The Structure and Roles Themselves Can Be the Cause of Problems

Keep in mind that not only will you inherit a team, but you will also inherit a structure and set of roles that might range from tightly defined to loosely implied. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the structure and roles are properly defined for what the group is trying to achieve. Often they are years old and were created for a mission that no longer exists. Take a step to eliminate ambiguity and clarify roles and responsibilities so they are clearly understood and precisely match the team's Burning Imperative. This is why you may want to wait until Day 70—by then, you have established your Burning Imperative (providing strategic context for structure and roles) and observed team members in action (providing context for matching individuals to roles).

Sometimes a team member is well suited for 90 percent of what's required in the role, but is seen as underperforming because he or she struggles with the 10 percent of the role that is not a match for him or her. Those elements of a role that are a significant mismatch for the person holding the role are role outliers. Role outliers are relative to the individual, not the role itself. They might make sense as a part of a greater role, but not when assigned to a particular individual as part of that role.

Sometimes role outliers can be revealed with one simple question: What's the least favorite part of your job? Listen to the answer, probe for more information, and you'll eventually uncover the obvious culprits. Find these and root them out. Assign those role outliers to others on the team who may be better suited to deliver against the requirement. Slight changes in role can have a dramatic impact on performance, levels of engagement, and satisfaction. Don't be afraid to be creative and avant-garde when redefining roles.

When Barry took over as chief executive officer of a marketing services company in London, he identified a need to improve the company's customer service capability dramatically. The company's ability to serve its customers had not kept up with the pace of innovation. The company had great products but poor customer service. This issue was identified and accepted as a priority by the team during the Burning Imperative workshop.

Responsibility for customer service sat with the vice president of sales, and despite positive intentions, he was unable to give the group the attention it required as its mission evolved. The customer service team was focused on reacting to queries, not proactively solving problems and ensuring strong usage and satisfaction. As the business evolved, fixes required input from others outside the customer service team. Cross-functional collaboration was required but the customer service team still needed to lead the way.

Given the urgency for better customer service, Barry carved the group out of sales and had them temporarily report directly to him. Immediately the team co-created enhanced customer service requirements and then restructured individual roles to ensure that the entire team was focused on delivering a far more proactive customer experience. Armed with new service objectives and enhanced role clarity, Barry appointed a committed team member to the new role of director of customer experience to lead the charge.

With a new focus on customer service objectives, greatly increased role clarity, and a leader focused on implementing, the team quickly made great strides in customer service and satisfaction. In addition, free from the burden of managing customer service, the sales leader was able to focus more of his time on developing a stronger sales organization, and sales began to increase.

A Framework for Planning

When it comes to sorting people and roles on your team, you need to work with a short-term and a long-term framework. Initially, you must look at your team to determine whether any short-term moves should be made—before Day One in a merger, by Day 70 in other cases. Then, in the longer term, you must continue to develop your team. This chapter deals with the shorter time frame. We'll go into more depth on some of the longer-term aspects in Chapter 8.

To accelerate both short- and long-term team development, think in terms of Acquiring, Developing, Encouraging, Planning, and Transitioning talent (ADEPT). The headlines are in Table 7.1.

When Things Aren't Working, Don't Wait…

It is a classic tale. It was the seventh game of the 2003 American League Championship Series. The winner moved on to the World Series. The New York Yankees, perennial winners, and its pitching ace, Roger Clemens, versus the Boston Red Sox, with 86 years of disappointment and its pitching ace, Pedro Martínez.

Fourth inning: Clemens is struggling. Yankees manager Joe Torre takes him out—early, decisively, without much discussion.

Eighth inning: Martínez is struggling. Red Sox manager Grady Little goes out to the pitcher's mound and asks whether Martínez has “enough bullets in (his) tank.”

The response: “I have enough.”

Little leaves him in. “Pedro wanted to stay in there,” Little said. “He wanted to get the job done, just as he has many times for us all season long.”

As Martínez put it, “I would never say no. I tried hard and I did whatever possible to win the ballgame.”

Martínez and the Red Sox proceed to blow the lead and lose the game. Once again Clemens, Torre, and the Yankees go on to the World Series whereas two weeks later, Little loses his job.

As the sportswriters put it, Little's decision was “based more on loyalty and emotion than logic.”

From Torre's point of view, “In Game 7, you've got a short leash. I'd worry about his emotions after the game.”

There is a lot in common between Game 7 and a complex transition. Everyone is on a short leash. So it's essential to move early, logically, and decisively.

