Hay top teams-why some work, some donot

T o p T e a m s : W h y S o m eW o r k a n d S o m e D o N o t

F i v e T h i n g s t h e B e s t C E O s D o T o

C r e a t e O u t s t a n d i n g E x e c u t i v e T e a m s

When top teams fail, is the leader to blame?

Portfolio managers lower company valuations when top teams falter.

It is not hopeless: Ineffective top team leaders can become effective ones.

P A P E RW O R K I N G

T o p T e a m s : W h y S o m eW o r k a n d S o m e D o N o t

F i v e T h i n g s t h e B e s t C E O s D o T o

C r e a t e O u t s t a n d i n g E x e c u t i v e T e a m s

The benef i ts of ef fect ive top teams 2

What is a “real” team? 4

F i v e C o n d i t i o n s F o r To p Te a m S u c c e s s 5

1. Establ ish a clear, compel l ing direct ion 5

2. Create an appropriate structure 9

3. Select the r ight people 12

4. Support the top team 16

5. Provide development 17

C o n c l u s i o n 1 8

Copyright © 2001 Hay Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

This working paper is the product of research conducted by Hay Group in

partnership with Richard Hackman of Harvard University and Ruth Wageman

of Dartmouth College.

P A P E RW O R K I N G

1

eet Martin, the Chief Executive Officer of a global pharmaceutical com-

pany. Martin (not his real name) is a 15-year veteran of the firm, a con-

sistent high performer personally and an undisputed leader. His colleagues

describe him as hard-hitting, driven and charismatic. The company’s stock

price jumped eight percent the day he was named CEO. However, as we will

see, despite his many attributes he is an ineffective executive team leader.

Martin’s top team has 15 members, including all the global business-unit heads

and several functional leaders. The group gathers monthly for a full-day meet-

ing, sometimes at headquarters, often at one of the company’s many world-

wide locations.

Martin kicks off today’s meeting with a joke, then lays out a packed 17-item

agenda. First to speak is the head of the Asia/Pacific division, who updates the

group on her numbers and answers Martin’s questions. After her two-hour

presentation, the other team members each deliver a similar “silo briefing.”

Almost no one pays attention. Vibrating cell phones—“No ringing cell

phones!” the CEO has decreed—alert several team members to calls, which

they excuse themselves to take. Others read faxes and memos. No speaker is

offended because the real dialogue is between Martin and the presenter; team

members rarely comment. In fact, they have tacitly agreed that no one will ask

challenging questions. If you don’t make me look bad, I won’t make you

look bad.

When a team member says something Martin likes, his face radiates approval:

Now there’s a team player. When someone disagrees with him, his body lan-

guage says it all: I need to talk to that guy in private and straighten him out.

Martin is unsettled when the meeting breaks at 11 in the evening. It was the

same bloodbath as always on capital expenditures. All they care about is

“How much of the Cap Ex budget am I going to get?” What about the big

picture?

Team members, jet-lagged and running out of energy, also feel frustrated. I

flew 16 hours for this? What little I contributed today could have been done

by phone or email. The strategic issues I care about got buried on the agen-

da and we never even got to them. And I still don’t know what piece of the

Cap-Ex pie I’m going to get!

M

Perhaps you recognize Martin. Then again, hopefully you do not. His top team

is not really a team at all. And whatever results Martin gets from his senior peo-

ple could be better—a lot better—if he understood the dynamics of executive

teams.

With so much at stake for CEOs—since 1999 turnover at the chief executive

level has increased five-fold—why do so many falter with their top teams?

Clearly, a major factor driving CEO dismissals is the inability to execute strate-

gy, which is the main purpose of executive teams. In fact, an Ernst & Young

study1 showed a direct link between top team effectiveness and company valu-

ation. The survey of institutional portfolio managers suggested that 35% of an

investment decision is driven by non-financial data. The top two non-financial

criteria were “execution of corporate strategy” and “management credibility.”

One would expect CEOs to see that molding an effective executive team is a

means to boost shareholder value—and keep one’s job. Yet our research

shows that few seem to get it.

Since 1998 Hay Group—working with Harvard University’s Richard Hackman

and Dartmouth College’s Ruth Wageman—has been studying executive teams

at major international organizations. Together, we have concluded that top

teams can work effectively and bring a lot of value to the organization. But

too many fail. And often the reason—many CEOs are not going to like hearing

this—is the team leader.

