Leading the Executive Team
Is there a right way to do it?
When Ed Land ran Polaroid, the company he founded, it was widely known that he almost never brought his executive team together and even directed them not to speak to one another, only to him. He was afraid that if members of the team interacted, they would put together the pieces of strictly limited secrets of film making that he had shared with each of them, which could undermine his leadership or result in one or more of them leaving to start a competitor. Other CEOs have behaved similarly for different reasons. The executive team might exist but only on paper.
At the other extreme, some CEOs insist that even in a globally-distributed enterprise, top team members should be co-located so that they can avoid time-zone challenges and easily collaborate with one another to address matters of urgent importance. In between this and Polaroid’s “team in name only” are all kinds of variations, representing the beliefs of different CEOs about the role of the executive team and how it should operate. This raises the question, “Is there a right way to do it?” If you are expecting the standard reply of “it depends” you would only be partially correct. In fact, the core functions of the executive team do demand that it be led in a particular way. Let’s examine those core functions.
The core functions of executive team members can be broken down into two elements: 1) the responsibilities connected to running their units and 2) their contribution to running the enterprise as a whole.
The responsibilities connected to running a unit include designing the organization of the unit, staffing it with the right talent, determining the work processes to be carried out with the support of whatever technology is best suited to the task, providing necessary budget and resources, monitoring performance and addressing issues, maintaining motivation, setting relevant policies, and adapting all of this when change is necessary.
Running the enterprise, on the other hand, involves thinking about organizational strategy, designing the organization overall, prioritizing the application of resources to opportunities, coordinating work across units, optimizing the performance of the entire system, creating the company’s culture, protecting the company’s reputation, creating the company’s products and brand, developing talent, meeting the demands of stakeholders, and taking steps to maintain competitive advantage.
The majority of the first set of functions can be managed without checking in with other executive team members although there are points of intersection where aligning processes, approaches and philosophies is important. The second set of functions benefit from interactions among members of the team who bring knowledge from their work and specialized expertise to the joint table. The tension between the two functions is palpable. If the unit one is responsible for underperforms, one’s leadership is called into question. If enough attention isn’t paid to running the enterprise effectively, the CEO and board will question one’s priorities. Despite the understanding that, “being a team player” should take precedence over one’s individual success, one dare not fail at their individual responsibilities. Hence the long hours and stress. Anyone who has been in a role on the executive team knows that there aren’t enough hours in the day to do both parts of the job as well as they are expected to be done.
Now back to the question of whether there is a right way to lead the executive team.
The first set of responsibilities requires that the executive team member be immersed in the operations of their unit. They need to be meeting with their direct reports and spending time addressing each of the functions for which they are responsible with regard to designing, running and improving the performance of their unit. While some of this work can be done virtually and without regard to global time zones, other parts of the job require one’s physical presence on location. For example, meetings with key customers need to take place where customers are based, rather than one’s own headquarters. Meetings with employees at different locations are also important from both a motivational standpoint and to receive input from those with their ear to the ground.
Likewise, setting improvement priorities is always a challenge, since there are more opportunities for improvement than time and money allow. When asked how these difficult decisions are made, one leader replied, “We don’t have a problem with that. I make the decisions.” However, the more effective organizations have a system that brings together input from the ranks with the strategic vision of those at the top. Being present to receive that feedback demonstrates a commitment by the leader to listen.
What this indicates is that members of the senior team shouldn’t spend their entire time at headquarters. They need to get out. Being located away from headquarters, perhaps in a region for which they are responsible, makes this easier but creates the opposite problem; losing the corporate perspective and ability to coordinate with one’s peers.
Studies of boundary spanning efforts in organizations show that in most cases, the time and effort spent on the enterprise part of the role by top team members falls short when it comes to effective coordination across units, developing corporate strategies, developing talent and adapting to change. This would imply that the senior team needs to spend more time together in conversation than is typically the case.
It doesn’t help, as I’ve addressed in other posts, that when the senior team meets together, time is often wasted and decisions aren’t forthcoming. The frustrations associated with working with the team can push leaders to pay attention to their individual responsibilities over their joint ones. The difficulties of working together as a team are compounded when each member of the team operates according to their own priorities and schedule. Even if they are co-located at headquarters, the senior team may find it difficult to work as a team for more than the absolute minimum time scheduled on the weekly or monthly calendar.
The right way to lead the senior team is with attention to the balance between individual and team responsibilities. With the understanding that occasionally a crisis will upset even the best laid plans, CEOs should manage their team’s calendars such that there are periods when team members are expected to be in their units or in the field and other times when they are expected to be together, working on a clearly specified, pre-set agenda of corporate activities. The CEO should attend to each member’s work with their units as well as their contributions as members of the senior team to the corporate agenda. Clarifying what is expected in terms of each will go a long way toward ending the chaos that results from team members deciding for themselves what to pay attention to when.
With modern technology, the blend between in-person meetings and virtual discussions among members of the senior team helps resolve the location question. The answer to whether people should spend their time in headquarters or the field is, “both.” Sometimes, they will be together physically and sometimes virtually. Deep strategic discussions require being together; quick updates and coordination can occur virtually. As CEO, you need to experiment with the mix that is right for your company.
Life at the top is stressful and requires a lot of time away from one’s home, wherever that happens to be.Modern technology helps but it shouldn’t be an excuse for avoiding travel when the job calls for it.Showing up in person, either at headquarters or in the field, still matters.