Building Your Management Team into a Leadership Team

 

Building Your Management Team into a Leadership Team

Executing bold strategies that transform a business means changing the very essence of the organization. This change is necessary to allow the business to succeed and thrive. It is by definition a large scale change. In addition to being large, it is also difficult. Many organizations need to transform, but only a few actually accomplish the transformation. Most fail to achieve the promise of the possibility of transforming their organization because of limitations in the leadership teams. That is, leadership teams back off rather than push forward to get the full value. In a sporting analogy, the teams wilt late in the game and do not come near fulfilling their potential as a team. In business this is capturing only a small part of the possible improved performance of the business. Rather than accomplishing breakthroughs in business performance and becoming a transformed organization, most settle for a compromised level of business improvement and a watered-downed version of the envisioned organizational change.

Manager’s behaviors often send conflicting messages to the organization. The managers may be saying one thing about collaboration and change, and yet their actions appear to be very competitive with other managers. Rather than building value, these managers are perceived to be building personal empires.

Success in strategic execution requires teams of managers acting in new ways to inspire others to achieve results. If the manager’s behavior is suppressive, there will be little inspiration. If the managers continue to dominate and use a “command and control” approach, few employees will meaningfully engage much less take risks. As you look at implementing strategic execution, consider that the existing management group is one of the primary obstacles to be overcome. You need to convert managers into leaders, and then a loosely knit gang or “gaggle” into a team.

Teams, not individuals, win championships. While a team is comprised of individuals, the focus must be on the functioning of the team as a whole rather than as individuals in order for the team to be successful. There are countless examples from sports where teams excel because of the commitment to working as a team. Conversely there are numerous examples where teams appear to have the best players, yet somehow manage to lose even though they talent. So it is in business. The organizations and facilities that “win” the most are the ones that have the best teams of people. While that may seem intuitively obvious, many companies do not act accordingly. Success in planning and executing strategies comes from teams of people working effectively to produce results that are beyond what was initially expected. To do this, the people must be enabled, engaged, inspired, guided and supported throughout the entire process of implementation. In order for this inspiration to be successful, there must be leadership teams that function effectively as teams.

In order to accomplish building a team of leaders, there are several critical points to address:

1. The incumbents in management positions may or may not be effective as leaders.
2. The incumbents in management positions may or may not want to be a leader.
3. The incumbents in management positions may or may not be willing to do what is required to become a leader.
4. The incumbents in management positions may not be effective as leaders, do not want to be leaders, are not willing to do what is required to be leaders, but are UNWILLING TO SAY SO. Further they may say they want to be leaders, yet actively behave in a different manner.
5. The incumbent(s) in management position(s) who are unwilling to become leaders are a direct threat to effectiveness of the rest of the team.
6. You will not “win at the game of strategic execution” if you are using players who are unwilling to play the game.
7. If you are serious about “winning at strategic execution” you must begin by assuring that you have players who want to play the game.
8. Begin building the team once you have sorted out the commitments of the incumbents in management positions. 
   

lead1 /

·v. (past and past part. led /lEd/)

1 cause (a person) to go with one by drawing them along.

2 show (someone) the way to a destination by preceding or accompanying them (usu. lead to) be a route or means of access to a particular place.

3 culminate or result in. (lead someone to/to do something) be someone’s reason or motive for

4 have or experience (a particular way of life).

The first word in the first definition gives a terrific insight into leadership. A leader is “cause.” Let’s look at the definition of cause:

Cause n.

a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. Reasonable grounds for a belief or action.

When we look at the definition of cause, we first see that it is “a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon or condition.”

• A leader gives “rise to actions.” If we look further, we see that this “rise” is not only action, but also a phenomenon. Phenomenon is defined as a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially whose cause was not easily anticipated.
• Transformation of an organization is certainly a phenomenon. This transformation of a company does not occur naturally. It happens only because of the intervention of leaders
• I particularly like that the word condition is used. What is transformed is the condition of the organization. The condition is changed so as to allow dramatic improvements in business results.

