Four Key Questions for Global Leadership Teams

As we continue to work with Global and Virtual Teams, we are impressed by how critical these leadership and functional teams are to their company’s performance, yet alarmed by how difficult it is for them to really capture what is possible as an aligned team.

Time and geography, culture and communication, the demand to both hit their numbers yet really think together (the Now and the New) are challenges for almost every virtual and global team we work with.

So we pose 4 key questions for those who sit on or who support these teams:

1. What kind of team do you need to be? This seems like an elementary question on the surface. Yet it is a key, usually unexamined question that defines how interdependent and collaborative your team needs to be and what kind of conversations you need to have. There is no one “right” kind of team. One size does not fit all. Ask this question and really pull for responses.

2. How clear is your strategic focus? We assume that there is almost always a strategic plan in place. The question is, how clear is the team about their strategic focus and critical priorities? How well has this been communicated down and across the organization? Do people understand it? And when was the last time you had the 20,000 foot view of strategy together as a virtual team?

3. How open, honest, and inclusive is this team with one another? Geography takes a toll on establishing trust. Is your team open and candid with one another? Do you deliberately work to include all opinions, even those on the speakerphone, into your dialogue? Do you meet together often enough? You cannot utilize the collective intelligence of smart individuals if trust and candor are not fully present.

4. How good is your team now and what would it take to be even better – to be a “Top Team?” Ask people to rate the team on a 1-10 scale now and ask two questions: What makes it as good as it is, and what would it take to be a 10? You might also ask what value would you see from a higher number?

These are seemingly easy questions to ask — yet they set the stage for compelling and critical dialogue. In today’s world, being a Top Team is essential, especially if you operate globally and/or virtually.

What do you think about this? What are the best practices you see in global and virtual teams?

For additional information about our newest Global Team Assessment, please contact us at www.TopTeaming.com or 404. 377-9408.

Top Teaming: HR as the “Consigliere” of the Organization

One of the things we hear in our work with management and operations teams across the globe, are their views of the Human Resources function and how HR could be even most valuable to them. What is surprising is that on many occasions, their experience of HR is not congruent with what they want from HR nor in line with how HR wants to be perceived.

Let’s look at some of the recent comments we heard and propose an idea:

On the negative side:
– HR is often seen as the “policy police” whose processes are often experienced as slow, inflexible, and cumbersome.
– They are viewed as a necessary, but not always valued function.
– They are seen as harbingers of the negative. (“When they show up, something bad is going to happen”)

Human Resources has a “Branding Problem.” Frequently our HR friends talk about having a “seat at the table” and being “trusted business partners.” But all too often, they don’t do the requisite work in the right way to earn the very thing both they, and their business partners both want.

So let me propose an HR Brand, and a set of actions to allow HR to be viewed as even more effective and welcomed.

“HR as Consigliere of the Organization.”

If we move the Godfather references aside, the word “consigliere” means being a trusted advisor or counselor — someone who understands the needs, the business challenges, and the people issues of management and of “the business.” This takes work and a particular approach that requires:

1.  First seeking to understand what the business is trying to accomplish – its priorities, challenges, and resource needs.
2.  Being seen as a business leader first, and an HR functional leader second.
3.  Really showing up to play – asking lots of questions and being a Business Partner who can “help me talk, understand, and make decisions in favor of the business.”
4.  Demonstrating a “Proactive Hunger” about finding out what people need.

One business unit leader who I recently interviewed said the following: “They should be beating down my door to say: ‘Tell me your agenda so I can think about this and prepare what to do.’”

While Human Resources professionals have a complex, often thankless, but necessary job to do, they must be in control about how they are experienced and the strength and value of the relationships they build.

Think about the HR “Brand” in your job, with your team, and with your key customers. Go interview them and ask how you can be even more effective and valuable to them. What do they most need and want?

Be a true Consigliere to your business. You’ll always have a seat at the table.

Larry

Top Teaming: Has the Nature of Change Somehow Changed (Part 2)

In a previous blog, we suggested that given the increasing complexity, uncertainty and rate of change in the world that the very nature of change itself has, in fact, changed.

