Etymology
Latin acumen, sharp point
n.acumen (plural acumens)
GM's Commitment to the American People• produce automobiles you want to buy and are excited to ownThese actions, combined with a modest rebound of the U.S. economy, should allow us to
• lead the reinvention of the automobile based on promising new technology
• focus on our core brands to consistently deliver on their promises
• streamline our dealer network to ensure the best sales and service
• ensure sacrifices are shared by all GM stakeholders
• meet appropriate standards for executive pay and corporate governance
• work with our unions to quickly realize competitive wages and benefits
• reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil
• protect our environment
• pay you back the entire loan with appropriate oversight and returns
Association Management - December 1, 2002
Carole Schweitzer
In his work in organizational development at Oracle Corporation and Sybase and as a management consultant, first with Bain & Company, and now as president of The Table Group, San Francisco, Lencioni has worked with hundreds of executive teams and CEOs. His observations have formed the basis for three management books, the latest The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: A Leadership Parable (2002, Jossey-Bass).
Lencioni, the keynote speaker at M&T: ASAE Winter Conference 2002 (December 9-11, Washington, D.C.), offers a model for a frontal attack on the failings of work teams, requiring not only CEOs but also their managers and staff to enter the danger or suffer the consequences: absence of trust, fear of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results. These five dysfunctions stand in the way of organizational health, which Lencioni considers the ultimate competitive advantage.
In an interview with ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT, Lencioni described some of the tough work that teams and their leadership must tackle to remain competitive and relevant.
In dealing with dysfunctional teams, you suggest that the establishment of trust--which is central to building a healthy work group--often results when association leaders are able to demonstrate their own vulnerabilities. What kind of situation might provide an executive the opportunity to do this?
Lencioni: The key element is that the display of vulnerability must be genuine. It can't be contrived, so it has to come at a moment when it's not easy for the leader to admit something. I advise leaders to be quite frank about their weaknesses and strengths, their mistakes, their needs for help, and the skills of the people in the organization that exceed their own. In doing this, they show that they are capable of being human; and the people they lead do want to know if the leader is big enough, human enough, and vulnerable enough to admit imperfection.
This can be done at an off-site meeting during which you create focused time with a small group of direct reports. You may consider using an instrument such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, whereby the entire group does self-profiling and each manager reports on his or her results. In this way, you begin to develop a knowledge and vocabulary for strengths and weaknesses. Then when people call each other out during a meeting, rather than sounding as though they are putting their careers on the line, they're simply pointing out what people have already admitted to be true--and recognizing that someone else may be the better person to answer a question or head up a project.
Clearly, some leaders would have a problem admitting shortcomings. How have you helped those individuals to open up to this?
Lencioni: Of all the dysfunctions and temptations of leadership that I discuss in my books, the resistance to admitting vulnerability is one of the most changeable traits. When you help people understand that by doing this, they will build a stronger relationship with their people and will actually achieve more--it's a relief for them. In addition, the benefits of doing this, although initially painful, are relatively quick. By guiding leaders to take some fairly small steps in this direction, they soon realize: 'Hey, this isn't going to kill me. I can tell people what I don't do particularly well and find the skills in the organization to shore this up.' Almost all leaders can open up to this. And, frankly, for those who can't, people simply won't want to work with them.
You describe effective teams as those able to openly engage in the kind of constructive conflict that leads to effective management decisions. What steps need to be taken to establish this kind of dynamic?
Lencioni: The first question you ask when there is disagreement--or agreement, if it is forced and simply rubber stamping the leader's ideas--is to ask yourself, "Is this a conflict issue or a trust issue?" So often discussions are impeded by a lack of trust. If that is the case, you need to go back and establish that because it is the foundation for absolutely everything else.
