On Leadership

Is Your Organization Prepared to Support Virtual Work?

Whether your virtual teams are in the formation stage or have been operating for a few months – it is critical to ensure that they are set up for success and get off to a good start.  Organizations that proactively plan how to structure their virtual teams to set them up for success will see a better return on their investment than those that do not.

Here are some other guidelines to follow to ensure your organization will maximize its investment in remote work:

Keep Your Virtual Teams At a Manageable Size.

OnPoint’s research found that high performing virtual teams were smaller and more cohesive than low performing ones. For a team to make decisions effectively and operate efficiently, its ideal size should be five to ten people. When forming a new virtual team, consider who really needs to be included and make sure each member has a clear role. As more and more people get involved, virtual teams may be more susceptible to common pitfalls such as a lack of clear roles or clear goals.  If you have a larger virtual teams, consider breaking it into sub-teams responsible for a specific deliverable or a core team with advisory groups so that they function effectively in a virtual setting.  It is also critical that leaders are thoughtful about team membership and ensure that they are not encouraging their employees to over-commit themselves.

Choose Virtual Team Leaders Carefully.

The most effective virtual team leaders balance both the execution-oriented practices and the interpersonal, communication, and cultural factors that define virtual teams. Therefore, organizations should select leaders who possess those key characteristics. When assigning a leader, take the time to select the individual with the appropriate skills—and not just go with the first person to volunteer or someone who already happens to lead a team or the person with the best technical skills.  In addition, periodically assess the leaders’ effectiveness and provide targeted feedback about how they can enhance their performance. Great leaders will be happy to learn what they can do to keep improving.  

Determine How Performance Will Be Recognized and Rewarded.

When virtual team members are consistently recognized and rewarded for their achievements, their commitment to the team and organization is reinforced and they stay motivated. A lack of engagement is common when virtual team members get little recognition. When a new virtual team is established, consider the best ways to recognize its individual members, the team as a whole, and its leader. As the team’s work gets underway and progresses, make sure members are consistently recognized for their achievements. This is particularly important when people join virtual teams on a voluntary basis. It’s also important to ensure that the reward and recognition systems promote collaboration among team members.

Group celebrations and bonuses shared by all team members might be effective rewards for some virtual teams. Whenever possible involve the team’s senior sponsors and stakeholders in the recognition process in formal and informal ways. Doing so will help further motivate team members because they’ll see that their work is appreciated from the top down.

Hold a Great Kick-Off Meeting.

While meeting in person requires time and costs money, OnPoint's research shows that virtual teams that have an initial kick-off meeting perform better than those that do not. To facilitate team performance, we recommend that companies invest the time and money to bring members together for a kick-off meeting within the first 30 days of the team’s inception.  Kick-off meetings help get everyone on the same page. Virtual team members learn about the scope of the work or project, get to know the people who are on their team and come to a consensus on team structure and processes. These sessions also allow time for members to develop a team plan and to build interpersonal relationships. The synergies and significant long-term payoff gained from working face-to-face on setting team norms, processes, and relationship-building appear to outweigh the expense of travel. If a face-to-face kick-off meeting is not feasible, we recommend replicating this through a series of well-planned virtual meetings that address the same issues.

Develop A Plan for Communicating Among Team Members.

Agree on the types of technology members will use to communicate and how the team’s progress will be shared with stakeholders and management figures. Be sure to:

• Illustrate the connection between team activities and technological infrastructure
• Clarify communication needs and desires of team members
• Identify when face-to-face meetings should be used
• Train team members on communication technologies

 

During the kick-off meeting, new virtual teams will benefit from discussing how and when team members will use the available technologies. For example:

• How will the team share documents and update one another?
• Is email the best tool for this or is there another preferred mechanism?
• What communication technology will be best for conflict resolution? How about for brainstorming solutions to problems?
• What decisions are best for teleconferences or other collaborative e-tools?
• Are any key technologies not available for the team?
• Will this lack of availability create problems for the team? If so, what accommodations need to be made and how will the team minimize the impact? 

Hold Team Development Activities. 

Virtual team members often have a hard time establishing trust with one another because they don’t have the advantage of frequent in-person interactions. They also struggle because they cannot see one another’s body language, which makes it difficult to gain a sense for team members’ personalities and intentions.

Using team development activities during the kick-off meeting can help to build trust and camaraderie among team members. Many of the most successful teams in OnPoint’s study had skill development training during their initial kick-off meeting and subsequent training over time.

Three types of activities during the launch meeting help team members get to know each other, build confidence in each other’s ability, and provide a platform for teamwork and communication back on the job. They are personal introductions including background and experience, review of individual style and how it affects teamwork and communication, and an experiential exercise or team project.

Monitor and Assess Team Performance.

Leaders need to have a system in place that helps them regularly review virtual team processes to assess what’s working well and what needs to be improved. Leaders should continually monitor, assess, and improve communication, as it’s the top skill development need reported by team members and the top characteristic needed to lead from a distance.  And most importantly, they need to periodically examine how well the team is performing.

The decision to launch a virtual team should not be made on a whim. Factors such as team membership, team size, the right technology, and effective kick-off meetings should be carefully considered before launching a virtual team.  It is also important to ensure the overall organization is prepared to support virtual team work. 

Get What You Need From Your Matrix Partners: Five Guidelines for Influencing in a Matrix Structure

Whatever your experience has been – for better or worse – the matrix has become a necessary organizational structure in today’s business environment.  Companies that have multiple product lines, conduct business in different countries, and serve a variety of customers through several channels know that the matrix structure is here to stay.

In a matrix organization—where people rely on getting work done through others over whom they have no direct authority—maintaining high levels of cooperation and coordination can be a challenge.  The findings of OnPoint’s 2011 Execution Gap study helps clarify the extent to which organizations struggle with this:

• 40% of managers surveyed do not believe that people cooperate across functions and departments to achieve their organization’s strategic objectives.
• 44% of managers surveyed do not believe that people in different divisions readily share information, ideas, and best practices.

What can leaders do to encourage and sustain cooperation? Working effectively in a matrix requires trust, cooperation, and coordination built upon a foundation of shared goals, clear roles and decision authority, and transparent and timely communication.  While these behaviors provide a foundation to encourage collaboration, they won’t eliminate disagreements about what, when, and how to do things.  In order to sustain cooperation and collaboration in a global matrix structure, leaders must gain others’ support for their ideas and constructively resolve differences across organizational boundaries.  Therefore, it is essential for today’s leaders to hone their influence skills. 

The key to influencing in a matrix is to build the foundation for the effective use of the influence tactics well in advance.  If you wait until the moment when you need to change the perspective, behavior or attitude of your matrix partners, it’s too late.  The most effective leaders use the following behaviors in all their daily interactions:

•  Demonstrate credibility – Being seen as someone who “knows what they’re talking about” is an important determinant of whether people give your ideas and proposals appropriate consideration.

