Recently, a newly appointed senior manager from a major company attended my course. On the first day, Sheila offered to the class that she had been tapped to lead a highly diverse, extremely decentralized team in her organization. Sheila admitted that this would be her first leadership challenge at such a level. This would be a new role for her. Sheila’s biggest fear was that the team would not accept her as a leader. When I asked her why, she explained that several more senior “insiders” had not been promoted to lead the team, and she had been brought in from a different group. Many of the people who used to be Sheila’s peers were now her direct reports. Sheila felt resentment in the air. In short, she was petrified. She needed an action plan.
This chapter provides an action plan for leading the creative team. It is composed of several conversations that leaders need to have with their teams. Too often, we see leaders who have an urgent need to sit down and get to the business at hand. Meanwhile, the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the room is the unspoken conversations that should be occurring between the leader and the team, namely: What is our goal? What do we expect from the leader? What do we expect from one another? What do I do if this is not working for me?
Goals are the defining characteristics of teams. A group is a collection of people; a team is a group of people with a shared objective. A creative team works with the conviction that collectively they can achieve more than they could working independently—that is, they deeply believe the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In our work with teams, my colleagues and I often spend quite a bit of time on goals. In one top management team meeting I facilitated, I suspected that the group did not share a clearly defined goal, so I passed out index cards and instructed everyone to write a one-sentence statement about what they thought others wanted as the goal and then, on a separate card, what the goal should be. I collected the cards, shuffled them, and distributed them randomly among the members. We then read them aloud, but preserved anonymity: no one was allowed to guess who said what, and no one was allowed to say, “I said that.” The point was to have a conversation about the goals of the group that was independent of the people who authored the cards.
The entire group then worked to sort cards into piles with similar themes. We first took on the task of what people thought the goal was. We called this the pseudo goal. Pseudo goals are not actually what anybody wants, but rather what we think others want. As suspected, the responses were not only all over the map, but several were completely contradictory. We found almost no agreement. And there was not a great deal of passion.
We then shuffled and distributed the set of cards that represented what people really wanted the goal to be and did the same thing. We called this the authentic goal. We quickly noticed two things: there was slightly more agreement about the goal, and there was most definitely more passion and clarity.
We spent the rest of our time drawing up a team charter using the authentic goal cards. We went through several iterations of sorting cards, and eventually, the group converged on a clear and compelling mission statement. The team agreed to revisit the mission statement within the next four months.
Once the team has a clear goal, it is imperative to lay out the day-to-day working expectations. Some groups set lofty and compelling goals, only to disappoint one another because they failed to understand their working expectations. This is because our expectations are often unspoken. They remain below the surface of a group’s conscious awareness and are usually not part of the team conversation. The key is to surface expectations early on so the group has an idea of what is expected of them. This is the process of excavating expectations.
The sky’s the limit when it comes to laying out expectations. I usually begin the excavation by asking each person to write five must-haves, five would-likes, and five no-no’s. With regard to the “must-haves,” all members of the team are asked to specify what they feel they cannot live without. It is important to note that this is not the time to make a list of resources that the group would like to have. Anything that is written down on these cards must be something that the people in the room have the power to either contribute or deny to others. This rules out asking for a new IT system, an increased operating budget, or requesting that so-and-so should be fired. For example, one team generated the following as “must-haves”: start meetings on time, be prepared, and give 24-hour notice if you can’t attend a meeting.
Most people have strong notions of what they expect and want from others. However, these wants and needs are often unspoken. Psychological contracts are the unspoken rules of engagement that people expect others to share. They develop unconsciously over time. Nevertheless, they are powerful. Once expectations are violated by an unwitting team member, a breach occurs, and then resentment brews.
I usually ask team members to also list behaviors and actions that they would like to have in a group—but that they consider luxuries—meaning that they are not essential but nevertheless are valued. By surfacing the “would-likes,” team members get a sense of what to expect from one another. One group that I worked with came up with the following “would-likes”: meetings should be no longer than sixty to ninety minutes and should have a check-in for five minutes at the beginning of the meeting—as opposed to immediately getting down to work.
