Responsibility grows larger, not closer.

To know what is inside the decision — not to build along. Every week I read one change from the core of the platform, without approving it, without commenting. In the group this was the only source that had not passed through three rounds of slides.

SITUATION

A target architecture for the core platform is up for approval; the integrator wrote the text.

TRAP

Reading the summary and mistaking that for closeness.

SIGN

In the steering committee I ask a question the integrator has no slide for.

When someone wants a decision, I ask by when they need it and name the point in time. Until then I check three things: people, money, dependencies on running releases. A refusal gets one reason, not three; every further one is a door the request comes back through.

SITUATION

The plant manager calls: the supplier of the new packaging line could start Monday if the interface is confirmed today.

TRAP

Committing on the phone and collecting the commitment from the team afterwards.

SIGN

On the next call the plant manager states by when he needs the answer, unprompted.

The calendar fills itself if I let it, and then I am being led. So every invitation without a purpose goes back with one question: what decision is expected from me there. If no answer comes, the meeting is dropped, and the matter gets another owner.

SITUATION

The week after the release is full before it starts, and not one entry came from my own planning.

TRAP

Closing the gap with longer days instead of fewer meetings.

SIGN

The next invitation from the release project names the decision it wants from me in its subject line.

I say what happened, with the date, and what it cost the shift; not a word about what I think of it. Then the request, with the date on which I check it. After that I stop justifying it; every justification makes it negotiable.

SITUATION

A sub-project lead has postponed the handover to production three times, and each time the shift found out that morning.

TRAP

Justifying the request after making it.

SIGN

The reply is about the next handover date, not about my tone.

Whoever takes on a task hears from me that I trust them with it, and the route stays open. In the family firm that sentence came from the owner in person, and it carried for years. In the group it is replaced by the objectives form, and that does not carry.

SITUATION

A developer takes over the control system that halts an entire line if it fails.

TRAP

Handing over task and solution together; then it was an instruction.

SIGN

The solution that comes back is not mine, and the line runs.

I led portal development and then led the people I had shared code with. Two of them could just as well have got the position. I spoke to them first, alone, and said the word passed over myself. Waiting for someone to come forward is waiting in vain; people who were passed over do not speak up, they work around you.

SITUATION

The overall lead is filled, and from Monday two colleagues at the same level sit in my status meeting.

TRAP

Announcing the new role to the whole team before the two one-to-ones have happened.

SIGN

One of the two brings the first architecture conflict after the change into the status meeting themselves.

I ask what is running, where it is stuck and where I am needed, and I answer none of the questions myself. After a stoppage, maintenance speaks before engineering and before me. Then I sit through the silence; whoever fills it themselves has opened the round only formally and leaves with the same picture they came in with.

SITUATION

Weekly round of engineering, maintenance and warehouse logistics after a stoppage on the night shift.

TRAP

Answering your own question during the pause.

SIGN

The cause of the stoppage in the minutes comes from maintenance, not from my guess.

An outcome has a target figure, a date and a name. Whoever distributes steps stays the only one who sees the whole and therefore has to be everywhere. A team that decides without me only comes about if it has something whole to answer for.

SITUATION

Connecting a second plant is due; the task can be cut into forty tickets or into one outcome with a date.

TRAP

Cutting the tickets yourself out of worry about the deadline.

SIGN

The team moves an intermediate step without asking me, and the date holds.

In the family-owned house the best is often the foreman with twenty years whom the owner trusts. In the group it is the performer with a sponsor above me. Both get the same feedback as everyone else, and in front of the team if the breach happened in front of the team. The good people watch closely what I do here, and they are the first to leave.

SITUATION

The most experienced developer pushes straight to production on a Friday evening, again, and this time nothing broke.

TRAP

Letting the breach pass because of the experience.

SIGN

The next Friday evening push arrives as a merge request with a reviewer.

In a matrix I lead people whose boss sits elsewhere. Authority I do not have; a date and a question I do. The meeting is every two weeks, the questions go out in writing beforehand, and any question that can be answered with yes I delete before sending.

SITUATION

A country unit is to adopt the target architecture but reports to the country head, not to me.

TRAP

Escalating through the board before the second meeting has taken place.

SIGN

The country unit sends its points before the meeting without me asking.

With every rollout, whether a new warehouse system or a new security policy, there are people who are against it before they know the content. So what safe operation requires is fixed beforehand, and I hold every objection against that. Whoever names a risk changes the order or the design.

SITUATION

Works meeting at the plant, the new warehouse management system is presented, and the pickers sit in the third row with folded arms.

TRAP

Making the loudest sceptic the audience of the presentation.

SIGN

The day after, every objection from the meeting is on the list: as a requirement, or as checked and dismissed, with the reason next to it.

The works council asks about performance monitoring, procurement about the price, the plant about downtime. I know this in advance. So the paper says what is captured, what for, who sees it and how long it is kept, before anyone has to ask. Whether and how data is captured at the machines I agree with the works council; the paper is the start of that negotiation.

SITUATION

Introducing machine data capture on the shop floor; the paper goes to the works council before a single device is ordered.

TRAP

Waiting for the question about performance monitoring instead of writing it into the paper myself.

SIGN

The agreement with the works council is in place before the first data is captured, and what we negotiated over was already in my paper.

Five parts: the trigger as a concrete incident, the current state in numbers, the target as a shared outcome, the measures with names, budget and end date, the proposed resolution. The current state is accepted within two sentences or the paper is dead. What I cannot translate into a person, an amount and a date is not a decision yet, it is an intention.

SITUATION

The security roadmap for all country units goes to the board, and the session has twelve minutes for it.

TRAP

Starting with the history of the topic instead of the trigger.

SIGN

The first question from the board is directed at one of the named people, not at me.

With the owner the decision falls at the table, and whoever comes back does so with a new argument, never the same one louder. In the group the no falls in a committee that meets again in six weeks with different people in the room. For both I need three arguments that stand independently, and I use only one per round.

SITUATION

Replacing the machine control system from the nineties has been rejected for the second time.

TRAP

Repeating the first argument because it was the best one.

SIGN

After a no in the group, the committee date and the next argument are in my file; after the owner's no, my file says whether the matter is closed or what I will come back with.

Reporting shows the state, not the expectation. A light I keep amber for three months because remediation is under way is a red one I withheld. Whoever brings the bad news themselves keeps the action plan; whoever lets it be found gets one imposed.

SITUATION

The penetration test finds a gap before the quarterly report, and fixing it takes longer than the reporting period.

TRAP

Reporting the remediation as in progress and not the gap.

SIGN

The board's follow-up is about the action plan, not about how long I had known.