Excerpt from At Work News, week of August 18, 1998

Shared Management - It Can Work
Bernadette Malinoski, Janet Murray, and George SanFacon

A few years ago, the Housing Facilities Department at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, initiated a bold experiment: they dismantled their intricate hierarchy of managers and, in an effort to promote shared governance, reorganized these managers into collaborative teams. The report below explains how their model of shared management works, the challenges they faced in implementing it, and the benefits they are seeing.

Even as managers adopt more participative approaches to strategic planning and day-to-day decision making, and move to mandate more effective structures and reporting relationships (such as self-directed teams) at lower organizational levels, they continue to maintain the status quo at their own level. There are many reasons for this. It is rare to find an upper-level manager who fully comprehends the limitations and the "moral ecology" of the prevailing command-and-control model, and it is even rarer to find one who is willing to give up the one-on-one, boss-subordinate approach to management. And even though most managers resent having to practice the time-consuming and energy-draining "arts" of office politics and bureaucracy, they can see no alternative to the traditional pattern of exercising power in organizations. Furthermore, many are doubtful about group management. They fear that it will be poorly executed and will grind operations to a halt.

But all this need not be so. There are ways for Managers to collaborate effectively and efficiently, as demonstrated by the case of the Housing Facilities Department of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, which has successfully implemented a model of shared management.

The decision to change the traditional way of managing the 250-member department was triggered by the recognition, in 1991, that the group's upper and mid-level managers were not fulfilling their potential and suffered low morale, low trust, and symptoms of burnout. In early 1992, the director of the department proposed that a new model of shared governance be adopted. This set in motion a several-year process that has produced an integrated network of overlapping teams chartered to lead and manage the enterprise.

At the time the shift to shared management was proposed, the Housing Facilities Department was managed by a three-level hierarchy composed of a director, an assistant director, and five mid-level managers. The new management model folded these managers into a new governing body, the Facilities Council. The traditional boss-subordinate relationships were eliminated, and all seven managers began reporting to the Council as a whole. A shift in emphasis concerning the "conditions of employment"--from emphasizing individual performance and vulnerability to emphasizing good faith and community--accompanied this change. These efforts began to address the fears that had separated managers from one another and undermined what they were trying to accomplish as an organization.

The successful operation of the Facilities Council led to the adoption by the mid-level managers of a similar management framework for their direct reports. Now, instead of a mid-level hierarchy of managers, supervisors, and professionals, there are four self-directed Management Teams, three responsible for day-to-day services and one responsible for architectural, engineering, and interior design services. Even though each of these teams had a member on the Facilities Council, it became clear over time that the Management Teams and Council were not working together as well as they should. In response, the Council created a second, double-link avenue for including more representatives from the Management Teams in its membership.

This framework evolved in an ad hoc and often spontaneous manner, driven and shaped by attempts to deal forthrightly with the matters at hand. It is also the result of a genuine effort to create and sustain an appropriate workplace experience, defined as "one that promotes the well-being and growth of both those involved and those affected."

Here's how it works:

A MODEL OF GROUP GOVERNANCE

The Facilities Council is a self-managed leadership team of up to eleven individuals which has been chartered by the University's executive administration. The Council's primary role is to translate vision into action and reality. Its day-to-day efforts focus on maintaining the continuity of basic services and on continuous improvement.

Four self-managed teams, each chartered to manage specific operations and service units, report to the Council. Management Teams are expected to actively engage with their assigned units to monitor and review the quality of services, control expenses, and achieve continuous improvement. Each team has a designated "first among equals" representative who is also a member of the Facilities Council, and who is held accountable by the Council for the overall performance of his or her team. In addition, each team has the option of placing a second representative on the Council. 

The Facilities Council has legitimate authority to intervene at the Management Team level under four circumstances: when it is requested to do so by a team, when it believes that the department's mission statement or good faith commitment may have been violated, when it is directed to do so by a higher administrative authority, or when it perceives that the team lacks a core competency or the ability to handle a critical, specific problem. Interventions may consist of follow-up by a single Council member, a subgroup, or the entire Council.