Quick Tip: Don’t exaggerate and admit when you don’t know something. It may seem counterintuitive but admitting when you don’t know something increases the likelihood people will take what you say seriously when you do express an opinion or preference.

• Identify shared goals or common ground – Even a well thought out proposal will not result in a change in the other person’s behavior or attitude if goals are not aligned. Despite the potential power of an argument and the strength of supporting data, if leaders are focused on an outcome that the other person is not interested in, they will not be successful.  Rather than repeating their position more forcefully when they realize their rational argument is not having the intended effect, they take a moment to ensure goals are aligned. 

Quick Tip: Meet with matrix partners to complete a Goal Alignment Grid which clarifies goals that are shared by the matrix partners and provides an opportunity to discuss how matrix partners can help each other achieve their work unit’s goals.

• Build positive work relationships – Positive work relationships and trust are a prerequisite for the effective use of the influence tactics of inspiration and consultation.  Trust and relationships take time to establish and must be in place if you want to increase your style flexibility and decrease your dependence on rational arguments.

Quick Tip: Demonstrate reliability by consistently meeting your commitments and keeping your promises.  One way to do this is to commit to more manageable, but more frequent, milestones rather than to a single final deliverable that is often more challenging and the outcome of which more difficult to manage and predict.

• Get to know the needs and values of others – The key to effective influence is to see the issue from the other person’s point of view rather than your own. Using facts and focusing on values and benefits you think are desirable, or that would generally be attractive, is not as effective as clarifying the specific benefits complying with your proposal would have for the other person or how your proposal is consistent with the specific values and beliefs that are important to them.

Quick Tip: Make time for “small talk” with matrix partners. For example, during a call, build in time to discuss non-work topics before moving to the formal agenda.

• Clarify what resources you control that others need or would like – One core tactic for gaining the support of others is providing resources or help that would make it less difficult for the other person to comply with the request or proposal. To do this well, you need to know what resources you control and what they need.

Quick Tip: Learn about your matrix partner’s business and their customer’s business.  The more you understand the issues and challenges they face, the easier it will be to identify the resources you have that your matrix partners would value.

Organizations are complex structures with many interdependencies.  We rely on others to help achieve results, and that means cooperation and collaboration are often the key to our success.  Ensuring the conditions that create and sustain cooperation and collaboration are in place is even more challenging in a matrix structure. Leaders who are able to effectively use influence to gain the support of their matrix partners will have much greater success in creating a culture of cooperation and achieving their business objectives in today’s matrix organizations.

Criteria for Success: Characteristics of Top Virtual Leaders and Team Members

The most effective virtual team leaders balance both the execution-oriented practices and the interpersonal, communication, and cultural factors that define virtual teams. Therefore, organizations should select leaders who possess those key characteristics. When assigning a leader, take the time to select the individual with the appropriate skills—and not just go with the first person to volunteer or someone who already happens to lead a team or the person with the best technical skills.  In addition, periodically assess the leaders’ effectiveness and provide targeted feedback about how they can enhance their performance. Great leaders will be happy to learn what they can do to keep improving.  

Leaders should also ensure that their virtual team members have the skills necessary to effectively collaborate from a distance. People who are motivated and are able to work in a self-directed manner, have a tolerance for ambiguity, are strong communicators, and are collaborative will be more effective on virtual teams. According to OnPoint’s research, the most important characteristics for virtual team members include strong interpersonal skills, initiative, and flexibility.

A recent BusinessWeek article (BusinessWeek June 2009) presented findings on what personality traits make for good virtual workers. While one might assume that introverted people would be more likely to thrive in a virtual setting, the study found that it was actually extroverts who fared best. It was discovered that extroverted employees were more adept at finding ways to stay connected to others, no matter their location. The study also showed that being structured and organized is essential for successfully working virtually, and that disorganized employees were less successful.

Organizations generally need to make sure team members have the appropriate skills for tackling particular tasks. Laszlo Bock of Google says, “It is important to compose the team differently based on the problem the team needs to solve or address.” For example, the people chosen to help solve a detailed financial problem would most likely not be selected for a virtual team that’s created to tackle a customer satisfaction issue.

However, in some situations organizations benefit from the use of cross-functional teams, in which they bring together people with different areas of expertise to address a problem. Bottom line: It is important to consider the scope of the problem to determine the criteria for virtual team membership.

You can start by establishing criteria for selecting team members. For example, a global IT virtual team in our study outlined the skill set necessary for success and then selected team members accordingly. While technical expertise in various IT areas was deemed important, the leader wanted to involve people who would work well autonomously yet who could also successfully collaborate with the rest of the team when needed.

Understanding the characteristics necessary for succeeding in a virtual environment is very important. While these characteristics may vary depending on a virtual team’s goals, the following checklist can be used to help select virtual team members and leaders.

A Good Virtual Team Leader

• Delegates work and responsibilities effectively; trusts others to achieve goals Implements processes to effectively monitor work (e.g., checks in without
• micromanaging, has strong project management skills)
• Effectively manages conflict
• Is comfortable working in an unstructured environment
• Demonstrates strong communication and management skills (e.g., provides clear direction and is responsive)
• Inspires people to achieve results
• Effectively recognizes and rewards others
• Provides coaching and feedback to others; supports others
• Appropriately consults and engages others when making decisions
• Holds others accountable for meeting commitments 

A Good Virtual Team Member

• Demonstrates a high level of motivation
• Effectively communicates with others (e.g., reaches out to others for help and proactively shares information with others)
• Effectively collaborates with others
• Is comfortable working in an unstructured environment
• Is able to operate autonomously to achieve goals/objectives
• Is self-disciplined
• Is proficient with technology
• Efficiently uses time and resources to carry out objectives
• Resolves work-related problems quickly
• Takes full accountability for decisions, actions, and performance

Working Effectively in a Matrix: Tips For Building and Sustaining Cooperation

If you’ve ever worked in a public or private organization of any size you know that cooperation and coordination are critical for effective execution and organizational success.  It’s almost impossible to get anything important done without the assistance and joint efforts of others.  Yet, despite the fact that there is little argument about the critical role coordination and cooperation play in the execution of plans and initiatives, it appears that they are elusive and difficult to attain. 

In a matrix organization—where people rely on getting work done through others over whom they have no direct authority—maintaining high levels of cooperation and coordination can be even more challenging.  The findings of OnPoint’s 2011 Execution Gap study helps clarify the extent to which organizations struggle with this:

• Only 47% responded favorably to the item, “decisions and actions are well coordinated across departments/functions.”
• Only 49% responded favorably to the item, “decisions and actions are well coordinated across levels of management.”
• 40% do not believe that people cooperate across functions and departments to achieve their organization’s strategic objectives.
• 44% do not believe that people in different divisions readily share information, ideas, and best practices.

Given these challenges and complexities what can leaders do to encourage and sustain cooperation?  Our research suggests that there are three key elements and two core skills required to build a culture of collaboration in a global matrix structure.

