Leaders and Teams: Inextricably Connected

Task-Oriented Leaders, Relationship-Oriented Leaders, or Both?

2009-09-28T17:51:00.003-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

The importance of well-functioning teams is increasingly the norm in organizations. While many factors determine a team’s success, one critical factor is the leader’s orientation to his or her team. Currently, there is a debate raging about whether the most effective leaders are task oriented—focused on accomplishing tasks—or relationship oriented—concerned with the team’s members. Yet this debate has a third option; the best leaders are both! The leader’s facility using both orientations enhances his or her ability to create and maintain trust, stability, and effectiveness.

Task-oriented leaders are focused on accomplishments. Initial success depends upon the leader’s ability to demonstrate competence and commitment to the team’s members. Faced with an initial uphill challenge, a task-oriented leader can help the team understand their challenge by providing a coherent series of steps that structure their initial meetings. These steps include creating a persuasive challenge; ensuring that the team has the right skill sets involved; developing a shared understanding of their interdependencies; and providing strategies for getting started. Each step fosters a collaborative culture in which the team members trust each other and their leader, carry out quick wins, and begin the pursuit of long-term work.

Relationship-oriented leaders focus on the relationships among the team’s members. This can be tricky because some team members can be suspicious of relationship-oriented leaders fearing manipulation and/or exploitation. To neutralize this concern, leaders create an atmosphere of trust and goodwill by emphasizing camaraderie, dignity, and respect. Time is taken to develop relationships with each member; simultaneously, the leader encourages the members to build constructive relationships with each other as well. They instill a culture focused on team performance; thus, individual achievement is downplayed by being woven into the team’s success. Only the team can succeed; conversely, only the team can fail.

The best leaders are skillful at both task completion and creating effective team relationships. In the beginning, they recognize the team’s need for structure and create a foundation that is both firm and flexible. Once the task-oriented building blocks are in place and members begin to take risks by sharing information and speaking honestly about the task, the leader can shift to a relationship orientation. When this shift is successful, the leader strikes the right balance between leading and following the team’s emerging leaders; knowing when to make decisions and when to yield to the team; and ultimately placing the emphasis on the team, not the leader. Consequently, the members’ evolving competence and interpersonal commitments drive them to become more courageous and influential with each other and within the organization.

Task and relationship orientations are not a linear process. Rather the leader oscillates between the two. When the team plateaus, a leader can return to the basics and maintain their focus on achieving results. Otherwise the leader is helping the team use their individual and collective skills and abilities to reach their goals. Combining both orientations provides leaders with a strategy for launching the team from a firm foundation and subsequently encouraging each member to be innovative, collaborative, and effective.

Leadership and Advice Giving

2009-09-03T14:14:00.003-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

Recently I posed a question: “What is the best advice you have ever received?” Quickly forty people responded. Many responses were deeply personal. Others were professional, offered by former bosses or teachers and equally appreciated. Some were satirical: “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” At times the best advice was a teaching moment, at other times it was a mere statement without the advisor knowing his or her impact. Leaders in time-starved work environments overlook the importance of their advice to the people in their charge. In the respondents’ own words, hear the value of the best advice they have ever received.

One group spoke of how advice taught them that excellence must become a personal commitment. “Never become numb,” cautioned his teacher, and do not lose an “open mindedness or an emotional artistic side . . . [it creates] an artist’s sensitivity, empathy, passion, and feelings.” Advice was given about separating pride in one’s work from meeting a client’s expectations: “If pleasing the client is your highest goal, the bar is set pretty low; pleasing clients is easy.” Another was “unburdened” when his boss told him: “. . . not to worry . . . I did not have the authority to make a decision that would wreck the organization or my career; [this advice] freed me to make better decisions faster.” Finally, one woman built a commitment to excellence on football star Jerry Rice’s quotation: “I will do today what others won't so that I can do tomorrow what others can't.”

A second group, challenged to be good managers, focused on the needs of others. Some advice was blunt: “Shut up and listen!” Another was prescriptive: “Management requires patience, tolerance, and forgiveness; control requires none of that. Control your assets; manage your people and processes.” Repeatedly, respondents spoke of listening—“we have two ears and one mouth so listen twice as much as you talk”—or being engaged with their subordinates—“always ask what do you recommend, why, and how will it be accomplished.” Another learned if “you want to progress, help others progress; then hand over your tasks and move on to new ones.” Working with superiors was also noted: “To become a senior member of the organization, learn how to manage your manager.” Finally, good management requires courage: “If everyone is smiling and saying everything is great but there are alarms going off in your head, don't ignore what your eyes and gut instincts are telling you.”

Some were challenged to focus on inner strength: “Try not to become a man of success,” quoting Albert Einstein, “but rather to become a man of value.” “Pursue your interests with passion,” said one, “and do it to the best of your abilities.” This advice provided him with “flexibility, ownership of his tasks, and the acceptance of hard work.” Self-awareness led another to state: “Distress and motivation are directly proportional to expectation. Expectations from others will give you distress; expectations from yourself will give you motivation.”

Regardless of who advised the respondents, the advice was a compass that helped each navigate and map the business terrain—“It is what it is; keep moving forward.”

Think about it. How is your advice supporting others' performance, management, or personal development? You might change a life. © Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

Strategic Leadership: White Papers and Teams Part 2

2009-08-31T16:48:00.010-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

In a previous blog, Strategic Leadership: Creating White Papers Part 1, I described the use of strategic white papers to facilitate and transform a senior leader’s nascent ideas into a written document. The purpose was intended to provide peers and subordinates with a succinct, specific, and accurate summary of a plan of action. Since the team is critical to success, the white paper process is also used to gain their buy-in and pull together their contributions in order to ensure the success of the overall strategy.