When we look at the end of the first definition of lead (leader), what is fascinating about that portion of the definition is that the focus is on causing a person (or organization) to go along with them by preceding or accompanying them. This suggests that a leader must precede those in the organization in making changes. In other words, if a transformation is to occur, the leader must participate in that transformation. There is no hiding out for a leader in a transformation. Not only must the leader be involved in the change, but she or he must also do so in a public manner. How else can the leader “show the way to a destination by preceding or accompanying” the people in the organization?

The second definition of leader also gives us an insight into a leader’s role in transforming a business organization. The definition reads: to lead someone to/to do something. Leadership is about getting people in the organization to do something. In fact, it is getting the people in the organization to do something new that will produce a significant result. In leading a transformation, the people must act to produce a significant result and change the essence of their work and the organization. Not only is this challenging, but look at how the leader goes about getting the people in the organization to act: the definition continues…be someone’s reason or motive for. The leader has to be someone’s reason or motive for something. People in the organization will act, based on the leader’s being their reason and motive for acting. For a person who has grown up in a company that has a command-and-control culture, it is unnatural to think about being a group of people’s reason and motive for acting. It is much easier to give a command. What is required for managers who have grown up in a command-and-control company environment (and most have) to make this change is a transformation of themselves, personally. That leads us to the third definition.

Key to business success is leadership. Unfortunately, too few in management positions have ever learned to lead. Learning to lead requires hard work and much trial and error. Too many managers have been unwilling to expose themselves to the rigor and rejection required to develop leadership skills. For many it has been too easy to hide behind their education and position, and avoid the challenges of learning to lead. As a consequence, there is an extreme shortage of excellent leaders in North America today. Therefore, the challenge is to build leadership skills on the job with people who are in management positions.

Where to begin? The first place to begin is by realizing that leadership and management are quite different. They are not the same skills. They do not look at business in the same way. They do not engage with stakeholders, customers and employees in the same way. They do not produce the same results in the business.

For many there are several cruel myths that must be confronted.

1. If you are in a management or supervisory position, then you must be a leader. This is simply not the case. In fact, often the most powerful leaders in a business are not in the top management positions, and conversely many of the top managers are not leaders. While this has been valid in the past, it will likely not work during these troubled times. Now managers must also be leaders.
2. A grouping of managers makes a leadership team. A group of managers is simply a group of managers. There is nothing about grouping that develops leadership abilities. Often it has the opposite impact. A group of intelligent, capable managers are combined, and rather than become inspirational leaders, they become cut-throat politicians.
3. Leadership can be learned by sitting in the position. Leadership does not develop through osmosis.

Building a leadership team from a group of managers begins with developing each person as a leader. For some managers the act of becoming a leader will require a personal transformation. For others it is more a matter of expanding perspectives and adding new tools to their “toolkit”.

A team of leaders can be built only from leaders. Once you have leaders on the field, then you can begin developing them into a team.

• What is the data and fact pattern of performance in their technical areas and areas of influence? Are they currently excelling in their position? Will they have the skills to excel in their position as you implement the new strategy?
• Is this person’s skill set what will be needed in the future for this position?
• If they were recently promoted, are you confident that they are growing “like a weed” in their new role and learning what they need to be learning?
• Do they appear to have the aptitude and intelligence to excel in this function and position, as well as to grow into others?
• What is their credibility in their functional area(s)? Do others admire their technical capabilities and seek them out for advice?
• Do they understand the business so well they have a “sixth sense” of what is going on in the business?
• Can they make substantial contributions to others in the business?

Technical competence is not something that one acquires overnight. If someone currently lacks the competency, or has the wrong skill set for the future, he or she will not be an effective leader in strategic execution and transformation. Be candid. While you may want to give people the “benefit of the doubt”, you do not want to live in denial and pretend about the person’s technical competence. Pretence is a recipe for probable disaster, or at least serious heartburn.

As a chain is only as strong as its weakest link… so too is a leadership team

Which part of that is not clear?

