March 2008

In this Issue:

• Shared Leadership download article
• Boss's Body download article
• Auditing the Team download article

Shared Leadership

By Peter M. Smith

Redefining Leadership. The belief that a single person called a leader or manager can lead us to a successful future is a myth. Acts of leadership must come from all of us.

The pressure and stress that people in leadership positions face is enormous. Today, it is highly unlikely that a single person can provide the necessary leadership for all issues. Those in designated leadership roles and those who are followers need to let go of that expectation and embrace new ways of leading.

Some of our expectations of leadership fall into what has been referred to as the John Wayne School of Leadership. This viewpoint suggests that an individual who has the experience, knowledge, skill, charisma, vision, decision-making ability, interpersonal skills, respect, stature, role (position), etc. will provide the leadership to lead us out of this mess. We often expect that a person who seeks a leadership position or who occupies a leadership position have all of these characteristics. How many people do you know that fulfill your every expectation as a leader? It becomes easier to understand why people choose not to seek such roles.

What Is Effective Leadership? Among the solutions, I believe, is shared leadership. This implies the concept that the management team take on the responsibility for leadership. Thus, rather than perpetuating the belief that a single individual with enormous leadership abilities who is the formal leader can lead us to a successful future, we are in need of other individuals, who are group members, to take on responsibility for leadership. Particularly when he/she has the expertise, experience, or passion for a particular issue.

Shared leadership does not abdicate the formal leader's accountability. It does imply a shared responsibility for problem identification, solutions, and action taking. It also means the leader and management team skills need to include how work gets done (process) and task. Skills such as team building, conflict management, building a new culture (e.g., total quality) are among the skills leaders need to build successful organizations that compete in this highly competitive and changing economy we live in today.

Perhaps one of the great barriers to shared leadership is the inability or unwillingness to take risks. The failure to take risks can have a paralyzing effect on both the individual's and the organization's ability to learn. In spite of this rather common sense notion, we often seem to support the open second guessing of decisions—focusing on what is wrong or could have been done differently, rather than rewarding of the risk taking associated with making a decision.

Those in leadership positions need to create a climate in their organization that will encourage others to take risks, to confront the formal leader and others in the organization, to disagree, and to exhibit acts of leadership. It takes courage to put forth a viewpoint that is different from the prevailing or dominant thinking of a group. While it is the responsibility of the individual to put forth her or his idea (act of leadership); it is the group's responsibility to set up norms and an environment that supports the notion of risk taking and sharing leadership. The concept of shared leadership offers a way of increasing risk taking, innovation, and commitment that can create an organization that is responsive, flexible, and successful.

This shift in the leadership model from emphasis on the formal leader to a shared leadership model is subtle, powerful, and is needed now. The designated leader can no longer do it all. The stress, the complexity of the issues, the urgency for better decisions (not perfect decisions) places a burden on our leaders that few are willing to shoulder, much less capable of resolving alone effectively.

Often that initial act of leadership requires courage, conviction, faith and trust since their are no assurances that the followers will follow. Shared leadership recognizes this reality and supports individuals who are in formal leadership roles and those who exhibit acts of leadership.

© Peter Smith, of Peter Smith Associates.

top

Boss's Body Language

by Pat Mayfield, for Yahoo! HotJobs

Most employees pay attention to what the boss says, while the savvy employee also pays attention to how it is being said.  Bosses can be good at using -- not just reading -- body language, which may be one of the reasons they got to be boss in the first place.

Often the body changes quickly if the boss likes or does not like what he saw or heard, or if she is uncomfortable in what she is saying to you. So watch closely -- it happens in a nanosecond!

Here are some ways to help interpret the boss' body language:

Body Stance and Posture

Positive:

• Physically on the same level (sitting or standing).
• Directly faces you.
• Comes into your office rather than just standing at the door.
• In a group, sits or stands close to you.

Negative:

• Does not face you directly.
• Stands and looks down on you. (Ever have a boss who never sits?)
• Places both hands on his hips to create a wingspan. (Even the big guys and gals who don't need more "space" may do this.)
• In groups, avoids you, sits with others, or does not introduce you.

Eyes, Head, and Face

Positive:

• Looks you directly in the eye.
• Muscles around the eye are relaxed.
• Facial muscles are relaxed. Lips are their normal size.
• Pleasant face and friendly smile.

Negative:

• Rapid eye movement, does not look at you; has a cold, glaring, staring, or glazed-over look.
• Blinks more than normal.
• Raises one eyebrow as if in disbelief or doubt.
• Facial muscles are tight; lips thin out.
• Jaw muscles and clenched, and temple or neck veins throb.
• Smile is stiff and forced.

Hands, Arms, and Gestures

Positive:

• Hands are in view, opened, calm.
• Arms are open (but may be crossed in a comfortable position).

Negative:

• Hands are not in sight -- in pockets, or under the table or desk.
• Hands (in sight) are closed or in a fist; fingers tightly clasped.
• Arms are tightly crossed (defensive or protective position).
• Points or wags his or her finger aggressively.
• Drums his or her fingers or fidgets nervously.

