Joint Leadership Teams: Risks

As defined in the first post in this series, a joint leadership team (JLT) forms when an organization decides "…to delegate jointly to more than one person primary responsibility for a business unit, task force, or project." JLTs are usually small, consisting of about two to seven members. Although they're small, their operations and their effect on the hosting organization can be dramatic, especially if the hosting organization fails to acknowledge the risks that attend JLTs. The purpose of this post is to alert readers to some of those risks.

Those most affected by JLT risks are the people who work within the unit the JLT leads, the people and units that must interact with the unit the JLT leads, and the members of the JLT itself. What follows are six examples of the risks they face.

Risk of slow response

When rapid accommodation to changing situations is required, JLTs are at a disadvantage. For important issues, it's usually necessary for the members of the JLT to converse. Bringing them together can take time. Even if they convene virtually, the virtual medium can reduce the effectiveness of the exchange, and lengthen the time required to reach consensus.

JLTs are workable, and they do provide advantages. But if agility is required, the relative awkwardness of JLTs can be a disadvantage. The critical indicator of this risk for the JLT form of leadership is the rate of change of the environment. If it changes more rapidly than the JLT can respond, the JLT form is high-risk.

Risk of confusion

When only Although joint leadership teams are small, their
operations and their effect on the hosting
organization can be dramatic, especially if the
hosting organization fails to acknowledge the
risks that attend joint leadership teamssome of the members of the JLT are in communication with some portion of the world outside the JLT, information within the JLT is unevenly distributed. Distribution will remain uneven until the JLT members can "sync up." In the meantime, the risk of confusion is elevated, because the left hand won't know what the right hand is doing.

Bring the JLT members together (virtually or otherwise) frequently. Allow them enough time to close any gaps in information or understanding. This need for frequent get-togethers can seem like a drain on time and resources, but those costs are small compared to the cost of confusion. If you don't have time to bring the members of the JLT together to exchange information and perspectives, the JLT structure presents a high risk of confusion.

Risk of discord due to external rivalries

Some JLTs are comprised of representatives of other organizational units. This is common in groups called task forces or red teams. In these cases members of the JLT often regard themselves as delegates who represent the interests of the groups they hail from. That might be one reason why groups such as task forces and red teams are more likely to be led by JLTs.

If there is rivalry between two or more of the represented organizational units, there is a risk that that rivalry might also play out in the JLT, which can cause the JLT to exhibit a dysfunction analogous to that found in the larger organization. In these cases, what's happening in the JLT is a symptom of a deeper problem. Addressing it at the level of the JLT is unlikely to resolve it. The root cause lies in the hosting organization. Work on that.

Risk of decisions based on internal power politics

A power differential risk arises when one member of the JLT (I'll refer to that one as A) is more powerful politically than the others (I'll refer to the others as not-As). A's power advantage can derive from many factors, including, for instance, superior rank, a more politically powerful personal network, longer tenure, or the stature of A's profession.

When A and any of the not-As disagree, there is a risk that the not-As might defer to A for political reasons rather than for substantive reasons related to the matter at hand. If a pattern of political deference establishes itself, it can bias the effort by generating a string of political decisions not based on substance.

This risk is "longitudinal" in the sense that it's persistent. Even if the members of the JLT begin the mission as approximate equals politically, the risk remains. If at any time one of the JLT members is promoted or recognized, a political power differential can develop within the JLT. If that happens, biased decisions can occur.

Recognition rather than promotion is perhaps the greater source of risk. Recognize all members of the JLT or recognize none. Promote all members of the JLT or promote none.

Risk of destructive conflict

Destructive conflict is conflict that mainly focuses not on any substantive issue, but instead on personal attacks among the participants. In JLTs, disagreements are inevitable. They can even be constructive. But personal attacks are destructive. Destructive conflict usually harms relationships among the participants, which can then threaten group productivity.

One factor that can inhibit destructive conflict is the presence of uninvolved witnesses. But in a two-person JLT, the necessity for private meetings of the two partners ensures that they will spend significant time together alone. This practice exposes them to an elevated risk of destructive conflict.

But JLTs of all sizes face elevated risk of destructive conflict. The nature of "shared primary responsibility" is in itself a source of risk, because it provides the members of the JLT with repeated opportunities to work at cross-purposes and undermine each other. Blame games can proliferate.

Joint leadership teams would do well to meet regularly with a trusted third party (such as a supervisor) who can monitor the health of their relationships.

Risk of differences in understanding and misunderstanding

When the members of the JLT disagree about an issue, the differences between or among them, in profession or background or biases, are most often an advantage of the arrangement. In diversity is strength. And as noted above, differences between the two leaders can trace to differences between the information each has about the matters at hand.

Still, resolving disagreements is more than a matter of passing information from one to the others. Because of differences in background or current information, one JLT member might understand the full import of a piece of information, while the others might not, or might understand it differently. Or all might misunderstand it, but differently. Just about anything is possible.

Sometimes the gaps between members of the JLT can't be closed until the members of the JLT can have a serious conversation. Gap-closure conversations can be easy or very difficult. And some can take time, spanning several sessions.

Last words

These risks are just examples. You might have seen some of them materialize, and you might have seen others not described here. Whenever you notice one, call attention to it. Conduct a mini-retrospective so that everyone can learn about it. It almost surely will happen again.   First issue in this series    Next issue in this series   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 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 Project Management:

Start a Project Nursery

In a Project Nursery, professionals from across the entire organization collaborate to conceive of new projects. When all organizational elements help decide which projects to investigate, the menu they develop best suits organizational needs and capabilities.

Project Improvisation as Group Process

When project plans contact reality, things tend to get, um, a bit confused. We can sometimes see the trouble coming in time to replan thoughtfully — if we're nearly clairvoyant. Usually, we have to improvise. How a group improvises tells us much about the group.

Design Errors and Group Biases

Design errors can cause unwanted outcomes, but they can also lead to welcome surprises. The causes of many design errors are fundamental attributes of the way groups function. Here is Part II of our exploration.

Unnecessary Boring Work: II

Workplace boredom can result from poor choices by the person who's bored. More often boredom comes from the design of the job itself. Here's Part II of our little catalog of causes of workplace boredom.

Depth First or Breadth First?

When investigating candidate solutions to a problem, we tend to focus first on what we believe is the "best bet." But a more systematic approach can sometimes yield dramatic advantages by reducing the cost of the investigation and the time it requires.

See also Project Management and Project Management 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