If they lack the required technical skills, there will be no room for them on the leadership team. While this sounds harsh, it is nonetheless a crucial point to not overlook. If you have a person on the management team who does not excel in technical skills, that person will become a serious liability in execution of strategy. Unfortunately, on many occasions I have had this conversation with the top manager and lost; the senior manager says something like, “I hear you, but…” The reasons given for not acting on the manager who does not have the technical capabilities have included:

• “I cannot do anything because this person has political connections…”
• “I would take action, but HR will not let me…”
• “I want to give them another chance…”
• “I can cover for their deficiencies…”
• “They have worked here a long time…”
• “I would act, but this person has this unusual family situation …”
• “I really admire this person because …”

While you may be constrained from acting immediately, you must be aware that you are entering strategic execution with a liability. It’s like carrying a player on the team who has such a serious injury that he will not be able to perform effectively in the game. Further, playing him in the game reduces the effectiveness of the team.

Now for the bad news … you will probably have some prospective team members about whom you cannot get valid data. Worse yet, you will likely have some prospective team members who have a “checkered past” in leading change. In these cases you want to keep looking at the data and fact patterns and IGNORE the explanations and good excuses that you will receive. If a manager has been historically been resistant to lead change or allow change to occur in “my area”, you want to be thorough in assessing the situation.

As I reflect on those situations in which a manager turned out to be a weak leader in strategic execution, there usually was a track record of “not leading”, not supporting leaders, and trying to build an empire rather than execute a strategy. There was extensive evidence to help predict how things would turn out. Yet there was also a good explanation and personal assurances that the behavior would be different this time. It simply did not happen. If you want more discussion on this topic please look online for my articles on Foundational Commitments. 

If you have questions, find a venue to sit down with those in the heart of your organization and listen to what they say about the managers. Begin by listening to:

1. Negative things about this person’s character and leadership skills. Don’t deny the harsh reality or pretend that they are not as bad as they look. The bad news for you is that this person’s credibility is usually so damaged that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to emerge as a successful leader of the troops. When you hear this type of feedback you want to act with great haste in an attempt to avoid damage to your leadership team's credibility. If you dawdle in attempts to avoid “losing a manager” you may doom the leadership team’s ability to win the game.
2. Who and what these “heart of your organization types” do not talk about. That is a strong clue that either they do not feel safe to discuss this person, or the person is so forgettable as a leader that your employees fail to notice them. Either way it is a very bad sign.
3. Notice whom these respected employees describe or imply as being a source of disagreement or friction. Disagreement is a step up from the early step of “missing in action”. Disagreement indicates some element of respect, although with rough edges. This may be a manager who with some intervention may be able to develop credibility and leadership.
4. Of course you like to hear about the managers who are admired and respected by the troops. These are the people whom you will build the engagement and execution on. They are also the nucleus you will need for making your management group into a leadership team.

In addition to listening to the comments of others in the organization, you also want to take a stark look at the results achieved around this manager. Often you will find that the manager has consistently produced good results, but with high amounts of “collateral damage”. What you may have is a manager who can get results, but does so in a manner that is inconsistent with the values you want for the organization. The results achieved around this manager come at great costs, and ultimately you may find that the costs outweigh the results. This is among the most difficult challenges faced by a leader. That is, to deal with a manager who produces results, but does so in a manner that is inconsistent with the values. This is a case in which you need to act and not listen to excuse, or nibble around the edges. Seldom does a manager like this emerge as an effective leader. Rather what happens is they become a liability to the entire management group ever becoming a leadership team.

Inconsistent behavior of management group team members is among the biggest stumbling blocks for strategic execution. That is, managers who are unable or unwilling to lead and actively sabotage the transformation. This appears to occur when the person discovers what it will cost them personally to lead. I cannot stress how essential this point is. Too often leaders attempt to “limp along” with members of management who are not strong, not committed, and in some cases both. While there are always extenuating circumstances and good reasons, it is nonetheless a mistake.

