“Teamwork” has forever been a buzzword in our business world. It seems that the importance of having employees work as a team has been promoted in every available piece of management literature. Nevertheless, we at the top have routinely had a hard time “playing well together,” despite the fact that the need is more pronounced now than ever before.
I used to work for a CEO who believed that the definition of a “team” was a group of people doing things his way. It’d be funnier if it didn’t apply so well to so many…
Who cares?? Why does it matter, as long as I do my job and am good at it?? Some arguments for executive teamwork:
External Demands. Worldwide competition and changing financial markets make it necessary for the organization to be on the alert at all times – the pressure to innovate, apart from the company’s organizational health, is no longer the CEO’s sole purview.
Internal Demands. Diversifying businesses require differently-skilled managers to lead varied business units. We can no longer be “all things to all people.”
Succession.An executive team is usually – and naturally – the best selection pool for future executives, as individual members would have first-hand knowledge of the essential competencies of a potential top leader within our current organization.
Exemplary Behavior. In addition, top executives working well together sends a potent signal down the line. ‘Nuff said.
So why, then, if we understand the need, do top executives often fail to form a team?
Consider the source: Managers who have climbed the ladder’s upper rungs aretypically strong-willed, ambitious, and experts in their own right. These characteristics, though obviously allowing them to successfully rise within an organization, may also pave the way for an unwillingness to show weakness, overprotective behavior for their functions, and viewing other executives as “competition” in their quest for the Holy Grail: The CEO’s chair.
Personality and behaviors can be difficult to change once they are really entrenched, so forming a true executive team becomes a difficult undertaking.
Ultimately, the CEO must establish a climate that is favorable to developing an executive team. S/He can do this by:
Selecting discriminately. Normally, “upper management” can be a big group, consisting of the CEO, COO, CFO, various heads of important functional areas, and other political savvy or otherwise valuable individuals. Limiting the number of members to 8-10 enables all to develop healthier relationships, to say nothing of the success of subsequent meetings.
Communicating unequivocally. The CEO must ensure that all executive team members understand the vision, mission, strategies, and goals of the organization in no uncertain terms. There can be no “highway” option here.
Ensuring Commitment. If there is no involvement, there is no commitment.
Clarifying Roles. The CEO must clearly set the mandate for each executive team member. This involves defining strategic responsibilities (not operational), areas of cooperation, interdependence, information-sharing, and decision-making processes.
Ensuring safety. Establishing an atmosphere where members can show their weaknesses, disagree, and express their opinions openly without fear of losing face and authority can induce team creativity. It also promotes increased trust among the members.
Emphasizing Shared Accountability. Rewarding solely individual performance undermines the formation of a cohesive executive team whose performance is supposed to be assessed collectively. Collective measures of profitability and other gains are crucial.
Having Courage to weed out non-performers. It’s perfect, of course, if all executives would deliver on their responsibilities – but, nobody’s perfect. If an executive hinders the team’s progress or is disrupting the team’s process, then it might be time to let that member go. Make that decision as certain as it would be if s/he were functionally incompetent.
I worked with the CEO of a large services company. A VP member of his senior staff was a brilliant P&L manager — but entirely destructive to the team. We coached, cajoled, taught, pleaded, and begged. This senior manager would not be swayed — he was clearly “on the dark side,” and wanted to stay. He wielded his P&L performance as a Kevlar vest.
The CEO fired him, and you could hear the air being sucked out of all the collective guts of the senior team. The boss was serious, and now the team was, too.
Creating a synergetic team of top leaders in an organization is tough work. Selecting, managing personalities and relationships, establishing and enforcing norms, and developingexecutive team members is a complex process – but it can be done.
The payback is huge. You know that, of course, if you took the time to read this whole posting. Stop looking for a magic bullet — it takes effort and commitment, and in all likelihood, some tough decisions.
Let me know if I can help.
Executive Leadership Consulting That Works
Triangle Performance, LLC is a solutions-focused management consulting firm specializing in executive improvement, leadership development, and organizational effectiveness. Contact us today to get started on your journey to improving your leadership skills.
This question is a regular in executive circles… are leaders “made” or “born?” Do we have to find that person who by birthright is destined for leadership greatness, or can we cultivate, foster, and nurture someone with currently-unrealized potential to be that leader?
First I would ask, does it really matter? Is this just another stupid consultant-academic exercise, or are we looking for excuses for those performing like crap? Makes you scratch your head, eh?
Combat Leadership
Leadership is necessary in combat, but doesn’t hold its definition there; it may do so for current and/or former members of the military (of which I’m proudly included), but not necessarily the rest of the world. I’ve known many combat leaders who could only purportedly “lead” while in combat. They were ineffective without a crisis. Combat needs leaders; we don’t require combat, though, to have leaders. Long-term organizational leaders don’t have the “luxury” of crisis to be effective. Staving off crises to begin with–that’s leadership.
Critical Leadership
To use simple criticality as the overarching criteria, then trauma surgeons would be more of a leader than a high-performing CEO, merely because of job function. I don’t agree with that thinking, either. Again, crisis management — maintaining a calm, authoritative head under pressure — is an incredibly valuable skill. But it’s not the core foundation for effective leadership.