The Three Cooperation Builders

Three conditions predict when cooperation is more likely to trump competition: when communication is clear and there is transparency about intent, when people understand what they can expect from others and how they will work together, and when the interests of individuals or groups are aligned.  We refer to these elements as the Cooperation Builders, as they are critical for encouraging high levels of coordination. 

Cooperation Builder #1: Improve Communication and Transparency

When we communicate our intent to cooperate, we can increase the likelihood the other person will respond in kind. This, of course, assumes that our communication is clear and our intentions are understood.  Unfortunately, this is not always the case.  Although people often act with good intent and do what they think is right, they are often unable to coordinate their actions because of a breakdown in communication. 

The most common mistake is assuming the other person understands what we want or intended.  It’s helpful to develop the habit of being explicit about why you are doing something or making a request.  Another mistake is not taking the time to do a “comprehension check” by paraphrasing to ensure understanding and, when appropriate, asking questions to confirm the other person’s understanding of actions and next steps.

Cooperation Builder #2: Agree On When Cooperation Is Needed and What It Looks Like

Lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities is another cooperation-crusher. It results in conflicts among team members or groups. It also allows key responsibilities to “fall through the cracks” because each party believes that someone else is responsible for them.  It seems our level of cooperation is generally higher when everyone involved agrees on when it is needed and what it looks like in these situations.  When we know what to expect from other people we are more willing to trust them and take the risk of cooperation. 

One tool commonly used to clarify roles is referred to as the RACIN model. The tool, whose acronym stands for five levels of authority and involvement—Responsible, Approve, Consult, Inform, and Not Involved—enables individuals and teams to describe what cooperation and collaboration looks like for the most important decisions and activities for which they are responsible. 

Although the process of discussing roles and reaching agreement takes time, it is well worth the investment.  On their own, some teams may eventually come to an understanding about when and how to work together.  That journey, however, takes much longer than a RACIN meeting and relationships and trust can be damaged along the way.  Formally and explicitly working out roles at the early stage of a team’s formation, or whenever you notice a lack of cooperation, helps accelerate the process and preserve trust. 

Cooperation Builder #3: Align Interests and Establish Common Ground

When the objectives of one person or group are at odds with the objectives of another, cooperation and collaboration suffer.  Picture the potential conflicts and inefficiencies that would result if one group in your department was working toward reducing costs, while another group was focused on bringing state-of-the-art products and services to market.  These objectives can coexist, but most likely won’t happen on their own. To facilitate alignment between the two groups, leaders must develop compatible and mutually supportive objectives in a thoughtful and explicit manner. 

One approach is to develop a set of broader, collective objectives for a team or work unit, then review the task objectives for specific individuals or groups and ensure that they are consistent with and mutually supportive of the collective objectives.  For example: to set the stage at the beginning of the year, the Chief Technology Officer of a large brokerage firm and his boss identify the ten critical objectives for the organization.  These are goals that reflect its mission and are necessary for the overall success of the business enterprise.  After the extended management team briefly reviews the goals, in-depth work is done to ensure that each will be accomplished. 

Cross-functional teams discuss the goals in concurrent sessions to clarify, fine-tune, and determine what it will take to accomplish them, including key deliverables, help required, mileposts, key stakeholders, etc.  Following these discussions, the individual with primary accountability for a particular goal reports on the overall plan, identifies areas that require problem solving, and explains how progress and success will be monitored and communicated throughout the year.  After all the goals have been discussed, possible overlaps, synergies, trade-offs and barriers are highlighted and resolved.  The process results in clarity among members of the extended team on priorities, resource allocation, and role expectations.

Disagreements Happen: How to Sustain Cooperation

Although the cooperation builders provide a foundation to encourage cooperation, they won’t eliminate disagreements about what and how to do things—and they won’t change the fact that people have different priorities, make mistakes, and sometimes fail to meet others’ expectations.  In order to sustain cooperation and collaboration, leaders must use influence to gain the support of others for their ideas and effective conflict management skills to constructively resolve differences across organizational boundaries.

Influence with Impact

A leader’s success often depends on his or her ability to gain the support and cooperation of people who have competing priorities and/or conflicting goals. The effective use of influence is the most powerful tool a leader has to create alignment and build commitment in these situations. 

The ability to influence is not only based on organizational hierarchy.  OnPoint’s research has identified the four core tactics that are most closely associated with gaining commitment from others.  They are rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation, and collaboration. 

Rational Persuasion involves the use of explanations, logical arguments, and factual evidence to explain why a request or proposal will benefit the organization or help to achieve an important task objective.  The key to using rational persuasion is the ability to convert features into benefits as seen by the person you are influencing. 

Example: Jim manages a team that generates reports that field personnel depend on to provide effective client service.  The system his staff currently uses is old, inefficient, and often malfunctions.  Since Charlotte recently left the department, Jim’s team has had to put in extra time to keep things running smoothly.  Citing budget constraints, management has postponed replacing Charlotte.  Jim recently met a programmer who has extensive knowledge of a new system that would require significantly less manual labor.  Jim would like to hire this person and needs to convince his boss to approve the hiring decision.  Jim says to his boss: “I’d like to talk with you about hiring a programmer to implement a new system in our department.  Compared to our existing system, this new system has greater accuracy and requires significantly less manual labor.  I recently ran some numbers that I’d like to share with you that indicate the new system would boost our productivity by at least 10%.  In addition, the new system would enhance morale and help us retain top performers.”

Inspirational Appeals involves an emotional or value-based appeal, in contrast to the logical arguments used in rational persuasion.  While rational persuasion appeals to the “head”, inspirational appeals focuses on “the heart”.  A common misconception is that inspirational appeals requires a leader to be “rah rah” and highly charismatic.  This is not the case—in fact, if a leader is effective at using rational persuasion, he or she can be just as effective at using inspirational appeals.  The difference is that—with inspirational appeals—benefits are positioned in a more value-oriented manner. 

Example: Linda is a member of a cross-functional task force charged with developing recommendations to enhance existing project management processes.  Recently, Linda was asked by the leader of the task force to head up a new project.  One of the key people she will need support from is Joe, a peer of Linda’s who is also part of the task force.  Linda knows that Joe is very busy with other work for the task force as well as his daily job responsibilities.  Linda has worked with Joe for a number of years and knows that he is particularly motivated by achievement and excellence.  In her first meeting with Joe she says, “I know it will be a challenge and the goals we’ve set out are a stretch—but I believe we have what it takes to be successful.  The new approach we develop will be much better than anything done in the past and we have the opportunity to build it.  When we successfully complete this project there is no question in my mind that we will have a significant and lasting impact on organizational performance.”

Consultation involves asking a person to suggest improvements or help plan a proposed activity or change for which his/her support is desired.  With this tactic the other person is invited to participate in planning how to carry out a request or implement a proposed change.

