Two members of a leadership team are concerned about the stuckness of their organisation. So why is their CEO continually shutting down their concerns?
The Issue
Stephen and Jane are well-respected members of the leadership team of a public sector organisation in the UK.
They’re in agreement that their organisation, while generally regarded as operating well, has stopped ‘moving forward’. In particular, they feel the management group at both senior and middle levels needs further investment in their leadership skills, and support in becoming more adaptive, for example. The chief executive (Karen) is someone they both respect deeply. However, their attempts to get what they see as the organisation being stuck onto the agenda are being thwarted by Karen. Their frustrations are growing.
In addition to feeling frustrated generally about the organisation stagnating, their frustrations are particularly focused on Paul, the leadership team member responsible for corporate services. He is a charming individual with a much longer history in the organisation than Stephen or Jane. Yet he has many shortcomings. In their worst moments, they believe him to be lazy and a poor manager of people. They’ve picked up that his shortcomings are widely recognised across the organisation and can cite numerous examples where they believe he is having a negative impact on people, processes and projects. However, each time they raise this with Karen she has been quick to close down the conversation and reject the need to address the situation. How can coaching help?
The Interventions
Richard Hodson, Director, IMP Leadership
This is a common scenario in the public sector where the delayering of management has been a popular response to significant financial challenges. So, it is perhaps no surprise that there are tensions within the residual top teams even where an organisation is generally ‘operating well’ and individuals are ‘well respected’.
Before starting one-to-one or team coaching, I’d be keen to get fresh information into the system. For instance, how are the middle levels of management experiencing the organisation on a day-to-day basis? This would add some perspective.
Similarly, who is the real client and what would they see as a successful coaching intervention/collaboration? An ‘honest conversation’ with the chief executive exploring how she saw the organisation ‘moving forward’ and covering the styles and aspirations of her senior colleagues should be productive.
And a process to follow? I’d be looking for something co-designed with those participating; that was future focused rather than backward looking; and that deployed a systemic approach rather than be restricted to an individual or two. A key question would be ‘what does the system need to function more effectively at this stage of the organisation’s journey?’
After careful investment in establishing rapport and credibility, an agile coach would encourage those involved to ask questions of each other to broaden perspective rather than see the coaching process as ‘fixing’ the problem or someone’s ‘wrong’ behaviour.
I would also be keen to encourage the participants to consciously practise their day-to-day leadership skills and behaviours and reflect on how they are being experienced by their colleagues.
This could be a rewarding assignment where there’s potential for the organisation to get itself shifting again through reigniting the common purpose and energies within the leadership group.
Charles Helliwell, Founder, BP Audits
Corporate services will have a finger in every pie, so it is inevitable that Paul’s influence within the organisation will be spread far and wide; and because of it’s influence, this is an area which Karen will want to stay well clear of.
The last thing she will want is for Paul to become an enemy instead of an ally, so it’s hardly surprising that she will shut down any conversation with Stephen and Jane which threatens that alliance.
The only option open to them is to influence Paul. Paul is eminently predictable because he’s one of a type in many large organisations; someone who has been there a long time, probably promoted beyond their level of competence, knows their way around the organisation sufficiently well to know who to influence at the right time to get something done, usually something which benefits them and makes them look good.
They are often lazy, outwardly charming and manipulative. They will only stick their head above the parapet to gain praise they didn’t deserve or recognition they didn’t warrant and they will often allow their subordinates to take the bullets aimed at them.
So, how to turn the tables on Paul?
Well, Stephen and Jane are high fliers; potential CEOs of the future and Paul will know that, so he won’t want to appear to antagonise or contradict them directly or openly.
This gives Stephen and Jane the perfect opening to influence Paul’s team directly, by offering themselves in support of a number of critical projects under Paul’s watch; in particular projects which overlap with them.
Partnering with Paul to make him look good will appeal to his ego and laziness as well as keeping Karen happy. However, most importantly, it will allow Stephen and Jane direct access and influence in Corporate Services, and demonstrate, over time, how little constructive effect Paul is having in his team.
He may think he’s getting something for nothing, whereas he’s already just made himself redundant.