Part 3 and 4 of Lencioni

 What are the most important lessons in Parts III and IV in Lencioni’s book?

There is a saying in the creative writing community that discusses how to be a harsh self-critic. That saying is "don't be afraid to kill your darlings." Basically, the intent of the aphorism is to inspire authors to edit and strike out passages that they think are unique or spectacular or "darlings" if it helps the overall work to not have them be a part of the book. 

As Bayne (2020) writes, "There are valid reasons, though, to cut pretty, flowery, or clever prose. Some reasons include: it is confusing to the reader, it does not fit the overall tone/style of the piece, it does not fit the moment in the story, it doesn’t serve a purpose other than to show how cleverly you can write prose, and so on (para 10). If there is one thing I've learned about life in the contracting world is that no organization is larger than one person. 

Every time I've left a job and expected that someone would call begging me for help on some crucial process they must now figure out without me,  . . . there is never a call (well, not as often as I'd like). Along those same lines, and maybe this is harsh, but when people leave for other opportunities, I've seen how the organization and even myself, will work dynamically and fluidly around the missing person's absence and find ways to get the job done. Darlings, nor employees, are all that important, I've found, to the overall work or organization. 

This is what I thought about when I saw Kathryn losing first JR and then Mikey. Just because these people worked their roles and might even have been good at their jobs at one time, it doesn't mean you have to keep them over the long run or if things change. 

Although one was voluntary and the other somewhat forced, I appreciated that Lencioni (2002) made the story more realistic by dropping characters rather than rehabilitating them. That facet brought realism to the story. And it was good to see that the organization and the team continued to flow without these two leaders, and might even have performed better without them.

References

Lencioni. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team a leadership fable (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Bayne, M. (2020, July 12). What ‘kill your darlings’ does and doesn’t mean. The Writing Cooperative. https://writingcooperative.com/what-kill-your-darlings-does-and-doesn-t-mean-cd8d533dd627

Doing Right by Employees (and Business)

I disagreed a bit with what my classmate wrote. He said, "There is a double standard that exists between companies and their employers. Companies demand loyalty and sacrifice, but are quick to do what is best for the company first." 

I don't think there is a double standard, I think instead there is a detente or an armistice. An agreement that both sides will do what they need to do to do the best for themselves. 

Before the company had pensions and there was an agreement that if employees were loyal to the company, the company would continue that loyalty through the pension. I believe that Generation Xers valued mobility and not being chained down to any one company, thus we have IRAs and 401Ks to replace pensions. 

I've seen articles lately that tend to show the current generation coming into the workforce may value the solidity that Gen Xers eschewed. Kiddos watched their parents lose their jobs during the financial downturn in the 2010 era and now with Covid we might see the same. Maybe we will see the return of the pension as a natural part of work life. 

Like I said I think there is a give and take. Yes, the company I work for demands loyalty and sacrifice, but I am free to leave as soon as I want or if a better offer comes along. I can take that new offer lickety-split, port over my 401K and be gone in no time. Personally, I would love to see a mixture of different financial tools more available to employees. 

I would love to have signed up for a pension with any of the companies I worked for. I want to be handcuffed to an organization and have that agreement that neither of us is going anywhere. Instead, there is a mutual trust (or distrust) that feels like the demilitarized zone where we are both watching one antoher and waiting for the next move. 

 Reply

Lencioni and Lessons

What important lessons did you find in Parts I and II of Lencioni’s book?

I had two takeaways from reading Lencioni's (2002) book. I've participated in many different retreats like the one described in the book and actually have participated in several of the exercises that Kathryn leads her team through to build trust. 

Some were very successful personally, some were successful for the organization, and some were complete failures. I liked the chapter called "Getting Naked." My organization has held retreats where we did this. It's a terrific opportunity to get to know a new team on a far more intimate and meaningful level. The problem is that many groups act as if it is a fire and forget missile instead of something that has to be tended to. 

What do I mean? We completed a get to know each other activity once years ago, but no sense. People have come and gone. Memories fade. People change. It's important, I believe, to have regular opportunities to "get naked" with the team. And this leads to my second takeaway.

I loved the first part of the book because it dealt so much with trust. I'm a huge fan of Covey's (2008) Speed of Trust. It helped me understand how trust is important in not just personal relationships, but also in the business world. Kathryn's work with her team is all about trust building. In the first part of the book, she is doing that by breaking down barriers and by helping to instill comfort. 