Example: Susan is the manager in charge of developing a new system to process financial transactions that will provide a significant cost savings to the company.  She is new to the position and her experience has been in other areas of technical development.  John built the current system and is the manager in charge of running and maintaining the system.  His expertise will be essential in designing the new system.  Susan knows John is very busy with other priorities, yet without his direct involvement, she can’t be sure she is making the best decisions.  In her meeting with John she says, “I’d like to get your thoughts on the best approach to developing the new system.  Based on conversations with users and my team, I have a beginning idea about how to get started.  But I wanted to get your input to help refine the idea and increase the likelihood of success.  What are your thoughts on the next steps and from your experience what are some of the pitfalls we need to avoid?”

Collaboration involves offering to provide relevant resources or assistance if the person will carry out a request or approve a proposed change. Like consultation, collaboration is participative, but the focus of collaboration is on reducing difficulty or costs of carrying out a request.  This tactic is most effective with peers. 

Example: Bill is struggling to meet a critical deadline for an important project he is working on for his boss.  The deadline is two days away, and Bill knows he won’t be able to hit the deadline without help from Andy, one of his colleagues, who is more familiar with the system required to analyze the data Bill needs.  Bill approaches Andy and says, “I’m concerned about being able to meet my deadline and I was hoping to get your help.”  Andy says that he has been working long hours to respond to a request from one of the organization’s key clients and taking this on would be difficult.  In response, Bill suggests, “What if I identify and organize the relevant data files, which is the most time consuming part of the work.  That way you would just have to run the analyses and I can take that and finish the report.” 

Manage Differences and Reach Agreement

The word “conflict” often conjures up images of confrontation and anger, but this is frequently not the case.  Disagreements occur in even the most positive and productive work relationships—at least, they should.  Conflict itself is neither inherently good nor bad—what is positive or negative is how the differences are managed and the outcome that results.  It may not be surprising to learn that OnPoint’s 2011 Execution Gap Survey found that nearly half of respondents do not believe that leaders effectively manage or resolve conflict in their organizations.

What does it take to manage conflict effectively?  For one, conflict needs to be acknowledged.  When conflict is brought to the surface, problems can be addressed and people can take action to resolve issues.  Many people avoid or minimize conflicts in an attempt to maintain harmonious relationships.  This is a mistake because the problem may never be resolved.  Many a solid long-term relationship is born from the difficult but constructive resolution of a conflict. 

Another key to managing conflict is clarifying the source of the conflict.  Differences of opinion concerning one or more of the following four issues will cause conflict to occur: facts, methods, goals, and values.  Differences of fact are the most straightforward conflicts to resolve.  Facts are concrete. They can be checked, compared, and tested, and this provides a basis for discussion and the exchange of information.  Conflicts over facts can be resolved through dialogue more often than conflicts involving the other basic issues. 

Methods are the second issue over which a conflict may arise.  People may have similar goals and agree on the facts, but may be unable to agree on ways to achieve their goals.  However, the presence of similar goals means that a logical, rational way of choosing among alternative approaches is possible. It’s just a matter of convincing everyone that a particular method will achieve the goals at hand.

When the issue is related to goals, people have different objectives and may be supporting different courses of action.  Information sharing is the key to resolving conflicts over either methods or goals.  It helps each person understand what is important to the other person.  Occasionally, when differing goals exist, a third person may be needed to determine which goal (or combination of goals) is most appropriate. 

Conflicts arising from different values are most difficult to resolve. In fact, they are often not able to be resolved.  People’s beliefs tend to become inflexible over long periods of time, and are often based on emotion rather than reason.  Finding common ground and separating those that are not solvable from those that are, frequently moves such conflicts toward productive action. 

In general, to manage differences effectively, your mindset should be that people have the right to think or feel differently than you do and that you will benefit from developing solutions that will be acceptable and beneficial to everyone concerned. 

Conclusion

Organizations are complex structures with many interdependencies.  We rely on others to help get things done and meet our objectives, and that means cooperation and collaboration are often the key to our success.  The challenge leaders face in the workplace is to ensure the conditions that create and sustain cooperation and collaboration are in place.  This is even more challenging in a matrix structure.

Cooperation and collaboration are facilitated by clear communication, shared goals, and clearly defined roles.  These conditions help encourage and motivate people to focus on the group’s best interest without feeling that they are minimizing or trading off their own interests in the process.  Once in place, however, cooperation is a delicate state.  People will still have disagreements and different points of view about how and when things should happen. Leaders’ ability to effectively and constructively influence others and gain their support is critical to maintaining cooperation. 

Leaders who focus on these key areas will have much greater success in creating a culture of cooperation and achieving their business objectives in today’s matrix organizations. 

The Path to Success: What the Most Effective Leaders Do to Gain Support and Commitment

It is a reality in today’s organizations that in order to be successful, leaders must engage people, build relationships with key stakeholders, and gain their commitment.  To find out how the most effective leaders do this, OnPoint Consulting used their Influence With Impact 360° survey to collect data on the influencing skills of 223 leaders (116 men and 107 women) across several organizations and industries. 

The study findings indicate that the most effective leaders use four core influence tactics more than less effective leaders:

• Rational Persuasion (the use of facts and logic)
• Inspirational Appeals (appealing to a person’s values and beliefs)
• Consultation (involving people in shaping an idea or proposal)
• Collaboration (reducing the difficulty of complying with a request)  

Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations will enhance the ability of leaders to gain the support and commitment of the people they need to get things done:

• Try to influence others more often. The most effective leaders appear to use influence significantly more often than their less effective counterparts.  In order to be effective, a leader needs to place a high priority on developing relationships and influencing people.
• Use all the core tactics.  All four core tactics are important and have a strong correlation to gaining commitment. The most effective leaders appear to be more versatile and use all four tactics.  Effective leaders have a flexible approach and use different influence strategies according to the situation.
• Don’t be afraid to appeal to values and emotions.  Inspirational Appeals is the tactic with the most development potential. Although this tactic was used least often, it seems to strongly impact the perception of a leader’s overall effectiveness.  Leaders who make the effort to go beyond the use of facts/logic and communicate their ideas in a compelling way are likely to be more effective.

For additional information on OnPoint’s research and influence  training opportunities, please contact Meghan Powell at mpowell@onpointconsultingllc.com or visit onpointconsultingllc.com

The Hall of Shame: Six Organizations That Couldn’t “Get It Done” in 2011

It’s that time of year when business owners and senior executives take stock of the past twelve months. What did 2011 look like for you and your company?  The questions you could ask during your year-end review are endless. But, there’s only one that really matters: Did your company effectively execute its business goals?  

If an organization can’t achieve results, nothing else matters—not the smartest strategy, not the most innovative business model, not even game-changing technology.  And for many companies, there is a clear gap between strategy and execution—we’ve seen plenty of evidence this year.  

Our research uncovered five characteristics, which we call “The Five Bridges,” that enable people to traverse this execution gap. It is these bridges that differentiate the companies that are consistently able to achieve results.  To learn from the “living laboratory” of real-world companies, here are six of this year’s headline makers and the lessons we can take away from their struggle.

