Educating executives, managers, supervisors and other leaders remains a major concern for companies eager to keep their organizations afloat or even thriving in a challenging economic environment. Frankly, the limiting factor for most organizations continues to be leadership.
Leader development is not a new concept. It continues, however, to be practiced in ways that – at best – do little to develop successful leaders and – at worst – damage functional relationships by allowing learning to exist in silos and independent “vacuums.”
The problem is not content. Adequate topical content is a dime-a-dozen and represents time-tested applications and concepts that have not changed much in a couple of millennia. Any of several firms create and publish reasonably valid content.
The principal challenge around effective development is relevancy. The content mentioned above is generic and must be made relevant for a specific functional or hierarchical group, within a specific organization. Then, when properly facilitated, we can at least hope to successfully develop a group of leaders.
The biggest issue, though, in effectively developing a group, team, gaggle, or flock of leaders is making sure they all learn the same things, the same way, and in the same context. Further, they should be able to test relevant applications and concepts together, for best learning and application.
Enter Team-Based Leader Development.
Now, I’m not speaking of team-building, per se, nor am I talking about campfires, challenge/ropes courses, falling-backward trust exercises, or other hardly-effective methods of development.
Those have value in team-bonding, but not real team development. And no, bonding and development are not the same things… in fact, it’s not actually a team just because you call it a team. See our article on The First rule of the Leadership Team.
I’m simply talking about developing a team or group of leaders at the same time, together. At our firm, we see more and more organizations wanting – needing – content specific for their groups; you just can’t get there when sending people out to some public session or seminar trying to be all things to all people.
You need your leaders developed together, learning applications and concepts relevant to your organization. By using team-based leader development, all leaders of a particular level or function learn these things at the same time, in the same room, using each other as learning tools.
The advantages of this approach should be obvious, and include demonstrated successes in:
Improving communication flow within the team and out to the organization. This can occur naturally, and in a less stressful, facilitated environment. Conversations like this…
…benefit the organization, by providing calm discussions among leaders of similar hierarchical or functional levels, about just about anything important occurring in the organization today, and
…benefit the specific leaders involved, as they not only are discussing new learnings and applications, but they now have the opportunity to discuss things not normally discussed.
For example, without a safer venue, how many mid or senior-level managers would ask a peer “Hey, John, what’s the best way for me to resolve a conflict in my department?” Or “Say, Susan, I’m having some issues in driving empowerment to my hourly employees – any suggestions?”
I’m guessing those conversations/questions, in the midst of our brutally hectic workdays, would be damned rare.
Fostering mutual accountability for behaviors and results. One of the biggest advantages in having all these leaders in one location discussing the same things is that accountabilities can become institutionalized. It’s one thing to make a casual mention in the hallway; another thing altogether to commit to a group today, then speak with them a month or so later about your progress.
Also, this close-in work environment creates team ground rules that foster cohesion; if we agree in a group that behind-the-back caucusing is not something we’ll do, then having those back-stabbing conversations later just doesn’t feel right. Further, open communications in a facilitated setting inevitably translate to more open conversations in the open workplace.
Faster assimilation, shared accountabilities, and increased understanding. This is the financial “why?” answered. Homogeneous participants learn faster, and the learning is more relevant. Therefore, an organization’s return on those development dollars is quicker, and the skills are more appropriate for the organization’s needs.
Understanding is accelerated; participants can discuss/explain with each other on various points and concepts, making sure that the meaning is the same for all, and that more realize how they can actually be used for leader success.
Participants in team-based development are able to identify their primary strengths quicker, and better understand how building on those contributes to higher levels of personal satisfaction and team success.
In short, all win. And the organization is better for it, all the time.
It’s December. The current year is almost in the can, finished. Stick a fork in it, it’s done.
A new day has dawned. The new year is upon us.
Soon, we’ll be discussing how fast January flew by, then Q1. The great hamster wheel of life.
Have you made plans? Personal goals are great. Business objectives are super. But do you have specific plans to “do” leadership better in the upcoming year?
No? Why not?
Many of us create detailed plans for the new year. We spreadsheet various categories like personal, family, business, spiritual, health, etc. But we need to add one: Leading. What can you do differently this year to improve your personal impact? “Get better at it” sounds great but is woefully unactionable.
How about I suggest a few things for you to consider?