In those cases where there is plenty of trust, sometimes people don't want to engage in conflict because they don't want to hurt each other's feelings or they feel that perhaps it's juvenile to strongly disagree. The role of the leader is to provide them with a little bit of exposure therapy, helping them deal with the dynamics of conflict. As leader, you have to put that conflict out there on the table and tell people that they are going to have to resolve it. When they do start to question decisions--and each other--the leader needs to stop them and remind them that what they are doing is exactly the right thing. If they start to feel guilty or anxious, remind them that this is an excellent conversation. I've seen teams get much better at this, but when the underlying issue is trust--and you keep pushing them to confront issues--your effort will be fruitless. People will not, and probably should not, engage in conflict with one another if they don't inherently trust each other. If a team member can't admit that he or she has made a mistake or that someone else has a better idea about something, why would you question his or her behavior or propose your idea? That's why vulnerability-based trust is at the heart of a great team. You have to use that trust to engage conflict around issues.
When you work with a team that includes people who cannot make this leap, does it generally result in those people leaving or being let go?
Lencioni: An effective leader will resolve this quickly. If a person cannot trust or earn trust and cannot engage in conflict, the leader of the team has a clear decision to make: Am I going to halt the development of my team at this point and live with it, or am I going to continue to have my team develop and improve--and move this person out? Interestingly enough, the thing a leader has to do is come to terms with the fact that it's OK to lose a team member. That, ironically, is what will give [the team members] the courage to do the right thing, which might actually result in them staying and developing. Once they realize that you as a leader are willing to move somebody out for the good of the team, they might develop the incentive to change. But, if team members know that there's a limit to what the leader will do, why should they change? The willingness to lose team members is sometimes the very thing that keeps them.
When you complete your team building work with a client, does the team have a tendency to regress?
Lencioni: We almost always follow up with the team three to six months after our last session. We sit in on staff meetings or participate in an off-site retreat, observing behaviors and offering feedback. We ask people what they've done well and what they haven't.
The good news is that when teams make progress they see the benefits of constructive conflict, how they can get more done, and why they should continue. But, it's true, sometimes teams have false starts and they drift back [to their earlier behaviors]. They need to recommit to what it is they need to do. So, yes, follow up is important, but it shouldn't be forever. There will be three steps forward and two back--but rarely all the way back. And the leader needs to continue to encourage the team to take the next three steps forward.
In your work with nonprofit boards, what situations have you observed that might require these exercises in trust building and conflict resolution at the board level?
Lencioni: The most important relationship when it comes to boards is the CEO's relationship with the elected chair. If that relationship is strong, it becomes the chair's job to manage the board. And, it's important to distinguish that the board is not a team in the same sense of the executive team. Board members don't spend enough time together; this usually isn't their number one priority. So that is why it's the chair's job to use them in the most appropriate way for the good of the organization and to know where to draw the line so that the board doesn't become too intrusive and too influential. The board needs to understand its role, but it doesn't need to operate as a team. That's not to say that they shouldn't get along, but they are a collection of individuals, all of whom can help the organization. You are not going to get rid of someone because his or her Myers Briggs profile doesn't mesh well with that of another board member. If board members bring individual goodness, whether it's in fundraising, insight, experience, or contacts, that's fine. The chair has to be able to use all of those talents in a way that helps the organization.
On the other hand, the board needs to make sure that it has the right executive in place. If it doesn't, no committee, no great board of directors can save the organization. You don't want the board and the CEO to be working at cross-purposes. That's why the relationship between the CEO and the board chair is so critical.
How can that relationship be quickly established, given that many organizations elect a new board chair each year?
Lencioni: That is a problem. Rapid turnover in board chairs in organizations where bylaws call for a new chairperson all the time is quite dangerous. This is especially true if there is an expectation that the board chair gets to decide how influential he or she will be. Then, what you are doing is ensuring a lack of continuity. In that situation, the most important thing is that the CEO has self-esteem and is not trying to please the board. Rather than make the board happy, the CEO's job is to make the organization succeed--and sometimes that means that he or she has to take a tough position with the board--enter the danger, if you will--and not necessarily do whatever the board tries to dictate at the moment.
This means that there must be a highly constructive level of conflict between the CEO and the chair--and that relationship comes from trust. A board chair has to be able to say to the CEO, "You know, you're a good CEO but you're really bad at this particular aspect of the job. So, I'm going to help you with this part, and I think you need to get other outside assistance." The volunteer and staff leaders each have a responsibility to be frank about these realities. If they are not, there will be a temptation to micromanage.