Execution Gap Maker #1: The Japanese Government

Facing the possible meltdown of the Fukuskima Daiichi nuclear reactor, Prime Minister Naoto Kan asked a small circle of trusted advisors to weigh the risk of injecting seawater into the reactor to cool it down.  Unfortunately, because of Mr. Kan’s distrust of bureaucrats, he did not make use of Japan’s crisis management system which brought bureaucrats from various ministries under the direct command of the prime minister.  As a result, he did not involve members of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission or Tepco, the company that ran the power plant. 

Not involving these key stakeholders prevented him from quickly grasping the severity of the situation and adversely impacted the quality of Mr. Kan’s decisions and the speed with which he acted.  For example, he did not know that the plant manager had already started using seawater and continued to do so, despite being told to stop by his bosses at Tepco.  As it turns out, the plant manager’s act of defiance may have prevented many deaths.  In addition, Mr. Kan and his team were not aware of the resources they did have available like a national system of radiation detectors.  If they had been aware of this system, which predicts the direction radiation is moving, they would have been able to prevent residents who were evacuating from heading directly into the radioactive plumb.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: Involving Others in Decision Making.

THE LESSON:

In order for any organization to execute successfully, the right people have to be involved in the right decisions. The Prime Minister of Japan provides a devastating example of what can happen when this isn’t the case.

Obviously, this lesson is even more critical when there is as much at stake as there was in the Japanese disaster.  But really for any company trying to gain footing in a constantly changing business environment and tough economy, empowering the right people to make the right decisions can be the difference between landing that next great customer or account.

Execution Gap Makers #2 and #3: Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) and the State of Connecticut

Few of the people who live in Connecticut would argue that CL&P was not prepared for October’s nor’easter.  It appears that CL&P’s emergency response plan was woefully inadequate.  The plan’s worst case scenario considered outages of 100,000 customers, or less than 10% of the customer base.  At its peak, the outage was over 800,000 customers, or about 66% of the company’s base.  Partly because of the original planning assumption, CL&P did not pre-stage adequate restoration resources in advance, which delayed the recovery effort in the first few days.

In addition, there appears to have been a lack of coordination among local and state government which contributed to shortcomings in preparedness, communication and private sector cooperation. Although there were plans at the state and municipal levels, there was not one centralized master plan that shows how state government should interact with its own agencies and how the state should coordinate its own activities with those of the utilities and municipal governments.

At the company level, the lack of coordination and collaboration is illustrated by CL&P’s promise to restore power to 99% of customers by November 6 without vetting it internally.  Not surprisingly, they missed this self-imposed deadline (as well as the one after that), which seriously undermined confidence in CL&P’s management team’s ability to deal with the crisis.

The “BRIDGES” that failed: Translating Strategy into Action and Coordination and Cooperation.

THE LESSON:

Execution starts with a plan. Although most organizations and leaders understand the value of developing a plan that outlines how a goal will be accomplished, the most effective leaders also ensure that plans are aligned and mutually supportive across organizational boundaries.  It’s also critical that organizations learn to coordinate decisions and actions across functions and levels.  But doing so requires more than faith and words alone.

Shared goals and clearly defined roles provide the foundation upon which cooperation and coordination can be built. In addition, people must be held accountable for results. This requires a combination of leader behavior and systems that reinforce the appropriate behavior among employees.

Execution Gap Maker #4: UBS

In September 2011, a “rogue trader” was arrested for a scheme that lost UBS $2.3 billion.  Although UBS hoped to show that this trader’s activities were an aberration, it appears that the unauthorized trading was just the latest in a series of ethical and legal lapses at UBS.  For example, in 2008 UBS settled charges brought by New York State that it misled customers when it sold them what it described as nearly risk free auction-rate securities even as its executives knew the market was collapsing.  In 2009, the Justice Department contended that UBS conspired to enable 17,000 wealthy Americans to engage in tax fraud.  In return for a deferred prosecution agreement, the bank agreed to pay a $781 million fine and divulge the names of the account holders.  In May of 2001, UBS paid $160 million and admitted that its employees had conspired to rig bids in the municipal bond derivative markets.

It appears that the most recent case of unauthorized trading is consistent with a culture at UBS that stressed individual advancement over team effort and personal achievement over ethical and legal considerations.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: Alignment Between Leader Actions and Company Values and Priorities.

THE LESSON:

A company’s culture is made up of the values and beliefs held by a majority of its employees.  Contrary to the common belief that values are “soft” and amorphous, they are quite concrete and drive behavior and systems.  Therefore, an organization’s culture is known or “recognized” by the behavior of its leaders and its work processes.

Leader behavior must be aligned with company objectives and values. While I admit this phrase has been said so often it’s become a cliché, companies can’t afford to ignore it.  You don’t really understand how important value alignment is or the impact it has on effective execution until you see what happens when it’s not there. That’s why stories like the UBS one are so important. They remind us not to take it for granted or assume it’s a ‘no-brainer.’

Execution Gap Makers #5 and #6: Netflix and Research in Motion (RIM)

Ironically, Netflix was on our 2010 list as a Gap Closer and an example of the same Bridge – Managing Change – that failed in 2011.  Partly because of the dramatic change in what was regarded as an almost flawless track record, Netflix’s missteps caught the media’s attention and were very well documented this year.  From its attempt to change its pricing structure to the announcement that they would rebrand the DVD service as Qwikster (which they quickly cancelled in the face of customer outrage).  In both cases, it was apparent that Netflix misread its customers and their expectations.

As CEO Reed Hastings admitted, Netflix had become overconfident, which was a contributing factor in the mismanagement of these key changes.

RIM gets an “un-honorable” mention in this category.  It appears that the Canadian company is having difficulty responding to the change created by the entry of Apple’s iPhone and iPad and Google’s Android technology.  Unlike when RIM dominated the market, their traditional customer, corporate IT, is starting to look at these new technologies more favorably and relaxing the distinction they had made between personal and business use.  This shift in perspective and the performance and features of their competitor’s products is forcing RIM to step up their game and rethink how they will compete in both the enterprise and consumer markets.

However, RIM has been unable to launch new products with the same appeal as its rivals (or even with its previous products) and it has suffered a number of significant service interruptions that have angered customers.  This has caused customers and potential customers to lose confidence in the company and encourage them to look at competing products.  RIM’s poor execution may actually end up being the antidote to the “crackberry” addiction they created.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: The Ability to Manage Change.

THE LESSON:

Effective execution requires vigilance.  Just because you’ve got it right today doesn’t mean you’ll get it right tomorrow.  As the Netflix example illustrates, the Bridges are quite fragile and require constant attention.  Arrogance and complacency are the beginning of the downward spiral into the execution gap.

It’s also important to remember that, despite all the effort and resources that have been devoted to helping leaders and companies manage change, they still often get poor marks in this area. That said, yet another change management process or program is not the solution, emphasizes Lepsinger.

 Our research, as well as the research of others, indicates that successful change is connected more to the individual and collective mindsets of employees and customers than any process. People change when they are ready—not just when they understand the need for change. The most successful companies facilitate change-readiness and don’t just rely on making the business case to drive people’s motivation to change.

