Its been a while since I blogged, which is predominantly due to two factors. One – its been a busy twelve months, and to be honest a fairly rocky one. Two – my focus has shifted from what I’ve traditionally blogged about as my role has shifted into heading up the Consulting team for NetSpot & Blackboard in Australia, New Zealand and beyond.
The last year or so of doing very little client-facing work as I’ve moved towards purely leading a team, and some of the challenges we’ve faced, combined with reflecting back on previous leadership roles, made me reflect a couple of weeks back on my main stakeholder groups that I need to regularly devote time to in order to do a good job. I made a quick sketch of my ‘management compass’, and tweeted it to see what people said. It looked like this:
My current hypothesis is that unless I can pay a suitable amount of attention – and respect – to each of those four points in the compass, I’ll fail. Sure, each point might need more or less focus at certain times, but I need to manage them in a considered and balanced way if I want to be successful in this role.
But what if I don’t?
Periods of time when I have neglected one or the other of these led me to thinking about the consequences of not paying due respect to any one of these stakeholder groups, and in the following list I’ve attempted to briefly describe what I think happens when a stakeholder group or ‘point on the compass’ is ignored for an extended period of time. See if any of these leadership types ring true.
Ignoring the boss
The renegade – you act in everyone’s interest except the businesses, or at least the formal representation of the business (i.e. your boss, or the Management team). You know better than them, and you march to the tune of your own drum. Your team loves you, clients love you, most people around the business love you, and maybe you’re even right in your beliefs and The Man is wrong.
It won’t matter.
The machine does not want your type, and like it or not, as a wise man once told me, ‘you have to be big enough to buck the system before you can successfully buck the system’. Goes without saying that the machine is geared to get your type ejected like a virus as quickly as possible – and probably with good reason, as nobody is bigger than the game. Go start your own business – it will suit you better.
Ignoring your team
The absent boss – you let your team ‘self manage’, which is code for ‘you’re never there, and even when you are you have no idea what most of them are up to most of the time’. Maybe you’ll get lucky. Maybe you’ll have a team of self-directed, autonomous superstars, but if you do then more than likely this has been the result of someone else’s hard work (including the team members themselves) to get to this point of awesomeness. Unfortunately for you, over time, as staff change, this self-direction will erode unless you proactively engender it within the new team members (which you’re not doing, since you’re the absent boss).
There’s also the gap between organisational strategy and the goals of the team and its people which you’ll gradually widen for as long as you remain absent, ultimately ending up with a ‘drifting’ team that will ultimately disconnect from the rest of the company, unless you have a superstar in the team who ends up doing your job – in which case they might end up with it permanently when management realise you’re not a leader’s rear end…
And of course if you’re not blessed with a stable, self-managing team in the first place (and let’s face it, how many of us are) – you’re toast.
Ignoring your clients
The corporate droid? – you really don’t spend much time at all thinking about or interacting with your clients, but is this necessarily a bad thing? This is an interesting one, as in some situations you can probably get away with this, particularly if you’re in scenario where things are running well and you’ve got a team (or other teams) engaging with clients well. Perhaps focusing on getting your team to perform is enough to keep clients satisfied. Perhaps you work in an environment sufficiently uncomplicated that the vision for the future of your team is without the twists and turns that come as part of a volatile or complex environment. This is, of course, the best case scenario.
The worst case is that you don’t give a toss about your clients and you are in a role when you really need their partnership, trust, respect and guidance to help you keep your business aligned with what clients need, in which case you might as well quit now – you won’t last.
Let’s go back to the best case though, and you are working in an environment where clients don’t tend to need your attention very often. At least two things can go horribly wrong here though:
- You follow this philosophy during ‘rough times’ when clients above all else need to be reassured that there is leadership within a team helping to navigate tricky waters. If this is the case, and you’re AWOL while the ship is taking on water, you’ll lose the trust of clients quickly, and whatever trust you lose takes ten times as long to get back, just like in any other relationship.
- You are operating in an uncertain or volatile environment (and let’s face it, lots of them are) where being isolated from your clients leads to a significant risk of losing touch with how your clients want your business to evolve over time as their needs change.
In either of these cases, you’re taking a huge risk, and one day it will come unstuck.
Ignoring your peer teams
The protectionist - your vision for success revolves around keeping your clients and your boss happy, and ‘protecting’ your team so that they can do your job. As for other parts of the organisation? That’s their problem, not yours, and if you need to tread on a few toes in order to make sure you get a positive return for your three stakeholder groups then hey – that’s business.
There’s a problem with this though, in that there aren’t too many places I know of that run completely as silos – the performance of The Machine depends on the parts all working in harmony. Machiavelli would have argued that it is better to have people fear you than love you, for love is far more easily overturned than fear, but I’m not convinced that this holds true in any environment where collaboration between teams is essential for the long-term success of a business. First up, while other teams might be obligated to provide you with a service as part of the business function, they sure as heck won’t be going out of their way to help you, and should the worm ever turn and you’re the one in a position of vulnerability, don’t expect people to be running to your side to throw their weight behind you.
In short – you’ll get away with this kind of leadership for a while, but eventually it will catch up, and when it does, odds are it won’t be pretty.
This isn’t an exhaustive list, nor is it an exhaustive stakeholder model, but it is a starting point for my own reflection, and I’m using it actively as I look at where I’m focusing my time on a weekly basis. I’d be keen to hear anyone’s thoughts (good, bad or otherwise) on the model.