One of the most under-rated tools in the toolbox of anyone who wants to try to get a group of people to do something complex is the “RACI” theory.
As a “Not nearly as famous as it should be” insight about managing teams, before I jump into the fun today, let me first summarize RACI. Yes, this will basically be me typing out a speech I’ve given only 1,100 times, so this article will have a bonus use case of me being able to just send a link next time I want to describe it, because the common online links like its Wiki page don’t really do the insight justice.
So, one of many basic challenges in organizing any team is the following: for any decision or issue that comes up, who should be at the table for the conversation about it? It’s a less obvious question than you think, by a lot.
The RACI answer is that there are for categories of people, each of whom need to be “at the table” regarding that issue. Each one of these 4 types of people may be represented in one person (in a one-man shop, one person plays all 4 roles!), and also the reverse: one of these types may have multiple people at the table filling that role.
It’s an acronym but I will describe it in a slightly different order (“ARCI” just doesn’t have that same ring to it!) but just because that will make it easier to understand.
- The “A” stands for the person who is “Accountable” – to be vulgar, the one whose ass is most on the line. He’s the one that writes the check or who signs his name on the bottom line, the one who, if the issue at hand fails, will both be left with the disaster in his hands as everyone else bails and who will then be the one who figures out the disaster is solved. In a tiny company, that tends to be the CEO for everything, but as the team grows, it turns into this next level down, then as it grows even more, it becomes the next level below that, and so forth.
- The “R” stands for “Responsible”. That’s the person who will actually get it done or, in larger contexts, is the operational lead of another team that will actually get it done. Think, the operational guy who will actually push the button or make sure the button gets pushed. The smaller the team, the more likely the “A” and the “R” are the same person: I’m the “A” for smart content creation *and* I’m the one sitting here actually writing (hopefully) smart content, that’s an “R” type activity. The “R” is important for many reasons because it is the voice of practical experience, of what Aristotle called “praxis” or practical wisdom, wisdom borne from experience. Without the “R”, it’s too likely that ideas venture out into pie-in-the-sky territory.
- The “C” is “Consulted.” These are people who are neither accountable nor responsible, but whose input is required to move ahead, and whose input is also required to make sure a smart decision is made. They don’t have the final decision but it’s essential that they give their input. You’re doing a super complex partnership? Okay, your lawyer isn’t the decision-maker but you have to get your lawyer’s input. Maybe you need the finance department to authorize funds? Then you need to consult with them to make sure the funds are there and can be approved. You’re doing something that touches a different department in the company? Okay, you’re still responsible and accountable, but the other department needs to provide its input and support as well. One of the best uses of the “C” is to consult those who are above you in the hierarchy; your boss or your client may delegate full authority on some-issue to you–but you likely still want to consult him on some of the more important or perhaps more complex aspects of it.
- The Final category, “I” is another group of people who are neither Responsible nor Accountable nor need to be consulted. That is those who need to be “informed.” Their opinion isn’t even needed, no feedback requested; they just need to know what’s up, they need to know that this is happening and how it’s going. This could take the form of your client or boss–on certain decisions, you may not even need to consult him, just tell him–or maybe another department, or maybe the lawyer. But there are lots of other “I”-s as well. Does the administrator need to know what’s happening so they can make sure the paperwork is pushed through? Does marketing, even though not a part of the decision-making process, need to know this is in process because it will effect them in some way? Or maybe there’s just some honorary person who you want to keep in the loop out of respect, or maybe there’s someone less-honorary who gets very emotionally offended if his authority isn’t acknowledged? Or maybe there’s *me*, who would live in the Panopticon if it were a condo complex not a hypothetical prison.
Note that an important concept to take into account if you are to experiment with a RACI matrix is to define not only which person goes into which category, but which type of activities, events, facts, data, news, updates, changes fall into that category. If a client expands their scope of work with you–who do you need to inform? When? In what format? Do you need to consult anyone on that, to make sure you have the capability to take that on? And so forth. So we can think of a RACI as a combination of an issue or problem, mixed with a team of people, mixed with protocols within that of what sorts of information or questions or approvals should flow and how they should flow.
Personally, I tend to think about every little decision in a RACI sort of way. I want to go to the corner store to buy some more garbage bags–wait was I the one responsible for making that happen? I’m definitely accountable because if I don’t, then it is my house that will smell like overflowing garbage. Ah, I need to tell so-and-on I’m going out, to get her opinion on whether I should buy anything else from the store. And let me inform the little kids by saying, “Bye!” so they don’t wonder why I’m not around. We can make it much more advanced and I can tell you all about my “RACI Pod” approach to focused task forces, if you want.