As these stories illustrate, execution is the real bottom line and it’s what every business needs to focus on as they seek to improve organizational performance—and it’s the lens all leaders should look through as they review 2011 and make their “business resolutions” for 2012. 

Execution is not a single-point event. It’s an ongoing process. But since your ability to execute well and consistently is the very fabric of success, I can think of no better place to focus your time and energy.

 

Virtual Collaboration is Not For Everyone: The Characteristics of Top Performing Virtual Leaders and Team Members

Many organizations have migrated toward telecommuting and virtual work due to rising travel costs, a global customer base, and the dispersion of talent.  While numerous organizations have made significant investments in virtual teams and the technology to support them, a surprising number of virtual teams are not successful. 

OnPoint Consulting surveyed 48 virtual teams across industries and found that specific characteristics are required to lead and work effectively on virtual teams.  Unfortunately, many organizations do not put as much thought as they should into their team leader decisions. In fact, we often hear stories about team leaders who were selected based on availability or simply because they volunteered. Remember, leading a virtual team is a challenging task and requires a different skill set than leading a traditional co-located team.  

What are the characteristics that make top performing virtual leaders and virtual team members successful?  Our research identified several characteristics and behaviors that enable leaders and team members to work effectively in a virtual setting.

The most effective virtual team leaders are able to balance both the execution-oriented practices and the interpersonal, communication, and cultural factors that define virtual teams. Organizations should take time to select the individual with the appropriate skills—and not just go with the first person to volunteer or someone who already happens to lead a team. In addition, they should periodically assess their leaders’ effectiveness and provide them with targeted feedback about how they can enhance their performance. Great leaders will be happy to learn what they can do to keep improving.  

Organizations should also ensure that their virtual team members have the skills necessary to effectively collaborate from a distance. People who are motivated and are able to work in a self-directed manner, have a tolerance for ambiguity, are strong communicators, and are collaborative will be more effective on virtual teams.

An article in the June 2009 edition of BusinessWeek presented findings on what personality traits make for good virtual workers. While one might assume that introverted people would be more likely to thrive in a virtual setting, the study found that it was actually extroverts who fared best. Extroverted employees were more adept at finding ways to stay connected to others, despite their location. The study also showed that being structured and organized is essential for successfully working virtually.

Organizations generally need to make sure team members have the appropriate skills for tackling particular tasks. Laszlo Bock of Google says, “It is important to compose the team differently based on the problem the team needs to solve or address.” For example, the people chosen to help solve a detailed financial problem would most likely not be selected for a virtual team that’s created to tackle a customer satisfaction issue.

According to our study, the most important characteristics for virtual team members include strong communication and interpersonal skills, initiative, and flexibility.

As organizations begin to increase the use of virtual teams it’s important to understand that virtual teaming is not for everyone.  Understanding the characteristics necessary for succeeding in a virtual environment is very important.  Organizations and virtual team leaders would benefit from considering who needs to be on virtual teams to ensure that high quality decisions are made and across-the-board buy-in is achieved.

 

 

 

The 2011 Execution Round-Up: Six Organizations That Couldn’t “Get It Done” This Year

It’s that time of year when business owners and senior executives take stock of the past twelve months. What did 2011 look like for you and your company?  The questions you could ask during your year-end assessment are endless. But there’s only one that really matters: Did your company effectively execute its plans and initiatives?  

If an organization can’t get things done, nothing else matters—not the smartest strategy, not the most innovative business model, not even game-changing technology.  And for many companies, there is a clear gap between strategy and execution—we’ve seen plenty of evidence this year.  

Our research uncovered five characteristics, which we call “The Five Bridges,” that enable people to traverse this execution gap. It is these bridges that differentiate the companies that are consistently able to achieve results.  To learn from the “living laboratory” of real-world companies, here are six of this year’s headline makers and the lessons we can take away from their struggle.

Execution Gap Maker #1: The Japanese Government

Facing the possible meltdown of the Fukuskima Daiichi nuclear reactor, Prime Minister Naoto Kan asked a small circle of trusted advisors to weigh the risk of injecting seawater into the reactor to cool it down.  Unfortunately, because of Mr. Kan’s distrust of bureaucrats, he did not make use of Japan’s crisis management system which brought bureaucrats from various ministries under the direct command of the prime minister.  As a result, he did not involve members of Japan’s Nuclear Safety Commission or Tepco, the company that ran the power plant. 

Not involving these key stakeholders prevented him from quickly grasping the severity of the situation and adversely impacted the quality of Mr. Kan’s decisions and the speed with which he acted.  For example, he did not know that the plant manager had already started using seawater and continued to do so, despite being told to stop by his bosses at Tepco.  As it turns out, the plant manager’s act of defiance may have prevented many deaths.  In addition, Mr. Kan and his team were not aware of the resources they did have available like a national system of radiation detectors.  If they had been aware of this system, which predicts the direction radiation is moving, they would have been able to prevent residents who were evacuating from heading directly into the radioactive plumb.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: Involving Others in Decision Making.

THE LESSON:

In order for any organization to execute successfully, the right people have to be involved in the right decisions. The Prime Minister of Japan provides a devastating example of what can happen when this isn’t the case.

Obviously, this lesson is even more critical when there is as much at stake as there was in the Japanese disaster.  But really for any company trying to gain footing in a constantly changing business environment and tough economy, empowering the right people to make the right decisions can be the difference between landing that next great customer or account.

Execution Gap Makers #2 and #3: Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) and the State of Connecticut

Few of the people who live in Connecticut would argue that CL&P was not prepared for October’s nor’easter.  It appears that CL&P’s emergency response plan was woefully inadequate.  The plan’s worst case scenario considered outages of 100,000 customers, or less than 10% of the customer base.  At its peak, the outage was over 800,000 customers, or about 66% of the company’s base.  Partly because of the original planning assumption, CL&P did not pre-stage adequate restoration resources in advance, which delayed the recovery effort in the first few days.

In addition, there appears to have been a lack of coordination among local and state government which contributed to shortcomings in preparedness, communication and private sector cooperation. Although there were plans at the state and municipal levels, there was not one centralized master plan that shows how state government should interact with its own agencies and how the state should coordinate its own activities with those of the utilities and municipal governments.

At the company level, the lack of coordination and collaboration is illustrated by CL&P’s promise to restore power to 99% of customers by November 6 without vetting it internally.  Not surprisingly, they missed this self-imposed deadline (as well as the one after that), which seriously undermined confidence in CL&P’s management team’s ability to deal with the crisis.

The “BRIDGES” that failed: Translating Strategy into Action and Coordination and Cooperation.

THE LESSON:

Execution starts with a plan. Although most organizations and leaders understand the value of developing a plan that outlines how a goal will be accomplished, the most effective leaders also ensure that plans are aligned and mutually supportive across organizational boundaries.  It’s also critical that organizations learn to coordinate decisions and actions across organizational boundaries.  But doing so requires more than faith and words alone.

