The Politics of Forming Joint Leadership Teams

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.

Let's begin.

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 & Jensen 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.

Frankenstein's Monster

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.

Last words

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!

More about Tuckman's sequence of small group development

The Politics of Forming Joint Leadership Teams  [January 4, 2023]

Some teams, business units, or enterprises are led not by individuals, but by joint leadership teams of two or more. They face special risks that arise from both the politics of the joint leadership team and the politics of the organization hosting it.

Tuckman's Model and Joint Leadership Teams  [January 18, 2023]

Tuckman's model of the stages of group development, applied to Joint Leadership Teams, reveals characteristics of these teams that signal performance levels less than we hope for. Knowing what to avoid when we designate these teams is therefore useful.

White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development  [December 4, 2024]

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups.

Subgrouping and Conway's Law  [December 18, 2024]

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks.

The Storming Puzzle: I  [December 25, 2024]

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies to today's task-oriented work groups — if we adapt our understanding of it. If we don't adapt, the model appears to conflict with reality.

The Storming Puzzle: II  [January 1, 2025]

For some task-oriented work groups, Tuckman's model of small group development doesn't seem to fit. Storming seems to be absent, or Storming never ends. To learn how this illusion forms, look closely at Satir's Change Model and at what we call a task-oriented work group.

The Storming Puzzle: Six Principles  [January 8, 2025]

For some task-oriented work groups, Tuckman's model of small group development seems not to fit. Storming seems to be either absent or continuous. To learn how this illusion forms, look closely at the processes that can precipitate episodes of Storming in task-oriented work groups.

The Storming Puzzle: Patterns and Antipatterns  [January 15, 2025]

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies to today's task-oriented work groups, if we understand the six principles that govern transitions from one stage to another. Here are some examples.

Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?  [January 22, 2025]

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing.

A Framework for Safe Storming  [January 29, 2025]

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration.

On Shaking Things Up  [February 5, 2025]

Newcomers to work groups have three tasks: to meet and get to know incumbent group members; to gain their trust; and to learn about the group's task and how to contribute to accomplishing it. General skills are necessary, but specifics are most important.

On Substituting for a Star  [February 12, 2025]

Newcomers to work groups have three tasks: to meet and get to know incumbent group members; to gain their trust; and to learn about the group's task and how to contribute to accomplishing it. All can be difficult; all are made even more difficult when the newcomer is substituting for a star.

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

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.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

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.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

Narcissistic Behavior at Work: I

Briefly, when people exhibit narcissistic behavior they're engaging in activity that systematically places their own interests and welfare ahead of the interests and welfare of anyone or anything else. It's behavior that threatens the welfare of the organization and everyone employed there.

Grace Under Fire: III

When someone at work seems intent on making your work life a painful agony, you might experience fear, anxiety, or stress that can lead to a loss of emotional control. Retaining composure is in that case the key to survival.

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.

Incoherent Initiatives

Mission statements of organizational initiatives serve as recruiting instruments as advocates seek support for their missions. When advocates compromise coherence of mission to maximize the depth and breadth of support, trouble looms.

Fractures in Virtual Teams

Virtual teams — teams not co-located — do sometimes encounter difficulties maintaining unity of direction, or even unity of purpose. When they fracture, they do so in particular ways. Bone fractures provide a metaphor useful for guiding interventions.

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming April 23: On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: I

In most organizations, most of the time, the plans we make run into little obstacles. When that happens, we find workarounds. We adapt. We flex. We innovate. But there are times when whatever fix we try, in whatever way we replan, we just can't make it work. We're working in a plan-hostile environment. Available here and by RSS on April 23.

And on April 30: On Planning in Plan-Hostile Environments: II

When we finally execute plans, we encounter obstacles. So we find workarounds or adjust the plans. But there are times when nothing we try gets us back on track. When this happens for nearly every plan, we might be working in a plan-hostile environment. Available here and by RSS on April 30.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenfHlRlTgqCIXkUHBTner@ChacrEuHRQPYVKkOucGfoCanyon.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