T h e b e n e f i t s o f e f f e c t i v e t o p t e a m s

Successful team leaders from our study point to two key benefits of effective

top teams: 1) they advance the team leader’s agenda much more quickly; and

2) they allow a company to weather tough times more effectively.

Arturo Barahona, CEO of AeroMexico, credits his top team for several major

accomplishments after he took the top job in 1999. In a turbulent airlines

market during his first year, Barahona’s team carried out his directive to insti-

tute company-wide cost-cutting procedures. They ended up slashing costs two

percent, an exceptional feat at a time when fuel price hikes were increasing

P A P E RW O R K I N G

21 "Measures that Matter:An Exploratory Investigation of Investors' Information Needs and ValuePriorities," by Sarah Mavrinac and Tony Siesfeld. Ernst & Young Center for Business Innovation andthe Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1998.

Since 1999 turnover at

the chief execut ive level

has increased f ive-fold.

costs significantly at other airlines. The team also increased revenues by 12%

during that first year.

To implement an aggressive growth initiative, the CEO of a British telecommu-

nications company reorganized and revitalized his executive group. As a result

the company increased its market capitalization from 10 billion pounds to 30

billion pounds and increased its customer base several-fold within three years.

Growth had stalled at an international specialty chemical company, so the CEO

mandated cost-cutting measures to increase profits. Acting independently of

each other, the strategic business unit heads felt they had driven out all unnec-

essary costs from their operations, improving profits slightly. The CEO was

unsatisfied and refocused his executive team on an interdependent goal.

Together, the team was able to chase out even more costs, making cuts that

eventually doubled profits.

P A P E RW O R K I N G

3

The Research: Identifying True Teamwork

Since 1998, Hay Group has been working with Richard Hackman of Harvard

University and Ruth Wageman of Dartmouth College to identify the dynamics

of top executive teams and their impact on performance. From an initial

group of 48 teams, the researchers narrowed their study to 14 teams, many

from large global organizations. Each team member represented the head of

an organization, a major business division, or a major geography. The study

identified the elements that differentiated the outstanding teams through the

following techniques: Behavioral Event Interviews, Managerial Style Inventory,

Organizational Climate Survey, Team Effectiveness Rating Scale, and Team

Diagnostic Survey.

"Outstanding" performance was determined through four criteria:

1. Financial performance;

2.Team climate;

3. Customer satisfaction; and

4.The growth and development of the team and its individual members.

The common theme in these success stories is getting individual team mem-

bers to move out of their silos and function as an interdependent team, one

that can advance the leader’s agenda quickly and switch gears when market

changes require it.“The seven VPs on our executive team traditionally had

worked very independently,” says AeroMexico’s Barahona. “If they had contin-

ued to work that way, we could never have accomplished what we did.”

Many business leaders see top team unity as a necessity, not a luxury, in today’s

environment. “The world is too complex today,” says Vickie Tillman,Vice

President of Credit Market Services at Standard & Poor’s. “Executive teams,

especially in global companies, can’t afford to allow a silo mentality where peo-

ple do not buy in to a shared vision. To think a company can achieve its objec-

tives with individual team members acting in isolation is naïve.”

W h a t i s a “ r e a l ” t e a m ?

Martin’s executive team in the opening vignette is a reporting group, not a

team. Its main purpose is to share information. Thousands of such reporting

groups now operate in companies worldwide. And most, if not all, mistakenly

believe they are teams. So what constitutes a real team? In his book “Groups

That Work and Those That Don’t,” Richard Hackman defines a real team as

follows:

“[A real team has] a collective task that demands a high level of

interdependency among its members, something that can only be

accomplished together; and clear and stable boundaries, so that

membership is not constantly changing, and it is easy to tell who

is on the team.”

Martin’s executive team may have stable boundaries, but given its size probably

does not. Our research shows that effective teams typically have six to eight

members.With 15 members, Martin’s is too big. More important, Martin has

not given his team a task that its members can work on together. As a result,

there is little or no interdependence. In fact, every team member functions

independently of the others, and this independence is reinforced at each meet-

ing during “silo briefings.”

P A P E RW O R K I N G

4

“To think a company can

achieve i ts object ives with

individual team members

act ing in isolat ion is naïve.”