Leaders are made, not born. It’s easier, of course, to start with someone who has a known propensity (assessments or demonstrated performance) to “learn to lead.” It’s not, however, a necessity. If we take the time and effort, and are willing to marshal the appropriate resources, we can make the leaders of tomorrow from within our existing organization.
Additionally, leadership is entirely situational, which drives people to say things like “She has no potential to become a leader.” They actually mean “Given what I know about leadership from my experiences, this person doesn’t fit that description.” They could easily become an incredible leader elsewhere, as many have proven out in other organziations. the converse is also true: Given again that leadership is largely situational, a successful leader in one organization
may or may not be completely successful in another. Change the dynamics, change the opportunities for success.
I also believe that management and leadership are inextricably linked, so I don’t spend huge amounts of time trying to split hairs on the definitions. That, of course, is a posting in and of itself, so I’ll save the details for later.
There’s been a lot of clamor lately about companies wasting their leadership development dollars. Many do, but that doesn’t mean leadership development is a waste of money. The simple truth is: if you’re not getting the bang for your buck, it’s because you’re doing it wrong. (more…)
Folks, let’s be clear: Developing leaders is not the hardest thing you’ll do this year. It may very well be the most important, but it ain’t the toughest.
The problem is not complexity, effort or difficulty. Its wherewithal. Simply put, if you want it badly enough, you’ll do it, and do it right. If you don’t, you won’t.
I mentioned earlier that leaders must lead from the front. I observed something last week that reminds me that they must also lead “from the ground.”
No matter who we are, what title we have, how many people are working for us, or how much money we make… we can never forget that we lead others, and that those others are the ones who are on the ground — the front lines — of our organizations. Making money.
You may be able to manage from your office on the 32nd floor, or the front corner of your plant, or from A-space, downtown offices detached from the real operations. You can manage from there, but you cannot lead from there.
To lead, you’ve got to come down the elevator, go to the back of the plant, or hop on an airplane and head to “where the action is,” on the ground.
An example: I was in Dallas last week on business. While there, I stayed at a Marriott Suites close to Love Field. At the time of my visit, there was also a national sales force meeting there (I’ll let the company remain nameless… for now). On the 12th (top) floor, this hotel had a “concierge” lounge; you know, the ones with a small bar, free food, quiet atmosphere to end a day.
Only it wasn’t quiet today. The management — only the senior management — of this sales force was staying on the top floor where they had concierge access. And they were a bit rowdy, to say the least. That’s neither here nor there, as my stay was going to be brief regardless. Afterwards, I went downstairs to the lobby lounge to wait for a client of mine… we were going to go have dinner.
So, here I am in the lobby lounge, twiddling my thumbs and people-watching. It’s strangely crowded for a Thursday night. The group nearest me is almost a dozen strong, mostly men, and they quite obviously were part of this same sales organization I mentioned above. Only these guys were ground-level troops, not uppity-ups like the ones in the concierge lounge. These guys were the ones who just woke up every day, went to work, and made that company money. Lots of money.
And they were not happy. They were railing on about the VP and Manager who, apparently, were otherwise too occupied to go to dinner with them. Like me, they obviously knew where they were. One of these sales guys had a neat idea: seems his buddy back home (same company) had recently been recruited by a competitor, and that recruiting executive, coincidentally, was in Dallas. Why don’t we, he said, call this guy and see if we can get together for a drink?? All but 2 of the guys agreed, so he made the call.
The competitor executive, probably reeling in surprise at his incredibly good fortune, agreed to meet the guys — at a fairly upscale steakhouse to buy them dinner. To heck with a couple of drinks, this guy was going in for the kill.
All but the 2 dissenting voters went to dinner.
My client showed up shortly thereafter, so I had to leave, or I might have stayed in that lobby bar until those guys came back, just hoping to pick up on some more of that conversation.
The folks staying on the 12th floor were so self-absorbed that they forgot to lead. They didn’t realize that leaders do so from in front and on the ground — managers can manage from a distance (though even with managers, I’d argue about their effectiveness in doing so).
Did they lose their entire sales force? Unlikely. These things are always easier to discuss than to pull off successfully (that’s experience talking). Regardless, those sales guys now had a great contact — on a personal, first-name basis — at a competitor. And they were interested enough to spend their free time while at a company-sponsored sales event.
Pretty bold.
And damned foolish on the part of those managers in that 12th floor lounge.
We lead; as such, we are essential for successful, growing organziations, to be sure. But never, ever, forget who actually makes the money on a daily basis. It’s them, those contributors on the ground, fighting the fight each and every day, and we must stay focused on caring for, providing for, and recognizing their worth to our organziations.
These are attention-getting words today. It costs too much—and is too damned difficult—to find and hire good people, that finally employee turnover is having its day. It’s about time.
Much of the research, discussions and rhetoric out there is so far beyond wrong as to be simply idiotic. Let’s debunk a bunch of it… (more…)
