From time to time, I receive questions from readers asking for advice on how to handle certain leadership situations. I think, that to be able to really advise, you need a lot of detail about the situation the person is in because there are so many details that could sway things one way or another.
Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen in the book Thanks for the Feedback say that the problem with giving advice is that it cannot ever be specific enough. We tend to try to give out sage or wise comments without enough detail for the person to implement that advice. Or, we are such experts in something that we assume everyone knows our specific jargon. For example, “When you deliver your presentation, make sure it stands out.” Interesting advice, but what does “stand out” even mean?
The other thing that makes advice hard to give is that when I give it out, I now own the result of it. Since it was my idea, it can in some way fall back on me if it doesn’t work. It doesn’t matter if the person didn’t follow my advice the exact way I laid it out, or if they took just some of it, but not all of it. In the end, the advice didn’t help and I feel I am in some way responsible.
That is usually why I prefer to coach in order to help people find options that seem reasonable and doable for them to try. One thing I had to learn as I was growing as an executive coach is that while coaching is in some respects about helping people solve problems, it is far from telling them what to do. It is more about what author Parker Palmer calls “pulling out their inner teacher.” Helping them see their options and then supporting the options they choose, is to me, what coaching is about.
Now when I get a question from a reader seeking advice, I usually will read it and ponder it for a week or even more. I am not thinking about what the person should do in the situation described, or what I would do if I were them. Instead, my thoughts usually turn more to trying to understand the context of the situation they might be in and then coming up with some general guidelines or options they could choose from themselves. I had a question from a reader. The question was, “How do leaders know when to intervene to promote better collaboration versus just reorganizing the department? Is there a tipping point where a simple intervention can help to resolve the issue rather than incur an expensive reorganization?”
My Thoughts
As I pondered this question and decided on how to react without giving advice, I really saw two very distinct ideas emerging. The first is organizational and the second has to do with how teams function.
The organizational aspect has to do with the needs of the organization and strategically how the group is put together to meet the needs of the organization, while the team function aspect is more about the relationships among the members of the group. I wanted to tackle these areas independently, then bring them together at the end.
The OrganizationAL IDEAS
Teams are formed to meet some specific need that the organization has realized. Teams of people come together in an organized fashion to accomplish a specific set of goals or tasks. They can also come together as change agents moving the organization from an old set of objectives to new goals that move the organization closer to completing its mission and making the vision a reality.
As I stepped back and thought about the question above, I thought that if I was going to reorganize a department, then there needed to be a strategic reason. There will likely have been some change, either internally, like a new or redefined mission, or externally, like a shift in customer demands. This type of change to reorganize will be driven by forces external to the team. Something has happened somewhere that causes what the team is doing to not be as valuable to the organization. Rather than dismantle or reorganize the team completely, the team would be given a new set of goals and objectives that match the external reality.
Reorganizations are chaotic, emotional, and expensive. The external pressures being experienced need to be greater than the emotional and financial cost to reorganize.
Reorganizing dysfunctional people on a team also only sends the dysfunction to another part of the organization. The description I hear most often for dysfunctional people in an organization is that they are not good for the team. The attitudes and behaviors are destructive and left to their own devices will have a very bad effect on the organization. So then, why would you move them somewhere else? Just because an organization can afford the reorganization doesn’t mean that is the right thing to do.
HOW TEAMS FUNCTION
If teams are not functioning well, a leader or coach has to be able to step into the moment. It takes both personal courage and a mindset that the needs of the organization outweigh any personal agendas that might exist. The leader must have the courage to call out behaviors that are not conducive to good team functioning.
General Stanley McChrystal, in his book Team of Teams writes that “superteams” are able to construct a strong lattice of trusting relationships. He makes the point that in a true team environment, the leader needs to be less concerned with hierarchy and command, what their position is, and advising individuals what to do and be more concerned with ensuring trusting relationships are forming so that there is a supportive network to perform.
Trust amongst team members is ensuring people are comfortable being vulnerable about their weaknesses, mistakes, fears, and behaviors without fear of reprisal. So, if someone doesn’t know something, they are not judged for the lack of knowledge, but supported in getting the knowledge they need. A teammate should feel a sense of confidence to admit a weakness and have someone on the team come alongside them and say “Here, let me help you with that.”
There are three things I find vital for a team to be able to trust each other:
Cultural Integrity: As a group, we are always going to do the right thing. If someone on the team is being disrespectful, as a team, we go to that person and let them know that is not how this team behaves. We want to have them on the team, but the culture here is one of kindness and respect. Integrity matters always.
Comfort with Vulnerability: Teammates have to be willing to admit weaknesses and mistakes and can never be penalized or punished when they do. If you are a person who avoids conflict, you should be able to admit this to your team and they need to come alongside and help you improve this skill. The team has to believe in you and believe that you can improve. It all starts with a culture of realizing we are all human and we all fall short somewhere.
Confidence in the Members: Not one of us holds all the answers. Teams have to believe in their mission and have confidence in each other to tackle whatever is put before them. As individual humans, we crave safety and security. Taking risks is not always a safe feeling. This is the value of the team. As an individual, my need is for safety. The team is there to support each other to take risks and achieve much more than an individual ever could. High-performing teams have to have confidence in each other.
Back to the Question at hand
The question was, “How do leaders know when to intervene to promote better collaboration versus just reorganizing the department? Is there a tipping point where a simple intervention can help to resolve the issue rather than incur an expensive reorganization?”
I would argue that one of the main purposes of the leader of a team is to foster a culture of collaboration that leads to results. Not collaboration so that every person touches everything, but trusting each other enough to know that one person doesn’t don’t have to touch something if another person is already running with it.
The leader is the person accountable if someone is not living up to the team's expectations. The leader should rally the team to their responsibility of pulling the person back in line. If the team won’t do it, then the leader has two jobs. One job is with the team to create a culture of team discipline, and the other job is with the person who is not living up to team standards by coaching that person individually. My position is that if there is group conflict, then the leader is ultimately the one accountable and at fault.
What about you? What advice would you share in response to this very interesting question?