F i v e C o n d i t i o n s F o r T o p T e a m S u c c e s s

he good news is that struggling executive team leaders such as Martin

can become successful ones. Creating effective teams is not an instant or

easy process. It takes time, hard work and, most important, the leader’s and the

team’s full commitment. Ultimately, it is a new way of leading, requiring new

behaviors and values.

Hay’s research with Hackman and Wageman shows there are proven, and unex-

pected, ways that CEOs can create and run highly effective executive teams.We

found that on successful teams, the leaders created five conditions. They are:

Direction, Structure, People, Support, and Development (see Figure 1).

In the following section, we discuss each of the five conditions in detail:

1 . E s t a b l i s h a c l e a r , c o m p e l l i n g d i r e c t i o n

We worked with several organizational leaders who communicate a clear, com-

pelling mission brilliantly and who get their employees to buy in to the compa-

ny’s goals. But when it comes to leading their executive teams, many of these

same leaders assume there is no need to provide direction. One such leader was

taken aback when we suggested he determine if all his team members couldP A P E R

W O R K I N G

5

Creat ing effect ive teams

takes t ime, hard work and,

most important , the

leader ’s and team’s ful l

commitment.

T

Figure 1: The Five Conditions for Top Team Success

Conditions

Results

Direction

Structure

People

Leadership

Support

Development

Support

Development

identify the team’s purpose. “Of course they can,” the team leader insisted.

“These are smart people. I don’t want to insult their intelligence.”

The attitude is, unfortunately, widespread. A boss at an oil refinery agreed to

give his team a quick quiz, one in which each member was asked to write

down the team’s number one priority. This manager was stunned when the 10

team members listed four different top priorities, including cost-cutting, safety,

environmental compliance and seeking new markets.

“For goodness sakes,” exclaimed the team leader,“Don’t you guys realize that if

we can’t cut our refining costs by three cents a gallon, they’re going to shut us

down?”

“Is that all you need us to do?” replied the incredulous team members.

Galvanized by the discovery of what their leader really wanted them to do, the

team members reduced costs by five cents per gallon over the following year.

Many team leaders hesitate to thrust their vision on their team members.

Vickie Tillman of Standard & Poor’s was one such leader. She says: “I had just

gone from being a peer to being the boss, and I wanted people to buy into my

vision, but I didn’t want to force it.” But a survey she conducted of the team

members revealed that they wanted her to articulate her vision for them. “I

was surprised,” Tillman says. “It showed me that teams, even ones with high-

level people who are leaders themselves, really want a leader. They need a

framework of ground rules to operate in.”

Our research showed that on outstanding teams, the leader gave far clearer

direction than on average or poor-performing teams. Figure 2 shows how the

six factors that determine organizational climate affect team performance: flexi-

bility, responsibility, standards, rewards, clarity and team commitment. For each

factor, we asked team members to rate: 1) how the team was performing in

reality; and 2) how the team should be performing. The gap is the difference

between those two ratings; anything over 20% indicates a problem. On out-

standing teams the clarity gap is just 18%, but on typical teams the gap is a

whopping 58%, suggesting that team members strongly feel the absence of

clear direction from their team leader. Figure 2 shows that of all the factors

influencing team climate, clarity is the one that really distinguished great teams

from average ones.

P A P E RW O R K I N G

6

“Teams, even ones with

high- level people who are

leaders themselves, real ly

want a leader. They need

a framework of ground

rules to operate in.”

Why is clarity so important? Because when the team leader does not provide

it, a leadership vacuum is created, one that all members rush to fill with their

own individual priorities and goals. High-performing individuals—i.e., people

who tend to be on top teams—need goals and direction. When team members

cannot see where the team is going, each member will promote his or her per-

sonal interests. With no unifying team purpose, irresolvable conflicts erupt.

Ultimately the top team can self-destruct, often with considerable collateral

damage, including severe personality clashes and deep cynicism about the

value of teams.

A top team success s tory

How did AeroMexico’s Arturo Barahona convince a group of highly independ-

ent vice presidents to work together, thereby molding a team capable of

achieving exceptional results during a very tough year for airlines?

Barahona began by establishing a direction for his team. He did so by drafting

a document that laid out his vision. Preparing the core vision was not a demo-

cratic process. Barahona did it alone, working 14 hours a day for two weeks.

