All of our workplaces have goals and objectives they want to achieve. The standard approach is to ask the best and brightest employees to generate ideas, work through the planning process and develop a plan to achieve the objective. But, no matter how “well-planned,” our workplaces still experience problems achieving the objective.
Why is that?
It is because the planning process is too entrenched in male-thinking.
Don’t believe me? Google “Planning Process” and read some of the results. They leave little doubt that the planning process requires a lot of stereotyped male traits – intellectual, analytical, rational etc. They also use a lot of jargon leading us to believe that Planning is what the smart and highly educated people do.
The not-so-smart and not-so-well-educated execute the plans that are handed-down to them. I read “Plans must be communicated and explained to those responsible for putting them into practice. The participation and cooperation of subordinates is necessary for successful implementation of plans.”
Sounds a bit elitist and snobbish.
I could let that pass if the feelings of superiority were deserved – but they aren’t. In my experience very few, if any, plans can be handed-down and implemented without revamping. I’ve seen many plans designed by the so-called planning experts get thrown in the trash because they simply don’t work.
The fundamental problem is that the male-dominated workplace believes in the separation of planning and implementation. This idea goes back to the 19th century and Frederick Taylor’s scientific management theory. Even though we have moved away from a manufacturing economy into a more service and technology based economy, we still dragged a lot of his management theory into the 21st century.
Why?
Dr. Myron Tribus of MIT explained it this way: “It suits the self-image of managers [and planners] that they were superior, the brains for others who could only supply the brawn.”
So even though the management theory doesn’t produce the best results, the male-dominated workplace hangs onto it because it feeds ego, status and a feeling of superiority for some.
We see this distinction carried out in many of our workplaces (and society) – there is a separation of the educated personnel who “work with their heads” from the “uneducated” personnel who work with their hands.
The Suits
As a young female engineer, this class distinction was readily apparent in my first workplaces. Engineers worked over here and craftsmen worked over there. The only engineers who worked with the craftsmen were there as the managers.
I often thought that if I were a man, I probably wouldn’t question this arrangement. But as a woman the separation and distinction seemed contrived. I questioned it.
When I was assigned several plans to write, I could have sat at my desk and developed them all by myself like my male colleagues were doing. However, I decided to “cross over,” interact with the craftsmen and ask for their input. I found that they were incredibly knowledgeable. I learned that if I wanted to know HOW things worked and HOW to get things done, I should ask them. Working with them, I wrote plans that they later implemented. The plans actually worked and achieved the objective.
About a year later the engineering staff was floundering for months trying to solve a recurring problem. Many engineering consultants were brought in but they couldn’t come up with a solution either. I had an idea – let’s ask the craftsmen who were always sent out to fix the problem. I took the initiative to gather them together and asked them if they could come up with a solution. Working together it took them 1 hour to figure it out.
1 hour.
That was a pivotal moment – I realized that all of the separations and the distinctions in the workplace by function and education was a detriment to effective planning and implementation. If everyone worked together through the planning and implementation processes we would meet and potentially exceed our objectives.
When I became a manager, this became my management philosophy – work together.
At first it was difficult because the various factions had rivalries they enjoyed. So, I forced the issue. I scheduled planning meetings between the planners and craftsmen and literally sat in the meetings as the babysitter. Eventually they began building relationships and collaborating. I almost died of shock the first time I walked into the Planning office and found craftsmen in there voluntarily collaborating with the planners.
Within a few months the change in our performance was noticeable. Within a year our performance was exponentially better.
Throughout my career I continued to make the various workplace functions work together in both the planning and execution of work. I believed everyone needed to park their egos at the door and that no one is so smart and so superior that they have all the answers.
I ran into opposition, especially in the last 15 years or so. There seems to be more and more men who believe their education distinquishes them and it is beneath them to interact with the workforce. They believe they get to pontificate from the on-high of their cubicle and create dictates for the minions to follow.
Of course, their dictates don’t work because they don’t understand how things work in the real world. But don’t tell them they are wrong – they get angry and ugly.
I however never had a problem telling them they needed to get off their perch and participate in the real world if they wanted to be of any value. If they still didn’t listen, I cut them out. I didn’t involve them – if they wanted to sit in their cubicle by themselves, then they can sit in their cubicle by themselves. They then got upset because “they aren’t consulted in their area of expertise.” My response was, “We are all working together over here. You may join us any time you like. That decision is up to you.”
A few men never joined.
For most men, it is a challenge to undo the old learned ways of how the male-dominated workplace should function because their ego and self-identity are tied to their function and place in the organizational hierarchy. I found that women are essential to creating the change.
Women are much more comfortable working together with other people. Women aren’t as ashamed of what they don’t know so they are more willing to ask questions and collaborate. I laughed many times when men witnessed how women work together for the first time. They were amazed by women’s interaction, collaboration, problem-solving and the volume of work women produce.
As a manager I used women to draw men into collaboration. There are always a few men who are easily drawn in by the energy women create when they work together. These men and women form the core of the collaboration group. Once the core is established it is easier to invite more men to join in. Before long men are telling other men they have to join in.
That’s when you know you are successful
The collaboration group creates a lot of positive energy in the workplace. That positive energy is a natural attraction since so many of our workplaces drain us of energy. As people work together to produce results, achieve the objectives and improve performance, the positive energy grows and the group becomes powerful. It isn’t afraid to take on the bad actors, the people who use the workplace for selfish gain and the workplace bullies.
It is this positive energy that transforms the male-dominated workplace and creates the genuine teamwork we want.
Share this article and Sign up to receive more helpful articles.
Get my book to understand the Unique Value of Women in the Workplace
Follow The Woman In The Room on Facebook