Address a specific people problem. Take that toxic employee or the just-barely performer into a private office and have that tough, courageous conversation.
Advise them, coach them, counsel them. See brief excerpt of a recent workshop we facilitated on Courageous Conversations.
But it’s get better or get lost.
You’ll be potentially helping someone otherwise unaware of the negative impact or poor performance they demonstrate. And trust me, those around that person will sing your praises.
Mentor someone. I mean really mentor them. Take them under your wing and help them grow.
Be present, and pay attention. Listen closely, make sure you hear what that mentee means, not just what they say. Take notes so you can follow up when appropriate.
Deliver genuine feedback. Tell them what’s working, and what isn’t. You need to be the truth-teller in their life, don’t let them down. Direct feedback is essential to effective mentoring.
Inspire and motivate. Mentoring is not coaching, and it’s not therapy. You should advise based on your experience. That’s the real value of mentoring, answering WWYD… What Would YOU Do?
One-on-ones. Start having them if you don’t and make them better if you do. Some things to consider:
Regular, consistent scheduling with all of your direct reports. Weekly is great, but consistent, recurring biweekly is better than often-cancelled weekly.
If you schedule it, be there. No exceptions. Reread that sentence. 30 minutes is the right duration, though many have been successful with an hour.
Ask for a brief email update a day in advance. It allows you to be prepared to ask a few quick questions on daily operational/functional stuff (10 minutes, tops), then spend the remaining time on being a human.
Employee drives the agenda, not you. This is their one-on-one, for them. “So, how are things going?” and let it develop from there (I have a more thorough checklist with sample questions available—just ask and I’ll send it).
End with, “What can I do to help you?” Prepare to be surprised.
Get some feedback from others. We’ve been doing a lot of 360 surveys lately, with pretty astonishing results. You can somewhat DIY with our Start-Stop-Accelerate worksheet.
Get off your butt and do something. Leading is not a passive activity, and if you aren’t growing up you’re falling back. Remember too that employees’ expectations increase as your ability and impact increases. Such is life. Plan on leadership success as much as you do everything else.
Besides, do you really want to run a marathon in this upcoming year? Hell, I get tired driving 26.2 miles…
No matter what BS you hear to the contrary, culture begins – and is perpetuated and maintained – by what occurs at the top of the heap.
Any ideas about driving culture “from below” is an amalgam of wishful thinking and consultant crockery. And only shared by someone trying to sell you something that sounds easier than the real work.
Take Elon Musk, for example.
Now, you can argue that Twitter is an appropriately regulated social media outlet, accurately praised for preventing ne’er-do-wells from propagating hateful messaging and disinformation.
Or, you can see Twitter as moving too far out of its lane, censoring freedom of speech that should promote differences of thought, ideas and opinion.
I’m cool with either. You do you. (See what I did there?)
Musk, if we are to believe media reports, seems to fiercely believe the latter, further contending that the root cause of the problem is the fabric – the very culture – of Twitter today. And he wants that culture changed.
His first official act then? He whacked a bevy of senior-most execs, including the CEO, within hours of closing the long-awaited purchase.
Again, argue whichever current state for Twitter you choose. Float your own boat, amigo. But if Musk wants a radically different culture, he’s going about it in the most expeditious, if not dubiously effective, manner.
What would clearly not work is a conflict or tension at the top of the organization regarding culture direction or emphasis.
Culture, like any major change initiative, is driven (again, from the top for those skimming) most quickly by simple a simple performance approach:
Setting clear expectations,
Managing to those expectations, and
Consequences or rewards for not meeting, meeting, or exceeding those expectations.
Clear expectations are a must. It’s hard enough for folks to follow our vision when everything remains constant; when changing, they have no hope to follow us if they can’t see it, and see it plainly.
Be clear. Give examples of success. Be explicit about what failure looks like. Use English, and small words. If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough (nod to Einstein).
Managing to those expectations is next. Here, we have metrics to help measure success and failure, based on the clear expectations outlined earlier.
Frequent calibrations allow empowered people the opportunity to align their efforts with our desired direction(s).
Specific targets here are again a must. Downrange visibility cannot be cluttered with a lot of bureaucratic bullshit.
Finally, consequences – both positive and negative – must exist so others can personally feel the effects of success and failure. Rewards and penalties. Carrots and sticks. Call ‘em whatever. Just know they are essential, as culture change and reinforcement are driven most quickly via consequences and rewards.
