When we designate a group or team as joint leaders of a task force, project team, business unit, or enterprise — even temporarily — we're committing the entire organization to a different kind of path. Those who work within the unit itself or those who interact with the unit must operate in ways that differ from the ways they work when a single individual leads the unit. Because so much of the difference arises from relationships between and among people, I find organizational politics to be a useful perspective from which to gain understanding of how units led by joint leadership teams (JLTs) differ from others. And one appropriate place to start is understanding the role of organizational politics in forming joint leadership teams.
A word might be in order first, to state clearly what I mean by organizational politics:
Organizational politics is what happens when we contend with each other for control or dominance, or when we work together to solve shared problems.
Tuckman's model of small team development
Unless a Joint Leadership Team (JLT) consists of people who have worked well together in the past, and who are already working well together at the time they are designated as the JLT, the JLT is likely to follow the stages of small team development described by Tuckman, commonly known as the "forming-storming-norming-performing model." [Tuckman 1977] That is, following initial designation, there will be a period of rocky performance. I'll address the details of this risk for JLTs in future posts. For now, it's enough to say that a newly formed JLT must attend to its own development at first, and this can distract it to some degree from its eventual formal responsibilities.
Moreover, whenever there is a change in the membership of a JLT, that JLT is likely to retrace some or all of the stages of Tuckman's model. For these reasons, some of the advantages of JLTs compared to individual leaders are offset, and JLTs can be at a disadvantage in the short term relative to qualified individual leaders.
But beyond that phenomenon, how the JLT comes about can determine much about its future effectiveness. Consider two common origin stories: what I call Frankenstein's Monster, and a second one I call Placating the Politics.
Some Those who work within a business unit led
by a joint leadership team, or who interact
with the unit, must operate in ways that
differ from the ways they work when a
single individual leads the unitorganizations lack a single individual who has the knowledge, experience, and support desired to lead the unit in question. The organization is actively searching externally to find someone. Meanwhile, to meet the immediate need, they've established a JLT temporarily. What they're trying to do is assemble what they need from the parts they have in house, just as Henry Frankenstein assembled his monster from parts he found in fresh graves or recently hanged criminals.
- Risks of the Frankenstein approach
- This "Frankenstein's monster" approach is usually a bad idea. Even if it works — which is far from certain — it disrupts the units from which the "parts" are harvested. For this reason, the "donor" business units from which the "parts" are drawn are often the weaker units politically. And sometimes the "parts" they donate aren't the most capable people the organization has to offer.
- Moreover, when the newly hired individual leader finally arrives, the new unit is disrupted, according to Tuckman's model. And when the parts are returned to the positions from which they were drawn, those donor units are disrupted once again.
- Any gains produced by imposing a JLT on the new unit temporarily might be offset by the disruptions in the new unit and the donor units.
- Some organizations try to avoid the donor-unit disruptions by having the "parts" perform dual roles — as members of the JLT while simultaneously carrying out the duties they had before they were designated as members of the JLT. Rarely does this double-duty approach work out well, because it's a rare person who can handle two full-time jobs successfully.
- A modified Frankenstein approach
- An alternative that can be more practical in the interim is to retain a qualified consultant who can act as interim unit leader until a permanent leader can be found. This isn't ideal, of course, because the unit in question undergoes two changes of leadership in (hopefully) a short time. But this approach has the advantage that there are no disruptions in donor units, as there would be in the unmodified Frankenstein approach, because there are no donors. This would seem to be an opportunity (probably already exploited) for major consulting firms, solo experts, or recent retirees to offer a valuable short-term service, because the value provided is of the order of the sum of the value of the leadership provided plus the avoided cost of disruptions in the donor units.
Placating the Politics
When we charter a new team, task force, or business unit, we're usually free to choose an individual leader. But in some cases, we choose a JLT anyway, because political factions in the hosting organization contend for control of the new unit. And from time to time, it's necessary to replace an individual leader of an existing unit, because of a voluntary or involuntary departure, retirement, promotion, or reassignment. This situation can also expose political rivalry, and when it does, the JLT approach seems to be an attractive option. Seems to be is the operative phrase.
- Risks of organizational politics
- When politics is a dominant factor in determining the choice of leadership structure (that is, individual vs. JLT), politics is likely the dominant factor in determining the success of that choice. When we choose a JLT to lead the unit, we must give due consideration to the political assets of the candidates we consider for JLT membership. That is, we choose the members of the JLT, in part, according to the constituencies they represent. The unfortunate result is that politics is wired into the operation of the JLT itself. The activities of the unit are thereafter skewed by politics until an individual replaces the JLT, or until the political rivalry that led to the JLT is resolved.
- Mitigating the risks of organizational politics for JLTs
- To best ensure success of the unit and its JLT, senior management would do well to attend to — and resolve — the issues of political rivalries in the hosting organization. After resolving (or at least moderating) the political rivalries, the pressures that led to adopting a JLT tend to subside, and an individual can displace the JLT.
Many JLTs are designed with an odd number of members, to avoid tie votes if votes are ever taken. In small teams, consensus is always preferable to majority rule, because it avoids creating a permanent, excluded, minority faction, which can lead to destructive conflict. When conflict within the JLT turns destructive, the smaller the JLT, the more intimate are the personal attacks. That's one reason why members of JLTs would do well to acquire conflict management skills. Among these is the ability to distinguish situations that call for the assistance of a conflict professional. Top Next Issue
Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Workplace Politics:
- Social Entry Strategies: II
- When we first engage with a group at work, we employ social entry strategies to make places for ourselves
to carry out our responsibilities, and to find enjoyment and fulfillment at work. Here's Part II of
a little catalog of social entry strategies.
- Holding Back: I
- When members of teams or groups hold back their efforts toward achieving group goals, schedule and budget
problems can arise, along with frustration and destructive intra-group conflict. What causes this behavior?
- Flattery and Its Perils
- Flattery is a tool of manipulation. When skillfully employed, it's difficult to distinguish from praise
or admiration. When we confuse flattery with praise, we are in peril.
- Virtual Interviews: I
- The pandemic has made face-to-face job interviews less important. Although understanding the psychology
of virtual interviews helps both interviewers and candidates, candidates would do well to use the virtual
interview to demonstrate video presence.
- Capability Inversions and Workplace Abuse
- A capability inversion occurs when the person in charge of an effort is far less knowledgeable about
the work than are the people doing that work. In some capability inversions, abusive behavior by the
unit's leader might be misinterpreted as bullying.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming February 28: Checklists: Conventional or Auditable
- Checklists help us remember the steps of complex procedures, and the order in which we must execute them. The simplest form is the conventional checklist. But when we need a record of what we've done, we need an auditable checklist. Available here and by RSS on February 28.
- And on March 6: Six More Insights About Workplace Bullying
- Some of the lore about dealing with bullies at work isn't just wrong — it's harmful. It's harmful in the sense that applying it intensifies the bullying. Here are six insights that might help when devising strategies for dealing with bullies at work. Example: Letting yourself be bullied is not a thing. Available here and by RSS on March 6.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenIyeJIiAfnGdKlUXrner@ChacsxirZwZlENmHUNHioCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info