• Ask people of a lesser rank to step up and take the actions to accomplish the transformation.
• Challenge oneself to change.
• Challenge oneself to grow as a leader and a person.
• Challenge oneself about issues with control, engagement of others, risk and trust.
• Challenge what is known about the business. This requires being open to other points of view and to the possibility of discovering that the business is not exactly as it was previously considered it to be.
• Challenge prior decisions that have been made, especially those in which the manager was involved.
• Question favorite processes.
• Relinquish the “right answers” for how the transformation can be best be achieved.

There are several factors that should be considered in making the choice about being involved. I think it is important that managers have choice in this matter. Managers having choice is essential for three reasons:

• Choice is a crucial element in transformation. All those who are involved should do so because they want to be involved. No one should be coerced or forced into involvement.
• If managers do not feel that they have a choice, they will act from coercion. A manager working from coercion will not be successful. This manager will find it very difficult to create and exhibit the level of commitment required for effective participation. Involvement will become increasingly difficult to the point that it evolves into dread, frustration and sabotage of the transformation.
• Leadership is needed from each management position. If a manager cannot in good conscience commit to the transformation and choose to be involved, it is his or her duty is to make this public. The leaders should honor the manager’s candor and find another role in the organization. That is, a role where the person is not asked to participate in leading a transformation. 
• If a managers says he or she is willing to be a leader and then does not follow through, he or she creates a problem of integrity that will hamper the efforts of other leaders.

If you make this declaration, be prepared to see all the areas in which the team is falling short of this commitment. While initially annoying or upsetting, these gaps between commitment and current condition are actually gifts, clearly pointing to areas in need of attention.

An analogy may be helpful. On fishing boats there are instruments called “Fish Finders”. These instruments indicate when a fish has passed under the boat as well as the approximate size of the fish and depth of the water in which the fish was swimming. While some of these instruments are not as accurate as you might like, they do provide some indication of fish in the vicinity. If you are sitting in the boat, getting no bites on your bait and no indication of fish in the area from the fish finder, it is usually time to move to another spot. The Fish Finders give indication of the possibility of fish being there to be caught.

In building a team, the declaration of commitment to be a team gives rise to “something fishy being noticed on the finder”. In this case, the something fishy is an attribute of the team and its dynamics that needs to be pursued, just like a fisherman goes after a big fish that swims under his boat.

• Conflicts between team members or members of their organizations.
• Hygiene matters between two members, e.g., actions or communications that have resulted in questions of confidence, integrity and trust.
• Expectations that were not met.
• Concerns that develop and need to be talked about.

In the Bible there is a directive to “not let the sun go down on your anger”. This is excellent advice for leadership teams as well. Even if the item is marked by an email or voice mail with commitment to follow up the next morning, that is preferred over doing nothing.

Teams need to be continually watching out for the development of truces among members. A truce looks like “I will not call you on your issue if you do not call me on mine”. The seductive thing about truces is that at first they seem to be a good idea. Unfortunately that is not how it works out. Truces continue to grow in size and complexity until there are many areas that are considered “off limits” to members of the team, if not the entire team.

• Wording of the Values, Vision and Mission.
• Articulating a context for this future.
• Establishing outcomes that demonstrate the future has been achieved.
• Assessing metrics that would be useful in that future, as opposed to what is currently in use.

Develop Strategies and Execution Plans

• Identifying strategic pathways or initiatives that will be required for the business to achieve its promised future.
• Putting these pathways or initiatives into language as a strategy.
• Developing an execution plan for these strategies.
• Identifying resources for implementation.

If the magnitude of change required for successful execution is large, I recommend the use of a separate, temporary implementation organizational structure. This allows for implementation to proceed much faster than if it were to go through the existing line of authority and organizational structure. While there is often a predictable “pushback” from some team members at first, it ultimately serves to expedite execution, accelerate achievement of results and development of leaders.