That actionable piece, often skimmed over quickly in glossy culture tomes, is where things really change.
If rewarded for bad behavior, that behavior will continue.
If penalized for positive efforts, future efforts will be less positive.
This is where things can get really interesting, as the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head.
Rewarding individual performance sounds great but can work against the larger good of a successfully working team.
Rewarding cost savings or cuts can lead to a reticence in appropriate investments, allowing needed positions to go unfilled, terminations without sufficient forethought, or really idiotic spending restrictions.
Unintended consequences.
There will always be some instances of these unintended consequences. The key, then, is to set opposing rewards and consequences to allow for and balance the effects.
Example: Individual performance can be rewarded, but only after team performance triggers and award.
Cost-savings can be rewarded, but only within specific, agreed parameters (profitability, headcount, average SG&A, etc.).
Just a couple of examples – the devil is in the details, and your mileage may vary.
Bottom line for us… whether you or Elon Musk, $54B company or $100M, culture begins and is reinforced from the top of any specific organization. Ergo (my favorite useless word), Musk whacking the top of the Twitter food chain was a necessity if he firmly believed that the culture needed to be changed drastically. And quickly.
There’s a lesson there for all on top of their pyramid, so read it closely.
Now, it gets a bit complicated when we start discussing where the organization hierarchy actually starts and stops, but that’s for another article.
If Musk can do it, you can too.
Just stay focused, like Elon Musk. Assuming you can call electric cars, boring, brain chips, rockets and social media “focused.”
I was recently involved (as a participant) in a strategic planning event; the facilitator, Alan Pue, was discussing many of the ways that planning — and its subsequent implementation — can go wrong.
In part of that commentary, he mentioned as an example a firm’s inability to adapt to a necessary change in the market, and how that inability adversely affected their performance. Alan wasn’t sympathetic to their plight, nor even empathetic. In fact, he made it clear that the problem was their own doing, and the resultant pain was of their own creation. They did it to themselves, have no one else to blame, and these lessons — though valuable — can be painful.
I agree.
When we act so dumb in business that we can’t get out of our own way, the resultant pain is our own doing. Sort of like touching a hot stove, we hopefully learn that we shouldn’t do that again.
What’s the optimum number of direct reports? How many people should a single manager have working for them? What we are referring to, of course, is “Span of Control,” and though there can be unique situations in some organizations, there are also decent historical guidelines.
Span of control isn’t simply dependent on individuals; it’s a basic limitation of all managers as it describes only their direct reports. Though any manager can control any number of people if there are enough levels in between, not so when it comes to direct reports.
Research (mostly military-based) has shown that a leader can directly control about three to six persons effectively. Additionally, the “relationships” among those supervised are as important as their actual number.
Managing four people who interact constantly might be harder than supervising five or six who work largely independently.
Generally, an executive (someone managing managers) should supervise a maximum of four or five people.
In real practice, you don’t have to be an expert to know if you’re in trouble with span of control. If you have more than half a dozen people reporting to you, it’s probably too many.
Even six could be too many if those six have consistent dealings with each other. The reason of course, is that in addition to managing relationships with each subordinate, managers have to get involved to an extent in their relationships with each other.
In simple terms, going from four to five direct reports, each with four direct reports of their own, potentially doubles your effective workload while increasing your output (productivity) capacity by only 20 percent.
If the people you supervise don’t interact, you can handle more of them.
Remember, too, that I’m discussing managerial span of control — managers managing managers. The numbers can increase significantly when managing individual contributors, particularly if highly skilled.
I didn’t disappear, just fell victim to the “wait until the end of the year to do that” disease.
I did, and it hurt. Traveled 6 out of the last 8 weeks out of the year… and remember, I’m one of those that doesn’t even like to travel. Simply brutal.
Further, with the growth of my business, I’ve been in something of a “hiring” mode, and that’s equally difficult to do — personally — while traveling.
Speaking of hiring… now that the new year is upon us, it’s a great time to do some cleaning up. And I mean the really difficult stuff. Have that performance conversation with the under-performing employee; hire that new sales or marketing pro; stop doing those things that don’t create enterprise value, and focus on those things that do.
I’ll be back soon with something to write home to mom about — thanks for tuning in.