After Max met with Ellen, his boss and her senior team, he knew he had to work with his team to gain their insights and acceptance. The first step was to ensure that the best people were members of the team. We discussed individual members of his inherited team; he believed all but one had the skills and temperament needed to drive his agenda. He proceeded to transfer the member in question out of his team and began a search for his replacement. With the other team members, he got to work. Katzenbach and Smith in The Wisdom of Teams assert that teams develop from a shared understanding of compelling goals that challenge people to commit themselves to make a difference. Max had a compelling challenge. Now he and his team had to transform many directives into specific, measurable performance goals; agree on clearly defined objectives; align each person’s skills against the team’s goals; and create a team that was dependent on each other for success.

“What is the best way to go about this?” he asked.

Before I could answer he said: “White papers, right?"

I nodded yes.

Social psychologists say that if you want people to abide by the rules, let them participate in making them. Strategic white papers encouraged his team members to be the architects of his or her responsibilities. Once the purpose was clarified, I met with each team member to create a white paper, replicating a process that Max and I followed: strategies for achieving results against key deliverables, resources, timelines, measurements, and cross-functional partners. Using an LCD projector, each team member’s ideas were projected onto a screen so that he or she could see their ideas developing. Throughout the exercise, I typed and captured the specific detail of each idea, exposing it to rigorous thinking, innovation, and identifying areas requiring collaboration. Upon completion of the draft, Max returned for a presentation of his subordinate’s plan. Together they discussed the draft and problem solved the recommendations until he gave the go-ahead.

Now it was time for the team to present to each other. Each received a folder of his or her peers’ white papers in advance. In the meeting, they took turns briefly presenting their individual plans. Fellow team members were encouraged to vet the proposed plan, identify redundancies, and decide who would lead and who would follow each tactic. Collectively they agreed on their overall strategy for moving the department forward.

Max successfully transformed a collection of people into a committed team oriented to goals and results in a climate of trust, where data were shared freely, and decisions were made collectively.

Strategic Leadership: White Papers Organize Action Plans, Part 1

2009-08-31T16:41:00.006-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

Recently a newly hired senior manager, Max, and I were discussing his two most important domains: creating strategy and managing his people. He was new to his position and eager to assess his department and transform it into a vision of what he believed it needed to become. Together we agreed to work our way through the vast volume of information and multiple relationships that needed to be thought out and aligned.

“How do we get started?” asked Max.

“It is simple,” I said, “Create a white paper.”
“A white paper? Surely you jest?”

“Not at all; white papers began as an informal parliamentary document explaining government policy. Then they morphed into introducing new ideas, typically technical or marketing. Now white papers provide senior management with a brief, specific, and accurate summary of an opportunity or plan of action,” I added.

Our task was to create a detailed outline of his transition plans: goals, prioritized steps toward realizing the goals, his team’s responsibilities, cross-functional collaborators, the resources and assistance needed, benchmarks, and timelines. Max’s white paper involved using an LCD projector to project the work onto a screen so that Max could see his ideas developing. As Max talked, I typed and captured the specific details of each idea. The process of projecting ideas on the big screen requires a commitment to rigorous thinking, innovation, and identifying areas of expertise that lay outside Max’s team. Quickly, Max realized that ideas that appeared to be adequately articulated wilted under the scrutiny of putting them to paper.

The rigor of critical thinking is challenging but it works. Ideas can be moved from one part of the paper to another to clarify important objectives. For Max, a hard copy of the working document was simultaneously generated so that missing elements could be identified and added to his plan. When we finished the draft, Max’s boss Ellen, the company’s CEO, joined us. Max presented the white paper as a work in progress and asked her to join in the discussion. She readily validated his ideas expanding the scope of some of his recommendations. She was impressed with the quality and level of detail of his plan and offered her assistance. Max in turn was in charge of his transition. He was not encumbered by the typical trial-and-error; he was ready to go.

A strategic white paper is a working document. This framework encourages active problem solving and discussions while strengthening the overall design. The clarity of the paper helped Max and Ellen review his plans with her senior team to gain additional insights and build momentum. The inclusion of the senior management team had the desired effect of engaging Max’s peers. They welcomed the clarity of his plan, built upon his ideas, and identified ways to collaborate with him. Max mapped disparate ideas into a woven plan of action and, with fellow senior managers, engaged a coalition of partners. With an approved plan, he was ready to influence the organization: It was time to move forward with his team.

Employee Engagement and Their Leaders

2009-08-17T12:12:00.005-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

In 2004 Forbes selected the 107-year-old family company J.M. Smucker as the best company to work for. Brothers and co-CEOs Tim and Richard said they succeed by complying with a code of conduct established by their father, Paul Smucker: Listen with your full attention, look for the good in others, have a sense of humor, and say thank you for a job well done.

Corny, right? All the way to the bank! Paul and his sons balanced a common sense golden rule with commitment to quality, ethical practices, growth strategy, and corporate independence. In time empirical research confirmed that management practices like those at J.M. Smucker were invaluable to employee happiness and productivity. Thus, employee engagement is all the rage.

Research suggested that engaged employees like challenging work with clear expectations; meaningful relationships at work (a best friend); opportunities to be creative; and distinct cultural messages that it is ok to be themselves. Given the demonstrated value of employee engagement, how do leaders promote such a valuable management practice? Five pragmatic steps, adapted to each group, can help guide the leader.

Have the Right People on the Team
Senior managers must conduct a rigorous appraisal of the critical skills that the team needs in order to thrive. Assigning the right people to essential positions is vital for their success. Without the right people, employee effectiveness is a mere exercise.

Positive Interpersonal Relationships
The leader’s attitude and style of engagement with the members of the team set the tone for employee engagement. Positive relationships create productive energy emanating from a focused team with cooperative members who clearly communicate and contribute to each person’s responsibilities.

Use of Power
Using power to keep people in line usually means the wrong people are on the team. Taking initiatives and risks are by-products of commitment. When power is shared by team members—commitment to each other and a common purpose, to taking appropriate risks, to contributing merit based ideas, and to growing their business unit—power can be transformed into passion.