The list of no-no’s are important for teams to discuss before a violation has occurred. Anything is fair game here. One group that I worked with had four no-no’s that they considered mission critical to avoid in their team meetings: checking e-mail and cell phone messages, taking cell phone calls, making cell phone calls, and interrupting others.
Once a goal is clarified and expectations are outlined, the team needs to get on with the work at hand. Unfortunately, leaders often fail to get out of the way of their team. I call this being on the tightrope because it is a balancing act: The key is not to disappear, but also not to intrude.
Let’s return to Sheila. At one extreme, she could dictate the team’s goal, bark out orders, and command the team to perform. At the other extreme, she could sit behind the stage and simply watch her team try to perform. Obviously, these are ridiculous extremes, and Sheila needed to be somewhere in between. I shared with her four ideas based on Richard Hackman’s The Design of Work Teams and asked her to envision which style she thought would work best with the team.
Top-down leadership: This style would give Sheila the most control. In such a model, she would have the ultimate say in selecting the team, determining its size, setting goals, outlining performance expectations, monitoring the team’s success, and evaluating team results. Top-down leadership is a good team design choice when team members are naive, have little experience, and need a lot of direction, and when the leader has the time and energy to invest. They might also be a good choice in hierarchical organizations, where reporting relationships are clearly outlined.
Self-managing team: A better design choice for Sheila’s team might be a self-managing team. Self-managing teams set their own performance expectations and goals, and monitor their own progress. Leaders are there to support and guide the team when needed. In this case, Sheila would collaborate with the team on a goal, but leave it to the team to decide on how to reach the goal.
Self-designing team: Another design option for Sheila is the self-directing or self-designing team. Self-designing teams make most of the decisions, plot their own course, select and recruit their own members, and consult the leader as needed. In this case, Sheila would relinquish control of the team’s recruitment of new members to the team itself. This may be a good idea if the team is aware of the talents of other members in the organization and they have effective networks.
Self-governing team: A self-governing team does all the things that a self-designing team does, but also has a much broader range of influence and authority over the larger organization.
To make an informed team design choice, Sheila needs to consider the experience and knowledge level of the team members, as well as her own knowledge and expertise. In addition, Sheila needs to consider the norms of the larger organization. I emphasized to Sheila that team design should be a conscious decision. In practical terms, Sheila needs to think through just what she wants to control and decide how much autonomy she wants to give the team. It is imperative to be transparent about expectations with her team before they begin their work. If Sheila does not have this open conversation about expectations, the risk she takes is that people will feel either overmanaged or underled. In other words, if Sheila is treating the team in a top-down fashion, but members believe they are capable of self-direction, she will be viewed as overmanaging or micromanaging the team. Similarly, if Sheila is taking a background role but the team members need her guidance, she will be viewed as an absent leader.
In my research, that tracks leaders’ self-assessments of their own styles, I discovered that the dominant team leadership style is a self-managing team—52 percent of team leaders describe their own style this way. The second-most-popular style is manager-led—42 percent of leaders report using that style; and only about 6 percent use a self-directing style. However, when I take a deeper look at those leaders who primarily lead creative teams, it is twice as likely that these leaders use a self-directing style (12 percent), suggesting that leaders of creative teams are more likely to empower their team than those leading problem-solving and tactical teams.
The chances that a leader is going to perfectly hit the mark with his or her team is slim to none. So I tell leaders to plan on not being perfect, to stop moping and blaming others, and to instead get feedback and figure out what they need to do differently.
Too often leaders treat their teams purely as a task or a job and are not open to changing their style or approach midcourse. Whether leaders realize it or not, leading a team means being in a relationship. Excellent leaders talk about their relationship with their team, how they want to improve it, and what they would like to work on. A large-scale, longitudinal investigation of 828 employees on 116 teams working in a Chinese iron and steel manufacturing company tested this hypothesis. Over a six-month period, supervisors displayed high levels of respect for and trust in their employees to see if this affected the employees’ self-efficiency and creativity. The relationship the leaders had with their team members revealed that employees’ self-efficacy—the belief that they could accomplish something—rose from 72 percent satisfaction to 82 percent, and also had a positive effect on creativity.