…And, When Things Are Working, Stick with the Plan

Super Bowl history changed in 2015 on a single play stemming from perhaps the most damaging coaching call ever. The game was all but over. Seemingly, all the Seahawks had to do to win the game was give the ball one final time to Marshawn Lynch, their hard-charging, league-leading tailback.

With only 26 seconds left in the game and one yard from victory, Seahawk coach Pete Carroll ignored what had worked for his team all year. Despite the fact that the Seahawks were the best running team during the season, and Lynch had already gained more than 100 yards in the game, in his most crucial moment as coach, Carroll overthought his move and didn't play to the team's strengths. He didn't hand the ball to Lynch. He didn't even fake to Lynch and have his nimble quarterback scamper outside for a touchdown. Instead, with the game on the line, he called a pass play. It was intercepted. The Seahawks lost.

After the game Pete Carroll took full blame for the call and said, “We were throwing the ball really to kind of waste that play.” “I hate that we have to live with that.”

As a leader, it's never sound strategy to waste a play or temporarily lose your identity and ignore what got you there.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the ball, Malcolm Butler, the Patriots' rookie cornerback, admitted he had been beaten on the same play during practice and was told by coach Bill Belichick, “You gotta be on that.” Belichick did not call a time-out to devise a new strategy or insert new players. He trusted his well-trained players on the field to execute, regardless of how Seattle played it. Butler anticipated the play and after the game, said, “Memorization came through.…I jumped the route.…I just did my job.”

With one horrible decision, the Seahawks lost their chance to win the Super Bowl. By sticking with who got them there and what they were trained to do, the Patriots emerged as winners. Again.

Don't Let One Bad Apple Spoil the Batch

Charlie was the new head of the division. One of his direct reports, Jack, was deploying blatantly passive-aggressive tactics to undermine Charlie's authority.

On a regular basis, Jack would:

1. Sit in the back of large meetings and carry on side conversations during Charlie's presentations.
2. Refuse to work on the agreed divisional priorities until he and his team had completed their annual plans presentation.
3. Refuse to do prework for Charlie's meetings because he didn't think the process was meaningful.

When it was suggested it was time to remove Jack from the team, Charlie responded, “Can't do it. My boss put Jack in place and I'm reluctant to make a move with someone he hired. I'll just work around him.”

“If you remove Jack, there is a chance that your boss will think less of you as a manager because you didn't give Jack a chance. But, if you do not move on Jack, you will get fired within six months because Jack is going to make sure your team does not work.”

Charlie removed Jack and filled the role with someone who was openly committed to the team's Burning Imperative. Six months later, Charlie's team had delivered on its early wins and was on schedule to deliver on its stated objectives. Charlie's boss commented on the high level of team unity, focus, and morale. He made no mention of Jack.

This story and the story of the Red Sox beating the Yankees in the American League Championship Series make the same point. You have to do what is right for the organization and what's right for the individuals. You have to find a way to get the right people in the right roles at the right time. You have to do it early and decisively. You should be aware and respectful of their emotions—but never let them interfere with making the right decisions at the right time.

Keep People in the Right Roles

Iris was promoted from chief operating officer (COO) to president of her division. One of her first moves was to move someone into her old role. For that job, she selected Jamil, who had been doing an excellent job as the head of technology. Over the years of working with Jamil, Iris felt he was intelligent, possessed great people skills, and was completely reliable. She assumed he'd be a natural for the COO role.

After promoting Jamil to the COO position, she also asked Jamil's top technology person, Rita, to assume the now vacant head of technology role. Initially Iris was quite pleased with the new team composition and felt confident in her potential for success. However, within the first 30 days as she worked with her team to co-create a new Burning Imperative, she started to see that Jamil was failing miserably because he was totally unaccustomed to the more consensual decision making of senior management. He was struggling to adjust and causing friction among the other team members. Meanwhile, Rita had continued going about her job as if nothing had changed and was ill equipped to handle her new management responsibilities. As a result, the technology team made several costly mistakes, something that had never happened under Jamil's leadership.

Iris was faced with a tough decision: admit that her first moves were a mistake, or try to live with the wrong people in the wrong roles. She needed to move quickly and correct the mistake. Living with the wrong people in such crucial roles would have been certain disaster. Convinced, Iris made the difficult choice to reorganize again. She quickly found a seasoned COO to run the division operations. She moved Jamil back into a technology role with a new title and added responsibilities that she knew he could handle, and Rita was relieved of her management responsibilities. It was a painful retrenchment in the short term, but the realignment quickly produced benefits for the entire team. The team appreciated Iris's willingness to correct her own mistakes for the betterment of the team.