Rarely do we find anymore that change occurs and we then return to a previous state of equilibrium. That is almost old thinking. We then began to view change as more of a whitewater experience in which waves of change are punctuated by short returns to normalcy. Our adaptability and physiological wiring could handle that. But that’s no longer fully true. Now it seems as if we live in a personal, business and global world in which change is constant.

And most things, from personal technology to geo-politics seem fair game. Predictability and control, two of the major variables in controlling stress are on the endangered species list. And minimized are the classic 5 and 7 step models of how to deal with change.

So what do we best deal with this?

From a leader-led change perspective, our responsibilities begin with providing honest and repeatable communication about:

• What is changing/what is not
• The “why” and context behind the change
• That this isn’t the first and will not be the last change
• Acknowledging the disruption and impact
• Maximizing predictability and control
• Defining and re-defining “What we are FOR”
• Providing clear expectations of the workforce during and after this change

Sufficient? No – but it’s a start. Your credibility is on the line

And as those impacted by changes we must:

• Understand the meaning and impact of the changes — what has really changed?
• Redraw the maps — who are our teams, who are our critical stakeholders? What are the conversations we must have? (Move fast on this)
• Dialogue about what kind of team do we need to be? (It has changed)
• Move toward one another and be aware of our interdependencies. (Getting more siloed is natural, but not good)
• Define and communicate what we need from management
• Take care of us and those around us (Essential)
• Be extraordinarily pro-active about the new and the next (High predictability and control strategy)

This is the high level approach. In the next blog, we’ll look at adaptive strategies and best practices to re-form structures and working relationships that have been impacted by changes. As we say, you have to “wrap your head around change.”

Stay tuned and weigh in.

Has the Nature of Change Somehow Changed?

It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the most responsive to change — Charles Darwin

How often have we heard the phrase, attributed to Isaac Asimov, “The only constant is change?” Has the phrase “change” itself become another management cliché—and thus something to be “managed?” Has change really become somehow less difficult, unsettling, and disruptive? Or has it become more complex, less predictable, and more ambiguous in nature?

A very real question is: Has the nature of change somehow…..changed? Over the next three blogs we’ll examine some fundamental questions about change and the ways in which Top Teams approach this very tricky and always disruptive arena.

Most models of change are predicated on the belief that change is a disruption to an established pattern or way of doing things. Managing change then, means weathering the storm and managing the process until some degree of normalcy returns. But the return to normalcy hasn’t been our experience in some time.

Intense global political, technologic, and economic shifts continue to impact virtually every individual and business across the world. Speed of change, global inter‐connectedness and interdependence continues to accelerate. We’ve seen leaders forced to imagine change what would have never been possible or imaginable in their reign; leaders who are often challenged to fundamentally rethink the very nature of companies they have created, worked at, or led for years.

Leadership and military teams often talk about VUCA—volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity—as something they face almost daily. The current Wikipedia definition, which has great face validity, defines the elements of VUCA as:

V = Volatility: The nature and dynamics of change, and the nature and speed of change forces and change catalysts.
U = Uncertainty: The lack of predictability, the prospects for surprise, and the [difficulty in] awareness and understanding of issues and events.
C = Complexity: The multiplex of forces, the confounding of issues and the chaos and confusion that surround an organization.
A = Ambiguity: The haziness of reality, the potential for misreads, and the mixed meanings of conditions; cause‐and‐effect confusion.

Change consultants talk about “waves of change” during which companies and employees experience one disruption after another without returning to solid ground for long periods of time. Neuropsychologists tell us that the human brain is not evolutionally developed to deal with constant change. We are not wired for constant disruption or “flooding.” In today’s world, the frequent waves of change, high volatility and complexity, significant paradox and ambiguity, create a whitewater experience. And this experience creates huge paradigm shifts for executives and employees alike as the very ground underneath them feels shaky.

This brings to mind questions, such as: How do we deal with the Now and the New? What is the “New Normal?” Does the New Normal somehow represent continuous, complex, ambiguous and uncertain change, like a river that is truly never the same? Our thinking is that the very nature of change has changed both on a personal and on a business level.