What might Sheila do with regard to building the relationship? Consider three key objectives: (1) communicate her leadership style, (2) ask for feedback from her team, and (3) discuss how each group member could either sabotage the team or work to make it a success. The last question was a potential can of worms, but Sheila was encouraged to be open and candid about how each member of the team had the power to either help or dismantle the team. It was also probable that if Sheila asked for the team’s support, they would be less likely to work against her.
Once Sheila has done all the above, her work does not end. Every leader is a work in progress. Thus, Sheila needs to think about how she might seek feedback on a regular basis from the team as to her effectiveness. I proposed two formats: (1) one-on-one and (2) team-based. First, Sheila can meet with her team members on a one-on-one basis periodically. I cautioned Sheila to not ask, “How am I doing?” This is an evaluative question that puts pressure on the respondent to simply say, “Fine” or “OK” or perhaps, “Awful.” If you want to learn and grow, avoid asking questions that can be answered with a single word. Rather, I encouraged Sheila to ask, “What would you like to see more of from me? Less of from me?” In other words, excellent collaborative leaders formulate questions that give permission to the other person to give feedback. For team-based feedback, I encouraged Sheila to periodically ask the group three questions: (1) What’s working for this group? (2) What needs changing? and (3) What is missing that should be added?
Not only will you learn from every experience if you change your line of questioning, your boss apparently will take notice, too! People who ask for feedback are rated by their supervisors as more creative. What’s more, those who solicit feedback directly and monitor the environment for indirect feedback achieve more creative outcomes.
Most people are starved for feedback, and most of all, they want feedback from their leaders. In fact, the Millennials who have now joined the business world like to know how they’re doing weekly or even daily. Millennials were raised with so much affirmation and positive reinforcement that they come into the workplace expecting such discussion. This is a generation treated so delicately that many schoolteachers stopped grading papers and tests in red ink. Managers have reported cases of Millennials breaking down in tears after a negative performance review, some going so far as to quit their jobs. In MBA programs, instructors receive grade inquiries from the parents of twenty-six-year-old students.
To be sure, a big part of teamwork is to grow and develop team members. For this reason it is imperative to give members the right type of feedback. Consider the distinction between informational feedback and evaluative feedback. Informational evaluations don’t apply pressure but instead give useful information. An example is, “Anyone can solve problems by coming up with conventional solutions, but the employee who is creative and offers unique ideas stands out. This evaluation will help you learn something that will be useful to you in the future. Remember, we are interested in your creativity.” Controlling evaluations, in contrast, use features that achieve a specific outcome, or pressure to perform. For example, “You are going to be judged on how creative you are by experts in human resources, who are knowledgeable and tough. These experts will critically evaluate your solutions to the problems by analyzing every point you make in the memo and judging if it is creative or not.” In a study that compared the impact of both types of evaluations, people were more creative and more intrinsically motivated when they anticipated an informational evaluation rather than a controlling evaluation.
What are the characteristics of leaders who have particularly successful teams? Excellent leaders exhibit these eight key behaviors and characteristics.
1. EXCELLENT LEADERS HAVE A LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO TALK ABOUT THEIR LEADERSHIP STYLE. Excellent leaders consciously and explicitly communicate their style to others; they explain themselves and the rationale for using their approach. Sheila was encouraged to self-describe her intended leadership style in behavioral terms and talk about the relationship between herself and the team.
2. EXCELLENT LEADERS ENGAGE IN RECIPROCAL COMMUNICATION. Excellent leaders ask questions like, “What aspects of my style are working for you?”; “What aspects are not working?”; “What should I do more of?”; “Less of?” Excellent leaders assume there are aspects of their leadership style that are not working for everyone and take steps to identify them.