Now–let’s apply this to a lesson that RACI can learn from personality assessment testing. One notable detail about RACI is that in all practical implementations, each one of the four categories is represented by a person or multiple people. John, Mary, and James need to be consulted. And so forth.
But one of my favorite minor details of personality assessments is that it’s not a black-or-white. On Myers-Briggs, you might be 65% introverted. On Ocean/Big-Five, you might be 19% “open” to that which is new. Personality assessors, for any flaws they may have, have long understood that human personality is a spectrum, not a boolean.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to similarly, apply this sort of gradation to people–to you!–in regards to your approach and actions in a RACI context?
Well I think that would be very interesting. Now let’s look like what that could look like, one by one, and we’ll go in reverse-ish order to make the concept I’m proposing here clear.
I: Informed. I work in a work style that we could call “High I”–I like to just know what is happening in ways that are directly relevant to my charge, and indirectly relevant, and conversely I like others knowing what’s happening with my charges. With clients and those I manage, I tend to give them a lot of space, and a lot of “rope to hang themselves,” as the saying goes–but I need to know what’s happening. I’m the opposite of the micromanager in terms of the content of the work anyone will do, and I give extreme flexibility and space to those I manage in terms of the content of their work; I just really value being informed. Try this crazy idea of yours if you want even though I really disagree with it, hey it might work–I’m sometimes wrong–I just need to know what you’re doing. And this only works, in a fair way (in the world according to Morgan, at least!) when this is double-sided: I want to be overly informed, so I overly inform everyone else relevant. I do apply the golden rule in this case, and I want to be treated with lots of information including minor details, so I also give out lots of information including minor details.
On the other hand, compare that to working with someone who is “Low I.” That’s the person who disappears, never tells anyone what’s happening beyond the bare minimum or likely even less than that. Note that this doesn’t mean he’s not good at his role; maybe he will reappear with the perfect solution to the problem. In terms of informing others who are very relevant to the project on what you’re doing, where would you place yourself?
Next up, in our reversed-ish order, is “C”: Consulted. People who are “High C” are people who prefer to get the input of others who are relevant to the issue, before making a decision. On the other hand, those who are “Low C” have a work style in which they consult the minimum number of essential people for the minimum number of essential questions. In my experience, those who are too “Low C” move faster but run into opposition and internal team impediments more frequently, while those who are “High C” tend to move more slowly tend to have more broad-based support from the relevant team. My personal style is to consult a lot but in a way that doesn’t stop action, and the easiest way of doing that is to present the default next step if there’s no pushback, “Here’s X. On Thursday I’m going to do Y with it. Speak now or forever hold your peace if you want any part to be different!”; I’m “High C” but I can’t stand the 99.999% of other High C-ers, who use this as the excuse to go tortoise-speed, and framing everything in terms of the next, default steps is the best way I’ve found so far in my career to get the best of both worlds (phrase said to the tune of the ancient Van Halen song.)
Next, in our fun order, let’s go with “R”: Responsible. People who are “High R” are tend to give themselves shit to get done. No one else will do it? Okay, it needs to get done, so I’ll take it on myself. There’s an egoistic variation of that in which you want to take on responsibility because you don’t think anyone else will do it as good as you will. Your humble author may or may not have a weak and minor hint of that egoism inside himself. On the other hand, “Low R” people will be the younger (in age or in time at the company) or less competent people in the team, almost by definition, although in our twisted Peter Principle universe, they are too often the most competent person around, too.
Finally, the top level although second in the fun acronym: “A” for “Accountable”. “High A” people are those who take the responsibility for the as big of a piece as possible to make the big mission succeed. They are the people who really buy in to the mission and live and it and breathe it, but not just in terms of time, but are the ones burning the midnight oil when shit hits the fan. They’re also bringing up the big-picture issues thinking far into the future as well, but not leaving it in the air but making them happen. There is power in accountability.
“Low A” people on the other hand are the ones who always insist on being right, point the finger fast at everyone else, pass the buck at every single opportunity. I’m sure you’ve worked with many people like that, where nothing–literally nothing–is ever their fault. Anyhow who is like that, please please stay far away from me, but that’s just my personal subjective opinion, and you live your life the way you think is best! Just not near me!
An interesting question for anyone who has made it this far: In your work personality, what percentage strength would you give yourself for each of these roles?
And here’s a fun second-step in that experiment: What are the four R-A-C-I breakdowns of your team-mates? And how do their and your respective results in this comparison show about the smoothness–or roughness–of how you work together?
To create this predictive RACI matrix for your teammates and then compare it to your own and then think about how well you do or don’t work together–that’s the optional homework for anyone reading this who chooses to have fun by taking this responsibility on themselves to do this homework. Report back to me if you want to, but there’s no accountability here at all, I won’t even know if you won’t do it. You don’t even need to consult nor inform me!