She does it to inspire conflict to help her team find the best solution. Similar to the Socratic Method, where there is constant questioning, Kathryn is hoping that by having conflict can be a greater consensus and better decision making. The only way to have conflict is through trust. Part of building that trust comes from not having as many secrets, and knowing one another on the team in a more substantial way. 

As I alluded to in the first paragraph, these are things that not only take time to produce, they also need to be fostered. I like that Lencioni's (2002) work shows that it takes many sessions to have change occur. I think the follow-on book or equal should show how the team has to engage in these exercises constantly and that a one-and-done isn't enough.  

References

Covey, S. (2008). Speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. Simon & Schuster.

Lencioni, P. M. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossey-Bass.

Do Nothing Change of Command

My classmate wrote something the other day I really liked. Nicole wrote about leaders who take command waiting to make any changes until after they have observed and processed what the current state of the dept or organization is. 

In the military, after a change of command, the first thing the new leader is supposed to do is do nothing. They are supposed to observe and process for several weeks and months before making any changes. During my time in the military, we had three new first sergeants come in and take charge of our company. 

This would be similar to a new VP or COO coming into an organization. Two of the three sat back silently and just watched. One didn't. The one with the greatest number of challenges and difficulties, the one who had the least success ultimately was the one who did not do nothing. 

I've tried to remember that throughout my career. I think the one thing that will stick with me most about this class was the essay on leadership by Haskins (2013) about whether or not leaders really matter. In that essay Haskins (2013) makes the argument that a team's processes and procedures are more significant to the health and success of a team than a leader. I think that this standard of do nothing plays into the theory that leaders don't matter that much. 

Reference

Haskins , C. (2013). Do teams' leaders really matter. In E. Salas, G. Latham, D. J. Cohen, & S. I. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations: Evidence-based best practices and Guidelines (pp. 121–153). chapter, Jossey-Bass.

Business and Politics

"Politics is when people choose their words and actions based on how they want others to react rather than based on what they really think” (Lencioni, 2002, p.88)

I love your quote on politics. This is an area of life where I struggle. I'm notoriously apolitical. I think it might have hurt my career growth and opportunities, but for some reason, I just can't stand the political facades that seem to spring up. 

I love how the author expressed it that it's impossible to see the other person's position clearly if there is a veil of politics with it. I came from a contracting organization with very blunt and upfront politics,  . . . meaning they were obvious, clumsy, and not very successful at political maneuvering (and by the way, everyone understood and was fine with that), to one where there are multiple layers, and deep political divisions, standards and norms. 

I feel like I've stumbled into an area of life where I'm not at all comfortable nor willing to become a part. Instead of adjusting my style, I've actually continued to be as candid, blunt, and apolitical as I'm used to. One of my colleagues actually commented on how refreshing it was that I wasn't a part of any clique at work. 

One of the factors I would love to help this organization slough off is the tendency to make everything political in nature, for politics and one-ups-manship, to color and tint every discussion. I don't like wondering what people really mean when they tell me something. So, like you, I found that portion of the story that dealt with Kathryn's work with breaking down the political nature of the organization. Hard to do, but worth it as Lencioni (2002) shows in the fable.

Reference

Lecioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable. Jossy-Bass

More On Martin and Kathryn

What would I have done if I was Kathryn? When Martin might not have shown? Beyond what I wrote in the previous post?

Our professor asked what we would have done if he had not shown up. What would I do as a leader if he hadn't shown up?

 I think in that case, I would have started the meeting, and when he showed acknowledged his lateness for the team, provide a tad bit of shame on him, but also let the team know it was not the expectation. I would talk to Martin after the fact and tell him how I don't think that he is helping his case and give him a choice to be a part of the change or to leave. 

If he chose be a part (which I would hope he would) I would give him more responsibility in the change. Have him organize the next offsite meeting. I am big on giving people more responsibility and making them a part of the process. Allowing them to be the advocate for that which they do not like. I was a part of a large role out of a new system. At first I was not a fan. Once I took the training, and also took the train the trainer class, and became a part of the solution, I became an advocate for the role out. Martin could become that same advocate if you help him be a part of the change process instead of someone who is just a bit or role player. 