3. EXCELLENT LEADERS ARE ON A PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT MISSION. Excellent leaders involve their team in their own personal development mission (“I could be better; this is what I’m working on now,” etc.) and they simultaneously support their team as they grow and learn. I warned Sheila that just like other leaders, she will probably disappoint, or even frustrate her team and when this happens, instead of sulking or blaming others, she should seek feedback.
4. EXCELLENT LEADERS OFFER DEVELOPMENTAL FEEDBACK. Excellent leaders do not shy away or avoid conversations that focus on how people can improve. Whereas it is often more comfortable to simply praise others, really good leaders approach every interaction as a chance for personal improvement—in themselves and others. Most people want much more feedback from their leaders than they actually get. I coached Sheila to plan on giving about double the amount of feedback she believes people need from her.
5. EXCELLENT LEADERS DISPLAY INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE. People want to be treated fairly. For example, a study of creativity among dissatisfied employees reveals that even when job dissatisfaction is high, employees will be creative if they get useful feedback from coworkers and feel that their organization is supporting them. This is why it is imperative that Sheila have a well-thought-out leadership style that she can consistently and accurately describe to others.
6. EXCELLENT LEADERS ARE TRUSTWORTHY. Excellent leaders earn trust through behavioral consistency and by focusing on the higher goals of the organization. Leaders put personal self-interest aside and focus on the mission.
7. EXCELLENT LEADERS HAVE AN AMBIDEXTROUS STYLE. Excellent leaders have the ability to switch seamlessly between exploring and exploiting behavior for the purposes of ideation and production. Exploration is the creative aspect—the relentless motivation to keep trying new things and experimenting, even if that means making mistakes. In contrast, exploitation is the get-it-right-and-then-stick-with-it aspect—the need to develop airtight procedures that will guarantee consistent results. These two activities are complementary in the sense that one is an opening-up approach (exploration) and the other is closing (getting to market). The key point is that to be an effective creative collaborative leader, the hybrid model—one that uses both approaches—is necessary. As an example, consider a team that perfects a certain product. They rigorously test it and then eliminate all errors and it works flawlessly. However, time passes, and new companies enter the market and new technologies develop that begin to date the product. The team needs to experiment with how to refine the product in light of the changing environment.
3M would never have developed the smashingly successful Post-it Notes if the glue had actually worked as intended. In 1968, 3M chemist Spencer Silver developed a high-quality but “low-tack” adhesive made of tiny, indestructible acrylic spheres that would stick only where they were tangent to a given surface. Over a period of five years, Silver shared his product idea with colleagues at 3M, informally and in seminar presentations. A marketable use of the product proved elusive, and Silver’s temporary adhesive was deemed useless by the company—until colleague Art Fry attended one of Silver’s company presentations and had a brainstorm. Fry, an employee of 3M’s New Product Development lab, had been frustrated by the fact that, in church, when he opened his hymnal, the paper bookmarks that he used to mark the songs on the program would slip out. Fry, daydreaming during a dull sermon, realized that Silver’s reusable adhesive would solve this problem. Returning to work, Fry wrote up his idea for a reliable, reusable bookmark and presented it to his supervisors. Management worried that the product would seem wasteful and nearly scrapped the idea. But minds were changed when the 3M office staff loved the initial samples. It took another five years to perfect the specifications and design machines to manufacture the notes, but in 1980, Post-it Notes were introduced nationwide.
The ambidextrous leader switches between exploring and exploiting styles to deal with the evolving requirements of the innovation process. In short, the team needs permission to experiment and fail in order to eventually succeed.
8. EXCELLENT LEADERS ARE TRANSFORMATIONAL. Transactional leaders treat leadership like a bank account. They make investments in people and expect returns; they keep track of costs and expenses, they measure things like productivity, efficiency, cost, and so on, and they approach relationships as a series of discrete transactions. They use carrots and sticks. This style of leadership assumes that people are inherently extrinsically motivated by seeking rewards and avoiding punishments. Transactional leaders tend to endorse these kinds of leadership beliefs: “I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets”; “I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts”; “I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets”; “I display a sense of power and confidence”; and “I keep track of all mistakes.”
