Much has been said about the necessity of getting employees to “own” or “buy into” organizational goals if they are to successfully pursue those goals. Including in this blog.
What I’d like to address, however, is a different aspect of ownership in the workplace, namely, determining who exactly “owns” a task, a problem, or a project.
Many years ago, I did an investigation at a large tech company. One thing I noticed was that nearly every witness talked in terms of “ownership,” i.e., they explicitly allocated responsibility for tasks to themselves or other specific employees. In “project managing” cultures such as that one, the concept of ownership makes particular sense and is widely used.
Since then, I’ve come to see that explicitly allocating “ownership” makes sense in many (perhaps all) workplaces, even those that do not see themselves as managing projects. Why? There are many benefits, including increasing accountability and improving outcomes. What I’d like to address, however, is how it can reduce stress.
Imagine these four situations:
- A mid-level manager sees that there is going to be a severe staffing shortage in a key operational area during a critical time. She is losing sleep worrying about how to handle it.
- Another manager is working 80 hours a week implementing a new computer software program and doing an excellent job of it. He has been given staff to work with but they are incompetent and impeding productivity rather than helping.
- An assistant in a service business is frustrated with the professionals’ failure to send bills to clients in a timely manner. She brings it up frequently, but her concerns are met with indifference or irritation.
- A supervisor is doing everything in his power to help an employee improve the employee’s work to avoid having to terminate the employee. He’s very frustrated because no improvement is occurring.
The common thread here: ownership is misplaced. In situation one, the manager has correctly identified a problem, but then incorrectly assumed sole ownership of it. It is an organizational issue and the manager needs to present it to her manager as a problem that “we” or “the organization” need to address.
In situation two, the manager is letting his management off the hook, again by taking sole responsibility for a system-wide project that upper management also needs to own. Unless the manager makes it clear that the status quo is not working, it’s one less problem for upper management to worry about.
The third situation is just the opposite: the assistant is taking ownership of a problem that simply is not hers to own. If the providers do not want to maximize their incomes, so be it – it’s their business. So long as the assistant is paid, their income is none of hers.
Finally, the fourth situation highlights what happens when a supervisor has taken improvement of an employee on himself, instead of placing it where it belongs: on the employee. The supervisor’s job is to coach the employee and provide guidance, but it is the employee’s job to do what’s needed to improve his or her job performance.
These scenarios are all based on real situations. In each one, once the person realized where ownership belonged or with whom it needed to be shared, their stress decreased markedly.
Placing ownership where it belongs is an important tool. Have you found that in your work? ~Amy Stephson