Once he had a draft, he met with each of his seven vice presidents in private

to discuss his ideas, but also to get them to buy in to his plans. One month

after he became CEO, Barahona held his first top team meeting, where he—and

he alone—spoke for four hours. “I was putting my stake in the ground,”

Barahona recalls.P A P E RW O R K I N G

7

Our s tudy examined how the s ix e lements o f

Organizat ional Cl imateaffected team per formance.

The most impor tant by farwas Clar i ty. For each

factor, team members wereasked to ra te : 1 . How the

team was per forming inrea l i ty ; and 2. How the

team should be per forming.The b igger the gap, thebigger the prob lem. For

Typica l teams, the gap forClar i ty is 58%. For

Outstanding teams, thegap is jus t 18%.

TotalTeamClarityRewardsStandardsResponsibilityFlexibility

Typical vs. Outstanding Teams

Per

cent

ile G

ap

Typical

Outstanding

18%

58%

Performance

Figure 2: Organizational Climate and Teams

Gap Between Actual and Desired

Commitment

But once he had set the direction, Barahona backed off. “The people on a top

team are very successful, ambitious people who have a lot of energy,” he says.

“If you give them a strong challenge, they will do what it takes to succeed.”

Six months later, Barahona and his executive team were ready to meet with

130 other key employees. “At this meeting I spoke for five minutes at the

beginning and let my executive team take over and present the plan,” he

recalls. “What they said wasn’t nearly as important as the fact that they were

talking, not me. For our company, this was a major change. In the past, all our

people knew these guys had always acted very independently. Yet here they

were taking a team approach. Yes, it was my vision, but everyone put some-

thing into it. It’s amazing how much a person can support an idea when they

participate in the creation and execution of that idea.”

Will AeroMexico face tough challenges in the future? Of course. But the team-

work Barahona has fostered at the executive level will help the company face

those challenges better than most.

Direct ion and the Author i ta t ive manager ia l s ty le

As Figure 3 shows, Barahona’s approach to team leadership is clearly the right

one. Our research shows that the Authoritative style—in which the CEO sets a

clear direction—is highly valued by team members. But so is a CEO’s effort to

infuse his leadership with an element of democracy by allowing his team and

other key executives to participate in fleshing out the vision articulated by the

CEO.

P A P E RW O R K I N G

8

Team members ra tedteam leaders on the i r

use of the s ix manager ia ls ty les. On outs tanding

teams, the dominants ty les were Democrat ic(74%) and Author i ta t ive

(63%). On poor teamsthe dominant s ty les were

Coerc ive (77%) andPaceset t ing (69%).

PoorTypicalOutstanding

CoachingPacesettingDemocraticAffiliativeAuthoritativeCoercive

24%29%

77%

63%56%

43%

54%

46%

12%

74%

61%

29%

51%

64%69%

60%

41%

8%

Figure 3: How Managerial Styles Impact Team Performance

It is important to note, however, that outstanding teams do not much like lead-

ers who are Pacesetters—who set a clear direction, but must always be out

front “modeling the way,” and who often feel compelled to rescue team mem-

bers who are struggling. In some circumstances Pacesetting is a valuable man-

agerial style, but when it is a dominant style of an executive team leader, team

members ultimately feel disempowered. The boss has all the answers. Why

does he need me?

Set a compel l ing chal lenge for the team

As they work to make their teams effective, CEOs should never ask the teams

to take on challenges that could be accomplished by lower-level managers or

executives. The executive team’s mission must be consequential, requiring the

deep experience and skills of the top team members.

A major manufacturer involved in our study had a top team whose mission was

to improve product cycle time and delivery speed to market. One could argue

that in this business these are mission-critical issues worthy of the executive

team’s attention. But these challenges are primarily operational, requiring the

expertise of capable middle and senior managers; the executive team, not suffi-

ciently engaged by the challenges, stalled. So the CEO reinvented the team,

establishing new, more appropriate goals such as exploring e-business opportu-

nities, evaluating acquisitions of other companies and identifying new markets

overseas. Energized by this new direction, the team took off.

2 . C r e a t e a n a p p r o p r i a t e s t r u c t u r e

With direction firmly established, the CEO who hopes to create a successful

team must also put in place an appropriate structure for the team. To do so,

the CEO must set team size and boundaries, establish its procedures and spell

out the norms of conduct the team will follow.

