“None of us is as good as all of us.”
—Ray Kroc, American businessman
VIM Executive Coaching frequently hears the following lament: “We have a small executive team in our organization; executive leadership coaching probably isn’t suitable for us.”
We understand the point. However, it may “surprise” everyone to know that a work team is not a defined number.
The MIT educational people tell us: “In the best of all possible worlds, teams are formed deliberately and carefully to meet work needs that an individual or a group of individuals cannot meet as effectively.” Note that the number on the team is not defined.
It is wholly reasonable to think of an executive team as being 10 or more people. However, management experts have long observed that as few as two people in co-leadership positions can be extremely effective. However, power imbalances with teams as small as two or three can be quite common.
Psychologist Elisabeth Sheff writing for Psychology Today reminded us:
“When two people are together already and then meet a third person, there is almost always a power imbalance, with the two longer-term folks having a stronger coalition than either of them does with the new person.”
Where we are leading with this discussion is that while small management teams are common, imbalances in the teams are probably the rule rather than the exception.
We have seen these imbalances manifest themselves in many scenarios across many industries. Team members can “get sideways” with one another whether we are talking about software development, biotech, automotive engineering, professional sports or surgical groups. Unless polite disagreements and disparate workstyles can be resolved, it is a virtual guarantee the team will fail.
What generally occurs when teams become asymmetrical, that is, when one frustrated personality becomes dissatisfied or impatient with the rest of the group, they exert power, leave or give up. All three outcomes are disappointing. The “team” breaks down into personalities and finger pointing.
Executive Leadership Must be Taught to Teams
Executive leadership is not automatically assimilated into teams. It must be taught. It must be shared. Effective leaders almost never develop in a vacuum.
While there are many figures of speech around the word “leadership” e.g. courageous, intensive, dedicated, “take no prisoners,” “full contact,” and all the other tropes, executive leaders have long noted that all the fancy terminology in the world do not replace mindful and authentic interaction.
Unfortunately, many visions of executive leadership are poor extensions of how would-be team members incorporate their understanding of war, or professional football, or aggressive stock traders for major Wall Street firms or any of the Rocky movies! While it is silly to reflect on such things here, more often than not the same mindset is in place.
In organizational life, teams, regardless of size, get into trouble when they react to conditions rather than respond to them. They may also interact with one another in the same fashion. Teams that are highly reactive in this era are typically, poorly effective.
When we work with teams – regardless of the team size –we introduce a sense of authenticity, response and compassion. Whether “all of us” in a team setting is three people or 300, the same dynamic can be instilled up and down the management chain.
Responsive executive leadership takes everyone in an organization. It can never be “them” and “us.” The good news is that it can be taught and put into action no matter the size of the team or its industry.