Multiple Heads, Multiple Leaders

“This was the decision the board came up with, but I voted against it.”
          “Oh, don’t worry about what Steve said, I think it’s an unnecessary report he’s having you write.”
“I guess this is what we’re doing, but I don’t really understand it either…”"Nope, YOU'RE headed in the wrong direction!"

It’s a common problem in management today: expecting clear decisions to come from a body of individuals but resulting in multiple voices and directions.  This disconnect is sometimes unintentional and subconscious occurring when:

• there is a lack of clear understanding and agreement amongst participants


• the members didn’t fully buy into the decision and are now required to be part of the “rallying cry” to get others on board


• it is unclear what the members should share with the rest of the company


• the members are listening to the same conversation but hearing different messages

Other times, an individual may create chaos/confusion with more malicious and purposeful intentions in order to:

• undermine another team member


• create an aura of individual authority versus group authority

Not long ago we worked with a service company to enhance their rallying cry, their shared vision and how to express it to the rest of the company.  They came into a 24 hour retreat stating “We don’t have something that unifies us as a team, we’re all operating in silos” and we quickly shifted to an emergency session around “What defines your team?  What makes you a powerful team?”

They were right, as the executive board they had no unified vision statement they were passing down to employees, oftentimes leaving meetings contradicting one another -- a result of poor communication and listening skills.  Upon leaving the retreat, they made the following commitments to each other in order to create and strengthen their unified voice:
1. Validate emotions by empathizing with one another in order to gain perspective and understanding of the background of each question and suggestion
2. Seek to understand; don’t listen “blindly,” listen to understand in order to foster healthier debate
3. Agree to disagree and support the mutual decision of the group (when it becomes necessary)
4. Avoid public disagreement and arguments, saving them for the board room
5. Commit to shared goals and remain supportive of one another during this process
6. Use positive language when talking about the decision made

The goal of a unified voice isn’t only essential to create an environment where leaders are looked upon as a unit moving towards the same vision, but helps dispell any attempts to find cracks in the armor, for employees to pit one leader against another.

What are your thoughts?  How many times have you left a meeting and not been on the same page as your partner?

Comments

[Jonathan Hakakian]

No organization is innocent of this, as highlighted by the recent Rolling Stone article that stirred so much debate and resulted in the resignation of General McChrystal (The Runaway General). It illustrates the disconnect between leadership, where two leaders (Pres. Obama and Gen. McChrystal) were not seeing eye-to-eye on the goals or methods to reach them, thereby creating a rift between their respective departments and what can be perceived as disrespect and rude behavior towards one another.