Team s ize and boundar ies

The CEO who wants to create a successful team will generally populate it with

six to eight members. More members mean more competing interests, more

personality clashes and a greater risk that competing factions will form. “In

smaller groups people are much less concerned about making their peers look

P A P E RW O R K I N G

9

The execut ive team’s mission

must be consequential ,

requir ing the deep experience

and ski l ls of the top team

members.

bad,” says Standard & Poor’s Tillman, who cut her team from 14 to eight. “So

you get better discussion, more passion, more honesty.”

Why do teams grow too large? CEOs and other top executives, fearful of leav-

ing key players off the team and perhaps offending them, often invite too many

people to the party. But the best leaders understand that organizations are not

democracies, and that full representation is unnecessary. The appropriate ques-

tion is: Given the team’s goal, which individuals bring the expertise required

to achieve that goal? Anyone who lacks expertise or merely duplicates expert-

ise already offered by someone else should not be on the team.

Procedures

CEOs must periodically review procedures followed by their executive teams

and continually ask whether the procedures impede or advance the team’s

efforts.

On one team we observed, the CEO allowed the meeting agenda to begin with

tactical items and end with strategic ones. Not surprisingly, meetings got

bogged down on the early items while strategy—the real purpose of the

team—almost always got short shrift. When we pointed this out to the CEO

and the team, this unproductive, team-defeating practice stopped.

Another CEO had his team begin its executive meeting at 4:00 in the afternoon

and let it go on until 11 in the evening. As a result, after about 9 o’clock no

one dared raise an important issue for fear it would ignite a discussion and pro-

long the meeting. Ultimately, the CEO realized what was happening and start-

ed the team’s meetings earlier in the day.

Norms

All too often, team leaders overlook one important factor: That they have to

establish norms, the ground rules for determining what is acceptable behavior

by team members and what is not. A norm could be something very simple:

On Martin’s team, members were allowed to take phone calls during meetings,

but were asked to silence their ringers. But norms can also be complex, like

those that spell out how team members should debate opposing points of

view.

A CEO may also allow tacit norms to crop up, but only as long as those normsP A P E R

W O R K I N G

10

Larger teams mean more

competing interests, more

personal i ty c lashes and a

greater r isk that competing

fact ions wi l l form.

are accepted by everyone on the team. There are not likely to be problems if a

regular meeting scheduled for 9:00 in the morning always starts at 9:20, and all

participants know that. But the CEO has to stop disruptive norms from creep-

ing in. Our researchers encountered a team leader who routinely stopped his

team meetings when latecomers arrived and insisted they receive a quick

recap of what they had missed. The same two people were the ones who

were always late, and the rest of the team deeply resented them for it. More

important, they resented the leader for tolerating a norm so disrespectful of

the team’s time.

As important as norms are, no universal norms apply to all teams.The CEO and

the team, together, have to set the ones best suited to their endeavors. And the

list does not have to be an extensive one—two or three that will enhance the

team’s performance will do. At AeroMexico, CEO Barahona and his team put

their norms on paper. “We came up with a long list together of things that we

felt were important and then narrowed it down to 10,” Barahona said. “We

typed them up and everyone signed them.” Two key norms on that list were

“Never play politics” and “When you commit to something for the group,

always deliver.”

Enforc ing norms

Barahona says that in the first month or two he had to reprimand a couple of

team members.“I pulled out my list of norms and said,‘What you did violated

Norm #3 right here.’” He has not had to do it since. “The norms have become

part of the normal life of the group,” he says. “No one violates them anymore.”

The team leader can, and should, establish new norms as the need arises. At an

executive team meeting of a division of a worldwide chemical company, the

division president asked his Chief Financial Officer for some analysis. “Sorry, I

don’t have it because Corporate didn’t get the numbers to me,” the CFO

replied. The president, who had heard this excuse repeatedly at earlier meet-

ings from several others, had had enough.“New rule,” he said firmly. “From

now on no one will blame Corporate when they are unprepared.”

Team leaders who emphatically articulate the team’s direction and who estab-

lish clear norms do not have to act coercively to hold their team members

accountable. The team will do it for them. Teams with clear direction and

norms tend to self-regulate.P A P E R

W O R K I N G

11

Team leaders who emphatical ly

art iculate the team’s direct ion

and who establ ish clear norms

do not have to act coercively

to hold their team members

accountable. The team wi l l

do i t for them.

