Matt: (VP Marketing): Geez, I’ve got a tee time at 10:15 and this is going nowhere.  Why don’t they just take the usual vote and get it over with?

The senior leadership team is discussing the CEO’s plan to replace the current ERP system.  There’s been heated debate between him and his top IT executive. Even the CFO seems against the move.  Jack, the CEO, doesn’t want to dictate such a significant decision but he can’t wait around forever for other people to get on board.  There are staffing and training implications that will impact the HR staff so Shelly wants to be involved in the decision.  But Matt, the top marketing officer has made it clear he doesn’t want to have anything to do with the matter. 

How this important decision will be made is one indicator of the effectiveness of the team as well as the team leader. But, contrary to popular belief, not everyone needs to even be involved.  Jon Katzenbach, expert in team dynamics, suggests, “In a real team, the right person or persons make the decisions; group consensus is not required.”[i]  

There are dozens of choices and decisions that leaders make every week and high performing teams are versatile in the approaches they take to making them.   Some leaders and organization development experts believe that top teams need to spend more time together building consensus.  Instead, the focus should be on developing versatility and efficiency in decision making. That requires teams to become more aware of the decision making process within their team and make conscious and intentional choices about who will be involved and who is ultimately going to make a decision.

“Many top leadership challenges that constitute real team opportunities simply do not require or warrant active participation by all who have been designated as, ‘on the team.’”[ii]  Effective teams put egos, tradition, and political correctness aside.  They configure their decision making processes after weighing time, capability and capacity tradeoffs.  Otherwise, time is wasted and others in the organization are misled into believing that consensus is the goal instead of the quality of the decision.  Top teams are most productive when they make more effective use of a variety of decision making modes and membership configurations.

Team Productivity Strength #5 – Decision Making: The team has clear and efficient decision making processes.

Jane Patterson, an Executive and Team Development Coach, is an authorized Facilitator of the Team Diagnostic Assessment, a proven model that helps build the strengths for high-performing, sustainable teams. She is managing partner of Cornerstone Team Development www.cornerstonetd.com 

[ii] Katzenbach 133.

Ann (CFO):  I’m glad you brought it up.  We looked bad in front of the Board when we showed obviously different points of view. I don’t want it to look like I’m not a team player because I am!

Erik (CIO):  It doesn’t have anything to do with being a team player. This is a major decision and we need to think it through carefully before we just dump a vendor that’s been good to us.

So what’s the issue here? Is it insubordination?  A misunderstanding?  Resistance to change?  Poor leadership? Different points of view?

It’s a good sign that Jack is willing to discuss a recent, high-profile disagreement within his team.  Strong teams don’t avoid conflict and great team leaders aren’t afraid to bring important issues out into the open.  

Jack knows this organization has been through a lot of turmoil recently: a change in top leadership, the resignation of the Chief Operating Officer, and the loss of several key customers because of operational screw-ups.   Jack sees that replacing the existing ERP system is vital to improving efficiency and customer service.  But both his CFO and CIO seem to oppose this move.

Clearly this is an important issue these executives are wrestling with.  And proactive teams invite new ideas and different points of view.  In fact, they seek out contrary voices because they recognize in those voices the possibility of more creative ideas and better solutions to their problems.

The CEO knows that this team is not afraid of making changes; in fact, the team recently approved a major capital expenditure to pursue an important product redesign that would put them way ahead of their competition.  Yet, when it comes to embracing changes in technology infrastructure the team seems to be stuck in the past.  While Jack certainly respects the history the organization has had with the current vendor, he’s looking for state-of-the-art solutions and wants to encourage the team to be open-minded and flexible in exploring new options.

Jack’s challenge is to facilitate discussion so that the team explores all possibilities.  He knows that high-performing teams don’t neglect or disown the lessons they’ve learned–those lessons are invaluable. But they don’t dictate the future.  Agility is the life blood of excellent teams and his goal is to build a team that’s proactive in all areas of the business. His next step is to help the team pursue opportunities for change and to discuss the options positively and creatively.

Team Productivity Strength #4:  Teams embrace a Proactive response to change.  Members are nimble and flexible in addressing opportunities for change and respond  positively and creatively.

Jane Patterson, an Executive and Team Development Coach, is an authorized Facilitator of the Team Diagnostic Assessment, a proven model that helps build the strengths for high-performing, sustainable teams. She is managing partner of Cornerstone Team Development www.cornerstonetd.com

Erik (CIO):  “I’ll tell you one thing– I’m not going to be the fall guy when this blows up in our face!”

After yesterday’s Board of Directors meeting, Erik and Ann, two members of Jack McGuire’s executive team, are commiserating over coffee.  The recently hired CEO of the company is proposing to upgrade to a new ERP system.  Ann is concerned about the expense of one more major systems implementation this year. Erik, the CIO, agrees that it’s time to make a move but he knows that Jack wants to change vendors and he’s not in agreement with his choice.

The company is facing a tough challenge.  Beyond the expense implications, conversion to a new ERP system will involve considerable business process analysis, employee retraining, and new work procedures. The cooperation and support of the entire executive team will be needed to ensure success and to avoid the negative consequences of a failed ERP implementation. The resistance of two key executives to accept accountability for the initiative signals that problems are ahead for Jack’s first key initiative as the new leader. Other executives will be taking their lead from Ann and Erik so their behavior will send a big message inside the company.

On effective teams, there is a strong sense of co-responsibility for major initiatives and decisions.  This means that, rather than seeing themselves as responsible for their own individual areas and personal goals, high performing teams adopt the attitude that “we are all responsible for the results of the team as a whole.”  Accountability is the web that connects every member of the team. But it’s not going to happen unless Jack steps in, confronts the resistance head-on, and builds buy-in from his senior leadership team.