Shared goals and clearly defined roles provide the foundation upon which cooperation and coordination can be built. In addition, people must be held accountable for results. This requires a combination of direct leader behavior and systems that encourage and reinforce the appropriate behavior among employees.

Execution Gap Maker #4: UBS

In September 2011, a “rogue trader” was arrested for a scheme that lost UBS $2.3 billion.  Although UBS hoped to show that this trader’s activities were an aberration, it appears that the unauthorized trading was just the latest in a series of ethical and legal lapses at UBS.  For example, in 2008 UBS settled charges brought by New York State that it misled customers when it sold them what it described as nearly risk free auction-rate securities even as its executives knew the market was collapsing.  In 2009, the Justice Department contended that UBS conspired to enable 17,000 wealthy Americans to engage in tax fraud.  In return for a deferred prosecution agreement, the bank agreed to pay a $781 million fine and divulge the names of the account holders.  In May of 2001, UBS paid $160 million and admitted that its employees had conspired to rig bids in the municipal bond derivative markets.

It appears that the most recent case of unauthorized trading is consistent with a culture at UBS that stressed individual advancement over team effort and personal achievement over ethical and legal considerations.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: Alignment Between Leader Actions and Company Values and Priorities.

THE LESSON:

A company’s culture is made up of the values and beliefs held by a majority of its employees.  Contrary to the common belief that values are “soft” and amorphous, they are quite concrete and drive behavior and systems.  Therefore, an organization’s culture is known or “recognized” by the behavior of its leaders and its work processes.

Leader behavior must be aligned with company objectives and values. While I admit this phrase has been said so often it’s become a cliché, companies can’t afford to ignore it.  You don’t really understand how important value alignment is or the impact it has on effective execution until you see what happens when it’s not there. That’s why stories like the UBS one are so important. They remind us not to take it for granted or assume it’s a ‘no-brainer.’

Execution Gap Makers #5 and #6: Netflix and Research in Motion (RIM)

Ironically, Netflix was on our 2010 list as a Gap Closer and an example of the same Bridge – Managing Change – that failed in 2011.  Partly because of the dramatic change in what was regarded as an almost flawless track record, Netflix’s missteps caught the media’s attention and were very well documented this year.  From its attempt to change its pricing structure to the announcement that they would rebrand the DVD service as Qwikster (which they quickly cancelled in the face of customer outrage).  In both cases, it was apparent that Netflix misread its customers and their expectations.

As CEO Reed Hastings admitted, Netflix had become overconfident, which was a contributing factor in the mismanagement of these key changes.

RIM gets an “un-honorable” mention in this category.  It appears that the Canadian company is having difficulty responding to the change created by the entry of Apple’s iPhone and iPad and Google’s Android technology.  Unlike when RIM dominated the market, their traditional customer, corporate IT, is starting to look at these new technologies more favorably and relaxing the distinction they had made between personal and business use.  This shift in perspective and the performance and features of their competitor’s products is forcing RIM to step up their game and rethink how they will compete in both the enterprise and consumer markets.

However, RIM has been unable to launch new products with the same appeal as its rivals (or even with its previous products) and it has suffered a number of significant service interruptions that have angered customers.  This has caused customers and potential customers to lose confidence in the company and encourage them to look at competing products.  RIM’s poor execution may actually end up being the antidote to the “crackberry” addiction they created.

The “BRIDGE” that failed: The Ability to Manage Change.

THE LESSON:

Effective execution requires vigilance.  Just because you’ve got it right today doesn’t mean you’ll get it right tomorrow.  As the Netflix example illustrates, the Bridges are quite fragile and require constant attention.  Arrogance and complacency are the beginning of the downward spiral into the execution gap.

It’s also important to remember that, despite all the effort and resources that have been devoted to helping leaders and companies manage change, they still often get poor marks in this area. That said, yet another change management process or program is not the solution, emphasizes Lepsinger.

Our research, as well as the research of others, indicates that successful change is connected more to the individual and collective mindsets of employees and customers than any process. People change when they are ready—not just when they understand the need for change. The most successful companies facilitate change-readiness and don’t just rely on making the business case to drive people’s motivation to change.

As these stories illustrate, execution is the real bottom line and it’s what every business needs to focus on as they seek to improve organizational performance—and it’s the lens all leaders should look through as they review 2011 and make their “business resolutions” for 2012. 

Execution is not a single-point event. It’s an ongoing process. But since your ability to execute well and consistently is the very fabric of success, I can think of no better place to focus your time and energy.

 

Bridging the Virtual Gap: It’s All About Developing New Habits

“We have modified our environment so radically that we must modify ourselves in order to exist in this new environment.”

-- Norbert Wiener, The Human Use of Human Beings

 “If there is an office in the future,” wrote Charles Handy in a 1995 Harvard Business Review article on virtual work, “it will be more like a clubhouse: a place for meeting, eating, and greeting, with rooms reserved for activities, not for particular people.” Admittedly, most organizations haven’t reached that point yet, but the way we work has certainly changed dramatically since Handy’s mid-1990s predictions. 

Many of the world’s major corporations are choosing to go virtual.  According to a study from Communications of the ACM conducted by Intel Corporation in April 2009, approximately two-thirds of the company’s employees were on virtual teams.

So, what has contributed to this dramatic shift in the way people work, and more specifically, the growing popularity of virtual workplaces? There are three important reasons.

First, organizations are looking for the best available talent, regardless of their geographic location, which has led them to use virtual collaboration. Today when forming teams, rather than rely on a group of people who are geographically closer but may not have the right expertise many companies strategically select talented individuals who have the appropriate skill set even though they may live thousands of miles apart.

The second reason for the prevalence of virtual teams is that that the emergence of a global economy has made it particularly challenging for organizations to quickly capitalize on shifts in the marketplace and bring new products to market, effectively innovate, and respond to customers’ needs. Having team members in various locations around the world enables organizations to better meet these challenges. 

What’s the third reason for the growing popularity of virtual workplaces?  Technology. There’s no denying that advances in technology now allow organizations to achieve greater levels of efficiency and cost savings. And every year, new technologies are introduced to make it even easier and more efficient for globally dispersed teams to work together no matter how far they are physically from one another. 

But it should be said that while new technologies certainly enable virtual team collaboration, technology should be viewed as one piece of a larger puzzle, rather than the “be all, end all” solution. Despite the optimism that improved technologies will continue to emerge over time, organizations will always need to balance their use of these technologies with the interpersonal and collaborative processes necessary to support virtual teamwork.

The Virtual Challenge

In a study conducted by our company, OnPoint Consulting, we found that many companies that had made significant investments in technology and virtual teams were not performing to their full potential.  In fact, the study found that more than 25 percent of the virtual teams were not fully performing.

The cause, we believe, is that organizations are approaching working on and leading virtual teams as if the dynamics are the same as those of team members who are working in the same location. By and large, companies do not take the steps necessary to ensure their virtual teams and their virtual team leaders are set up for success. 