Cut the Pain Out Early (or, at Least, as Early as Practical)

Sherman had just taken over as general manager. He knew he had to improve both the sales and marketing functions dramatically, as soon as he could. To achieve that, he knew that he had to replace the heads of both functions, but he also knew that both were extremely valuable, respected employees who could make important contributions in other roles that would better leverage their strengths, motivation, and fit.

So Sherman began searching for their replacements immediately, while being open with them about what he was doing. He worked closely with them early on to build strong personal relationships with them and let them know that they were still of value to the organization, but that their roles would change to better fits within the changing organization.

Six months later, Sherman hired new heads of sales and marketing. He assigned the previous leaders as direct reports, but he put them in new, more appropriate roles that enabled them to make an important impact on the organization and actively helped their replacements succeed.

How Fast Should You Move on the Team?

In general, have your plan in place to sort roles and make people moves at the end of 70 days or 10 weeks. There will be times when you need to move much faster and times when it will take you longer to implement the plan, but the seventieth day is a good target time frame to have it all figured out.

There is a risk in moving too fast. The risk is that you'll make poor decisions and come across as too impulsive. By the seventieth day, you will have had a chance to see people in the Burning Imperative workshop, in the milestone management process, and for some of them, in the pursuit to deliver on an early win. By Day 70, you should have enough information to make those crucial decisions.

There's a larger risk in moving too slowly. At about 100 days, you own the team. Once you own the team, the problem children become your problem children. You can't blame the team's failings or unresolved issues on your predecessor anymore. Also, the other team members know who the weak links are, and they might have known since before you took the helm. They will want you to make the tough moves. The number one thing high performers want is for management to act on low performers so the whole group can do better.^* If you move too slowly, the other team members will wonder what took you so long.

To be clear, you may not be able to implement your decisions all at once. You may need to put in place transition plans that support weaker team members or keep strong team members in the wrong roles during the time it takes to get their replacements on board and up to speed. It's not that you should make all your moves in your first 70 days, no matter what. But you should have the plan in place and begin making moves as appropriate and do so with a bias toward making the moves sooner rather than later.

A Pivotal Leadership Moment

Jeng-li knew he had a problem with his lead general counsel, Susanna. Her communication and management style along with her negative attitude and questionable values created a work environment that was far from what Jeng-li and the rest of his management team were trying to instill in the organization. However, he hesitated to do anything about it because he was worried how she might react and the resulting fallout. It turned out that everyone else on the management team was uneasy around Susanna, too. Eventually things got so bad that he could no longer avoid the problem. So he called in the corporate human resources (HR) people, and together they mapped out the plan to transition Susanna out of the organization.

Jeng-li scheduled a meeting with Susanna for four o'clock the next afternoon. At that meeting he and the corporate HR person presented the transition plan to Susanna, and she was immediately escorted out of her office. Susanna had sensed the moment coming and left without incident.

Having successfully kept the transition plan under wraps until the last moment, Jeng-li knew that the news would get out quickly after the conversation with Susanna. He wanted to be the one to tell people what he had done and why. So, knowing that everything communicates (including the order in which people are communicated to), he thoughtfully planned whom he would communicate to, when he would do it, and in what order. Immediately after his meeting with Susanna he told, in order:

1. His direct reports.
2. Susanna's direct reports.
3. Susanna's key contacts at the law firms that supported the division.

Then, on Monday morning he sent an e-mail out to the broader organization.

In his messaging, he made a specific decision not to position Susanna's departure as being for personal reasons or the like. He made it clear that Susanna was being terminated because she was hurting the organizational culture. It was one of the strongest statements Jeng-li could make on the importance of organizational culture. He took action to preserve the desired culture, he was honest about why he did it, and he communicated quickly and clearly to everyone who needed to know. His approach was well received and greatly appreciated, and it served to reinforce his personal values and the stated values of the team.

Using Role Sort to Accelerate Change in Postmerger Integration

As described in Chapter 2, in a postmerger/acquisition situation, it is important to perform an initial role sort, to give clarity to team members around roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines—before Day One. By no means is it necessary to redesign the entire organization at that early stage—but it is critical to let people know what the change means for them (in the immediate term) and let them know that the organization will evolve over the ensuing few weeks and months as the team learns and the shared imperative is developed.