Pay Attention to How the Group Works
Groups are dynamic and change from meeting-to-meeting. The leader is a social engineer responsible for creating a structure that promotes productivity and team cohesion. Paying attention to how a group performs its work, especially during periods of stress, confusion, or conflict, helps get them back on track. Do they need to discuss their goals or roles? Is their process confusing? Do they need to clear the air? Honesty and an atmosphere of candor are essential for their success.

Don’t Go It Alone: Use a Coach
Transitioning a group of people to a team of engaged employees is a complex process, especially the first time around. It’s downright hard. Helping the leader become a social engineer who engages and develops the team is a honed skill that is learned over time. A coach is a partner to the leader and the team to find the right balance of strategic direction and the management of conflict and interdependent engagement that helps them achieve results within a context of engagement.

Shame: The Underside of the Narcissistic Leader

2009-08-06T09:12:00.006-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

Meryl Streep’s interpretation of Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada reminded people of their experiences with their worst boss. Her ruthless, self-absorbed behavior portrayed how difficult encounters can be with a narcissistic leader. “Prada” became the nickname for a cold, grandiose, and exploitative boss needing to be reminded of her unique, special place. While we are often fascinated by such leaders, what motivates a narcissistic leader?

Narcissism has a storied history. Freud first penned the term based on Narcissus, a handsome Greek youth condemned to fall in love with his reflection in a pool of water. Psychologists expanded the mythic Narcissus and observed behavioral patterns illustrated by Miranda: grandiose and entitled; demanding admiration and control; lacking empathy; and acting superior. Miranda was not distressed by her behavior; only the inability of others to meet her mandates. She made unrealistic, perfectionist demands of her staff and was “disappointed” when they did not satisfy her. Her daring demeanor appears to be founded on great strength. To the contrary, it rests on a fragile foundation of inferiority often formed from fears of failure and exposure. This can lead to overcompensation in order to prove her worth and value.

What might have caused Miranda to overcompensate and cover her fears of inferiority and exposure? In a word, shame. Shame is about an invasive, personal flaw. So what is Miranda’s personal flaw? Narcissistic shame is often an age-old battle fought to cover feeling of being a fraud, unlovable, or pitiful. Miranda emotionally refused to let people know her. Fears of being discovered were just below the surface; the slightest criticism or disenchantment could trigger her humiliating ire. With minimum words or an icy stare she summarily stripped others of their self-respect. Shame’s unique feature is that it is so intolerable that many have developed the ability to not acknowledge it. Miranda, for example, insulated herself by being cold, cruel, conniving, and let down by everyone around her. Her wall of protection, however, demanded a high price—a lonely life. Her coveted trophies of power, beauty, and money replaced intimate relationships with her children, husband, and colleagues.

If Miranda Priestly sold her life to a fantasy, why was she so successful? The fear of shame is a compelling motivator. The drive to manage this dreaded feeling challenges leaders to achieve exceptional results. For example, she had a keen eye for fashion trends and a dominating vision for Runway magazine. She went to great length to use her vision and prestige to shape the industry. Her power attracted others to her—many out of fear—and in the fashion industry “only her opinion counted.” Her ruthless pursuit of results equipped her to deal with all threats—real and imagined—and win.

Michael Maccoby’s classic article the “Narcissistic Leaders” in the Harvard Business Review (January-February, 2000) discusses the pros and cons of this leadership style. He observed such negative characteristics as: sensitivity to criticism, poor listening skills, lack of empathy, distaste for mentoring, and an intense desire to compete. Psychologists would argue that shame underlies each one.

Narcissistic leaders like Miranda are profoundly thinned-skin; over time they renounced the trustworthiness of others. Self-knowledge proved too painful and/or humiliating. Constructive feedback may have been experienced as a loss of control or a painful exposure. To prevent criticism, Miranda’s piercing, critical demeanor made it clear that feedback was to be avoided. There was no such experience of being mildly exposed. Failure to treat her special—give her what she wanted when she wanted it—resulted in belittling the offender, behavior consistent with narcissistic shame.

Poor listening is a direct result of being sensitive to criticism. Listening requires attention and recognizing the other. When the fear of shame underlies listening, Miranda was poised to be on guard and either ignore and dismiss or strike. She, like many other leaders, developed an uncanny ability to blithely disregard what was said, as if it had not been heard. Other times she was challenged or hurt and responded with hostility; a preemptive tactic to eradicate the implicit threat and regain control.

Empathy is a critical component in all relationships, but not for the narcissist. A caring need to be involved with others is often replaced with suspicion and cynicism. For the narcissist, pursuing warm, compassionate relationships are not of interests. Miranda’s need for love was replaced by demanding adoration and deference. She seems to have lost the desire to reach out to others; if she made the other person the problem, she could continue to feel okay about herself.

Organizations succeed by being competitive, but the narcissistic leader thrives on it. Competition is more than a good business strategy; it is a solution for dealing with unending threats. The competitive intensity, however, is a paradox. On the one hand, Miranda’s competitive need to win masked the hallmarks of shame: fears of being weak, losing control, or perceived as incompetent. At the same time, the spoils of her conquests held the hope of vindication and relief from her shameful predicament: “There is no one who can do what I do!” she exclaimed. More is at stake than simply winning; Miranda’s legacy itself was bet on her gambit.

Narcissistic shame drives many to be unequaled in their professional abilities: gifted visionaries, determined leaders, and ruthless decision makers. Yet the leader’s prominence is built on a fragile foundation of inferiority and the incapability of trusting others. These behaviors are symptoms of shame. Psychologists who work with such leaders typically find feelings of being fundamentally bad and not worthy of membership in the human community behind these behaviors. Miranda would be the last to know or admit her shame: “Everybody wants this! [privilege]” she exclaimed. “Everybody wants to be like us.”

From Dysfunctional to Cohesive Teams

2009-07-29T11:01:00.005-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

How often have you suffered through an endless, boring team meeting? The clock seems to go backwards. A 90-minute agenda, if there is one, takes a half-day to cover. People drink bottomless cups of coffee hoping to stay engaged. When the meeting is over, a jail-break ensues. Eight people contribute four days of time with little to show for it. “Does it have to be this hard?” you exclaim!