But why is that the case?  Why don’t the practices and behaviors used effectively by managers for decades with co-located teams work just as well in a virtual environment?

To start with, managing virtually is less “forgiving” than managing teams that are co-located.  Because it’s harder to work in a virtual setting it’s more difficult to “get away with things” and managerial weaknesses can become more pronounced.  We believe there are three characteristics of managing in a virtual setting that impact the ability of managers to “just do what they’ve always done.”

The Lack of Face-to-Face Contact

While communication among members of co-located teams can be difficult, imagine the problems when people don’t have any visual cues.  Although management and communication experts have known about the impact eye contact and body language has on our understanding of what another person is saying, we don’t fully appreciate it until those elements are missing.  It turns out that “words” and “tone of voice” is only two-thirds of the communication.  The other critical element is visual cues.

This lack of contact also makes it more difficult to build personal relationships and establish trust.  A great deal of the knowledge we have about people and their interests and values is gained through spontaneous, informal interactions at the coffee break, during lunch, or during informal breaks when we “visit” with people to chat.  That type of spontaneous informal interaction is absent in a virtual setting and can be difficult to replicate.

The Reliance on Technology

Although technology has been a significant catalyst for virtual teams it also creates challenges of its own.  No matter how “rich” the technology is, it is not as “rich” or “natural” as face-to-face communication since there is still a lot of information that’s not getting through.

In addition, using technology requires more “cognitive effort.”  An example that illustrates this idea is learning to drive a car with a standard transmission.  When you are just learning to drive using a “stick shift” it feels very unnatural and you have to think about every move – when to release the gas pedal , when to step on the clutch, when to shift the gears, when to release the clutch, and when to step on the gas.  With practice the task becomes more automatic and the driver does not have to consciously think about each step. 

When it comes to using technology to work and collaborate virtually, many of us are still in the early stages of learning.

Time Zone Differences

As we’ve noted, one advantage of virtual teams is that organizations can source personnel where ever they may be.  This also presents a challenge for virtual leaders and teams.  Having team members in different time zone makes it difficult to collaborate and to involve people in decisions that affect them.  It also makes scheduling team v-meetings (virtual meetings) difficult (someone has to get up early or stay up late) and inhibits spontaneous interactions.

The challenge for virtual leaders and teams then is to bridge this “virtual gap” and diminish the impact distance has on collaboration and communication.

So What’s the Answer?

The good news is that there is no “secret sauce.”  There are no undiscovered skills being used by effective virtual team leaders and team members. But it’s not that simple. Our study found that although many of the skills are the same as with co-located teams, leading and working from a distance does require a significant change in behavior and habit.

Here are two examples of what we mean.  Most interactions among virtual team members are business related.  We’re not able to “bump into” people in a virtual setting to have the kind of informal conversations that help build relationships and trust.  One technique used by effective team leaders and members to bridge the “virtual gap” is to initiate a call or an instant message just to “chat.”  These calls or IMs are focused on topics that would be discussed in the coffee room or over lunch – family events, sports, weather, and current events.

The second is a significant increase in the use of active listening.  In co-located situations people have the advantage of visual cues and misunderstandings still occur even when active listening is being used.  Working without visual cues requires a dramatic increase in the use of these basic, yet powerful, communication skills.

The Bottom Line

Although many companies have made significant investments in virtual teams and the technology to support them, a surprising number of these teams do not reach their full potential. 

The real secret, however, is that there is not secret.  It’s not about a new management skill that makes working virtually possible. The best virtual leaders and team members understand this and have bridged the “virtual gap” by adjusting their behavior and work habits to accommodate the unique characteristics of their virtual environment.

 

What’s On the Minds of Leaders Today?

In today’s economic climate, executives are focused on regaining their post-recession footing, keeping employees engaged, and enhancing customer relationships.   Although all of these issues are critical, in order to address them, there is really only one question that warrants attention: Did the company effectively execute its plans and initiatives? 

If an organization can’t get things done, nothing else matters—not the smartest strategy, not the most innovative business model, not even game-changing technology. This assertion is backed by hard evidence. My company, OnPoint Consulting—which specializes in helping clients close the gap between strategy and execution and create a culture of getting things done—conducted a study of over 400 companies. We found that 49 percent of the leaders surveyed in the study reported a gap between their organization’s ability to formulate and communicate a vision and strategy and its ability to deliver results.  

This wasn’t the surprising part, though. What was really shocking was that only 36 percent of leaders who thought their company had an execution gap had confidence in their organization’s ability to close the gap between strategy and execution. That means a staggering 64 percent of leaders who saw an execution problem didn’t believe their company could fix it. But what contributes to this lack of confidence? 

OnPoint’s Annual Pulse Survey, which asked 935 leaders what they viewed as the greatest challenges to executing strategic initiatives, has shed some light on that question.  OnPoint’s survey results found that although senior managers were confident in their ability to create a clear and inspiring vision, they indicated that “employees at all levels delivering top performance” was the biggest challenge to executing plans and initiatives. The second biggest challenge was facilitating and managing change.  This was followed by “translating strategy into action” and “developing a realistic strategy.”

OnPoint’s research also examined the extent to which perception of business challenges varied at different management levels (see Table 1).  The greatest alignment of top challenges at all levels was on employees delivering top performance, which was considered a significant challenge to strategy execution by all management levels.  

What were leaders consistently more confident in?   Leaders at all levels generally agreed that creating a clear and inspiring vision and maintaining high levels of quality and customer service were not significant  challenges. Mid-level and front line leaders were predominantly concerned with “involving the right people in decision making” and “holding people accountable”, which were not perceived to be top challenges by senior executives.

In the past, the chasm between what’s proudly proclaimed on your company website and reality might have been seen (and written off) as the standard “mission, vision, and values” statement that all companies feel obligated to produce.

But we’re living in unforgiving times. The combination of frozen commercial credit, tight-fisted customers, and general economic malaise has serious implications for businesses. They must be able to keep their promises to customers/shareholders and meet their goals. Execution has always been important, but when margins (and the margin for error) are paper thin, it’s everything.

Table 1.Rankings of challenges to strategy execution across levels

Challenge to Strategy Execution	CEOs, Presidents, Business Owners	Senior Leaders	Mid-Level Leaders	Front Line Leaders
Employees at all levels delivering top performance	1	1	3	2
Facilitating and managing change	2	8	7	5
Translating strategy into action	3	6	10	9
Developing a realistic strategy	4	9	9	10
Holding people accountable	5	4	1	3
Ensuring high levels of employee commitment	6	3	4	7
Involving the right people in the right decisions	7	2	2	1
Encouraging and sustaining cooperation and coordination	8	7	6	6
Ensuring that employees have the appropriate skills and experience to do their jobs effectively	9	5	5	4
Maintaining high levels of quality and customer service	10	10	8	8
Creating a clear and inspiring vision	11	11	11	11