An executive team’s busyness may be a result of how it works
An executive team’s busyness may be a result of how it works
An executive team can be so busy resolving the organisation’s problems that it has no time to notice its own part in creating them. The same matters return to the table, decisions move slowly and too little time remains for strategic thinking. Improving the team’s own work is postponed until the pressure eases.
But what if some of that pressure arises from how the team itself works?
Taking time to reflect then deserves consideration from a business perspective too. Unclear priorities, incomplete decisions and conflicting expectations can consume time across the company. A moment saved in the executive team’s calendar may become clarification, waiting and rework in other people’s calendars.
An unclear decision continues its work after the meeting
If one executive team member regards a meeting discussion as a decision, another as further preparation and a third as a matter left to their unit’s discretion, each may believe they are acting responsibly. Shared execution can nevertheless fragment before the work has properly begun.
The organisation receives different messages from different directions. Managers try to reconcile them. Some people wait for permission while others begin implementation. When the matter returns to the executive team, the problem may be described as poor execution or a lack of commitment.
It is then worth asking how ready for implementation the original decision actually was.
This is an important leadership distinction. If an unclear decision is met with more monitoring and reporting, the workload may increase without addressing the point where the ambiguity arose. A well-intentioned solution adds work for both the executive team and the rest of the organisation.
The same meeting can create different pictures of cooperation
Executive team members can have very different understandings of their shared work. For one, a quick discussion means agility. For another, it means insufficient time to assess alternatives properly. The chair may feel they are giving people considerable responsibility while a member wants greater clarity about what they can decide independently.
These differences are difficult to address if personal experience is assumed to represent a shared picture of the situation.
A positive atmosphere and a properly completed agenda also leave much unanswered. Was the group’s expertise used? Were important disagreements addressed? Do people leave the meeting knowing what will be done and what will be stopped?
The quality of the executive team’s work should also be considered from the perspective of those who must act on its decisions. For them, what matters is whether the team produces sufficient clarity for the work to be done.
What does LTSI help reveal?
Rokmind’s Leadership Team Success Index™ (LTSI) is a method developed by Professor of Practice Helena Åhman, DSc (Tech). It examines the executive team’s current work and desired ideal situation through self-assessments and interviews.
The review covers areas including the executive team’s work and impact, cooperation with the board, the behaviour of the chair and members, and organisational culture. The results are discussed together and used to build the team’s development plan.
The responses describe how people see their work together. They help clarify what works, what is expected of the executive team and where development should focus. Differing perspectives also provide grounds for an important conversation.
I am particularly interested in the questions people dare to ask when considering the results. Why does the same practice help one person succeed and make another person’s work harder? What have we become accustomed to accepting even though it no longer serves the company’s objectives?
Courage is visible in what we are willing to change
Examining your own executive team’s work is personal. Your decisions, habits and understanding of good leadership are involved. The first reaction to a difficult finding may therefore be to explain it away: this is due to the situation, the workload or someone not understanding the whole picture.
Sometimes the explanation may be correct. Even so, the finding deserves examination before being dismissed.
Pausing requires a willingness to hear things that do not fit your own view of how well the group works. The chair shares responsibility for this. If the executive team expects the organisation to learn and change, it must be able to examine its own practices with the same expectations.
The team need not wait for a crisis. Improving its own work is already justified when it wants to make better use of its expertise or prepare for the company’s next phase.
Change must be noticeable in daily work
Measurement needs to be followed by choices: what will we change, who will ensure progress and how will we know whether the change helps?
If clarity of decisions emerges as a development priority, the executive team might agree to specify the objective, responsibility, authority and follow-up for every decision. It can also check that members understand the decision in the same way before taking it into the organisation.
Later, the team can examine whether ambiguities had to be revisited, whether conflicting instructions caused rework and whether those implementing decisions received the information they needed. This connects development to the flow of work.
The value of pausing may be visible in what the rest of the organisation no longer has to clarify, wait for or correct. That is why developing the executive team’s own work deserves a place in the calendar even during busy periods.
If this reflects your executive team’s daily experience, contact mellu@rokmind.fi. Let’s discuss what would be useful to understand and how LTSI and working together could help you move forward.
CEO
Melina "Mellu" Näätänen
mellu@rokmind.fi