Is your ego getting in the way of the company's ability to execute?
It is as if there is often resistance in top management teams to practise cooperation, building trust and working with what are mistakenly called 'soft' skills. And it is strange, because there are heaps of studies that show that a well-functioning top management team is an absolutely critical factor in the organisation's ability to execute and thus competitiveness. This article was first published in Ugebrevet Mandag Morgen 23rd August 2023https://www.mm.dk/ledelse/artikel/staar-dit-ego-i-vejen-for-virksomhedens-eksekveringsevne
Before the summer holidays, you could read here in Mandag Morgen that 47 percent of top managers in Denmark do not support the strategy they themselves have been part of deciding. The article told a story about a divided top in the Danish business sector, and for us as leadership consultants it testifies to a fundamental lack of commitment, responsibility and team spirit in the leadership teams in which this is the reality.
What is decided at the top of a company must be pressure-tested in a leadership team that is so coordinated that they are able to openly have professional conflicts. Because those are necessary to arrive at the best possible common result.
But that team spirit does not spring into existence by itself. It is not something you suddenly get when you are appointed as a leader. That is why it is so incredibly important to train the team, especially for top managers, whose decisions have such a decisive influence on the entire organisation's culture, competitiveness and ability to execute.
Do you Dare to check to see if something is wrong?
If the numbers from the article are indeed the reality, then there is a need to look at how you can work with collaboration and team spirit in the top leadership teams. Because we cannot expect to see strategically well-founded results if the entire leadership team has not committed fully.
Top leadership’s ability to function as a team is critical to the organisation’s ability to execute.
We must ensure that all competencies come into play and that all the different perspectives have a place in the discussion. And it's not really complicated, but first of all requires an acknowledgment that something is wrong, and then a real desire to change behaviour.
Top leadership’s ability to function as a team is critical to the organisation’s ability to execute. Not only does it infect the entire organisation when the senior leadership team is good at collaborating and acting (and feeling) like a team, it is also an imperative in an ever-changing reality.
This is not to say that leadership teams must solve all tasks together, because of course they don't always have to. But they must be able to move effortlessly along the 'collaboration continuum', that is, from being a group of leaders who spar and support each other, to being a tightly knit team that jointly develops strategies, initiates acquisitions or partnerships, initiates large change processes or the like.
Relations instead of satellites and power struggles
But in many cases it doesn't happen. In our work, we see leadership teams whose members at best are satellites doing their own thing; at worst, a group characterised by dysfunction, power struggles, hidden alliances, psychological insecurity and thus a lack of executive power.
So why do so many leadership teams believe that teamwork is only important further down the organisation? Why do they think that their own meetings should only be about optimising operations and KPIs and not about how they collaborate as a team?
In our experience many leadership teams look down on teamwork, prefer not to call themselves a team and do not think they need to work on their ability to collaborate, their dynamics, their trust and well-being. Those concepts belong in the box with emotional intelligence, which is often underestimated at C-level (cf. previous article in Mandag Morgen).
In this way, our ego as leaders gets in the way when we have to work together on anything. It is our egos that bring us into (unconstructive) conflict with each other and our ego that prevent us from giving up power, resources, position and influence for the common good.
In this way, our ego as leaders gets in the way when we have to work together on anything. It is our egos that bring us into (unconstructive) conflict with each other and our ego that prevent us from giving up power, resources, position and influence for the common good.
That is why there are also many different courses, books etc. that are supposed to help us tame the difficult ego. What they have in common is that they focus on the individual and try to further individual self-realisation and growth. And that is extremely relevant, but not nearly enough if we are talking about teamwork and team spirit.
To that end, we need to work systemically and consider the relationships and the relational dynamics – not just the individual. The individual work is something that must prepare the individual leader to be able to work constructively, openly and competently together with his team. But when we coach leadership teams, the focus is not just on the individual and their possible challenges, but on the interaction and what happens in the space between the individual. But the individual coaching makes each leader aware of his own behaviour and how it affects the team, and this supports the team's overall development. So we prefer to see teams working on both the individual and the team level at the same time.
The professional conflict is never a drama
The following situation could play out in a leadership team:
Two department heads have a heated discussion about the best method of restructuring. The discussion takes place in the leadership team meeting. Both are convinced that their method is the only correct one, and they are not interested in the other's perspective. In other words: their egos practically scream. On top of that, the rest of the team doesn't get a chance to voice their opinion. The probability is that one of the department heads 'wins', or that the director 'cuts through'. The rest of the team either says nothing or agrees with one combatant or the other. It becomes political, unsafe, time-consuming and energy-draining. The solution ends up being a one-man solution instead of an eight-man solution.
If you are a leader in this situation, it is relevant to ask:
“I can hear that you do not agree on this. Shall we get some perspectives from the other team members?” Talk openly about any conflict
“You seem to assume X about this issue. Have you checked if this is actually the case?” Always challenge assumptions
"I can hear you think John is cross with you - have you asked him?" Always encourage team members to talk with and not about each other.
What you do here is establish that there is a professional conflict going on and that this is a good thing, and you ask curious questions to get as many perspectives as possible on the issue for the benefit of the joint result
Unrealised potential for innovation and revenue
It takes a lot of courage to become comfortable with conflict, but the benefits are enormous. Amy Edmonson, author of The Fearless Organization, identifies the consequences of remaining silent for fear of reprisal: “Silence in today's economic environment is deadly. Silence means that good ideas and opportunities don't bubble up, and problems don't get solved. Silence prevents teaming.”
Telling yourselves that your leadership team doesn't have 'time for coaching' or 'how we work together', but only needs to focus on 'doing business', will ultimately harm the organisation's potential for growth, innovation and revenue. So keep the drama out, but welcome the professional conflicts. Your team and stakeholders will thank you.
Telling yourselves that your leadership team doesn't have 'time for coaching' or 'how we work together', but only needs to focus on 'doing business', will ultimately harm the organisation's potential for growth, innovation and revenue.
Instead, ask yourselves: Are we a truly committed and responsible leadership team? And if the answer is "no, not quite", then perhaps your next off-site should be about that.
As Patrick Lencioni says: “Not finance. Not strategy. Not technology. It is teamwork that remains the ultimate competitive advantage, both because it is so powerful and so rare.”
