How can an organization support two executives newly appointed to share responsibilities for taking over an important function which was suffering morale setbacks resulting from a volatile and abusive leader? This was the question posed by a savvy CEO, concerned about restoring productivity and morale.
The real question in strengthening shared leadership to ask is: How can you create a relationship between two talented and driven leaders based upon an understanding of their emotional drivers that does not infringe their personal lives? This question is important regardless of how the new shared leadership structure came about. However, it is even more important when relationships have already experienced damage under a poor leader.
The key lies in adding a few steps to the typical conversations between leaders facing shared responsibility.
Andy and Chuck were excellent candidates for an agreement to share leadership. They earned credibility with a string of business accomplishments. They shared qualities of being decisive, efficient and action oriented. Yet, their styles and decision-making patterns were different. Their boss recognized the differences and the underlying possibility for unhealthy conflict at a time when unity and motivation were critical.
Andy loves data and takes time to seek solutions outside of traditional thinking. He comes across with an inclusive and open approach to people. In the face of peer conflict, he projects an open and curious stance with an objective and positive reaction.
Chuck leads a successful creative team with a consistent track record of wins. He works best with a select few who understand his focus as he provides them with the support needed to develop products which meet revenue goals and garner industry awards. While he appears unphased by criticism or tough questions, internally he personalizes criticism and finds it difficult to be open with his peers. He believes that protecting the integrity of the creative process is critical to success.
As Andy and Chuck demonstrated complementary skills, their collaboration could provide benefits to the organization. Yet, both were strong willed and decisive, which could be challenging during times of stress.
In addition, each interacted with their previous boss in ways that set them up for conflict. It was a “silo” environment, with each leader working one-on-one with their boss. Important information was not shared and tension between the two was common.
The prior leader believed in promoting internal competitive behavior. Additionally, he was mercurial in temperament and impulsive in communication. He believed that an appearance of toughness was a positive attribute. His aggressive style of communication was unfiltered. Both Andy and Chuck received calls at home in the evening with quick reactions to anticipated problems. There was no room during these angry and critical diatribes for explanations or discussions. These calls inevitably ended with an inexplicably angrier leader and his frustrated direct reports feeling disrespected.
Further, the prior boss opined, in private, to each about the other. He shared disparaging remarks both about each other as well as other members of the team. This unprofessional behavior was counterproductive in a number of ways. Andy and Chuck did not have a chance to get to know one another as colleagues might under less toxic circumstances. The underlying distrust in this “forced distance” structure spread to each of their staffs. Rumors that one or the other was leaving circulated periodically. (in fact, unbeknown to the other, each had quietly tested the outside job market.)
The resulting culture in this division was one of extreme caution, obedient attention to the political winds and a focus on protecting oneself from blame. These conditions resulted in a predictable lack of efficiency, creativity, engagement and revenue.
The removal of the toxic leader was an important first step. Yet, the fault lines of inefficiency, distrust and poor morale remained.
I started working with the pair shortly following the announcement of their promotion. There was a general euphoria at the news of the departure of the prior leader. Andy and Chuck shared typical reactions to the announcement of promotion and shared leadership. The beginning of their shared leadership contained the positive magical energy and ambition of the start of any serious relationship. Both parties recognized that many unions do not last, yet they still held optimism for the success of the relationship. This shared energy and enthusiasm provided the platform for exploring important issues.
As a first topic, each was encouraged to reflect and identify their core strength, the talent or trait which distinguished them from their peers. They used this to agree upon what each had to offer the relationship. Next, they identified stressors and triggers, and described the behaviors they showed under stress as well as what each could do to help their partner regain objectivity.
A 360 helped them to understand the impact of their own leadership and the challenges they faced within the organization that remained from the damaging actions of their previous leader. Conversations within the business were marked by low morale and an interest in which ‘side’ was going to win. Both Andy and Chuck’s teams poured their energies into making their side look good with the belief that either Andy or Chuck would prevail over time.
Our initial conversations led to a deep understanding of the humanity of each other and the organizational need to communicate unity within their leadership duo. They developed a structure and strategies to approach the first six months. They recognized how difficult situations might affect each other and did not fall into the trap of misperceiving behavior that may be driven by self-protective emotions. They agreed to present a united front to their respective teams. Because of the earlier work gaining a better and more balanced understanding of and respect for the other, this united front was genuine which had a strong, positive impact on their staffs.
This story has a happy ending for a number of reasons, including the willingness of the peers to work together and their shared relief that their prior boss was gone. The most important reason, however, was the CEO’s ability to anticipate conflict. He was determined to pick up the momentum lost by the toxic behavior of the prior leader. These valid concerns led to him taking the proactive step of calling for help at the outset of the new peer working relationship.
