2.1.3 Aligning The Management Team
Organisational alignment is the cornerstone of successful implementation. It is defined as achieving a situation whereby everyone understands the current reality, everyone understands the destination and the journey and everyone appreciates his or her role in getting there.
However it is well nigh impossible to achieve this state of affairs if there is a lack of consensus among the management team themselves as to the current reality, the destination and the journey.
Uncovering a divergence of views among the management team is difficult because the members frequently do not wish to make their views known. The reasons are many but among the most common are:
- The management team is “ruled” by a CEO or GM who will not brook criticism or accept that there are other legitimate points of view apart from the ones that he or she espouses. Thus even if members of the management team hold contrary views, they see nothing to gain from airing them.
- Particular members might not want to be seen by their peers as having a different perspective. They don’t want to rock the boat or incur the displeasure of the CEO.
- “Group think” characterises management meetings because such meetings are dominated by one or two strong personalities who may also have a good track record in making the right decisions. Despite misgivings, the attitude adopted is that they were right last time so hopefully they will be right this time.
- Members have a vested interest in not disclosing unpopular or contrary views. It might damage his or her promotion prospects or enhance someone else’s. It might sow the seeds of their own demise – for example an organisational restructure that makes their own role redundant.
- Members may be reticent because to be otherwise might show up their lack of knowledge or information.
There are two possible solutions to this dilemma although for either to work, they need the support of the CEO.
The first is to make use of the Wagon Wheel strategic planning model. One of its many strengths is that it separates the development of the Commercial Plan - doing the right thing – from its implementation – doing things right. However, the Wagon Wheel is not complete until the rim and the metal band are attached to the hub by means of the spokes. Likewise, the business plan is not complete until, firstly the implications of the Commercial Plan (the hub) on the Support Functions (wagon wheel rim) are determined and hence on the two Enabling Functions of Human Resources and Finance (the metal band).
Organisational structures and their alignment to the Commercial Plan to facilitate its implementation are one of the key issues addressed under the HR heading. To minimise the odds that some members of the management team merely pay lip service to the changes, the Wagon Wheel business model has provision for a specific Action Plan – what, by when and by whom - and a process for identifying and addressing the key barriers to implementation. Lastly, provisions are made for monitoring and measuring progress towards the Plan’s goals and objectives.
One of the biggest barriers to change and by association to the alignment of the management team is success. Since it is estimated that 70% of people prefer the status quo, it is hardly surprising that in the absence of a major threat, the majority of the management team will cling to the status quo long after the quo has lost its status! If the business strategy seems to be working and its implementation is resulting in a level of profit that is at the least deemed acceptable, why change? So the Commercial Plan and its implications on operations are not rigorously reviewed and the great majority of the management team ceases to look for a better way and spend an increasing amount of time protecting their own turf and looking after their own interests.
It is only when the proverbial hits the fan and it becomes obvious to all members of the management team (and some members will spend an awfully long time in the room of denial) that the current Commercial Plan really is “broke”, that “doing the right thing” and “doing things right” will come up for serious debate.
So in the absence of a crisis that acts as a catalyst for a wide ranging review of the business, how else does one align the management team? One option is to make use of bpi’s Executive Management Survey (EMS) program.
The program is designed to measure the degree of consensus among members of the executive management on the current reality and the issues facing the company. It does this by means of a computer based survey that consists of over 300 statements that cover every aspect of business from Leadership, Strategic Planning and People Performance Management to Markets and Sales, Utilisation of Information and Corporate Citizenship.
Each member of executive management completes the survey anonymously by indicating whether he or she believes that each of the statements applies to their company or not. All the responses are subsequently sorted by statement, by sub-category and by main category – of which there are 10. The final report details the response to each of the 300 or so statements. Every participant is told which column of results is theirs but not whom the other columns represent.
This is followed up by a facilitated workshop where the implications are discussed. Every statement is expressed negatively so if all members of the management team were to hit the “applies to our organisation” button there would be 100% consensus that this particular issue should be investigated and addressed. Perhaps surprisingly, statements that every member believes applies to their organisation are rare, which brings to mind a quote that “no organisation is so screwed up that there isn’t someone that likes it just the way it is”!
Providing the commitment and follow-up is there, the EMS program is a powerful tool to forge alignment among the members of executive management. It must be remembered that one can meet the definition of organisational alignment stated at the commencement of this article without achieving the status of a high performance team. Unless executive management are given a purpose and goal that transcends each member’s functional goal, rivalry between members and personal interest will always exist. That doesn’t matter as long as each member understands the current reality, the destination and his or her role in getting there.