Make no mistake–achieving buy-in is not the same thing as consensus. According to Patrick Lencioni, author of The Five Dysfunctions of a Team[i], “It’s about a group of intelligent, driven individuals buying into a decision precisely when they don’t naturally agree. In other words, it’s the ability to defy a lack of consensus.” Great teams embrace disagreement and have both the courage and the wisdom to explore all perspectives and possibilities.

As the team leader, Jack can make a difference in the way his team accepts accountability for this project and significantly influence how the members work together.  It seems that Jack needs to double-back and engage in a process to ensure that “all voices are heard.” A facilitated conversation focused on the topic of a new ERP system, where all members of the executive team have the opportunity to ask questions, voice concerns, state opinions and make recommendations, would go a long way to creating the kind of team accountability that will be necessary to make this project work.

 Team Productivity Strength #3: The team commits to the goals and is accountable for results.

Jane Patterson, an Executive and Team Development Coach, is an authorized Facilitator of the Team Diagnostic Assessment, a proven model that helps build the strengths for high-performing, sustainable teams. She is managing partner of Cornerstone Team Development www.cornerstonetd.com 

Indeed the stakes are high. Most innovation and problem solving requires people with different knowledge, perspective, professional language, goals, and often attitudes to partner. Those in the trenches often see the risks more than the advantages of doing so. They may see cooperation as potentially losing control, reduced rewards and recognition, and simply working with others who they feel simply don’t get it. So leaders are often frustrated because people are not working across functions. Those in the trenches are frustrated because they have to. Communicating the organization’s vision, values, and objectives is a necessary, but insufficient condition for success. Often leaders are frustrated because despite their best efforts to communicate, the message often doesn’t seem to be widely understood and accepted. So what gets in the way?

At issue…

People are brought into the organization because together they have complementary strengths. Different specialties are required to make the complex organization work effectively. But each of the specialties has its own language, goals, methods, and measures of success. We hire people with strong skills. We hire people because they have these points of view…and then we tell them they have to throw their ideas in the pot to see what will make the stew. The lessons they may have learned in school the behaviors that have been reinforced for more parochial achievement must be unlearned.  Unlearning is often harder than learning.

In the process of making the cross-functional stew employees may have to give up some autonomy. They may have to learn that perhaps they don’t have all the right answers, that their own perspective is only half of the truth. They may have to admit that someone else knows more. And what if fellow employees don’t want to collaborate….what if they are naïve and come to the table with less than honorable intentions? What if they find out that their own function is not performing as it really should be? Let’s be clear. The road to collaboration is fraught with risk.

So inside the organization are warring tribes—marketing, sales, operations, engineering, finance, human resources. Sometimes the tribes have the names of continents. Sometimes they are the names of products. Sometimes they reflect different consumer markets.  Each tribe has its own culture with its own rituals and performance measures. Each is trying to win internal market share and branding. Each peddles for influence.

On the one hand the specialties, the silos, are necessary to get the product and service to the customer in an efficient and effective manner. On the other hand, they create great frustration. The secret to a powerful organization that can adapt to change is the ability of building an organization of high resilience where diversity of thought and cooperation co-exist.

It is not teaming per se that is important…rather it is the ability of different groups to work through the inherent and natural occurring conflict and develop solutions that catapult the organization to success. It is not an easy task.

This week I focus on senior leadership teams….next week I will provide additional insights and suggestions. We’ll talk about more of the underlying dynamics and how to address them.

The work of senior leadership

Senior leaders wear two hats. Typically they are responsible for a function, geography, product/service line, etc. They have specific and individual objectives and performance measures.

Achieving their goals however may not be a straightforward process. Organizations are complex places where competing agendas exist. What might be a gain in one area could be a loss for another. In the administration of their “patch” as the British might say, the work of one leader could bump into the effectiveness of another. Those below intently watch the choreography and take their cues from above. If the senior leaders role-model open dialogue, reduce political posturing, and create win-win outcomes, it is likely that those below will notice and the organization silos diminish. Unfortunately, the natural dynamics taking place at senior levels diminishes the likelihood that the more productive behaviors will prevail. (We have the literature on this and would be happy to share…just ask.)

Leaders also play a second critical, but less- well defined, role. They are the mothers and fathers of the organization. They must look at what is best for the whole and work on areas that may fall between the cracks of any one person’s job description. For example, leaders set the stage for the kind of culture necessary for the organization to achieve its strategic intent. It must consciously work together to build the competencies of the whole organization necessary to compete and adapt to change. It is there to jointly facilitate learning and change.

It has been my experience that most leaders are so intent on achieving their better defined and rewarded individual objectives that they fail to understand the power they have working together as a team. Again, in working with senior leadership teams, it has been our experience that frequently leaders have insufficient insight or trust in their peers to jointly share their expertise for the benefit of the whole.

Compensation models by themselves typically fail to ameliorate the situation. The typical motivational off-site provides little staying power. We developed a process that helps leaders more clearly understand what their role as a leadership team could look like and how to measure their joint performance. We have also determined that people need to first understand the underlying dynamics facing any leadership team (rather than seeing the fault lies with personalities or deficiencies in each other).

We believe that the partial solution lies in the leadership team understanding the specific jointly created deliverables it must provide to the organization. What measures beyond the financial can be used to assess its own performance? What do they produce? How will they produce it? How will they measure their success as a leadership team?

Questions:

• What keeps the senior leaders from partnering more effectively?
• How has your senior leadership team addressed the issue of silos? What worked? Didn’t?
• What helps the senior team stay focused on both parochial and organization-wide issues?

Would you be willing to share the answers to the above…please use our comment feature in this blog.

Next week:

What to do about those damn silos: Part 2