I have a set of Russian nesting dolls (“Matryoshka”), a series of wooden figures in a nested hierarchy that can be pulled apart to reveal another figure with some resemblance or common motif inside. Sets typically contain as few as five dolls or as many as 30. I sometimes think of each of our employees as a Russian nesting doll, a discrete and complete unit that is also part of a larger system. (The entire set of dolls comprises the company.) On a micro-level, every employee fits into a specific role that is necessary to the overall nesting quality, yet each is a unique size and holds a singular place in the organization.
Another way to say it is that I envision each member of IB’s staff as a company inside a company. That paradigm is easy with editorial staff, where every writer has his or her own “beat.” It’s easy to apply to sales staff, where each media specialist has a specific list of accounts. It’s easy with art; there is a creative director and he “subs” some work out to his assistant, who is used to getting outside freelance assignments, so she has that mentality, too. But does this logic extend to every employee at IB? Yes, but only if everyone is encouraged and authorized to reset presets and function as true entrepreneurs with clearly identified customers who hold them accountable.
Here’s a concrete example of what I mean. During a recent job evaluation with newly promoted Carol, I asked what challenges she anticipated in her (now) supervisory job. She mentioned she’d prefer job-sharing versus cross-training; she needed to better understand her subordinate’s previous job responsibilities, and she wanted to improve scheduling conflicts, as the other worker spent 10 hours a week telecommuting. I invited Carol to see herself as a vendor for IB, her customer. We’re happy to hire Carol’s firm, and we don’t care who does what, as long as our work gets done on time to our standards. What old presets were stopping her from moving ahead under that scenario, if she were CEO of her own company?
She asked a great question: Was her subordinate viewed as her partner or her employee? “It’s the Carol Company,” I replied. “You tell me.” Okay, Gloria is now her partner. Next challenge for The Carol Company? Only one person could input data at a time into a main database, so how could they really share workflow? Hmm … we put our heads together (as publisher, I hold the role of “consultant” for all of these businesses inside IB). The database accepts uploads via spreadsheets, so if we made an Excel spreadsheet with duplicate fields and did training on how to upload, both could be working simultaneously, and … all we had to do was reset a preset.
We ticked off other troublesome presets one by one: Her “partner” telecommuted on bank deposit days (change the bank pickup schedule to days they both were there to allow for vacation coverage); people were used to giving her partner assignments (redirect to Carol, who would make daily assignments), etc., etc. Carol needed the authority to reset the presets, and she was off and running as a new manager. (Continued)
Now, let’s see things from Gloria’s perspective. She is, for purposes of IB’s formal organizational chart, Carol’s direct report. But we now see her as Carol’s vendor or partner, depending on Gloria’s mental set, which I leave to Gloria. Even if Carol opts to give daily work assignments to Gloria, Gloria telecommutes and has the trust of our organization (and Carol) to be held accountable for results, not process, so long as the work is completed on time and to standard. She’s trained, told what is expected of her, and encouraged to do it her best way, and to speak loudly and clearly if a conflicting IB policy or preset could be improved.
No one employee at IB is less important than another. Yes, some have specific professional talents or knowledge, while others bring more generalized, practical experience to the workplace, but each one represents a company of one, two, or maybe even three people inside a larger company, inside another, and so on, enfolded to give IB the stability and structure it needs. Our managers (by title) manage process and resources and have neither the time nor the desire to micromanage people. So that’s my theory of management and, for us, the “doll-face” theorem works.
Sign up for the free IB Update – your weekly resource for local business news, analysis, voices, and the names you need to know. Click here. If you are not already a subscriber to In Business magazine, be sure to sign up for our monthly print edition here.
