Building a Better General Manager

When Jensen-Byrd began to work with GMT in 1993, we were facing a common problem: We couldn't get our staff to work effectively on broad business-wide issues. Nearly every department at Jensen-Byrd was characterized by a narrow focus and a "throw it over the wall" mindset—while individual departments might improve internal procedures, there was little concern about what was happening in other departments, or at the next step in the process.

We weren't yet facing a crisis in profitability or market position, but we realized that, if this mindset wasn't addressed, those problems wouldn't be far off. My personal goal in 1993 was to get all our people to work together to streamline work processes and resolve the broad issues that could affect our future competitiveness.

I never dreamed that, as a result of our work with GMT, I would change the way I view the job of general manager—as well as the way I interact with people every day. Yet that's exactly what happened.

The first step was a critical one. GMT principals held lengthy interviews—averaging about two hours—with approximately 30 people throughout Jensen-Byrd. GMT identified a broad range of staff members—everyone from warehouse employees to President Mike Jensen—and asked them to talk candidly about their views of the company, and the most important issues facing us.

The next step was a "breakthrough workshop," in which GMT principals reviewed and explained their findings. What we heard was painful: Jensen-Byrd was perceived as a "top-down" company, one in which senior management wielded all the power. Our people had never taken their work on teams seriously, because they didn't believe they could really make a difference. Even more painful was what I learned about myself: I was perceived as an autocrat, unwilling to listen to others or look beyond my office door for answers to Jensen-Byrd's challenges.

If we really wanted employees to work crossfunctionally, then we would need to show them that their contributions were valued. We would also need to truly empower teams, so that they could take action without the direct involvement of senior management.

What followed was a lot of work for Jensen-Byrd—and a lot of soul-searching on my part. I realized that what had led me to my current position was, in part, my ability to study problems and arrive at effective solutions. Like many other managers, I had been consistently promoted and rewarded for "having the answers," and eventually everyone—including myself—had come to expect me to have all the answers.

I also learned I was giving off verbal cues that told people I didn't really want or value their input. In meetings, I would follow my own opinion with one of two phrases: "Wouldn't you agree?" or "Isn't that logical?" These two phrases were unintentionally shutting down discussion, and telling people that they were far from empowered. To this day, I have those two phrases taped to my desk—as a reminder to never say them again.

I quickly matched Jensen-Byrd's commitment to empowering teams with my own commitment to give up some of my personal control. With GMT's help, we established three crossfunctional teams and charged them to work on the most critical issues identified in GMT's interviews. Then—and this is the hard part for any traditionally trained manager—I let these teams do their jobs with support, but not intervention, from senior management.

The results for Jensen-Byrd were tremendous. For example, a Service Quality sub-team in the warehouse/distribution area has embraced its new power by writing a procedures manual and cross-training everyone in that department. This sub-team achieved a 20% reduction in work errors.

All three original teams have continued their work, and new teams have been formed to resolve other issues, such as the customer credit process.

Employee morale and enthusiasm reached an all-time high, and change was embraced because it is being initiated by employees, not management. Today, Jensen-Byrd has become a "bottom-up," empowered company, instead of a "top-down," autocratic dinosaur.

As for me, I am continuing to work at becoming a better general manager—and I will do so for the rest of my career. I have finally learned to admit that I don't have all the answers, and to go into meetings and say, "Here's the problem—let's talk about it and solve it together." By surrendering control, I've become a more effective—and more powerful—general manager.

But there needs to be a balance between employee empowerment and management control. For a brief period, I was so afraid of intimidating people that I was seeking consensus for every decision—no matter how minor. In fact, I was reluctant to even talk in meetings. What I learned is that some decisions, by nature, have to be made by me—the key is knowing which decisions fall into this category.

As I said, I've changed the way I view my job because of my work with GMT. I once thought of myself as a manager in the strictest sense of the word, and I kept close control over everything within my grasp.

Today, I believe I've become more of a leader than a manager—and I believe leadership is the most important job of a general manager. While a manager controls, a leader shows the way—and supports his people with the resources, and the trust, they need to get there themselves.