Break down silos: From “Direct Reports” to “Leadership Team”

It’s never enough to push people together and call them a ‘team’ and expect them to function like one.

And if the leaders don’t collaborate, neither will their followers.

What

Nothing creative or innovative ever emerged from a meeting where all that happens is each group lead reports into the boss while the others - anxious or disinterested - await their turn in the firing line.

Monthly meetings of team leads to ‘share best practice’ or discuss the pipeline always fizzle in the absence of a meaningful shared purpose.

Incentives or cultural norms which encourage competition unsurprisingly lead to competition, with the leader confused about why his people don’t seem to trust or even like each other and won’t work together. Those same people look down and wonder why the people in their division can’t seem to work effectively with those of other teams, annoyingly calling for help to their boss to get engagement or traction when trying to work cross-functionally.

Why

Leaders know they aren’t getting the best out of their leadership teams. Angry or disappointed, they wonder why their people don’t “grasp the nettle” and take the initiative. They haven’t realised they have not empowered or inspired those around them to think for themselves and work together. Those direct reports probably don’t even know they’re a team, let alone a leadership team!

And yet those same leaders know in their heart something is wrong even if they can’t put their finger on why, because other than for the CEO, they themselves are all members of ‘leadership teams’ functioning exactly the same way, leaving them feeling competitive, isolated and lonely.

How

The key to creating effective teams is creating a sense and reality of shared purpose: that this team - not the function it runs, but the team itself - exists for a specific set of important reasons, and has important tasks to perform.

Leadership teams are usually made up of leaders of distinct functions who share responsibility to develop and implement the strategy of the department or organisation. However, this responsibility can be amorphous; responsibility can be outsourced to the leader or the strategy head.

Leadership teams have another vital function though, which is usually implicit, but actually is hiding in plain sight: that is to lead their people. Leadership is explicit - defining and enforcing policies and procedures; but it is also implicit: role-modelling “the way things are done around here”. A fundamental behaviour to role-model is collaboration - leadership team members must really demonstrate trust in each other by role modelling interdependency - that I have their back and I expect them to have mine.

Our process for developing inter-personal trust is simple but highly effective. We take each team through a process of elaborating its purpose in a way which builds familiarity and intimacy. Team-mates have an opportunity to experience their colleagues as people like me for whom more unites us than divides us; who face similar challenges and indeed shared challenges; and who have good ideas to solve those challenges.

This process breaks down the pre-existing sense of us and them, and empowers colleagues to recognise their responsibilities to each other, and their shared responsibility as leaders of the business, rather than defenders of their own turf.

Recent engagement

Building “teamship” in a recently constituted head office function at a FTSE50 company

Creating a sense and reality of being in it together

The leadership team members of this important new central function had responsibility for different aspects of the division’s mission - some covering specific functions, others specific geographies. In their roles, they ‘faced off’ against their counterparts both within the business and outside, but without any sense of an ability to seek help from or share the burden with their colleagues.

The team’s creation had disrupted established ways of working in the organisation, so they often encountered resistance to their work. This provoked difficult feelings of powerlessness or failure in each individual which they didn’t feel safe to share with their colleagues. The result was that each person was suffering the same feelings of impotence, unaware that their colleagues were going through the same thing. Subordinates saw them sitting together on the leadership team but saw limited evidence of closeness or cooperation between them - trust seemed to be lacking - so subordinates behaved in a similar way, not getting too close to - and not holding much respect for - their colleagues working alongside them but with different responsibilities.

We conducted a detailed diagnostic process, consulting with each team member on their experiences of their work and the team, and the team’s primary external stakeholders on their experiences of the function as a strategic partner. We found that as a result of these stressors, the team and the individuals in it turned in on themselves, withdrawing from engagement with each other and with the wider business in fear that their sense of impotence would be exposed. As a result, their external stakeholders reported frustration that they were not engaged about important strategic decisions before they were taken, resulting in an escalating spiral of anger, distrust, which fuelled resentment and fear.

Having identified these dynamics, we supported the team through a 9-month process of getting clear about their mission and shared purpose as a leadership team, formulating and agreeing their own unique ‘teamship’ rules, or the commitments they would make to and expect from each other, and helping them build closeness and intimacy to build trust, openness and interdependence.

The efficacy of our work with them was soon to be tested - significant unexpected upheaval followed, with multiple changes of leadership in a short space of time. The team weathered the storm with grace and strength - showing high resilience as a result of their openness and honesty about their fears and challenges through this period, and offering an uncommon degree of mutual support.