My client Melanie, founder of a rapidly growing high-technology company, felt the same way. Because of organizational growth her senior team became increasingly interdependent but progressively ineffective. Senior team meetings were dull and monotonous. Many looked at their watches, impatient to get back to their desks. She did not like the humor, distractions, evasive answers, or attempts to scapegoat others. She wanted to schedule a team meeting and talk about what was going on. Instead she called me; she could not suffer further mind-numbing meetings.

Dysfunctional meetings are one of the greatest drains of valuable resources. Hubert Herring in the New York Times in 2006 discovered that 75 percent of the people attending meetings believe their meetings could be more effective. The frustration of these meetings cannot be blamed on the failure to know how to lead an effective team meeting. When “effective meetings” is entered into Google, hundreds of articles come up dealing with being an effective leader, team member, or basic steps that ensure an exceptional meeting. Even determining your meeting IQ is a snap. Don’t get me wrong, a lot of this information is helpful.

So why does the misery persist? When team members are asked this question they frequently say: “There is little energy in the meeting.” This is key–emotional energy generates cohesiveness and is the critical companion to accomplishing results.

Cohesiveness is an essential bond in teams. It is an emotional connection that members feel for others and the team as a whole. This connection, however, must be earned and is preceded by risk taking. Helen Keller stated: "Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." Such a dramatic insight is itself a risk for teams. Yet Helen Keller is right. If the team avoids taking risks— being spontaneous, open, self-disclosing, expressive, facilitating, supportive, dealing with conflict, and creative, etc.—then they will likely fail. “Outright exposure” in teams is: (1) being open to addressing whatever hinders their ability to effectively work together; and (2) individually and collectively committing to make the team better.

Risk-taking supports separation and differentiation so that individuals’ ideas, orientations, and potential solutions to the problem are engaged. The team moves from a culture of commonality, saying what is expected, to tolerating differences which promote self-assertion and self-definition. Yet the transition from commonality to differences often evokes confrontation, anger, and frustration. Team members must decide the extent to which differences can be tolerated and whether it is possible to offer mutual respect, given those differences. They must care enough about each other to be willing to endure the discomfort of working through the conflict. While this transition can be difficult, especially in a business environment, the team cannot establish an identity and agree on their direction without these discussions.

The leader’s task is to anchor the disagreements by acknowledging that the tension is a natural part of earning the right to work together. At the heart of the struggle is power, influence, and decision making. Members want to know that they can influence the process without being overly controlled by the leader and/or other group members. They feel more engaged when power and influence are evenly distributed among members. Therefore, leaders encourage people to say what they think and feel while being cognizant of the impact of their comments. The goal is a unified team culture without sacrificing individuality. This is not only a business team that needs a compelling challenge it is also a social group dealing with all of the tensions and risks that confront groups, regardless of their task

Katzenbach and Smith in the Wisdom of Teams concluded that conflict, like trust and interdependence, is a necessary part of becoming a team. Maturation is predicated upon the capacity to manage potential conflicts through frank and open communication. When the leader or any other team member helps competing members recognize that they have many shared goals, individual differences can be discussed and shaped into the common good. Out of this struggle, some members become astute at challenging, interpreting, supporting, integrating, and summarizing. These roles promote the mutual trust and constructive conflict necessary for a team’s formation.

The payoffs for enduring these struggles are immense. The cohesiveness that business teams desire is the direct result of productively learning to manage their differences. Cohesive team members value the team more highly, accept fellow members, and protect the team from internal and external threats more than teams with less cohesiveness. Cohesiveness provides an atmosphere in which members not only work to influence each other but also are open to being influenced; it supports willingness to listen; to state their opinions more frequently; and to address whatever the group encounters. In the end, cohesiveness undergirds accomplishing results and members experience greater satisfaction with their efforts.

Melanie would attest to the fact that developing cohesiveness is not as easy as it sounds. Relationships, especially when the stakes are high, can be messy and difficult to manage. Yet we do not have a choice. To refuse to engage the messiness of Melanie’s team would mean they could fail to develop the maturity needed to carefully lead their company. To engage Helen Keller’s “daring adventure” Melanie had to decide which route she was willing to take. It is certain that a team focused on safe ideas would result in death by a thousand cuts. The willingness to confront their differences and make room for each other, while unpredictable, holds the hope that all will rise to the occasion, find a common purpose, accept one another, and in time become an exceptional team.

Team Builders: Helpful or A Waste of Time?

2009-07-28T15:35:00.008-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

The phone rang early one Monday morning.
“Hello.”
“Sam, this is David; I need your help.”
“What’s up, Dave?”
Dave sighed and continued, “I just received an e-mail from my boss; he wants to schedule an offsite teambuilding meeting because he is not pleased with our results. I cannot do it!”
“Dave why are you so distraught?” I asked.
“Team builders do not work. We simply suffer Michael’s (his boss) offsites and wait for them to be over. Please you have got to help me come up with another plan that I can show Michael before we languish in another two-day offsite. I know you agree with me”

In fact I do agree with Dave. A team is a by-product of a process, not an objective. Teams are tough! Everyone has been part of a dysfunctional one. Valuable time and resources are consumed by a poorly defined direction led by an unskilled leader. Most people are trained in some professional capacity but have little knowledge of successful strategies for working with others. They rely on social skills developed with family and friends to inform them about ways to interact with others. Then, they are expected to function well and get their job done in the context of working with others.

Yet not all teams are dysfunctional; some are amazing. Are there some givens that we can use to guide our efforts? Are we at the mercy of chance? There are a few steps that can improve the chance that the team will be effective. They are not easy, however, and require a courageous leader.

The best professional sports teams typically have the best owners. From the top down the team is effective. The same is true with corporate teams: from the beginning, the leader makes or breaks the team. The team’s members know immediately if they are going to achieve results or if they are going to “paint by the numbers,” as one former client said about her team. The leader has to earn the right to influence the team. If he or she has not earned that right, then the members are going to pull out the paint brushes and get to work painting, quietly developing their own path. Earning the right to influence others begins with the following: getting the right people on the team; identifying a compelling challenge; providing time for the team to mature; ensuring protection from the outside; and finding a third-party to help guide the process.

