I wonder if this statement will shock, or gel with what you grudgingly know to be true: Leadership teams are the best resourced group in the workplace, yet also the least collaborative.
In an article published on LinkedIn last month, based on data from more than 10 years of mapping and analysing organisational networks, Innovisor CEO Jeppe Vilstrup Hansgaard reflected on the enthusiasm with which executives champion the breakdown of silos across their businesses – just not in the leadership suite.
There, he said, it was a different story as team members “pull in different directions…compete for internal resources (and) send mixed signals to employees”.
It is a recognisable scenario that saddles too many executive teams with a poor internal reputation and reduced ability to get people to move. Employees know when their leadership group is unaligned, and it makes following look like a mug’s game.
After 15 years in the field I’m convinced that to have a great impact and be respected as a team, executives need to make it their very personal business to speak and listen, consistently and cohesively, at three distinct levels.
First, they need to develop muscle for holding powerful, candid conversations around the big table. In my Executive Impact model (below) this is local communication. Its goal is to bring buried tensions and objections to the surface for investigation and resolution.
Executive Impact model
Next, executives need to routinely reach mid-level managers with clear, consistent explanations of decisions made and actions required, and listen to the response – this is central communication. Most employees report to a middle manager and source their knowledge and information there, so strong central communication is mission critical.
Finally, the narrative designed locally and delivered centrally needs reinforcement from global messaging to the workforce. This requires executives to be deeply invested in the work of the communications team (an outcome best achieved by ensuring communications a seat at the big table) and requires corporate messaging to be rigorous and real.
Hansgaard pulls no punches in identifying the cause of executive unalignment.
“Often the leaders simply dislike each other,” he writes. “They just do not say it (out) loud.”
I cannot disagree with him. But it would obviously be foolish to expect executives to be besties, nor is that a necessary precursor to partnership. Powerful local conversations, clear and consistent central communication and timely, relevant global messaging; therein lies the road to collaboration, reputation and impact.