By Day 70, you should be in a position to declare (at least to yourself and your boss/board) a new structure, with clarity on roles and responsibilities and a strong point of view on who will be in which role. Implementation of the new structure can be phased in as quickly or as deliberately as the situation calls for.

Frank used the forcing mechanism of the role sort to create a new role called vice president of innovation a couple months into an integration and named an executive from the acquired business to lead the new function. This served two purposes—(1) created clear accountability around an area (new product development) that was critical to the success of the merger and (2) recognized an executive from the acquired team for his strengths and for the values and motivation he had demonstrated during the transition.

Map Performance and Role

Putting the right people in the right roles is a key driver of success. The heart of Tool 7.1 is a grid that matches people with roles. The grid is based on two dimensions: performance and role appropriateness. Mapping people on this grid then helps inform decisions about which people are in the right roles and which are in the wrong roles, so you can support some and move others. This is a simple but highly effective tool for thinking about a complex subject.

The performance measure is drawn from an individual's last or current review/assessment in his or her current role. It is driven by results versus goals and supplemented with recently observed performance, behaviors, and communication.

The role match measure is a correlation of the strengths, motivations, and fit required for the role compared with the strengths, motivations, and fit of the person filling that role. The role's strengths, motivations, and fit should be drawn from position descriptions. The individual's strengths, motivations, and fit could be drawn from his or her latest review, Gallup's StrengthFinder, or another assessment questionnaire or tool.

Keep in mind that some people may be in the wrong role precisely because they have outgrown it and are ready for a promotion. If you leave these people in their roles, you'll face a growing risk for decreased motivation. If there is an indication that an individual is struggling to make up for a mismatch between personal strengths and those required for the job, it is also a sure sign of a wrong role for that person (see Figure 7.1). Evolving is the appropriate action for these people. In either situation, the value of having a plan to move each candidate to a more appropriate role is clear. Delay those moves and you'll find yourself and your team in trouble.

In general, the suggested actions from Figure 7.1 are:

Support: Right Role/Above Standard: Keep these people in their current roles. Support and develop them. These people are helping and will continue to help. Stretch them, and make sure to push their ability to do good for others and for themselves as high as possible.

Improve: Right Role/Below Standard: Invest to improve these people's performance. They may be able to deliver with the right direction, training, and support. If they don't improve after support efforts, it may be a sign that they have reached their peak potential and therefore are in the wrong role.

Evolve: Wrong Role/Above Standard: Actively look for better fit before performance drops. Resist the temptation to keep them in their current role. They are helping, but the potential exists for even more. There is also potential for flight as they become frustrated being in a role that is not right for them.

Move: Wrong Role/Below Standard: Quickly move them to a better role inside or outside the team.

Mapping performance and role appropriateness facilitates a more urgent identification of who is in the right role and who is in the wrong role now. It is important not to confuse role match with potential because there is a significant difference between the two.

Potential gets at future promotions. What is required to help people move up the ladder? What is the appropriate timeline for those promotions?

Role match gets at the current position. What's the likelihood of their performing well in their current position?

Every organization has its own way of doing position profiles. The better profiles include the key elements of the mission, vision, strengths, motivation, and fit. One way to do this is to answer the following questions in each of the following areas drawn from the recruiting brief—Tool 7.2 below.

Mission

1. Mission gets at what you expect out of the position.
2. What is the mission for this position? Why does it exist?
3. What are the responsibilities associated with the role?
4. What are the desired objectives or outcomes of the position?
5. What impact should the role have on the rest of the organization?

Vision

1. What is the picture of success?
2. How will things look when the mission is accomplished?

Strengths

1. Strengths include the talents, knowledge, and skills required to deliver the position's mission.
2. What talents are required to achieve success in the role? (Consider talents a recurring pattern of thoughts, feelings, or behaviors that can be productively applied.)
3. What knowledge is required to achieve success in the role? (Consider what the role holder needs to be aware of or know. What are the required education, experience, and qualifications?)
4. What skills are required to achieve success in the role? (Consider skills the how-tos, or the steps, of an activity. They can also be identified as capabilities that can be transferred, such as technical, interpersonal, or business skills.)²

Motivation

1. Motivation is what will drive the person in the role to succeed.
2. How do the activities of the role fit with the person's likes, dislikes, and ideal job criteria?
3. How will the person progress toward the long-term goal? What will drive him or keep her focused?