Jim Collins of Good to Great states: “begin with the ‘who’ rather than the ‘what.’ ” A great strategic plan with the wrong people will not ensure success. Dave was distressed because he did not believe that Michael had the ability to get the right people onto the team. If Michael was going to earn the right to influence his team, he had to begin by assigning people into positions with the right skills, who were self-motivated, who had decision making ability, and had a track record of achieving results. The leader cannot waver getting the right people into the right positions. Simultaneously, he or she must gain the team members’ respect by selecting members for the right reasons.

The second way that the leader earns the right to influence the team is by creating a compelling challenge and developing a mandate that all are expected to perform. A compelling challenge makes clear the team’s purpose and provides the strategy for realizing its goals. Really effective leaders know that this step is best achieved by working with the team. The discovery process, however, is frequently frustrating, even messy, because of the competing agendas and biases that the members embrace. The members’ competing agendas are individual attempts to find a way to understand the challenge, own it, and commit to a collective course of action. The swirl of creating an agreed-upon purpose and specific objectives results in settling the team down; each understands the challenge and how to contribute to their success. Out of the cacophony of the discovery, detailed objectives lead to the ability to define their direction, deal with conflicts and competing agendas, and clearly communicate thoughts, ideas, and feelings about the project.

Once the team has begun and they are gaining traction, they often face the greatest threat of all—their own organization. Team members are suddenly needed on other projects. Other groups are concerned about the team’s impact on their turf. Competing projects wrangle for limited resources. The team is working, but is under siege from its own organization. Successful teams are an organic entity; they need time to congeal, trust one another, and build commitment to their objectives. Allowing a team to ferment, like the sugar in a good wine, creates the glue that holds them together. The leader must have the courage to protect the team from threats and infringements. Protecting the team does not begin at the point of challenge; at that point it is often too late. Protection is an ongoing process where the leader ensures that superiors and peers alike understand the team’s purpose, its importance to the organization, and remain committed to its success.

Is there any wonder that teams so often do not succeed. Assigning the best people to each role, clarifying the opportunity, and mapping the political terrain is enough to dismay the best senior leader. Consequently, a third-party, a coach or advisor, can be a neutral sounding board, collaborate with the team’s architecture, and a guide in effectively using group process skills. A coach that helps them navigate their route—as opposed to telling them what to do—is more successful. Group dynamics are a paradox; they are remarkably predictive and elusive at the same time. The coach presents a methodology but the team has to decide how to use it in order to define their compelling challenge, determine how they are going to work together, commit to each other, deal with their conflicts, and promote individual learning.

The route from the collection of individuals to a dynamic team is a challenge, but when a team works, it is a magical; a highlight of a senior leader’s career.

Strategic Leadership: A White Paper Approach to Engaging Power, Politics, and Coalitions

2009-07-28T15:33:00.002-04:00

Samuel R. James, Ed.D.

A leader’s success is predicated upon two competencies: creating strategy and managing the people. A senior manager assumes the responsibility for assessing the organization and transforming it into a vision of what he or she believes it needs to become. As Ciampa and Watkins have indicated in Right From the Start, momentum must be built at the same time by energizing people, addressing the most important problems, creating trustworthiness, and achieving mutual goals. The leader’s pathway for organizing the vast volume of information and multiple relationships that need to be thought-out and aligned grows out of understanding the organization. Then he or she creates strategy, and aligns the people. When senior managers fail, they often excel in one area but are deficient in the other. Balancing the two domains is essential for a strategic leader.

Take for example, Maxwell Marley (all names are composites of real people and places) whose technical and strategic skills differentiated him from his peers. As an EVP, Max was responsible for developing a new product line to take advantage of the emerging baby boomers retirement needs. Included in his charge was an increased budget that expanded his staff with a clear mandate to supplement his staff with new people who were “up to the challenge” of redefining the industry. Needing to strengthen the company’s core products, the CEO believed that now was the time to develop new products that would cater to the needs of the aging baby boomers. Some of their competitors had tried similar initiatives, but none had found the strategy for success. The CEO believed that the first company to successfully attract new customers would have a significant advantage in defining the industry’s standards and reaping the rewards. Further, the CEO viewed Max’s ability to successfully lead the company’s new product line, while developing his team, would be his litmus test for becoming the inside candidate for the COO, and perhaps even become the CEO of the future.

Max had an impressive background in operations and marketing, rising quickly through the organization. He had a reputation for a daunting work ethic, effective interpersonal skills, and the ability to deliver complex projects on time and within his budget. He also was very self confident, sometimes to the dismay of others. The only question about his ability to lead the new product line was a concern about his management skills. He had scoffed at training courses that would help him be more self-aware of his behavioral patterns. Leadership development projects, three-sixty feedback, and coaching opportunities had been rejected as time away from more pressing matters. While his reluctance to take advantage of such development opportunities troubled some of the senior staff, the CEO reasoned that the project was going to require a leader with enormous energy and a competitive drive. With help, the CEO was confident that he could strengthen his managerial skills.

Max took on his new charge with verve and vigor and quickly developed his team around his theme BBEAM: Baby Boomers Excel and Motivate. This appealing mantra captured the scope of the product line that involved providing emerging retirees, hit hard in the economic downturn, with securities that would help them recover and manage their retirement. Each of his direct reports was given an assignment as well as dates for progress reports against their agreed-upon goals. Feeling a sense of urgency to deliver results, he believed that developing his team would be time-consuming and produce limited results; thus, he developed one-on-one relationships with each member. He concentrated on keeping each person focused on specific parts of the project and measured his or her progress against agreed on expectations. By parsing the work into manageable segments, he reasoned, he could develop the foundation for the new services. After all, it was up to him to be the architect of the strategy that would yield results.

