Micro Organizational Behaviour

Last month, I wrote about working with a volunteer board of directors who were having challenges functioning. This was part of my assisting a friend of mine in a volunteer consulting project for Management Advisory Services (MAS). I paraphrased an interaction between A and B that illustrated that, at least unilaterally, the “benefit of the doubt” being extended was zero. Obviously, this makes for a difficult, if not unworkable, situation. This past week, we returned to work with a larger group that included the board and other interested volunteers.

From the outset of the engagement, it was clear that much of the tension and frustration that had driven the board’s challenges arose from delays and non-responses from stakeholders, which included different levels of government. Large bureaucracies can take time to navigate, so the delays and the frustrations are understandable. Unfortunately, the delays continue, and the frustration remains. Interestingly, the focus of the frustration shifted completely.

The group had had interactions over the past few months that did not include myself or the MAS representative that I was working with, but the group dynamic was almost unrecognizable. In their book “Inside the Boardroom,” Richard Leblanc and James Gillies examine the architecture of an effective board in light of governance requirements. The governance stakes are a bit lower for this group than in many of the cases from the book; however, as subtle as the shift from “you” to “we” can be, this particular board’s effectiveness was greatly increased, in my opinion, by the development of an in-group mentality. This shift provided an external focus for frustration, which tends to bring motivation rather than tension.

I was thrilled to be able to observe this shift. Like the parent who is less aware of changes in the children they see everyday, the members of the board may not be aware of when it changed, but it certainly did. The good news is, it’s much easier to maintain an in-group dynamic than it is to win it back.

I recently had the opportunity to work with a group of volunteer board members. A friend of mine and I were also volunteering our time to help in making the board work more effectively together, especially in their meetings.

As individuals, they were all lovely people who shared a common passion for the cause that the association was furthering. As a group, however, the meeting and general interactions had deteriorated to the point where one of the group members suspected they had become a dysfunctional board. The “volunteer” dynamic is fascinating in these instances because, conceivably, it would be easier to walk away from a dysfunctional volunteer situation than it would be to leave a dysfunctional company.

We were leading a discussion on what entails an effective meeting. There were no surprises, and, yes, Robert’s Rules were raised and quoted. There was an interesting dialogue at the end of the session that illustrated in large part the problems that the group faced. The following dialogue from a discussion on an opportunity to meet with a municipal group:

A – When did you get the e-mail?
B – I got the e-mail yesterday, maybe it was Thursday, and it said that we could send a couple of people to the meeting. I think that we can decide who those people are.
My friend – Does that sound reasonable, A?
A – Well, I would have to have to see the e-mail.

Robert’s Rules are no match for a meeting where past interactions have driven “benefit of the doubt” to the point of zero. It may take long time for my friends A and B to work together. Acknowledging that benefit of the doubt is absent, and giving it anyway, could provide opportunities to gain benefit of the doubt faster. It is a tough one, and it takes a big person to start, but there is sometimes very little standing in the way of two people working together more effectively.

American Idol has increased the profile of the “critique” and also demonstrates the different flavours that this sort of constructively critical feedback can take. Even if you are not familiar with the show you may have run into this type of coaching critique:

• Unclear (aka Randy) – Praise the good and allude to shortcomings; downplay the importance of the negative and openly use the prefix “I don’t know what it was but…”;
• Cheerlead (aka Paula) – Give As for effort; make everyone feel that they are trying their best;
• Direct (aka Simon) – If it is great, say so; call out all performances that fall below the “great” level and pin point exactly what was missing.

Whether a boss, mentor or coach, the Direct version is the one that holds the most promise for the coachee to develop existing skills and acquire new ones. People who truly want to develop—especially those who employ coaches—should challenge the Unclear, as well as the critiquing school of “Good, good. More of this is just fine.”

Where this falls down is when the Simons of the world cannot provide insight to fill the gap. Showing what is missing is important, but if the emperor indeed has no clothes, there is definite value in telling him or her where to shop.

Last week, Simon pointed out that singer Kady Malloy had “an astonishing lack of personality.” Voice, looks and all other assets could neither compensate nor cover up this fact. In the follow-up banter with Seacrest, Kady claimed that she did not know what Simon had meant. I would suggest that what she really didn’t understand is: “what do I do differently?”

Providing the “what should you do” is the value that the executive coach can and must add. Simon is not a coach, but would likely be good one because he is very perceptive in isolating what is missing. For what it’s worth, I think that Kady could smile and move more when she sings. For personality to the extreme (pun intended), watch Gary Charone sing “Hammer to Fall” in the 1991 Freddie Mercury Tribute concert.

There is a scene from the movie Apollo 13 that has stuck with me. Chaos has broken loose as the team of engineers debates the best way to get the astronauts back to earth. Loren Dean playing John Aaron snaps clarity from the jaws of chaos by pointing out that any chance of survival hinges on maintaining battery power, which is quickly waning.

It is an exchange that is short and sharp, but you can tell that very quickly the focus has shifted to absolutely the right area.

The reason this stands out for me is that it is an example where the person who actually has “the answer” is able to convey it to others, and the others are actually listening. This is a phenomenon that I would suggest is rarer than it should be. Understandably, it is tough to replicate because it demands that:

1 – there is an absolute answer;

2 – someone actually knows it;

3 – others listen; an

4 – others believe the person who is telling them the answer.

I hope to focus this blog on examples when the (objectively) correct information makes it through. Yes, there will be times that it doesn’t, and we can certainly discuss those, too. I hope to find a suitable tag/title for this moment; something like “moment of truth,” maybe M.O.T. The quest for the John Aaron moment is on!