Fit

1. Fit refers to the match between the person's character and the culture he or she will be operating in.
2. Do the person's behaviors, way of relating to others, attitudes, values, and preferred working environment fit well with those of the organization?
3. Do the person's behavior, way of relating to others, attitudes, values, and preferred working environment fit well with those of the team?
4. Do the person's behavior, way of relating to others, attitudes, values, and preferred working environment fit well with those of the leader?

Developing Future Capabilities

As you begin to evolve the organization, keep in mind the three types of leaders: artistic, scientific, and interpersonal—and which type is the best fit in each role.

When people see or hear leader, they generally think of interpersonal leaders inspiring and enabling teams. Although those interpersonal leaders are of critical import, the world needs artistic leaders and scientific leaders just as much. The common characteristic of all leaders is that they inspire others to become better than they would on their own. Each of the three types of leaders inspire others in different ways as described below and summarized in Table 7.2: Artistic, Scientific and Interpersonal Leadership Characteristics.

Artistic leaders inspire by influencing feelings. They help us take new approaches to how we see, hear, taste, smell, and touch things. You can find these leaders creating new designs, new art, and the like. These people generally have no interest in ruling or guiding. They are all about changing perceptions.

Scientific leaders guide and inspire by influencing knowledge with their thinking and ideas. You can find them creating new technologies, doing research and writing, teaching, and the like. Their ideas tend to be well thought through, supported by data and analysis, and logical. These people develop structure and frameworks that help others solve problems.

Interpersonal leaders can be found ruling, guiding, and inspiring at the head of their interpersonal cohort whether it's a team, organization, or political entity. They come in all shapes and sizes, and influence actions in different ways. The common dimension across interpersonal leaders is that they are leading other people.

Ask yourself, What type of leader does your team need the most, in each role? Is there a certain type of leader that is needed but not yet on the team? Evaluate all team members on their leadership potential and their natural type, and you'll start to find valuable clues on how to best develop them for continued success. One hallmark of the strongest leaders is their ability to develop other leaders along the way. The world needs more inspirational leaders, whether they are artistic, scientific, or interpersonal. Develop as many as you can along the way. The world will notice, and you'll leave a lasting legacy on your organization that will deliver consistent growth and inspire many lives.

Strong Performers and the Three Goods

Invest in your strong performers first. Way too many leaders get sucked into spending so much time dealing with underperformers that they don't pay enough attention to the people in the right roles performing particularly well until those people walk in to announce they're leaving.

Of course by then it's too late. Counteroffers almost never work.

Instead, treat your strong performers so “good” all along the way that they will not ever be open to the conversation about possibly leaving. Remember this is actually three goods:

1. Good for others: Inspire your strong performers with the good for others part of your mission or purpose.
2. Good at it: Do what it takes to remove any barriers that hinder your strong performers' ability to do more of what they are good at.
3. Good for me: Ensure your strong performers receive the recognition and rewards they deserve. As your strong performers' knowledge, skills, and accomplishments grow, make sure the person recognizing and rewarding their new market worth is you.³

Strengthen the Organization: Summary and Implications

Put in place organizational processes to acquire, develop, encourage, plan, and transition (ADEPT) talent over time.

The mission, vision, objectives, and strategies inform the ideal organizational structure and help identify the required roles.

The vision helps define role requirements, including which roles are required to be best in class.

In filling roles, match performance, strengths, motivation, and fit of individuals to the role:

1. Support and develop high performers in right roles.
2. Improve performance of low performers in right roles.
3. Evolve high performers in wrong roles to better roles over time.
4. Move low performers in wrong roles to better roles now.

Some of your most painful choices are going to be in this area. Trying to please everybody will lead to pleasing nobody. Choosing to act on people who are in the wrong roles now or will soon be in the wrong roles is generally not the most enjoyable part of leadership. But it is an essential part.

Additional Articles and Tools on www.onboardingtools.com

7A.01 Future Capability Development/ Succession/ Contingency Planning

7A.02 Onboarding Track Record

7A.03 Employment Brand Positioning

7A.04 Employment Brand Messages

7A.05 Total Onboarding Program Timeline

7A.06 Recruiting Methods Analysis

7A.07 Job Requirements Checklist

7A.08 Candidate Sourcing

7A.09 Interview Guide

7A.10 Offer Closing Process

7A.11 Assimilation checklist

7A.12 Development Plan

7A.13 People Management Tools

7A.14 Performance Assessment