Remember, sometimes body language is not about you. Bosses have their own issues and you might just be in the line of fire. Observe many situations and look for consistency for the full story.

© Pat Mayfield

top

Auditing Your Team

Great products are created by great teams and great businesses are made up of great teams. The idea of relying on individual performance has been replaced by an embracing of teams. From quality circles to teamwork training, companies are buzzing with a fascination for teams. There is no question that well-run, synergistic teams produce great results. But what happens when you find that your teams are not working for you? Do you return to a top-down hierarchical organization, or is there a way to fix a broken team?

The answer is yes, you can fix a broken team. Start with an audit.
There are two approaches to take with a team audit:

• You can audit the entire organization to determine if the team concept fits well with your organization.
• The second approach is to drill down to look at one particular team to find out what’s working and what isn’t.

Audit the Big Picture
Start by creating a cross-functional team to conduct an internal audit of the relationship between teams and the organization. The audit team should report directly to the CEO have complete authority to gather the information they need.
The internal audit team should answer 10 questions to determine how the team system is working:

1.  Did top management do its job?
Once management committed themselves to teams, did it help to make them work?
Management should demonstrate an understanding of teams, a clear plan for implementing them into the organization as well the culture, and objectives for the teams. They should also have plans for measuring those objectives. If there is no strong sense of commitment form management the employees will revert to old ways of working.

2. Has enough time elapsed?
Introducing the team concept to an organization can mean changing a company culture, and that takes time. Management must remain committed to the team concept for months before they see measurable change. In some cases it can take years.

3. Is the steering team a success?
Setting up a subteam of senior-level managers is necessary to guide and nurture team structure and operation. A steering team should  maintain a top-level view of all team activities to eliminate duplicate activity, write clear and explicit charters describing specific team projects and provide trust and reassurance that the team approach can and will work.

 4. Is a process and customer focus in place?
An organization must be oriented to processes and customers. Look for widely available, easy-to-read charts tracking work, rework, and schedules-and an orientation geared to both internal and external customers.

5. Is a new way of doing business evident?
There must be an entirely new system of rewards and performance evaluations. Look for positive guidance for team members during the transition and a transition structure to be in place. People need support, feedback, and encouragement to make the transition to teams work.

6. Are team goals clear and communicated effectively?
All team members must understand project goals. Find out whether there are achievable transition goals and detailed end goals that are communicated organization-wide and that agree with team goals.

7. Have tools such as benchmarking been used?
The main objective of benchmarking is to use successful innovations that others have developed and to fit those into your own operation. Benchmarking must become a way of life to improve team processes continually.

8. Have the teams been trained effectively?
We’re not referring to job skills but teamwork skills. Are they familiar with conflict resolution practices? Do they have good communications skills, brainstorming practice, and process methodologies?

9. Is teamwork evident?
Teamwork essentials must be in place. There must be mutual trust and respect among the team members. They should all work toward a common understood goal. The team leader should be accepted and respected by the team, and the team should enjoy their work.

10. Do teams feel empowered to manage themselves?
Empowerment means people have the freedom to act to achieve their goals without the need for permission at every turn. 

If a cross-functional audit team completes an internal audit impartially, it should be able to pinpoint the reason for poor performance. The correction could be a simple fix, such as providing more transition time. Or it may need a more complicated fix, such as revamping the entire organizational structure. Going into an audit, top management must realize that the correction may be difficult. And it must accept that the problem may be top management.

Drilling Down: The Team Audit

After the team system audit, the next step is to review individual team performance.
To find out why a particular team isn’t working, you can use a team development and internal audit form (see below). Any team with a low score (5 or less) on any element can identify the problem area immediately.

Each team member should complete the audit form anonymously and objectively. That provides a neutral ground for highlighting team deficiencies. You can calculate a rating for the entire team and compare it to the benchmark for other teams.

In addition, a team’s customers should complete the evaluation to provide another view of the team’s performance. Input should come from both internal and external customers. You can use that separate score to compare to benchmark scores for other teams.

A team that rates well on both measures can be comfortable about performance. A team that has a high internal score and a low external score, however, needs to get back in touch with customers.

An audit should be conducted at least twice as a benchmarking activity. The purpose of the first audit is to identify key team weaknesses and provide a current-state benchmark. You can conduct a second audit approximately six months after the first to measure improvement. Because continuous improvement should be a basic team objective, use the audit after benchmarking to guide a team through future activities.

It’s not enough to have an organization built on teams. The teams have to be highly-functioning and the organization must be committed to the success of the teams. A team audit is one way to ensure that success.

Individual Team Audit

Team name ___________________________       Date _______________

Rate your team from 1 to 10 where 1 means “Team Needs Improvement” and 10 means “Team Excels”.

Audit form designed by Thomas and Cherie Keen
For information on Kerr Hill’s program related to teams click here.

top