Council members, who meet every two weeks, are committed to working in accordance with the letter and spirit of this framework in good faith and to the best of their abilities. To that end, each individual signs a good faith commitment and charter, which is countersigned by executive administration. Good faith is defined by the department as "demonstrating a sincere commitment to the mutual well-being of all affected parties. This encompasses working with good intentions, trust, honesty, and motivation beyond self-interest to accomplish our common mission and goals."

Facilities Council decision making is collective and done strictly by consensus. To avoid "gridlock" and expedite decision making, members are not expected or required to check back with their Management Teams prior to making every decision. While efforts are made to include team input prior to and during decision making, especially on major issues, the size, scope and volume of work of the enterprise requires that many decisions be made without such processing. 

The Council's consensus process consists of hearing and understanding what each individual has to say, and reaching a decision that is acceptable to all and consistent with the mission statement. For relatively minor issues, a modified consensus approach is sometimes used to expedite the decision-making process. In these instances, the process is based on the principle of "no objection," whereby decisions are made when no reasoned objections are raised. A majority vote approach is also used on rare occasions when the issue is minor and there is little or no time available for discussion. These modified approaches, however, are used only when there is a consensus to do so.

To facilitate reaching consensus on difficult issues, the Facilities Council sometimes postpones decisions after members have shared their different perspectives. The resulting mental "soak time" helps members to let go of positions they personally identify with, find common ground, and integrate their views into creative alternatives that can be supported by others. Sometimes dialogue is practiced in order to create and build collective understanding around difficult issues. This process places emphasis on collaboration and synthesis rather than on winning others over to a point of view. The Council also uses "worldwork" methods developed by Arnold Mindell and designed to help individuals separate themselves from the positions or opinions they hold.

Departmental staff and others may appeal decisions made by the Council or a Council member by notifying and meeting directly with the Council. As an alternative to approaching the entire Council, parties may elect to approach an individual Council member of their choice. That member is then responsible for bringing the issue forward to the Council as a whole. If the appeal is unsuccessful at the Council level, parties may then carry their appeal forward to executive administration for consideration.

KEY ELEMENTS

The group governance and management structure creates a powerful "container" within which continuous improvement and systems change, as well as personal and organizational transformation, are sustained. It also holds in check the negative tendencies of both individual and group dominance. Key elements of this open framework and shared governance system include the following.

Nontraditional Reporting Relationships. Instead of having a traditional, one-on-one reporting relationship, individual managers report to their team (or to the Council) as a whole. This means that the performance of any individual on the team is the business of the entire team. Concerns related to a specific member are addressed on a consensus basis by the team with that individual. A team's (and the Council's) first among equals, who is held accountable for the team, serves as coach and facilitator. Over time, participants lose their fear of reprisals for being honest, and "undiscussables" become discussable. People come to see that both the team members and the enterprise become vulnerable when problems or weaknesses are not acknowledged and addressed.

Consensus Decision Making. That the governance and management teams operate solely by consensus decision making minimizes the formation of factions and win-lose dynamics. Consensus is defined as, "every member being willing to accept and fully support the decision as a good one for the group and enterprise, even if it doesn't represent their personal first choice or preference."

Clear Boundary Conditions. The department's mission, goals, and values are clearly stated, and all agree that shared power and authority are to be used to further the collective purpose of the enterprise. Individuals sign a charter that states they will work in good faith, and to the best of their ability, to accomplish the mission and goals.

Performance and Good Faith Effort Distinguished. In the traditional model, individuals are continually at risk and vulnerable if their performance is inadequate. In this model, individual performance issues are handled by self-correction, compensating actions of team members, or a combination thereof. The team members stand together; as long as an individual is working in good faith, he or she can count on the continued support of the other members. Over time, it becomes difficult if not impossible for a person acting in bad faith to manipulate others or the system for self-serving ends.

An "Open Book" System. There are few, if any, secrets. Departmental budgets, individual and team performance, and individual merit pay and salaries are all determined using team-based processes. Performance assessment and feedback systems provide information to measure the quality of services, quantity of work done, and the performance levels of both individuals and teams. Agendas and meeting minutes for all teams are shared across the entire department.

Effective Linkages. The first among equals and double-link members connect and integrate the governing Council with the Management Teams. Linking consists of continuously engaging in both the Council and Team arenas, thereby creating a dynamic organizational network. Other types of linkages used include task forces, ad hoc groups, and standing subgroups for specific functional areas.