Change has changed. And Top Teams do a far better job in wrapping their heads around change than do just good teams. What makes the difference? I invite you to weigh in over the next three blogs.

TOP TEAMS: BEING FULLY IN THE GAME

As we continue to work with Leadership Teams around the world, our experience is confirming and expanding our thoughts set out in the book Top Teaming: A Roadmap for Leadership Teams Navigating the Now, the New, and the Next. We see very few true “dysfunctional teams” – and those stand out like sore thumbs. What we see more often are groups or teams comprised of very smart, hard working, and committed executives who generally do very well in their specific roles or functions. They work pretty well together. There is not a lot of overt friction. They communicate – sometimes carefully, and sometimes not fully. They are mostly aligned behind their strategic plan. In fact, many are pretty far along the road to classic definitions of High Performing Teams.

Yet those Leadership Teams that we define as “Top Teams” are in a different class. Their results show it. Their internal dynamics show it. Their willingness and ability to really collaborate, communicate, trust one another and take supported risks are outstanding. They are fully in the game as deliberate and conscious leaders. And interestingly enough, research is pointing to their experiencing less stress in their jobs than many executives.

In fact, most of the best leaders we interviewed painted a clear picture of creating Top Teams that lead with a mix of reality and optimism, focus on both the Now and the New, and deeply believe in serving others and doing the right thing. One of the most frequent comments we heard was that any decent team can thrive in times of growth or even mediocrity, but only those teams that are “fully in the game” can rise to the occasion and grasp the opportunities when times are tough.

Being “fully in the game” does not come automatically, even to the best of teams. Operating with conviction, with passion, and with a clear articulation of what the team believes in—what it is for—is a conscious and deliberate process. It requires open dialogue. It requires that nothing is hidden and very little is unspoken. It requires an unshakeable belief in the team’s ability to have the courage and deploy the collective intelligence to navigate the future and lead the organization through rough water.

This is what Top Teams do.

SOME QUESTIONS TO PONDER:
• Think of the team that you are currently on. Are you playing to your full capacity?
• On a scale of one to ten, how good is your team now? Why did you rank it where you did?
• What would it take to be a “ten”?
• What would you do differently? What would be possible?
• What are some of the obstacles that get in your way?
• Look at the variables that describe the behaviors of Top Teams. What do you have to do to make yours a Top Team?
• What does it mean to you to “go forward with trust versus fear?”
• How vocal and/or how well understood are your articulation and passion about your purpose—as individuals and as a team?

Shaving the Tiger: Understanding and Recalibrating the Default Setting of a Team

Part of understanding the collective self-knowledge of a team is to understand its default setting—what it is likely to do when under stress or when operating on automatic pilot.

When under pressure, teams that have a history of operational focus go directly to the numbers, root-cause discussions, and Excel spreadsheet examinations. Health-care teams almost immediately argue about outcomes and support these arguments with data (then often argue about whose data is better). What is missing when this happens?

A Team’s default setting is not unlike our individual default settings and derailers when under stress. Do I move toward or away from others when pressured? What happens to my ability to trust? How do I cover my derriere when under threat? We know from studies on Emotional Intelligence (EI) that self-awareness is the first key step in recognizing our own default settings. It is equally important, though sometimes more difficult to recognize, what a team’s default setting is when under the gun.

I was amazed (but somehow not surprised) to see, while watching a recent Animal Planet program, that when tigers are shaved, their stripes are also present in their skin. This says something about our fundamental personality or wiring, as the “who we are” goes deep—down to our very skins.

We work very deliberately to make these default settings both predictable and a normal response to stress, often to the point of having teams rehearse and exaggerate pressure situations so they are less likely to go on autopilot. We believe that the antidote to moving away from real teaming when under threat is to adopt a conscious and deliberate style that says, “We know our default settings. If we find ourselves doing X (our default setting), someone needs to ‘throw the flag’ and revisit our agreements about how we will operate together.” This collective team knowledge is like a fire alarm that gets the attention of the team members and returns them to the agreements they made about working together and really resolving issues using their collective intelligence (CI).