In contrast, transformational leaders focus on goals as a unifying, igniting device. They don’t see individual transactions; they see possibilities and a web of relationships. Transformational leaders tend to resonate more with these types of beliefs: “I talk about my most important values and beliefs”; “I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished”; “I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose”; “I articulate a compelling vision of the future”; and “I help others develop their strengths.”
Transactional leaders hold a strong belief that work needs to be specific, performance expectations need to be clear, and rewards need to be forthcoming if the job is accomplished or punished if the job is not done. Conversely, transformational leaders don’t rely on the carrot-and-stick approach to motivate people, rather, they set a vision and set their team free, showing confidence in their ability to accomplish the vision.
Transformational leaders are more likely to engender creative employees. They influence employee creativity through psychological empowerment. The positive relationship between transformational leadership and team creativity is even stronger when the leader is strong in task and relational support. Similar positive results for transformational leadership have been observed in developing countries and newly developed industries. Transformational leadership also is related to increased creativity in collectivist cultures, such as South Korea’s.
People hold high expectations of leaders, and leaders who make missteps are evaluated harshly. Below, I outline potential leadership traps: the power trap, the knowledge trap, and the confirmation trap.
The power trap is the insidious tendency for those in power to potentially be consumed by it. For example, people who have power behave in ways that are riskier and more insensitive than those who are not in power. On the one hand, powerful people are not afraid of playing devil’s advocate, but they can often be insensitive to those around them. Powerful people generate more creative ideas, conform less to others’ opinions, and are more influenced by their own value system. But they are also more likely to interrupt others, make risky decisions, and outright ignore others. And the effects of power on human behavior can be triggered by quite subtle cues, such as seating arrangements and arbitrary designations.
I asked Sheila about how she uses power. Specifically, I asked her to think about something she wanted to achieve in the past month that required an influence attempt on her part. Some of the things she listed included: trying to get a client to agree to change a deliverable date; asking colleagues for more resources; trying to gain inclusion into an important project or group or presentation; trying to change job responsibilities or perks; and trying to change the time of a meeting. I then asked her to think about what she did to influence the team. People use power in different ways to get what they want. Most of the time, we are not consciously aware of how we are using power. The five most common sources of power are:
Legitimate: Legitimate power is based on a person’s formal position. The target of legitimate power complies because of a belief in the legitimacy of the power holder. I know of a professor who insists that all subordinates—students, staff, and so on—call him by his formal title. I also know of some company leaders who are quick to find out the status and title of others in their organization and how many direct reports they have. In our example, Sheila might simply announce to her group that she holds the job title that requires that her subordinates comply with her. Leaders who are low in organizational status are more effective when they use a directive style, so as to establish their authority. Conversely, leaders who enjoy high organizational status are viewed as more effective when they use a participative style.
Reward: Reward power is based on a person’s ability to grant rewards; the other person complies because of a desire to receive rewards. For example, Sheila might promise certain benefits or rewards to her team if they work with her.
Coercive: Coercive power is based on a person’s ability to punish. The other person complies because of a fear of punishment. For example, Shelia might threaten members of her team with a poor performance review or unattractive assignments if they fail to comply.
Expert: Expert power is based on personal expertise in a certain area. The target of influence complies because of a belief in the power holder’s knowledge. For example, an expert witness holds a lot of power and influence in a jury trial because of their depth of knowledge of a subject. In many ways, expertise and experience is what Shelia fears she is most lacking. She fears that the members of her team do not see her as skilled enough to lead the team.