You've said that in the end organizational health trumps smartness and that such health is often neglected. What actions do you recommend CEOs take to maintain organizational health on an ongoing basis?
Lencioni: CEOs need to realize that organizational health is the multiplier that determines how well they're going to leverage their intellectual abilities. In other words, if they have a great strategy in place or a great brand or a great technology, their ability to tap into that and fully leverage it is a function of how healthy the organization is. No one can ensure that the organization is healthy except the CEO. You can delegate strategy or technology or marketing, but the CEO cannot delegate the management of the executive team, the clarity of that team, the communication from the team down to the rest of the organization, and the institutionalization of a few critical human systems--that has to come from the CEO and his or her direct reports.
A healthy organization puts all other things at risk. And if CEOs realize that, when their head hits the pillow at night, they are going to ask themselves four questions: Is my team cohesive? Are we clear about where we are headed? Are we telling everybody about it all the time? And are we institutionalizing our values?
Carole Schweitzer is executive editor of ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT. E-mail: cschweitzer@asaenet.org.
By Peter Galuszka - BNet
October 30th, 2008 @ 8:04 am
When it comes to a critique of human resources departments, the best article I have ever read on the matter remains Fast Company’s 2005 piece “Why We Hate HR.”
Keith H. Hammonds (a former colleague of mine) outlines in telling and hilarious fashion why HR folk are often ineffective, prevent talented employees from progressing and become slaves to form and legal box-checking.
HR people see themselves as protectors of management from lawsuits and embarrassment rather than nurturers of up-and-coming employees and champions of their companies.
Here’s one example. HR relies on the special and often insidious processes to prevent lawsuits and gather dirt on workers. I was a manager at a company where if a problem employee came up, the “PIP” (performance improvement program) kicked in. But PIP was truly Orwellian since it meant anything but improving the employee. Once in PIP, the worker was as good as fired. PIP was designed to gather incriminating information about the employee to be used to intimidate that person when they were dismissed so they wouldn’t file a lawsuit.
Keith comes up with a number of perceptive reasons why HR departments end up doing these things. Here’s a brief list:
To be sure, there are some firms that do HR well, such as Cardinal Health, Yahoo, Procter & Gamble and General Electric. But Keith’s scathing magazine piece still rings true three years later.
By Jo Owen
October 27th, 2008 @ 10:29 am
As the financial crisis finger-pointing continues, eyes are turning to the business schools. What part did they play in the meltdown? And is now the time to re-think their own assumptions? As Simon Caulkin observes, it’s not just the economics-dominated MBA that’s now seen as unsustainable.
Business schools have become sausage machines — they all preach the same orthodoxies. Years later, greed and groupthink has come back to haunt us.
This is the first global crisis to have been created at leading business schools. Several of the meltdown’s major players, from Merrill Lynch’s Stan O’Neill to Hank Paulson to Andy Hornby of HBOS, are Harvard graduates. Dick Fuld, who ran Lehman Brothers, went to Columbia Business School (perhaps that’s why his bank wasn’t bailed out).
The bankers were advised by the brightest brains at McKinsey and other consulting companies, which are more or less outplacement firms for newly minted MBAs. The brilliant insight of these great brains led all the banks to the same failed strategies which is costing the world a few trillion dollars.
Contrast this with some of the richest entrepreneurs in the world — Mittal, Branson, Abramovich, Gates and Buffet are all MBA-free.
If you’re aiming to be an entrepreneur, an MBA cannot teach you any of the important lessons of success: leadership, the art of the hustle, personal bravery, resilience and risk taking. They cannot teach creativity, daring, inspiration and real insight. They can teach none of the things that matter to a successful entrepreneur.
Doubtless business schools are now writing case studies about the crisis in order to show how regulation failed, individual banks made poor choices and how economic conditions failed everyone. They’d do better to write a case study on how avoid creating a generation of corporate clones who are imprisoned by greed and orthodox thinking.