So some questions to ponder:

• How would I describe the “default setting” of our team when under pressure?
• What assessments or instruments have we used that have provided information on our individual and collective default settings?
• How well have we articulated the “rules of the road” and what to do to sustain real teamwork—even when under great pressure?
• How would I describe my personal default setting when under stress?
• How well do we know our collective EI?

To the extent we can stay a real team – a Top Team – when under pressure will determine how well we perform both in the moment and over time.

Top Teaming: Learnings from the Aspen Institute

For those of us who like to/need to feed our minds, the Aspen Institute is a gourmet cafeteria.  Some of the best minds from all disciplines meet in mostly informal settings to converse, debate, collaborate, and deepen thinking about issues that matter most – physics, medicine, geopolitics, business, music – all in the beautiful setting of the Colorado mountains in summertime.

I’ve spent the better part of the month here attending lectures, political seminars, and symphonies, doing some biking and a little fly fishing while trying to integrate what I’ve heard.  Some top line observations:

• We are in trouble but have great hope.  There was high agreement across disciplines that the economic issues in the US (and Europe) represent the greatest threat to national security. 

• We are moved too often by certainty, rather than by real dialogue about the facts.  This is true in science, medicine, politics and business.  3 Nobel Prize Laureates revealed with great humor that their important discoveries emerged from recognition that what they thought was so—was, in fact, not.  The data pointed in another direction.

• We have a crisis in confidence: we do not trust one another (especially our politicians) and have become polarized in our beliefs and thinking.  Adam Reiss, a Nobel physicist, Madeline Albright, former Secretary of State, and Jon Huntsman (former Governor of Utah, Ambassador to China, and presidential candidate) all separately defined fundamentalists as those who make up their minds before they examine facts.

• The informal time that people of different disciplines, cultures, and belief systems spend together is invaluable.  They dialogue (dia-logos – an exchange of ideas), they collaborate (physicians, engineers, physicists, and businessmen look at illness together and re-contextualize what health means), and they build relational intelligence (American, Chinese, and Europeans talk together over drinks, and build trust). And ultimately, they realize that what is most important is that we share the same planet and very fundamentally we care about the same things.

So as I come back to my work with leaders and their teams, I am re-engaged by the need for and spirit of dialogue, of the need for people to come together informally to talk about the things that matter most, and to build real relationships with one another to unlock their collective intelligence.

Top Teaming: Unraveling the Virtual Team

Johanna and Karen are members of a global OD team comprised of smart people from pedigreed backgrounds and strong corporate experience.  They are both highly interdependent and highly matrixed as they, and the other 8 members of their “team” support various businesses across a fast-changing, highly pressured global organization.  They rely deeply on one another. 

The only problem is, they actually only meet in person twice a year.  They are a new and increasing breed of team – a “virtual team” that works cross-culturally, globally, and intensively, without the high touch, face-to-face time that usually is required for a real team to develop into what we call a Top Team.

Many of us are struggling to find ways of developing teams such as this.  Think of some of their issues:

• They operate across China, Europe, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Rio — time zones that span 12-14 hours.  When do they talk?
• While a high-technology firm, travel requirements and historic business models force most connections to be by conference call and webinar.  Video and ‘telepresence’ occurs, but is not the norm.
• They meet as a team twice a year together, with additional connections as people travel across regions.
• They are under enormous pressure to be seen within the organization as an aligned and highly functioning team.
• And the list goes on….

In our research on Top Teaming, we have come to believe that “Relational Intelligence (RI)” – people coming to know one another and building the trust necessary to grow real Collective Intelligence (CI) is a foundation for Top Teams who can succeed in the “Now, the New, and the Next.”  But how does that work when smart and pressured people rarely get together, and when they do, have meetings that are jam packed with agenda items and jet lag?

This is an important area for us, who consult with teams or serve on teams to both understand and improve.  So let me pose some questions for us as a community of learners to discuss over time:

?         What are the keys to building Virtual Teams? 

