“Can this relationship be saved?” I was asked by the Chief Human Resource Officer, who sadly said that the Investment Banking firm did not want to lose an important revenue producer unnecessarily.
A new investment banking head, John, was considering eliminating one of his top revenue producers because “he was not acting like part of a new team”. The executive in question, Tom, was a legendary deal maker, a major contributor to the firm year after year. John, a younger banker from an acquired subsidiary, wanted to establish a winning team. He said that he was ready to cut a non-team player, no matter how much revenue he brought in. He added “Tom has been in this business many years. I don’t think he has the drive he used to have. He undermines me in meetings
When I questioned whether Tom’s revenue was down. John replied “no”.
“Then why do you think he is no longer driven?” I asked. John replied, “I have seven group heads reporting to me. He is the only one who does not call me on weekends.” I pressed, “Is there anything that you could personally gain from the relationship?” John was thoughtful. “Tom has skills and experience I could learn from. I’d like to learn how he thinks”
Tom shared that the personal tension from John was distracting and he wanted the friction between them to go away. He was willing to do “whatever it takes” to eliminate the distraction. “A weekly weekend call to discuss deal structure?” Tom protested. “My job is to deliver results. I don’t need permission and review.”
High talent executives easily make assumptions about each other which are not based upon a common reality. John believed that Tom’s commitment and energy were down. Tom believed that his status demanded autonomy. If John had acted on his reaction, the firm would have lost significant revenue and a great performer. Many leaders have been in a position where they believed something based on their own observation. They become prisoners of their own perceptions.
Consider the consequences. Not only are leaders vulnerable to the implications of their decisions. In this case, losing a top performer at his peak. Also, opportunistic subordinates and peers may play to a leader’s distorted view.
What was blocking collaboration in this case?
Rationalizing an emotional reaction. We have all convinced ourselves at one time or another that our reactions are unshakeable truths. When highly analytic executives convince themselves that their emotional responses describe a shared reality, it is more challenging to change because their opinions are often logical and well considered. They also are less prone to self-doubt.
In this case, John wanted assurance that Tom would stay as an engaged member of the new team. He interpreted Tom’s autonomy as coasting and lack of commitment.
Tom relished his autonomy. He saw any communication upward as reporting and seeking approval.
Reframing each party’s view with a shared goal was not an easy conversation. There were many conversations exploring potential platforms of common goals and values. Exploring the assumptions underlying their views about each other led to more productive interactions and mutual support.
Over time, an alliance was forged.
