Managers Part X - Minimizing Subordinate-Imposed Timne

As I alluded to at the end of Part IX, in theory there is no such thing as Subordinate-Imposed Time, but since practice often deviates from theory, in the real world there is such a thing as Subordinate-Imposed time. 

Subordinate-Imposed Time is time spent doing things that a subordinate asked you to do. Back to theory - in a typical organizational chart the people who give the orders are at the top and those who get ordered are lower down - there are invisible arrows always pointing down. But sometimes a crafty subordinate will figure a way to switch that arrow around so that it's pointing up. Usually this takes the form of a subordinate either not knowing how to do something (bad training perhaps?) or not wanting to take responsibility for the things listed in their job description. With the former, the manager has to get involved to either retrain the subordinate or to do the job herself; in the latter will also result in the manager having to do the work personally. In order to eliminate or minimize Subordinate-Imposed Time, the professional manager must internalize the reality that the job of a manager is not to do things, but to see that things get done. William Oncken, in his book Managing Management Time lays out five levels for a subordinate:

1. Wait until being told before doing anything
2. Ask what to do before doing anything
3. Make independent decisions regarding what to do, but check with a manager before actually doing it
4. Make independent decisions regarding what to do, informing the manager after the fact what was done
5. Make independent decisions regarding what to do, routine reporting in only

#1, it should be fairly obvious to see, should only apply to brand-new people who barely know what their job is, let alone how to do it; although I have seen this behavior in people who had been in a job long enough to know the basics. Even the newest employee will quickly move to #2 and ask "What do I do now?" after completing a task.

#2 is where most entry-level employees spend most of their day. The boss gives them a to-do list, the employees complete the list and then go ask what to do next. This is why I have never been a big supporter of to-do lists, it limits the employee to a certain set of tasks and doesn't encourage them to think

#3 is where you want your employees to be fairly quickly. rather than give them a list, give them a vision of how you want things to be when they are done. Back when I worked in a grocery store we had a position that was called "grocery clerk". These employees, usually high school students working their first job, were responsible for bringing in stray shopping carts, filling displays, straightening out the aisles, cleaning bathrooms and overall customer service. An "okay" clerk did the items on the list and then asked a manager what to do, or reverted to #1 and didn't do anything! A good grocery clerk knew that his job included all the aforementioned things and organized his time to get them all done, prioritizing as needed, usually checking with the manager if he was going outside or taking a break. 

#4 is the goal for your employees. To extend the grocery clerk example, a manager didn't need a great grocery clerk to check in except occasionally during a shift, and trusted the clerk to do what needed to be done without being repeatedly told. This is also where you want all supervising or managing employees to be. 

#5 is where very few people have the confidence to be, and what very few managers have the trust to allow. This is where true delegation takes place. Delegation is where an employee knows what needs to be done and does it, secure in the knowledge that they have the responsibility and the authority to get it done. Delegation from the manager's perspective is where the manager has done sufficient training and instruction for the subordinate and has enough confidence and trust in the subordinates ability to allow that independence. It is the opposite of assigning, which is what takes place in #1 and #2, and a little bit in #3.

The independence scale can be looked at somewhat like an insurance policy. With #1 you have a pretty high premium (the time you have to spend in Subordinate-Imposed Time) but a low deductible (amount of exposure to risk - you're involved 100%, so there's no chance a subordinate's actions can get you in trouble). With #5 you have a low premium (very little time spent supervising the subordinate) but a very high deductible, or exposure to risk (it's still your ass on the line if the subordinate messes up). If you have an aversion to risk (i.e. trusting your subordinates) then you'll be stuck forever with subordinates who can't decide which hand to wipe their butts with without consulting you first; but if you can train and coach your people to rise to the higher numbers on the independence scale, then you will have all but eliminated a significant demand on your time. 

At my last job with a state government agency I saw both sides of management's application of these levels. During my first seven years I was a low-level analyst, but having been in management for so many years, I gravitated to getting myself to Level #5. This was discouraged. Any independent action had to be run by the manager. Even employees who had been in the agency for decades were afraid to make independent decisions. We were barely in Level #3. During my last few years I transferred to another division. The new manager laid out his vision to me in the first few weeks, then stepped back and let me do it. About the only time I got him involved in my work was if there was a situation that was clearly outside my job description. I was truly in a Level #5 situation. With the first manager she was dealing with quite a bit of subordinate-imposed time, since she had not allowed her team to progress beyond basic Level #3, whereas with my second manager he received virtually no subordinate-imposed time, at least not from me. 