?         What are the 3-4 most critical elements for the team and their leaders to consider?

?         What is the best method of, and cadence for communication and relationship building?

?         What must organizations provide for key teams to be fully successful?

?         What are the key questions we must address and resolve?

Let’s create a dialogue here that will allow us to raise the bar of Virtual Teams into Top Teams.  Please share your ideas and experience.

TOP TEAMING: DEFINING AND MANAGING THE CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS

Matrixed organizations are designed to maximize flow of products or services by minimizing the numbers of redundant functions within divisions and by increasing collaboration between operational and functional areas. Yet matrix and often global organizations are often seen as unwieldy and hard to navigate.

This is where the process of identifying and managing critical intersections occurs. Simply put, the easiest and most elegant way to navigate a matrix is to map the organization, identify those people with whom you have to have successful outcomes, then go out and, as one of our favorite clients says, “Make and cut your deals.” What this means is that people who are involved in any critical intersection, whether it involves working across a matrix, in an intersection between a functional and an operational area, or who operate as teams of people that pursue similar customers, must connect with one another, define what is important to them, listen for what is important to others, affirm what is important to the organization, and then make (and keep) agreements.

This is relational intelligence (RI) at its finest, which accomplishes several things concurrently: It builds those critical relationships within the informal organization; it accelerates decision-making and accountability as the right people are talking directly to one another about what matters; and it makes a complex structure significantly easier to navigate in the service of the customer. It also serves to free up senior leaders, who are not asked nearly as often to make day-to-day decisions and can thus spend more time on the larger issues critical for the senior team. A CFO of a major financial institution commented that the “ticket of admission” for her to think strategically was how well the people who reported to her were handling operational issues across the global organization. She was surprised at how few ties she had to break and how few impasses made it to her desk.

Identifying and managing those critical intersections is an important step in creating collaboration and minimizing turf or tribe. It also drives employee engagement as employees one to three levels below the Top Team make decisions that support critical priorities, grow in their roles and capabilities, and deliver faster responses to customer needs.

Ask yourselves these questions and then go have the dialogue with those important to your success: 

• How do I best navigate the matrix and work across the enterprise?
• Have I created a system map that defines my critical intersections?
• Have I “made and cut my deals” with the people with whom I have critical interdependencies?
• Am I able, and willing, to be direct and honest with these people to ensure that all issues are on the table?

You are on your way to becoming a Top Team.

Building Top Teams: One Size Does Not Fit All

Once a team has begun the process of articulating its senior purpose – what it is FOR, it then needs to define what kind of team it must be to accomplish it. There is no textbook answer. Simply put, the type of team that is needed and how members must operate together depend completely on what this team needs to do in the service of the organization’s strategic and critical priorities.

Most intact teams that are comprised of experienced people with operational and functional backgrounds express a clear need for higher interdependency as they set and begin to move toward more ambitious and higher-level goals. They know, as Marshall Goldsmith (2007) would say, “what got them here won’t get them there.” There are organizations that are specific about exactly where they must be more collaborative as a team and where they can continue to operate as they are. Portfolio companies, for example, in which business lines are separate and independent, can operate as successful and appropriate “bowling teams.” Yet even in cases of low interdependence, we find areas in which greater connectedness and collaboration, often driven from the functional areas, help these teams optimize. There are usually areas, sometimes subtle, sometimes surprising, where the team members find greater synergy and find ways to reduce costs and redundancy, and to utilize one another’s expertise to drive even better results. Simply put, there is no one “right” type of team or structure. It completely depends on what a team is tasked to do—again, what it is for.

Ask yourselves these questions and see what emerges from the dialogue: 

• Given the mission and purpose of the organization (what we are for), what kind of team do we need to be to accomplish these?
• What are our critical priorities and accountabilities?
• Do we have the right people on the bus?
• How should we be structured to optimize decisions?
• Where are our critical interdependencies? How do we best reach across functions and geographies?
• How do we work together to lead the organization in these times?
• What does it mean to be a leader in this company today?

These questions are the beginning of the journey from being a good team to becoming a Top Team.