Triage in a poisonous culture

The phone call to explain just the bare bones of one very messed-up situation took a full two hours. There were systemic stresses, including outright physical danger, and a complex range of jealousies, finger-pointing, power grabbing and poor communication within and between teams operating in two locations.

We’re in danger physically

Marcus, the COO who phoned us for help, wasn’t kidding. Poor internal communications coupled with power struggles within his Fortune 500 manufacturing company had led to misunderstandings of critical safety protocols that threatened to shut down production so that workers’ lives would not be endangered. Training the hundreds of people who staffed the lines 24/7 had become nearly impossible because the COO’s three direct reports, who were charged with compliance, spent most of their time bickering over who should do what tasks and blasting fiery emails to one another, copying the entire C-suite.

…and financially

On top of that, strategy disputes among the directors who handled the firm’s important supply chain negotiations threatened to derail demand planning that was critical to protecting the company’s margins. The CFO was breathing down Marcus’ neck for a quick solution and made sure in executive team meetings exactly where he believed the problem originated. His distrust of Marcus’ leadership could not have been clearer.
The COO was rapidly losing control not only over his team but also of his reputation.

And it’s her fault

Marcus, in turn, blamed the CEO for hiring him into such a mess without giving him the slightest warning that his new assignment was a minefield. On the job just three months, he felt blindsided, and he let others on the executive team know it. When they lined up in support of the CEO, whom they saw as someone who had done her best to bring in top talent to address the operational problems that Marcus was squealing about, he felt his anger boil.

The courage to lead

However, as a seasoned executive, Marcus maintained a clear enough view to realize that he had all the operational skills he needed to succeed, if he could just get some help with the tangled interpersonal dynamics that were driving his division. He saw the possibility for a great save, in fact, so he reached out for assistance.

The path toward the first goal, creating cohesion within the executive team, became clearer when 360 degree assessments and life histories indicated that the CEO’s easy trust of people sometimes led her to delegate too much control, even when she should have seen that her troops were near revolt. Dr. Fish implemented a plan to help the CEO balance letting her executive team do its job while providing firm leadership. The plan incorporated lots of practice in clearly communicating goals and described what measurements, including of cooperation, would monitor her team’s progress toward them. Her team responded positively to having someone in charge, and the temperature of communications dropped, allowing actual information to be exchanged.

The assessments also uncovered some of the reasons behind the compliance officers’ belligerence: Each had been a military leader used to unquestioning obedience to his directives. Dr. Fish developed structured exercises to help them build the sort of community and team bonds that create cohesion within teams. When they began seeing the needs of their department as more important than their own needs, they were able to set aside their most controlling behaviors and work toward the success of their teams. Dr. Fish also tapped into their longstanding feelings of responsibility for their “troops” to motivate positive behavior toward the urgent compliance issues that threatened the line workers’ safety.

The chronic disputes between the supply chain directors were loudly echoed in the 360 degree assessments. The assessments, however, also revealed an important distinction in the ways the two colleagues presented their arguments: One calmly stated the reasons for his strategy, citing industry research and white papers to back his reasoning. The other, it was widely observed, sniped and whined in an attempt to gain backing for his viewpoint, which often was grounded in his personal comfort zone rather than in best practices. The director with the more balanced approach was given interim control of the department while his less secure partner worked with Dr. Fish to address his development needs.

As accountability rose and communications became clearer and more civil, Marcus was able to implement sound processes and gain traction on crucial safety and supply chain initiatives. His fellow executives had an easier time seeing him in a positive light, and as the mood loosened and their trust in him increased, he was able to use his good-natured humor to further engage their support.