Max’s experience had taught him that the price of success was very demanding. His stamina to stay focused and keep others focused had differentiated him from his peers; instinctively, he believed that this would be the best way to achieve timely results. Further, the importance of the project was at the top of the CEO’s and the chairman’s list and he had a green light to move forward with haste. While his team was initially achieving the level of results that he expected, the first sign of trouble emerged with his cross-functional partners. His sense of urgency was blinding him to the impact his initiatives and demands were having on them. For instance, when his department needed resources or collaboration from other business units, he would meet with fellow vice presidents and their teams and outline what he needed from them. Such actions led one of his peers to the conclusion that he “overwhelms us into compliance.” In fact, many complained that they were initially ready to assist Max; however, his demands inundated their time-starved schedules. Fearing additional work, they began to withhold information from him and his team. One of his peers stated that he and his team wanted to “work with Max” but the situation seemed to be requiring that “we work for Max.”

As an important date for presenting progress to-date to the CEO and senior management team approached, Max ’s demands of his subordinates left most exhausted and some resentful. “I am never home; my family is very upset with me,” one stated. Another lamented, “This is Max’s chance to make it to the corner office. Unfortunately we are the rockets used to blast him to the top.” While he was able to show impressive strategic results to his CEO and peers, the infrastructure of his team and constituency groups was crumbling around him.

Complex tasks call for complex systems built upon a coalition of cross-functional disciplines. Senior leaders live and die by the quality of their coalitions. Too few, however, recognize the importance of the time, patience, respect for differences, and persistence required to build dynamic coalitions. In Max’s case, his peers believed in his plan. They thought BBEAM: Baby Boomers Excel and Motivate was a compelling and marketable idea. Internally it captured the scope of the new plan and all could easily understand Max’s vision. Externally, the idea would be easy to market because the professionally community would quickly see its relevance and appeal. Many in the organization, themselves “boomers,” appreciated the fact he was not only creating a valuable opportunity for the company but offering assistance to a group of people facing difficult options. One-by-one Max was tackling the most important steps, which in his mind, would ensure success. While he had made the case for the new services, he had not created a multi-disciplinary coalition willing to work together to ensure a successful entry into the market. Even though many of his strategic partners respected his ideas, they were ready to revolt. The CEO thus had a dilemma. The right leader had been assigned in terms of his technical skills, creativity, and drive, but the concern about his limited managerial skills was threatening to undermine the project. What was the CEO going to do?

Unfortunately, Max’s experience is all too common. Many new senior managers have mastered the ability to set strategy and achieve results; in fact, such managers typically excel under pressure. Eager to demonstrate results, however, they do not combine the strategic and interpersonal demands of their new position. What if they have to go slow in order to be quick? Such a question can be very frustrating to a manager who takes hold of the opportunity and moves ahead with great haste. Transitions are as much about group dynamics and coalitions as they are corporate strategy. The senior leader must entice team members and other business units to engage in a compelling challenge, but success cannot be created in a vacuum or the privacy of the senior leader’s own thoughts. Rather, the challenge is the result of all of the dynamics of a living system—superiors, peers, subordinates, customers, etc.—being involved in the process of envisioning and implementing the plan.

The CEO did not want to lose momentum by replacing Max. He also wanted to use this as an opportunity to test his aptitude and willingness to manage and achieve results with and through others. This was an opportunity for Max to develop his team and build cross-functional constituency groups aligned with his plan. The plan was on track and they could afford to take some time to help him balance his strategic demands with his ailing management skills. To this end, he recruited our consulting group to work with him toward working more effectively with Max, his team, and constituency partners. With our help, Max identified three areas where he needed to make changes: (1) to work more closely with his boss; (2) become politically competent so as to create a power base; and (3) develop his team and constituency groups.

Working Closely With the CEO
When a senior manager is eager to demonstrate results, there is a tendency to over- rely on creating a plan of action without sufficient inclusion of the CEO, especially if he or she is a candidate for the CEO’s position. Their take-charge manner can initially yield results, but over time, the same skills that yielded early outcomes can alienate and/or offend the CEO and senior management team. We have found that a different dynamic promotes straightforwardness, discussion, and the development of a coalition that is able to align with the desired results. Our somewhat unique process has involved working with senior managers to create working “white papers” that are a detailed outline of the project’s goals, the resources and assistance needed from the CEO and peers, steps toward realizing the plan, team responsibilities, cross-functional collaborators and their roles, measurements of success or benchmarks, and timelines.

During this process, we work with the senior leader to scrutinize “big ideas,” and translate each part into manageable steps. The white papers are created by projecting the work onto a screen so that the senior manager can see his or her ideas developing. The process of putting ideas on the big screen requires a commitment to rigorous thinking, innovation, and identifying areas of expertise that lay outside the senior manager’s team. Quickly, most senior managers realize that ideas that appear to be adequately articulated often wilt under the scrutiny of putting them to paper. The rigor of good thinking is challenging but it works. Ideas can be moved from one part of the paper to another to prioritize or clarify important objectives. A hard copy of the working document is simultaneously generated so that missing elements can be quickly identified and added to the plan. At the end, the senior manager has both a hard and e-copy that guides testing and vetting the ideas with others before presenting the draft to the CEO.

The white paper is thus a working document and not a completed business plan. The revised white paper is presented to the CEO as a working document; not a proposed business plan. This framework encourages active problem solving and discussions along the way that strengthen the overall design. The clarity of the paper helps the senior leader test if the CEO and fellow senior managers are prepared to align with the presented plan. This is one of the most important times in the entire process. Many times a CEO will not offer a direction, preferring to provide the opportunity for the senior manager to exert his or her own influence. However, when invited into the design they collaborate openly. If the CEO and/or senior management team is not prepared to support the plan, it is important to find this out early on and determine want they will support. We have found to the contrary that they welcome the clarity of thought and build on the presented ideas.