Choice. Fulfilling governance roles is a privilege and an act of service for the common good. Managers are therefore given the freedom to choose whether or not they want to give up their traditional one-on-one reporting relationship to share management responsibilities. With only one exception, the department's thirty-five supervisory, managerial, and professional staff members have chosen a team-based rather than a one-on-one reporting relationship.

BENEFITS OF LIVING THE MODEL

In the Housing Facilities Department, resources are freely shared across units. Turnover is extremely low, and outstanding performers from elsewhere watch for opportunities to join the enterprise. Feedback on the quality of services is viewed as information rather than as a potential threat, and performance assessment has become a journey in self-awareness and openness rather than denial and defensiveness.

The number of mid-level management positions has decreased 25 percent through attrition, and those resources have been redeployed into environmental safety and information technology. Simultaneously, customer satisfaction levels have increased and financial performance has improved. There is more joy, caring, fun, understanding and support for members, both personally and professionally. Individuals have even volunteered a portion of their annual merit increase to augment the salaries of lower-paid colleagues.

LEARNINGS

Organizations and leaders who contemplate adopting a model of shared governance need to assess their readiness, available resources, and stamina:

Readiness
If the leaders aren't really serious about sharing power or growing as individuals, they will be found out and exposed in a system of shared governance. Such frameworks make it difficult to hide behind a veil of power and position. On the other hand, if the leaders want to grow and are willing to make themselves vulnerable, difficult issues can become opportunities for personal and professional growth.

It isn't necessary to "fix everything" prior to adopting a system of shared governance. Nor is it necessary to have the requisite problem-solving and conflict management skills. These can be developed experientially as the team attempts to deal forthrightly with the matters at hand.

To succeed in this framework, a group of colleagues need:

• functional competence
• personal commitments to do what is best for the enterprise as a whole
• willingness to learn how to candidly confront one another on issues, be
• vulnerable to the feedback of others, and hold one another accountable
• commitment to support one another both personally and professionally.

Necessary Resources
Outside consultants and facilitators are extremely helpful, if not essential, for major development sessions. Trust for an endeavor is significantly enhanced if the group's lower level peers select the consultant and act as the primary contacts.

Electronic mail greatly facilitates working in a participative framework. Council members use it extensively to conduct business and keep one another informed on a real-time basis. This helps in maintaining group cohesiveness, as well as in keeping Council meetings free of minor issues and "clutter."

Things to Remember When the Going Gets Tough It takes participants a long time to test the sincerity and integrity of the leadership within the new framework. When it comes to establishing trust, memos and fanfare don't help much. Written communications and presentations can help people to understand a new framework, but only personal experience with it enables them to let go of their skepticism and come to believe that it isn't just another management fad. Trust and commitment arise out of people's direct, personal experience over time.

There are ups and downs with the process, and it takes time for participants to adjust to the equalization of their roles and develop the requisite interaction skills. Participants therefore need to be committed for the long term and need to remember that what they're creating doesn't have to be perfect, just better than what already exists.

With power and authority distributed more equally among the members, participants feel more responsible when things are dysfunctional. It is more difficult to rationalize and blame others for a continuing problem that hasn't been addressed. People's sense of personal accountability and integrity build energy toward taking initiative to raise and address issues.

A group's norms and expectations need to be periodically reviewed and revised. As the group matures, participants are increasingly willing and able to address deeper issues that were previously not discussable, requiring new levels of mutual understanding related to norms and expectations.

Significant long-term change and improvement are the result of long-term practice.

Bernadette Malinoski is founder of Workplace Partners, L.L.C., and has been working with the Housing Facilities Council and Management Teams as a consultant since 1995. She can be reached at 734-741-8672 or bmalski@umich.edu.

Janet Murray is a technical writer, course design specialist, and independent consultant who can be reached at 313-562-3405.or jemray@aol.com.

George SanFacon is Director of Housing Facilities at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and can be reached at 734-763-3175 or

For more information, the Housing Facilities Department's Council Handbook: Guidelines for Collective Governance and Interaction describes the understandings and protocols developed for the framework over the last several years. Copies are available upon request from George SanFacon or the other coauthors of this article.