There's another side to this. Unless you are at the top of the corporate pyramid, you have a boss. Maybe you have a boss who believes in the levels of independence and strives to eliminate her Subordinate-Imposed Time, freeing you to operate at Level Five, but more likely you have a manager who likes to micromanage to some extent. Then it becomes your job to manage your boss in order to get yourself higher on the independence scale. (More on this in Part XII)

Start with Part I

So, You Want to Join a Cult - Part IXa - The Ethics of Deprogramming

I'll argue that cults are generally bad things and people shouldn't get involved in them, but is it justified to forcibly remove cult members from the a cult?

Not usually. 

Of course, those cults that involve adult men with multiple teenage girls as their "wives", or if there is definite physical abuse going on, there should be intervention. But most cults are pretty boring. 

During my involvement with The Way International my parents considered "deprogramming" me in order to "free" me from my supposed mental imprisonment. They went so far as to consult with a deprogrammer, who actually talked them out of the attempt, pointing out that failure would mean that I'd likely never want to have anything to do with them ever again. They chose not to risk it. Mom and Dad never spoke of it, but many years later one of my sisters spilled the beans. At the time there was a lot of media focus on cults in the wake of the forced mass suicide at The People's Temple in Guyana. Parents whose children were in cults assumed that all cults were potentially going to end up like Jim Jones' followers. The cults that attracted the most attention also tended to have beliefs or practices (or both) that were far enough outside the mainstream as to appear "weird". The assumption was that the only reason that anyone would get involved in a cult was that they were brainwashed. Mind control was the only way to explain it. If you didn't think about it too deeply. 

Family members often point to how their loved ones "changed" after getting involved with a cult, not only their beliefs, but their behaviors and loyalties. But is that so unusual when new recruits to a cult are more likely to be young and actually looking to change their lives? Many people who have had family members join the military, especially those who have seen combat, could attest to the changes in the outlook of their loved ones. People change their political orientation all the time. A new cult member typically is looking for some meaning in their life and a cult often provides that meaning. Is it any wonder that they are often exceedingly gung-ho about their new life's focus? 

What about when the honeymoon period of cult involvement has ended and the cult member begins to experience some of the abusive treatment? Surely that's brainwashing? Not so fast! We can compare someone who stays in a harmful cult to someone who stays with an abusive spouse, sure that she loves the man who beats her every day, or is afraid that she won't be able to survive on her own. Or someone who hates their job but won't look for a new one. Justified or not, logical or not, people continue in harmful situations either because they fear that the alternative is worse, or have made the calculation that the perceived benefits outweighs the downside. I personally have done both - I stayed in a marriage that was mentally abusive because I was afraid that I'd lose my children and afraid to be perceived as a failure, rather than get out; I continued in a job that was terrible on many, many levels because I judged that the financial benefits outweighed the negatives that I had to endure. 

People join cults because they make a decision to get involved in something that they believe gives them what they want...whatever that may be. People stay involved in cults because they make a decision that staying in is the better alternative to getting out. Are they making the "right" decision? Who knows? Unless one knows all the variables in another's life, how can you decide what is best for that person? Spoiler alert: you can't. 

So what about deprogramming? You don't hear too much about deprogramming these days, or cults for that matter. But back in the eighties there were a lot of people making big money from the families of young people involved in cults. I know of several people who were the target of deprogrammers, some succumbed and left their cult, some escaped the deprogrammers and went back. What did deprogrammers actually do? Their first step was kidnapping the target of the deprogramming. Kidnapping! Often violently. The head deprogrammer would hire muscle to abduct the target who then be locked away from the world, often in an isolated farm house of hotel room. The abductee didn't usually even know what city they were in. They were allowed no contact with their fellow cult members, were not allowed to leave and sometimes were physically restrained. In one case that I know about personally, he had his shoes and socks taken away! In extreme cases they were sleep deprived and physically restrained. Various methods of persuasion were employed - the cult's beliefs were questioned or mocked, accusations made about the cult leader, and in one case that I am familiar with, the abductee's fiancée, who was also a cult member, was accused of cheating on him! The methods used by deprogrammers appear closer to what would be consider brainwashing than what the cults actually engaged in. 

If cults, in particular the one I was involved in, had brainwashed their members, it would stand to reason that it would be difficult for someone to leave. Yet during my own involvement I saw people freely walk away, new people, as well as those who had been in for decades. My own cousin, who got me involved, walked away within a year, presumably because she decided that it wasn't providing anything that she wanted or needed that she wasn't getting anywhere else.

Finally, in the United States we have the right of free association, as well as the right to the religion of our choice. No one has the right to forcibly convert (or de-convert) someone else...even if they think the other's beliefs are harmful...or weird.

Start from the Beginning: Part I

Review article on Brainwashing: Part IX - Brainwashing