TAKE 1

Commentary by Rick Rittmaster

Rick Rittmaster is the manager of learning and development at MTS, a global supplier of high-performance test systems and sensors.

I tend to think of these situations in two categories:

1. macro, systemic factors

2. micro, individual behaviors.

These factors operate within the same system.

From a systems perspective, Bayside Group is an organization in transition. Both Walter’s perspective and the needs of the city indicate that its vision is changing. The problem stems from the fact that its vision is significantly out of focus and it is lacking leadership. It is unclear where this organization is going, and as a result there is no alignment around tasks, projects, and larger initiatives. This lack of clarity is limiting the organization’s ability to advance the needs of the community it supports and is creating angst among its employees.

It’s common for people and teams to hold different perceptions around what it means to be strategic. For some, like Laura, strategic thinking involves setting future targets, and then diligently working toward those goals. For others, like Marshall, strategic thinking means taking advantage of opportunities in the moment that didn’t previously exist. Intuitively, it’s clear that having both perspectives on a team is good. However, these different perceptions can also lead to negative tensions, as seen within the Bayside Group.

From an individual perspective, a significant theme at the Group is a lack of trust. You can see it in Marshall’s micromanaging, Laura’s lack of accountability, and the team’s inability to have direct and challenging discussions. Additionally, there is ample research that middle managers are the most stressed, least happy individuals within an organization, all of which validates the tension and challenges that Laura is facing. Other common factors within this case study include a new leader failing to account for the organization’s existing culture. But, as I have commonly found in real life, there is no one “right” or “wrong” person. Conflict of this nature is almost always a combination of good intentions and opportunities for better collaboration; I see this mix within Bayside Group.

Before sharing any recommendations, it is important to begin from a place of empathy. I would avoid providing any initial recommendations (insofar as they point to direct solutions) and instead ask questions that guide Laura, Bayside Group, and others toward a productive solution. These questions have the added benefit of testing my recommendations without risking buy-in around next steps.

Laura has a very important role at Bayside Group, but also appears to have conflicting motivations that are affecting her engagement. It isn’t clear if or why Laura would want to stick with the organization. I would want to ask Laura questions that focus on her internal drivers and motivation. What are her beliefs about Bayside Group, both in terms of its past accomplishments and possibilities for the future? What does she want to get out of her experience at the organization? How realistic are her expectations? What does a “good” outcome look like from her point of view?

Bayside Group has traditionally been an integral part of the city’s organizational structure, supporting its mission and goals. However, the current environment indicates that recent efforts are misaligned and out of date. I would ask the organization questions that primarily focus on its purpose moving forward. Simply put, what does Bayside Group do? Where does it add the most value? Do businesses and citizens place the same value in its services as when the Group was founded? Where is it failing to meet expectations for its customers and stakeholders? Bayside Group’s management must first answer these questions and then secure the board’s approval.

Marshall must address his lack of focus, overly hands-on approach, and failure to account for the existing culture of the organization. My questions for him would focus on bringing certain elements of his management style into clearer focus: How have you been successful in past roles? Do those same strategies apply in this situation? You are not a local, and the previous leader had deep roots in the community. How has this fact affected how you lead the organization? How will Bayside Group account for the recent departures in staff? Are there any lessons learned from the employees who are leaving the organization?

Any sustainable recommendations would have to include Walter’s perspective because he was the impetus for much of the change. I would focus my questions for Walter on his views of the organization’s future: What does the Bayside Group of the future look like? Is it currently on a path toward that future? What does effective leadership look like, in your opinion? What was the vetting process for hiring Marshall? How well do Marshall’s actions demonstrate effective leadership?

Although this additional context would help me understand the beliefs and values in play and analyze root causes, it’s still important to remember that working with people is rarely straightforward. Thus, the simplest solutions often provide the biggest impact.

With that in mind, clearer accountabilities and a more focused organizational vision are two initial recommendations that would certainly benefit Bayside Group. How these problems are addressed is incredibly important. Any initial approach needs to do two things: First, allow for individual perspectives to be heard, and second, address business or operational concerns.

A well-facilitated SWOT discussion (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) can often address both of these topics. Any SWOT discussion should quickly be followed with a concrete definition of the problem or problems that the team will address. And ideally, problem statements would include both internal and external improvements. Because the team is now just two people (Laura and Marshall), a lessons learned discussion could also provide an effective alternative to a SWOT analysis. Whether SWOT or lessons learned, they need to devote specific questions to addressing the opportunity for clearer accountability. Both of these facilitation tools would lend themselves to exploring these topics in a healthy manner. Lastly, a RACI chart (detailing who is responsible, accountable, consulted, or informed) could help document decisions made around accountabilities and updated roles and responsibilities. Any such steps would not necessarily involve the board, although that would be a decision for Laura and Marshall. The board, however, should be informed of the analysis’s outcome.

This approach requires an expert to facilitate the discussion, but the facilitator must balance guiding the conversation without providing too much personal input. People in pain (and there is most certainly some element of pain within Bayside Group) need to be heard, and the facilitator must act as a conduit for that.

Beyond the initial solution, approaches around establishing team norms, process mapping, and even stakeholder-focused groups would all be highly beneficial. However, the application of these solutions should be driven by a clear and aligned understanding of the problems the team is trying to solve.

As for any tools or resources, I would suggest trying to balance the two perspectives I defined at the outset: a good understanding of the big, important problems and how a specific tool can help solve them, as well as the smaller, more achievable first steps—how the tool can help people make progress in an incremental but meaningful way. It’s an important balance, because you must always have a line of sight to the ultimate goal, while still encouraging daily actions that lead to success.

Any tools should build toward a common view of the problem or problems. This may be as simple as doing a SWOT analysis, but other situations may require a more robust assessment. The People Capability Maturity Model (PCMM), for example, is a very thorough exercise targeting specific developmental needs for a team, department, or entire organization. It helps the organization understand the maturity of its current people practices, and provides a useful perspective around how to localize and guide the maturation of the practices that are most effective. With teamwork as a general theme, the PCMM can identify specific areas of opportunity for Bayside Group to focus on.

Additionally, and after some type of organizational assessment, I would recommend tools and resources focused on team collaboration issues. Patrick Lencioni’s 2002 book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, has a nice resource for guiding a team through a series of activities and discussions to foster more trust and collaboration. Many tools of this nature exist; the critical benefit is providing a clear, pragmatic process to promote team engagement and alignment for everyone involved. Finally, regarding leadership: Taking on a new leadership role is extremely challenging. As the fantastic book The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter (Watkins 2013) articulates, one of the biggest risk factors is failing to adjust for the existing culture.

Unfortunately, I do believe the situation at Bayside Group is a common scenario. However, there are steps that can be taken to avoid these problems. At the simplest level, organizations break down when the foundations of teamwork are not in place. If individuals are unclear about their roles and responsibilities, if there is a lack of trust within the team, and if there is confusion around the purpose of the organization, then the team’s ability to be successful will be greatly affected. While focusing on areas like roles and responsibilities is not the most exciting part of leadership work, it is extremely valuable. The mundane, almost boring nature of these foundational elements is why they tend to get overlooked. And not surprisingly, it’s where problems also tend to start.

It is important to state that avoiding these problems does not require the title of president. Anyone in an organization can, and should, proactively seek to address concerns around the responsibilities and purpose of their role. Leaders are often grateful, if not relieved, to have a willing and collaborative participant on this topic.