Nurturing Dynamic Relationships
Relationships fuel the job when our teams and projects live together. Instead of pushing for uniformity, let local methods and tools flourish. Accept that workflow is something to be coordinated and refined, not something that can be solved. Ensure that every team can do the work and improve how they do it — death to Status Updates. Many leaders believe that these status updates are the best way to scale themselves across many projects. But holding court and dropping “pearls of wisdom” on teams causes more trouble than it’s worth. For starters, leaders often need more context to understand complex initiatives and the situation at the edge. This can lead to naive questions at best and irresponsible recommendations at worst.
Sharing leads to reciprocity, responsibility, and learning. Secrecy leads to distrust and suspicion. Accept that no one knows what information will prove critical or in which hands information might change everything. More and better communication and ways to make sense of it are the source of competitive advantage in complexity. Teams become sovereign spaces and micro-enterprises. They must generate their resources through budgeting or “charging” their services.
The rules are simple: Teams can add or remove members using consent. Members can join or leave teams with reasonable notice. And members can manage their bandwidth (i.e., hold many roles). Dynamic Teaming.
Find a part of your business where teams change and turn it into an active two-way marketplace. It never ceases to result in shorter cycle times, higher engagement, and better outcomes. Open roles are shared, and members can “apply” by meeting with other team members, discussing the work, and sharing what they offer. No formal process here, a search for a two-way fit. Because structure is often a proxy for power, managers may be hesitant to do anything that threatens their position. They ask themselves, “If I’m not a VP, what am I?” and “If I distribute my power, what do I have left?” The breakthrough happens when they realize that they can trade control for participation. Rather than living in one place in the org chart, they can live in many, a mix of roles where their influence is direct rather than indirect. Positional power is traded for reputation. They can find joy in the work again by getting closer to the job.
The alternative is far simpler. Leaders can join a team and become part of the workflow or be part of an advice process at the outset of the project or upon request. One-on-ones are often used as a salve for hidden dysfunction. Great one-on-ones can provide feedback and mentorship, deepen relationships, or allow us to collaborate on the work. When members lack the authority to make decisions, these meetings become the only mechanism for moving things forward. One meeting that employees love is the one-on-one they have with their manager every week or two. Most managers discuss how often they meet with their direct reports and how “the time is theirs.” One-on-ones can be eliminated if teams start answering questions about information sharing. What information is shared? What information is contained or controlled? How do we decide what is safe to share? How is data stored and shared? What tools, systems, or forums support storing and sharing? How do we find the information we seek? How do we update our information when things change? What communication style(s) do we encourage?
[¹]: The Coaching Habit: Say Less, Ask More & Change the Way You Lead Forever
[²]: Brave New Work: Are You Ready to Reinvent Your Organization?
