared belief within an organization that the team is safe for interpersonal and organizational risk taking. When there is low psychological safety, staff are hesitant to raise concerns, air differences or ask for clarification. They are afraid to ask for guidance so problems multiply and failure becomes almost unavoidable. As Edmondson points out, it is not a matter of poor performance but a failure in the system design.
Most leadership theory and practice solutions center around preventing individual staff from committing failure as they move through the various phases of professional growth and development. One excellent example of the broader approach to preventing organization failure comes from the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center, a group that assists businesses throughout Michigan with management and organizational problems. Their success has been touted over the years particularly in the work of their Lean Business Solutions program and the efforts of Rob Stauffer, one of their senior costing and project management consultants. His thinking and mine have been parallel over the years. To failure proof a facilities staff, there are some essential steps managers should follow.
Know Your Stakeholders: Managers must understand who the power brokers are for a project and which ones stand to gain the most from having the staff succeed. These are the critical players that need to be the staff’s advocate and run interference if problems arise. A relationship needs to be tailored and cultivated for each stakeholder based on their vested interest in the effort.
Insist on a project charter: If the facilities team does not know where it is headed, any path might throw the effort off course. A manager needs to have a written project specification that outlines the scope of authority, decision making responsibility, budget parameters, timeframes, and key performance indicators and how progress against them will be tracked, reported, and evaluated. The charter should identify the overall sponsors and mentors for the effort and the key individuals in the communication chain that will provide guidance and problem resolution. Without this specific documentation, the FM manager does not have well-defined parameters within which to direct the team.
Consider and evaluate the risks: A list of potential risks associated with the project and the corrective action as the first sign of problems beginning to surface needs to be developed. Considerations regarding staffing, timing of competing projects, corporate activities interfering with project progress, delays in materials, emergencies that take precedence and the necessary risk mitigation strategies for each should be prepared and distributed to staff. A contingency plan that can be activated in the event of a change should also be completed.
Assign clear responsibility and authority: An inability to provide clear responsibility and authority lines for participating staff leads to the problem of high demand combined with low control or decision latitude. This creates one of the most stressful environments for staff leaving them demoralized and helpless — the key factor in performance degradation. Staff should not be held accountable for outcomes without the power to control them for the entire team to succeed and achieve the established goals.
Over communicate: A formal communication plan should be discussed and agreed upon by the facilities team and the manager. The plan should not rely on email and text communication but include regularly scheduled meetings. How progress against milestones is communicated needs to be an integral component of the plan.
Anticipate change: The best plans of facilities teams often get derailed by unplanned circumstances, which means the project staff involved need to be agile and prepared to change direction quickly. Economic considerations affecting the company, shifting executive proprieties and changes in senior management personnel may have an impact on project plans.
Evaluate lessons learned: Every project assigned to facilities teams needs to be evaluated at its conclusion. Even the most successful outcomes need to be critiqued to determine what made the effort work so smoothly so the components of the project’s management can be documented and replicated. Post-project conversations about potential challenges encountered during the project and the strategies to overcome them need to be identified to ensure the team has a roadmap for future efforts.
Another management guru Chris Argyris summarizes the process of organizational learning by saying “people do not fail because they are incapable, but because the system makes it impossible for them to learn.” Failure-proof your teams by creating a system for staff to learn and succeed.
Stormy Friday is founder and president of The Friday Group, an international facilities services consulting firm. She is a member of the ProFMI Commission, a governance body that serves as an advisory committee for the Professional Facility Management Institute’s (ProFMI) activities.
