EMA-I #1- The "Usual Suspects" - Posted 3/1/11

 

It is with a mixture and trepidation and pride that I write this inaugural blog for EMA-I. There is a sense of responsibility that, while we will all bring our skills and special experience to the endeavour, the first few entries need to set a level or a tone for those that follow.

With that in mind I have tried to craft five related pieces that I hope will provoke thought, raise a few smiles (knowing or otherwise) and generate some debate, but as usual only the reader can judge if this is successful.
This first piece was inspired by a conversation I had with Jim Carras where we were discussing the target market/audience for EMA-I. Here Jim is very clear that EMA-I is looking to provide a resource, a support and indeed a voice for those charged with delivering strategic change in an organisation. My immediate response was, “Ah. You mean the usual suspects.”

These are also sometimes referred to as the “go to” people. As we discussed this, I thought it would be interesting to capture and explore that thought, so what did I mean?

Well, in many places I have worked, and I have now worked in 10 companies, there is a group of senior, though not top, managers who are the ones who are always approached to deal with a crisis or major (strategic?) change. Where this group has existed, change has been easier, though not necessarily easy, to deliver. With this in mind, it could be illustrative to consider the characteristics of this type of group and see what we can learn from it.

At this point, I am reminded of a cover-band near me call “The Innocents.” Their strap line is “The names have been changed to protect the guilty”. I say this as I hope to deliver the points I wish to make without embarrassing any individual or group of individuals.

So, having reflected on the groups I have observed and been part of, here are the six aspects I think have set the more effective groups apart.

They possess a depth and breadth of knowledge of the industry/enterprise with a sense of perspective.
In my experience, where such a group has operated well they have possessed and demonstrated considerable knowledge of the industry and indeed the enterprise. This shows both individually and collectively. No one person need know it all, but each knows more than their own “silo” and collectively they cover the whole. The knowledge and experience is usually a balance of that gleaned from the existing enterprise and elements from other related companies/endeavours, ie it is not all inward looking.

In order to deliver this, the group will typically come from what used to be called in the City of London, the marzipan layer, an allusion to the thin, but essential layer used in cake decoration. The outside of the cake is the icing (read top executives, ‘C’- level) - these have the sweetest life. The body of the cake is the majority of the business, the industrial part that does the work. Linking these two layers and making it work are the marzipan layer of senior managers. They operate just below the icing, are not as well rewarded/sweet as that top layer, but are critical to the success of the organisation.

 

They have an underlying spirit of friendship, affinity and common purpose.
I have also noticed that in effective groups there is a level of camaraderie that is increasingly rare these days. This does not mean that they are all best buddies, in fact it is better if they are not so there can be a level of creative and dynamic tension, but that in general they get on and share more than just their work.

Like the point made on experience, they do not all have to have the same link with each other, but within the whole there are groups and the groups overlap, like a venn diagram, rather than remain separate and possibly divisive.

In a recent group in the UK, the support of a variety of football teams, was an effective link, but it could be anything.

It also manifests in the respect they show each other. This does not mean they always agree and there are never any fallouts, but rather that they can respect each other’s knowledge, experience, perspective and contribution.

They trust each other and are trusted by others, senior and junior.
Linked to that last point effective groups can be seen to trust each other, not to second guess or politic against an individual or group. More than that members are clearly trusted by their executive and by their staff. This is not to say they have a free rein, but rather that they will do the right things, consider the necessary aspects and on balance come up with the best solution or approach.

Where this does not exist one sees a high degree of duplicated effort and demands for immense amounts of detail that could allow others to make the fundamental decisions, rather than look to understand, refine and endorse the work of the group.

There are “just enough” of them to give the necessary coverage.
Interestingly the best groups have “just enough” members to give coverage and representation. The composition is not determined by role profile or level in the organisation, but rather settles on the smallest, effective number. Attempts to over populate the group, and thus duplicate elements usually fails and often results in something like a cuckoo moment i.e. one member displaces another from the group, bringing the whole back to the right size.

The right size will differ from company to company, but I have rarely seen it work well with greater than 10 or so members and more frequently the group is smaller.

Interestingly these groups are often self-selecting. They emerge rather than be created, and this does take time – time many short-term focused CEO’s, COO’s, etc. do not feel they have!

There is a level of security and stability within the group to give them confidence.
The members are usually pretty comfortable in their skin and in their more general role. While you could say that this is a natural consequence of the previous factors, I believe it merits separate identification.

This sense of security allows them individually and collectively to challenge and consider new possibilities. Without this inner security, the group’s work will be stifled and stagnate, being driven by personal agendas more than the common good.

The significance here is a warning that if there are too many moving parts and uncertainties that affect the group, then its previous effectiveness will be impacted – something for top management to consider. As they say past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

They run outside the formal organisation and are self sustaining.
I would also note that such groups are rarely found on organisation charts. They have formed through necessity or opportunity. They cross normal, formal business boundaries and while supported by the executive team in general, the group is not responsible to a single C-level member.

In part, this is the source of their success. They do what needs to be done, but are aware and balance a broad set of interests.

The self-sustaining aspect is also useful. I have observed that the relationships and affinities are developed by the members of the group and not by an outside agent, by that I mean no-one is put in charge or given responsibility to make it all work. Instead the group finds its own division of labour and hierarchy, if it needs one.

 

When this group works, it works very well, providing pace, quality and confidence. This should be no surprise as in many ways I have described many recognisable elements of a high performing team.

There are, however, some downsides. Here are a few:_

• The “usual suspects” can become cliquey and alienate others.
• It can be difficult to introduce new blood, either by design or necessity.
• It tends to set a cap on the organisation’s capacity for change, i.e.How much can they handle as such teams are difficult to either scale up or duplicate – just watch a company try and do too much.
• Unless managed well the group could become indispensable and irreplaceable.

The lessons I would take from this, and these can be explored at some later point are:-

1. You can’t just manufacture such a group instantly by throwing a set of individuals together; instead you need to grow and nurture it.
2. There needs to be a core set of knowledge and experience relevant to the organisation and its industry if this group is to be effective.
3. No matter how “professional” this group is it still needs a level of personal security to be effective. This security will differ from person to person, but without it self-interest will triumph at the corporation’s expense.
4. Recognise and respect the group and foster it as you would any key resource. Too often it relies on unconscious competence, so make this conscious if you are serious about change.

Hopefully, some of this will resonate? If not, please contribute your thoughts and alternative perspectives.