ATB

Like my classmate Margie, I focused in on Martin's (almost) lateness and what Kathryn might do in the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, . . . how she went through her options, . . . what she felt she could and what was best to do. I have had a similar experience. I was involved in the delivery of a training class on billing. The goal was to move shift tickets to bill quicker. 

Part of the training centered around the fact that billing starts with salespeople and the Sales dept. If Sales makes mistakes when setting up the customer it has significant downstream effects. So the crux of the training was to bring everyone from Sales, through Operations, to Billing together in one room and find ways to speed the billing process. Naturally, when we went around the nation to the different locations and regions to provide the training, we had some pushback. 

When salespeople hear "billing process" they automatically think that it's for billing and has nothing to do with them. We got to one training site and one of the big wig sales and operations guys from a large and very important business line, who was loathe to even come to the training strolled in and sat in the middle of the room, near the front, and as soon as we started the training he opened his computer and started working. It was a very deliberate move on his part. I did that same mental calculation as Kathryn and was forced to go over to him, stand over him and tell the class that we needed everyone's attention and that there would be plenty of time to check emails on laptops at breaks. Then I waited. Eventually, he got the picture. It was touch and go there for a second. 

I think that political capital, power plays, and politics, in general, are an energy sink at the office and in business. I'm usually told my flaw is I'm too candid. I've also been told I don't play the game. Although they are not given to me as compliments when I'm told these or similar constructive criticism I treat them as compliments. I like that in the book there is a lot on breaking down barriers and trust and conflict. The other day I had a bit of conflict with one of our other senior leaders. I disagreed with what she was proposing. It has sense gotten out that she felt she was "attacked" due to my disagreeing with her. Where I saw it as a healthy conversation and I was ready for an intense discussion, she saw it as an attack. Perhaps I am too abrupt. 

All this being said, like you I enjoyed that little part of the book and all of the moments where Kathryn had to determine just how far she could push things and at what time.

P.S. The end result of our training by the way was a drop in DSO from 72 to 60 days within 6 months with each day representing a further collection of $1M dollars. For a $300M company to recognize revenue that much quicker was a pretty big win and more than worth the investment. So it was successful and I look back at that training and that leader's computer laptop powerplay as a win for our training group.

Am I Good Leader

We were asked to be self-reflective about our leadership capabilities and our ability to be a part of a team. It did not take this prompt for me to have to think about my capabilities as a team leader and team member. 

The past few years in my career have led to a lot of souls searching along these lines. 15 years ago, I was in a position to lead a small company in a new industry at an executive level. I soon found that I wasn't ready for that level of leadership. 10 years ago I was a director at an organization I knew a lot about and excelled as a team leader and member. 

When that organization doubled in size I found myself out of my depth again. For the past five years, I've worked as an executive leader and team member for a smaller organization. The votes are still counted on how I'm doing. I think that there are moments in time when we meet the needs of the organization, and then there are those when we aren't ready. If I was asked to be the leader of that organization 15 years ago, I'd be up to the task now. If I was a director in my current role, rather than a VP, I would be doing a phenomenal job I suspect. 

When I read Kolbe (2013) I saw several areas where I think I could use some work. Talking to the room is something I don't do well. Years ago my grandfather, probably tired of my talking back to him and flippancy, reminded me of the aphorism, "it's better to keep one's mouth shut and allow others to assume they're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." 

I've taken this to heart perhaps too much and used this mantra during meetings too much. Kolbe (2013) writes "it is an implicit rather than explicit behavior as it is in a spontaneous, intuitive style" (p. 622). I think I've tempered this out of my life to a point where it inhibits my ability to react well in a team in this regard. Speaking up too, is an area where the struggle for the same reason. Kolbe (2013) writes that speaking up can help "mitigate errors made by leaders" (p. 629). The same arguments from above are in use in my head with this aspect of Kolbe's advice.

There were two positives I was able to find as well. the first came in Kolbe (2013) where she writes, "high-risk teams benefit from establishing a shared understanding before task performance. This shared cognition/understanding can be established during preoperational briefings" (p. 619). Then this from Zajac and Salas (2013) on theme #9: Engage Team Members with a Shared Vision, Clear Mission, and Compelling Purpose, "creating a positive climate for employees includes establishing a clear mission as well as clear and challenging goals" (p. 656).  

