Same Leader, Bigger Job

This article in The Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago caught my eye: Corporate America Is Axing the 'Micro-Team' Boss (paywalled). A “Micro-Team,” in case you are unfamiliar with the term, is a team with just one or two direct reports. It’s a sort of first step for someone moving into leadership.

Uber is cutting such teams by half, along with eliminating 10% of its staff overall. The result will be 20% fewer managers. CEO Dara Khosrowshahi described the goal as "a simpler org chart geared toward building versus managing." He is not alone. The article reports Intel has halved its management layers from twelve to six. Google, Coinbase and public safety-tech company Axon were also cited as reducing the ranks of managers.

One sentence in the article stated the obvious, but often ignored, result: “For the supervisors still standing, [this] often means doing a job that is bigger, and more complicated, than ever.”

Yes. For those remaining -- same leader . . . bigger, more complex job.

In most organizations, this is the norm. We take the best performer and make them the leader. Best salesperson becomes sales manager. Best engineer becomes engineering director. Most productive person leads operations.

But doing the work well and leading people who do the work are two different capabilities, and one does not automatically or naturally deliver the other. What made her exceptional on her own — her speed, her standards, her instinct to grab the hard thing herself — is often what sinks her as the leader of others.

So if you are a leader making such cuts, be sure you are building – building the leaders who just went from two reports to ten or more. To not intentionally support and build your remaining leaders is leadership malpractice!

If your organization is flattening, here is where to focus with your “Leaders Who Remain:”

Assess. Do an honest assessment of the person and their new scope of responsibilities. Where are the gaps? I promise you there are gaps! Rarely is a new leader fully prepared for their new role. Have they developed anyone? Do they delegate, or do they rescue? Can they give feedback and hold others accountable?

Have the conversation. Then have an honest conversation. Express your confidence in them that they can do this job. Ask them for their self-assessment of where they see gaps – things they’ve never had to do before, or not done at scale. Maybe these are actual skills they haven’t mastered, like delegation or project management. Or perhaps they have the skills but have never had to be leader of this many people. After they give you their reflections, give them your assessment.

Make a plan. Between the two of you, identify specific leadership skills they need to grow. What aspects of “individual contributor” do they need to let go of? What are new leadership competencies they need to add? Make a schedule into the future for regular 1:1 time to pause and evaluate their progress as a leader.

Continue coaching. Too often, we give a lot of attention at the moment of change, but fail to follow up and make sure the change is going in the right direction. Don’t assume they are doing just fine in leading others well. Instead, make time to observe them. Give them encouragement on ways you see them leading well; and provide constructive feedback on areas they need to continue to grow. (Consider supporting them with a coach from McKinnon Leadership Group!)

Re-doing the org chart takes an afternoon. Growing the leaders who absorb takes more time, and nobody will force you to do it. Which is exactly why it gets skipped.

Autopilot says . . . make the cuts, promote the strong performers, move on. 

Intentional says . . . I’m asking this person to do something they've never done before — how do I support their growth into the leader I expect them to be?

Which are you?

As always, I welcome your feedback!