1. Too often organizational structure is used as a proxy for some other dynamic and problem. While it initially appears easier to change the structure, it seldom adequately addresses the dynamic or problem that prompted the move in the first place.
2. Deal with conflicts in management actions and styles. If there is a sense that one executive is not managing a function or process appropriately, there is a swapping of assets or roles in an attempt to address the perceived problem or shortcoming. The complications created by these organizational changes often obscures the original “problem” so that it is hard to see if any progress was made.
3. The “new organization” is actually a revised version of the old organization with the pendulum swung back the other way. Centralize and then decentralize. One company vs. stand among businesses; functional groupings vs. business units; matrix organizations vs. line organizations. Ironically, when you speak with employees they often see simply the pendulum moving back and forth like the arm on an old metronome.
4. Managers do not what to change and are looking for a way to buy time. I have had executives tell me that the two moves executives use to buy time are 1) fire someone or 2) reorganize.

My Partner, Bill Broussard, was involved in a fascinating assignment. He facilitated a team that was pulled together to address the interface problems that were occurring between the engineering and manufacturing organizations of a US auto company. The assignment to the team was to research the interface problems and then recommend the appropriate organizational structure to the executives. In essence the assignment was to determine if engineering should report to manufacturing, or if manufacturing should report to engineering. After weeks of intense work by some very talented people, the team came to a shocking conclusion. The interface problems were not caused by the organizational structure, nor would it be addressed by changing the organization. The interface problems came from a lack of commitment to working together effectively and could be addressed best through implementing actions to improve the interfaces, not changing organizations. I have subsequently facilitated several similar projects that have reached the same conclusion. Organizational structure is seldom the cause of performance issues or problems, and as a result, changing the structure will seldom produce the desired result.

1. Establish a beginning, middle and end.
2. Communication is at the core of implementation: communication of the business case, the results expected accountabilities, timeline, etc.
3. Clarify project accountabilities and management roles.
4. Build a budget.
5. Develop a scorecard and make it widely available.

Developing an Execution Plan:

1. Clarify how this organization is a manifestation of the business strategy. This clarity should be abundantly clear and stated in stark terms.
2. Assess the expected value. This begins by clarifying how this part of the organization delivers value, that is, how it fits inside the business’s value chain and what this part of the organization can do to assure that value is delivered, if not enhance value delivery.
3. Assess interface between core business processes and the organization. It is useful to identify what process changes are anticipated and expected with this organizational structure change. Too often this is either not clarified or not fully communicated.
4. Assess changes that will be needed in metrics, given the changes in the organization and possible changes in core processes. Core processes, metrics and organizational structure are all key elements of management infrastructure that impact each other.
5. Design this part of the organization to deliver the expected value. It is useful to keep inquiring if the organization is designed to deliver value in the expected manner.
6. Assess the fit of the new organizational design with the existing organizational capabilities. Frequently the fit is not as good as you would like, and needs attention immediately.
7. Identify the metrics that best track anticipated value creation and organizational effectiveness. It is a mistake to change organizational structure while keeping the same metrics.
8. Announce the explicit results this part of the organization is intended to produce.
9. Identify the appropriate level of complexity. Is there too much complexity? Are there are ways to simplify or streamline the process that flow through this organization?
10. Create business-based projects to accompany the structural changes. When possible, use the business-based projects to accelerate the changes, as well as make the effort required rewarding for those involved. If at all possible, avoid making organization structure changes without promising substantial performance improvements. To not include business outcomes is to assure that structural changes are seen as
    a. Part of the pendulum swinging.
    b.      Personal power play.
    c.      Defrocking of a manager.
    d.      Desperate acts by clue managers.
    e.      Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
11. Communicate the strategy and expected performance increases.
12. Establish a public scorecard so that employees can track if the expected performance is being achieved.
13. Acknowledge the hard work of employees when the expected performance is achieved, or when the reorganization project is declared over and complete.

Do you see this happening at leadership team meetings? Do the “big dogs” remind the “little dogs” who is who? Is there a sorting out of where each person fits in the pecking order of the group? If the answer is yes, it gives you useful data about the team members and the dynamics that are occurring on the team. Notice who is too aggressive, who is too passive, and who seems to not get the essence of the task at hand. All are useful data points on what your team will do, and not do, in the midst of implementation. The crucial question to the team is: Do we look like an effective leadership team, or a pack of male dogs running down the street?