Good thinking is contagious and brings the best out in others. The senior manager can also test which ideas are openly endorsed and which ones receive a skeptical review by the CEO or one of the members of the senior management team. These objectives will likely be the ones that meet resistance, directly or indirectly, and need further discussions that uncover the reasons for the hesitation, in order to gain buy in. For instance, Max and the CEO reviewed areas of uncertainty with his senior team to gain additional insights and build momentum among the senior leaders. The inclusion of the senior management team had the desired effect of quelling the angst about his leadership and engaged Max’s peers in the process.

This is a challenging assignment for even the most seasoned leaders. In our experience, however, when senior leaders define the requisite steps and identify learning gaps, they typically relax. Their need to be in charge and prove their value is replaced with confidence that he or she can map disparate ideas into a woven plan of action based on a coalition of partners. Changing their focus from “I get it right” to “we get it right” insulates the senior leader from nagging self-doubt or rugged individualism. The process is also humbling for senior leaders as they come to see what they can and cannot control and accept the importance of their reliance on others to realize the end goal. A good plan not only identifies what needs to be done; it also identifies how it needs to be presented in order to promote acceptance and cooperation from partners crucial to the project’s success.

After meeting with the CEO, the senior manager engages his or his team in defining their individual parts of the plan. Katzenbach and Smith in The Wisdom of Teams assert that teams develop from a shared understanding of compelling goals that challenge people to commit themselves to make a difference. Teams transform broad directives into specific and measurable performance goals; agree on specific performance objectives; determine how each person can best contribute to the team’s goals; and create a symbiotic like relationship whereby each depends on the other to stay relevant and vital. These ideas are uncomplicated. Transforming a collection of people, however, into a committed group oriented to goals and results in a climate of trust, where data are shared freely, and decisions are made collectively, is demanding. It is achievable, however, by including the senior manager’s team in the architecture of how they will work together and what they will focus on.

Together the senior manager and the team review the plan’s purpose and translate each objective into specific and measurable performance goals. Drawing upon their complimentary skills, they determine captains of key sections and agree on areas in which others will provide support. This process ensures that each undertakes critical work and eliminates the possibility that two or more members will inadvertently focus on the same area. Once the purpose has been clarified and assignments agreed to, we meet with the team members one-on-one to create a white paper that is similar to the one their senior leader completed: strategies for achieving results against key deliverables, resources, timelines, measurements, and cross-functional partners. Upon completion of the draft, the senior manager meets with the direct report and us for a presentation of the subordinate’s plan. Together they discuss the draft and problem solve the recommendations until the senior manager gives the go-ahead

When Max’s team completed their individual white papers, he assembled them and asked each to present his or his plan. Working from diverse perspectives, they analyzed and adopted a collective strategy, enhanced the accuracy of individual initiatives, and committed to implementing each. For instance, when each member presented his or her strategic white paper, the group’s discussion strengthened that presenter’s plan. Together they looked for areas of alignment, collaboration, and potential conflict. He was impressed with their level of expertise and willingness to help each other refine his or his plan. After each had presented, they reviewed the plan in more detail: Were any key steps missing? Together they clarified a collective strategic direction and prioritized actions so that each was aligned with peers, superiors, and subordinates. The prioritization process helped each agree on the short- and long-term objectives so that they could act with confidence and commitment.

They further identified stakeholders throughout the company that they needed to shape into a coalition. An open plan helped them initiate a transparent process that in time carried over to the other members of their coalition. As a result, a cohesiveness, born from the risk of presenting and building ideas together, resulted in an energized team, one that had identified and discussed the most important problems, created trustworthiness, and achieved mutual goals. With Max’s team defined and focused on their objectives, he turned his attention to other members of the coalition by making the case for their involvement.

Throughout this process, there are multiple benefits for a senior manager. The senior leader is provided with a collaborator who is equipped with a methodology that invites open inquiry, in-depth discussions, problem solving, and generating next steps. The process used by the consultant helps a senior manager create compelling ideas based on involvement with stakeholders throughout the organization. This step involves working with him or her to determine what needs to be presented, to whom, and to identify tactics for obtaining the best reception. It also involves helping the client look for opportunities that create discussions and engagement between the thought leaders who will ultimately decide the initiatives’ outcome. Honing the ideas in these ways helps build courage in the face of inevitable conflict when innovations are introduced into a static system. Over time the partnership becomes a valuable relationship or a forum for feedback to the senior manager about his or his leadership style and other personal characteristics that will aid as well as encumber the project’s success. In the end, the partnership helps the senior leader decide how to deal with each of the steps in the process while creating a coalition based on political competence and a strong power base.

Political Competence and a Strong Power Base

Bennis and Nanus in Leaders proposed a new paradigm of leadership by redefining power as the “basic energy needed to initiate and sustain action translating intention into reality.” Power enables a vision to be realized. Through the use of power, leaders can set bold directions, commit resources, adapt to environmental changes, and empower people to accomplish results. Without the effective use of power, little is accomplished. When used effectively, power is the currency that creates visions of opportunity and mobilizes stakeholders to commit valuable resources to a significant opportunity or change in the environment. This understanding is directly opposite the hard-to-shake conventional view that power is about control, corrupt intentions, and territorial supremacy. Correctly understood and applied, power is in fact the energy that makes a senior leader effective.

Bacharach defined political competence in Get Them on Your Side: Win Support, Convert Skeptics, Get Results as “understanding what the leader can and cannot control, identifying key allies and obstacles, and mapping the political terrain in service of leading a coalition willing to take action and create change.” Political competence is the ability to begin with a compelling idea and build and sustain a coalition until the nascent idea is put to practical use. The concept of politics, like power, has taken on a bad reputation as the wheeling and dealing leader who cannot be trusted. Again, if understood correctly, nothing could be further from the truth. Collectively, power and political competencies are reframed as essential ingredients in effective leadership.

