Home » Transparency

Tag: Transparency

Problem-Led Leadership

Vivienne Ming is blunt about her lack of traditional leadership skills:

I’m a pretty mediocre manager. I try to do the right things, but I’m much more focused on problems than I am on people. (HBR)

Ming is the co-founder of Socos, a machine learning company focused on helping people become better learners.

Ming is taking a different approach to leadership within Socos: leading by.. well not really leading. Ming focuses on solving problems, not playing CEO – an approach called “problem-led leadership.”

If I can get some people that are really good at the things that I’m not, then I can focus on my strengths. And my strengths are in creative problem solving — all the way down to writing the code myself.

The MIT Leadership Center is starting to research and codify this style. Problem-led leaders are distinct:

  • They choose challenge over trappings.
  • They let problems lead.
  • They choose collaboration.
  • They step up and step out.
  • They work the problem tirelessly.
  • They do what the data say.

This is a really different approach than we’re often encouraged to take. The obvious con to this approach is that if Ming’s team needs a leader and no one steps up, then the team goes without leadership and the whole project may fail.

But the pros are enormous too. Ming can focus on the big problem the company is trying to solve. And Ming always has the option to simply hire someone else to solve leadership challenges without forfeiting control of the company.

Finally, Ming is also sending a clear and consistent message about the company’s culture and values while also reminding employees that she’s not there to baby-sit anyone:

I get out there, and I solve problems. And I hope that motivates my colleagues to do the same.

Personally, I think problem-driven leadership is an interesting strategy. If more problem-centric individuals thought more about what leadership style would best fit their personality and strengths, we’d have a lot few bad bosses and a lot more successful companies.

Metrics Fixation

Let’s talk about metrics fixation and unintended consequences.

Consider 3 ideas:

  1. Emphasize standardized measurements.
  2. Incentivize actors with rewards and punishments.
  3. Publish measurements in order to hold groups accountable.

They sound great. And they are great – sometimes.

However, when we let these three concepts mindlessly replace our judgement, we often end up with unintended consequences and dysfunction. Jerry Muller calls this fetishizing of metrics “Metrics Fixation” in his recent interview with Russ Roberts on EconTalk.

Where do things go wrong?

Tyranny of Metrics Jerry Muller

  • Oversimplification of organizations, their values, and their complex facets can lead to measuring and incentivizing the wrong things or an incomplete list of things.
  • Actors play games in order to attain the desired metrics, often at the expense of the organization’s vision. Creative energy is now being diverted into gaming the metrics instead of creating real value.
  • Measurements, incentives, and transparency all have costs too.
  • Unintended consequences are sometimes intended.

That’s all great, but let’s make this tangible. Muller gives a crazy example in his book.

The original situation: Emergency rooms in the UK (called A&E Departments for accident & emergency) had long wait times.

The solution: Incentives for reducing wait times to below 4 hours were introduced.

The unintended consequence: Patients were required “to wait in queues of ambulances outside A&E Departments until the hospital in question was confident that that patient could be seen within four hours.” To make matters worse, these ambulances were now unavailable for other patients who needed emergency services.

Take away: metrics, incentives, and transparency are all great when properly coordinated. But watch carefully for unintended consequences.