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.
Aug 17, 2009
Aug 6, 2009
Shame: The Underside of the Narcissistic Leader
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.”
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.”
Jul 29, 2009
From Dysfunctional to Cohesive Teams
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.
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.
Jul 28, 2009
Team Builders: Helpful or A Waste of Time?
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