Referent: Sometimes, a person’s power is based on the fact that they are respected, attractive, trustworthy, and nice. The classic Vicks Formula 44 cough syrup television commercial in which two spokesmen successively pitched the over-the-counter medication with the line, “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV” relied on referent power. The spokesmen were soap opera actors Chris Robinson (who played Dr. Rick Webber on General Hospital) and Peter Bergman (who played Dr. Cliff Warner on All My Children). The actors were quick to admit they did not have legitimate nor expert power but were instead relying on the fact that people liked the characters they played. Referent power is based on a person’s attractiveness to others. The target audience complies because they respect and like the power holder. Often this is the type of power that highly charismatic and attractive people use. It is unclear whether Sheila possesses such power. And even if she does, she does not feel confident in her ability to pull her team together.
Bottom line: leaders who use legitimate, referent, and expert power are evaluated more favorably than those who use coercive power and even reward power. Leaders who let power go to their heads are in trouble because they often become more verbally dominant—in short, they talk too much! When leaders are verbally dominant, the team sees them as less open to ideas and communication. For this reason, I cautioned Sheila to let others talk and minimize her own pontifications.
The knowledge trap is the faulty belief held by leaders that they must know more than others and have the ultimate answer. This ego-driven perspective may imperil the ability of subordinates to suggest new ideas. It is not surprising, then, that some teams work around the leader or the larger organization. They may meet at night or even have separate e-mail accounts and code names if they suspect that the larger organization is not supportive. Creative deviance refers to such actions taken by employees who choose to buck their leader’s orders and pursue new ideas ex officio/on their own authority. The Pontiac Fiero, the first midsized commercial car in the United States, was developed after orders from upper management to stop working on the project were ignored. The film The Godfather was born when a filmmaker disregarded Paramount Pictures’ orders about where the story should take place, the budget, and the cast.
The Nordstrom Innovation Lab is an example of leadership that knows how to avoid the knowledge trap. It’s an edgy start-up inside of Nordstrom that meets every week after hours to figure out how to do things better the next week. The team builds a new product every week and fully expects 30 percent to fail completely. If these employees did not experiment with creative deviance and if they believed that upper management had all the answers—then the culture-changing products that they create would never be born. Teams are more likely to experiment with creative deviance when the organization places a relatively greater value on creativity than conformity. What’s the catch? By inviting creativity, organizations create uncertainty because no one can predict whether the pursuit of a new idea will actually result in a positive outcome.
The confirmation trap is the tendency for leaders to say that they want others to speak their minds, when in fact they really want others to agree with them. In short, leaders want others to give the appearance of being thoughtful and comfortable with controversy, but in the end, they want others to confirm their own ideas. Winston Churchill was intimately aware of the powerful confirmation trap and how it could place a stranglehold on effective leadership. For that reason, when he developed the Central Statistical Office in World War II, he expressly told his team to “bring me the bleakest, most depressing news.” Churchill recognized the negative effects of the confirmation trap. When teams believe that leaders want to hear only certain messages or good news, this blocks the flow of essential information and can threaten creative collaboration. Groupthink is often a consequence of the confirmation trap in which team members self-censor their own doubts and rationalize inconsistent information so as to agree with what they believe the team—and the leader—wants to hear. The creative collaboration approach stands in sharp contrast to the dysfunctional groupthink process. However, the creative collaboration process must be deliberately engineered—just like Churchill did with the Central Statistical Office—the leader of the creative team must set the stage for bad news and controversy to be expressed.
Chapter CapstoneAs a leader, you’ve got a lot on your shoulders. It begins with articulating the mission. Too often, teams begin without having a mission or a map. Once the leader has clearly articulated the mission, it is imperative to excavate the working expectations. Too often, these are unspoken and team members innocently violate one another’s assumptions. Leaders need to strike a delicate balance between letting the team do its work and overseeing the team. The leader who gives the team a preview of how he or she leads has a much better chance of meeting a team’s expectations. The likelihood that leaders will perfectly hit the elusive mark of being the person that the team has envisioned as their leader is a long shot. So leaders should anticipate that they will disappoint their team and then figure out how to quickly get data on what they should do differently.