Developing political competence is often a struggle for a senior manager because it entails creating a power base of people willing to align with their goals. This entails synthesizing and articulating the white paper’s plan with all of the stakeholders; those who agree with it as well as those with competing agendas. This is achieved within a transparent style with no surprises that invites collaboration and respects the inherent quid-pro-quo in making deals. The innate give-and take creates a dissonance of ideas ensuring that all aspects of the project are pored over so that the final result withstands the pressures of the competitive market place. Managing this process is at times more of a psychological struggle than a strategic one. Relationships take time to create. Defining a strategy and effectively selling it to others who approach the problem from a different set of assumptions is time well spent. The work of a coalition is at times a messy business. Earning the right to influence others is a right of passage that needs to be approached thoughtfully with patience and resilience.

Max began by presenting his vision to the functional groups most aligned with his team, discussing specific assistance they needed from each of the groups, and making clear how their involvement was critical to the project’s success. Concurrently, he listened to other’s functional priorities and limitations and began to weave dissimilar points of view into a cross-functional strategy. He shared information openly and sought others’ opinions. He did not expect that this would flow smoothly and looked for opportunities to create ownership for the project with each business unit. Without ownership, they would not be willing to invest in the multi-layers of work needed. He gave them credit for their contributions and made sure that senior management understood each group’s unique contribution. He was building a coalition by bringing others in sooner, pulling together information, and ensuring that each group of the coalition was providing the resources that are needed. Max was subjugating personal power by focusing on his team and constituency groups’ abilities to be successful.

Political competence is pursuing cross-functional solutions and managing the gray spaces among the different groups. Stakeholders want to know what is in it for them when they collaborate. That is human nature. Work is after all a social system where people exchange services in order to get their needs met. While “corrupt power” holds that the other groups have to be mastered and contained, effective power involves the willingness to barter for services and participation in the open based on a goal that is clearly stated and good for the organization. Over time, building a coalition is creating common benefits that serve the overall purposes of all or most of the members.

Max, by example, brought the Distribution team into the design early on so that they could help with product management. In time, they would inherit responsibilities for testing and distributing the products and he wanted to ensure that their knowledge was integrated early on. As he came to see that he and his team were linked with all of the other teams, he accepted that he was part of a connected system; his decisions and actions affected others. Developing political competence helped him make an impact across the interconnected system of teams and business units by respecting their needs and limitations. Even though his team was his primary responsibility, he was also responsible for the impact that the new product lines were having on other business units. By understanding and addressing the outcome, he was enhancing a power base that helped achieve greater results than he initially anticipated, or than he could ever have achieved alone. The process was slower than he desired; however, his strategic skills were balanced by an increasing capacity to create a coalition that he and his team could work with effectively.

A Coalition of Teams and Constituency Groups

Leaders of complex projects recognize that the successful preparation of their team is just the beginning. This is, however, the first and an indispensable building block in creating an effective coalition. This is delicate work. While a team can be successful within its own specialty, the coalition can fall apart very quickly, often for mundane reasons. The senior leader’s responsibility is to gain an agreement about the importance of multiple groups working together towards a common goal. At this point the leader needs to be part salesman who makes the case, part community organizer who builds for the common good, and part task-master committed to the project. Attaining buy-in from those who are both sympathetic as well as those who oppose the leader’s plan is equally demanding. In fact, the sympathetic partners are often the most difficult to work with. They can merely agree and then go about other responsibilities with little involvement with the coalition. The failure to gain working agreements will result in isolating the senior leader’s team and jeopardizing the whole project.

There are other points of potential vulnerability as well. Rosabeth Moss Kanter observed in Leadership for Change: Enduring Skills for the Change Masters that a project is most vulnerable at its mid-point. This is the time when the critics get louder. Creating a new product line, for instance, is no longer a vague idea. When it is taking shape and momentum is building, the opponents raise their greatest challenges. Leaders of coalitions must come to terms with the reality that relationships are challenging—alliances must be based on trust and a commitment to the organization’s well-being—and set backs occur. When such relationships are in place, small conflicts can be identified and resolved before they have a chance to escalate. Conflicts, however, are inevitable, but handled well they become the glue that helps hold the project together. When a leader can identify obstacles—tactical and interpersonal—and address them successfully, the coalition gains stability and commitment. Developing cohesiveness is a process that is repeated over-and-over during the life of the project. The cohesion that coalitions seek comes from the successful management of their conflicts and gaining momentum toward success. The conflicts are not a sign of trouble. To the contrary, they offer an opportunity to identify one of many obstacles to the successful management of any coalition, discuss it, seek resolution, and move forward.

At the mid-point of a project, the problems are apt to be as much about the personal costs of the project as they are tactical. If another leader or team feels their territorial sovereignty is being violated, this threat must be addressed. When one team has to work over time so that others receive what they need, this inequity needs to be recognized. When sub groups have competing assumptions about the best way to proceed, they have to resolve the impasse. The goal of the leader is to be resilient and close enough to the cross-functional partners so that he or she can identify concerns, problem solve, and maintain the coalition’s work. The senior leader has to appreciate the ups and downs of the process and see them against a diagonal line moving toward results. While this period is at times very uncomfortable, it is also the environment where leaders are formed; such periods offer the opportunities to develop the requisite skills to listen, communicate, problem solve, make deals, and untimely act decisively. It is through such grind and grit that functional leaders expand a narrow-minded understanding of leadership of their team by becoming strategic leaders responsible for ensuring that all entities come through the process whole and in tact.

While the work of the strategic leader occurs in the midst of multiple groups, it starts with a clear vision and strategy for his or her team. This is the initial foundation that will be tested, shaken, and reshaped as the coalition is built and delivers. When the members of the leader’s team are clear and focused, they can progress against the goals. When the team engages conflicts with cross-functional partners, they need the assistance of a strategic leader who has built alliances across the organization and has the CEO’s endorsement. These situations afford an opportunity to both support the direct report and simultaneously teach how to problem solve with others who have a different agendas or expectations about ways to proceed. The coalition is thus a living and learning system led by a strategic leader focused on goals, use of effective power, and developing the political competence necessary to form partners and teams with the collective ability to ensure that bold initiatives become tomorrow’s necessities.