Today, the UKG Workforce Institute continues a collaborative, culture-focused effort with Ankura called “Transforming the Team.” In this five-week series, guest contributor Mark Cappellino from the Ankura Talent Advisory team, along with UKG Workforce Institute advisory board member and Ankura colleague John Frehse, provide actionable strategies and weekly exercises to help leaders transform their cultures, starting at the individual and team levels.
This work is part of a collaboration inside The Culture Lab at Ankura, where experts from different fields come together to tell a more impactful story about business outcomes. For this session, Mark, John, and a range of leaders from other disciplines help leaders better understand team dynamics and dysfunction. Most importantly, what to do about it to drive operational performance. Before reading ahead, catch up on the series here: Transforming the Team: Week One and Transforming the Team: Week Two.
We have a subconscious orientation to the word “relationship” at work that is antithetical to work. We operate as if “relationship” has nothing to do with work. I believe it is everyone’s job at work to maintain relationships that facilitate effective work.
These relationships are like arranged marriages. They are arranged by the lines on the org chart that connect the roles. That is, we are in these relationships by virtue of the roles we inhabit.
The quality of our work relationships determines what we can — and cannot — accomplish together. They are the context in which we perform and execute our work, in the form of conversations. As such, relationships at work are the foundation of our success — individually and collectively.
When we hear “relationship” in a business context, we equate it with being social, familiar, or even intimate with each other. Or we think of our professional relationships in a very two-dimensional way: they are either “good” or “bad.” That is, we see ourselves as being either “nice” or “not nice” to each other.
Nice is what we want in social relationships. Effective is what we need at work.
People spend a lot of mental and emotional energy trying to have “nice” relationships at work, which is admirable. Of course, we should place a premium on virtues like kindness and compassion. But we need something more than cordiality in business. We need to create relationships in which we can candidly share our different perspectives, agree that we disagree (as we certainly will), learn from each other, and co-create new ways of moving forward together.
Trying to be uncompromisingly nice in our work relationships creates more friction. And sometimes it leads to disaster.
Consider Asiana Airlines’ disastrous Flight 214 into San Francisco in July 2013. The U.S. National Transportation Safety Board ruled that the complexity of two of the plane’s key systems contributed to the crash. But media also exposed what happened in the cockpit conversation in their coverage of the event. The captain, who was new to flying 777s, made an assumption about how the technology would behave and inadvertently stopped the autothrottle from controlling the plane’s speed. The training captain didn’t notice the error. And the third pilot didn’t speak up immediately when they noticed the plane was descending too fast. The behavioral norm in the cockpit (the decorum of saving face) forbid pointing out a colleague’s mistakes. In the few seconds the pilot hesitated to challenge authority, three teenagers lost their lives.
In an organizational culture of “nice”, people talk a lot about their relationships at work — especially when those relationships don’t work. Most of those conversations happen with the wrong person. We tend to “talk relationship” with anyone but the individual we have a problem with.
When we equate being candid, direct, or in disagreement with being “not nice,” we make it difficult to have the very conversations that our work relationships require of us.
Triangulating (a.k.a. gossiping) may make us feel better momentarily, but it kills the prospect of effectively operating together.
The more we talk with a third party, the more “right” we become, the more “wrong” the other person becomes, and the more strained our “problem” relationship becomes.
Leaders often inadvertently get caught acting as the pivot point in these relationship triangulations. Say two highly competent colleagues disagree about how to solve an operational problem in a meeting. In a culture of “nice,” they won’t work out their differences in the meeting.
Usually, the individuals in question will take a more indirect, less confrontational approach to resolving their differences. Each person will lobby their manager behind closed doors to garner support for their solution to the problem. They will defend and rationalize their particular point of view. In this atmosphere of subterfuge, the pressure is on their manager to arbitrate the dispute and bridge the relationship. No matter which solution the manager chooses, playing the arbitrator will only reinforce the discord between the two colleagues. This is triangulation.
To be “effective” at work, we need to stop involving third parties and start speaking up. We need to take responsibility for the effectiveness of every one of our work relationships. We need to talk with each other directly, not about each other.
What do these 1:1 conversations sound like?
We can get great work done together by being candid and kind — but only if we’ve established this as our norm. If we have been disengaged or indirect in the past, then now is the time to have a conversation with each other to design our working relationships.
This Week’s Exercise: Try analyzing your own behavior this week by being conscious of how you talk about vs. talking with your coworkers.
Next week, we explore deeper the concept of innovating with conflict and how having hard conversations can help drive performance.
© 2024 Workforce Institute All Rights Reserved • Designed and Developed by Morether Creative Agency, Temple, TX