I know that this is a contrast to the above, but I think it has to do with proper prior planning, the opportunity to plan what will be said, not needing to speak contemporaneously. On balance do these two characteristics balance each other out, I think it depends on the situation, the organization, and the position. 

Some of this might be from my work with the Rangers. The same lessons my grandfather taught me were a part of Ranger School. Don't speak unless spoken to. Defer to authority. If you don't have a good answer, say nothing and learn. In some ways, the lessons I learned from my grandfather and the Rangers haven't helped me in the business world. 

References

Kolbe, M. (2013). Five simple processes that improve high-risk team effectiveness. In Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S., Cohen, D., & Latham, G. (Eds.), Developing and Enhancing Teamwork in Organizations: Evidence-Based BestPractices and Guidelines (1st ed., pp. 609-643). Jossey-Bass.

Zajac, S. and Salas, E. (2013). Enhancing the practice of teamwork in organizations; Emerging themes. In Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S., Cohen, D., & Latham, G. (Eds.), Developing and Enhancing Teamwork in Organizations: Evidence-Based BestPractices and Guidelines (1st ed., pp. 647-659). Jossey-Bass.

Innovation in Virtual Classrooms

Like Jason, and Nicole from my class, I find the last couple of years to be incredibly interesting in terms of remote leadership and management. I look forward to seeing the world and the business culture adapt. 

We've seen lots of organizations embrace remote work, but now that there is a contraction and we see people coming back to the offices, I wonder if those who have excelled and do well in remote environments won't be missing out on aspects of the face-to-face business world. I like the way you described your situation, especially in terms of how to organize work to ensure that you get the most out of time together. 

I was talking today to a remote workgroup/committee that I work with and we were discussing getting together in person to move further along in our work. We all agreed that we could get more out of a live face-to-face meeting than a remote one, but then when we started organizing and discussing the opportunity to meet again, we discussed how important it would be to have pre-work assigned and completed before meeting up in order to get the most out of the live face-to-face meeting. 

The same could have been said about our remote work. I guess my point is that the same things that are successful in one arena might be as successful in the other. Additionally, I don't think we should settle on a binary choice. I find a mixture is worthwhile. Being face-to-face has advantages, but remote work has other advantages. 

What I have found interesting is the evolution of virtual teams over time. As I mentioned above, I set up a virtual training network with about 50 sites back in 2012 and I was working virtually for many years. Not 100% but as needed. Then when Covid hit, our organization found we had to go from as needed to immediate necessity. 

For me the change was not stark. For my team members, it was a new experience. I've found, having worked virtually for many years that there are aspects of virtual work well, and those that don't. I use virtual work now strategically. 

If traffic is too thick to get to work easily, I take the meetings virtually until traffic dies down and I can get into the office easier. If I have a lot of work to do on specific projects, writing scripts, reviewing courses, etc. I take it home to work it out in the home office and any questions I have that day I utilize zoom, phone and chat. 

If I have a lot of team building or departmental trust building to do, I go into the office. I have a unique situation though where there is an option, but I think the best way to use virtual work is to mix it with real-world meetings, but sympathize with those who don't have the option and must find ways to make virtual work in all situations. 

Buccee's Position

Nicole the other day I was reminded of a position I tuned down years ago. It was back in 2015 with a gas station/convenience mart that has HUGE brand name notoriety in Texas and the southwest. 

I was very eager to take the position, but when I asked about virtual work options, this company that was still growing from a small retailer to something much larger and mature, had no options for this. In the job I was in at the time, I was running a virtual training network. 

There were times when I would have to step in and train for 6-8 hours. If this interfered with family, and because my wife traveled as a software project manager, I would lead the training from home. Our learners and the organization didn't mind if I was in my office at work or in my office at home, as long as the training was effective and the learners were ready to work in the time the branches expected.  

Despite wanting to take the new job, I had to turn it down. I guess the point is that without having options for virtual work, even if it was just in small amounts, organizations are going to find it harder and harder to recruit good, talented, employees. I think for this organization offering me the new position, I would have brought a lot of training effectiveness to an organization that desperately needed it. Looking back there is some regret about missing the opportunity, but it just wasn't what we needed at that moment.