Moreover, when a CEO sets a strong direction and clear norms that take root

within the executive team, the members readily use them to train newcomers

how to behave within the team.

Norms are the glue that holds a team together. As CEO you should never

assume that because your top team includes bright, successful individuals,

there is no need to establish clear norms. Our research suggests the opposite

is true: Because top teams are composed of such strong personalities, clear

norms are even more important. And only the leader can establish and enforce

them effectively.

3 . S e l e c t t h e r i g h t p e o p l e

When we studied what kinds of executives should be on top teams, the results

were surprising. We found that people on outstanding teams were neither

brighter, more driven nor more committed than members of less accomplished

teams. What people on the best teams contributed was the ability to work

with others. They brought emotional intelligence to the table.

Emotionally intelligent people are capable of self-control, are adaptable and

exude self-confidence and self-awareness, to name just a few of the attributes

that distinguish them. However, our research showed that on outstanding

executive teams, two attributes in particular distinguished members from those

who served on less capable teams: empathy and integrity.

Empathy

Empathy is the ability to understand the emotional makeup of others. Our

research shows that members of outstanding teams were far more empathic

than their counterparts on average teams (see Figure 4). On outstanding teams

71 percent of participants said their peers were sensitive to the unspoken

emotions of their fellow team members. On average teams the percentage was

just 44 percent.

Why must a CEO see to it that the top team is populated with people who

have empathy? Because the members of a team will only buy in to the team

process if they feel they are both heard and understood. Like others who have

researched how individuals react in a team environment, we found that team

members accept criticism, even outright rejection, of their ideas as long as theyP A P E R

W O R K I N G

12

What people on the

best teams contr ibuted

was the abi l i ty to work

with others.

have had a chance to explain them and feel that others understood their point

of view. Resentment builds if people feel they have not been heard or that,

either for political reasons or simply because others dominated the floor, their

ideas were not fairly evaluated.

It is critical that CEOs select emotionally intelligent team members capable of

empathy, people capable of mutual respect who can listen to others’ views

without interrupting. It is equally important that team leaders remove anyone

not willing to demonstrate this important attribute. Consider the tough choice

made by the CEO at a major health care company:

An executive team member (we will call Paul) dominated team meetings with

his personal demands. Paul had the top-performing hospital in the company.

He knew it, and made sure everyone else on the team knew it too. During dis-

cussions of capital expenditures and other resources, he demanded special

treatment. “With Paul it’s always ‘I want this’ and ‘I want that,’” the CEO

explained. “It seems like three-quarters of every meeting is about his issues.

He never listens to the needs of others on the team.”

Paul’s disruptive need to dominate the meeting showed poor self-management.

He demonstrated weak social skills, eroding relationships with his peers and

limiting the group’s ability to work as a team. And, of course, he lacked empa-

thy.P A P E RW O R K I N G

13

TypicalOutstanding

71%

44%

Figure 4: Empathy Level of Team

Percentage of team members who answered "yes"

Are members of your team sensitive to the unspoken thoughts, concerns and feelings of their fellow team members?

The CEO removed Paul from the executive team, and Paul left the company as a

result. “But it was worth it,” the CEO continued.“Paul was a smart guy, and a

great performer, but in the end I felt he was holding me and the rest of the team

hostage. A guy like that can destroy an executive team.”

In tegr i ty

The study we conducted with the help of Harvard’s Hackman and Dartmouth’s

Wageman also suggests that integrity is extraordinarily important on executive

teams. Integrity is generally thought to encompass honesty and a strict adher-

ence to an ethical code. In the context of our team study, integrity was defined

more narrowly. On top teams, a person with integrity is someone who behaves

consistently with the organization’s (or the team’s) values—even when it is per-

sonally risky to do so. That is, when there is some personal sacrifice involved.

When a CEO has created a team whose members have the kind of integrity that

puts the organization first, team members also develop an extraordinary amount

of trust in each other. This was very evident in surveys we conducted of teams

categorized as outstanding and teams that were less so. On average teams, only

three percent of the team members surveyed said that even one individual on

the team would take the personal risk of challenging the team to live up to its

values (see Figure 5). On outstanding teams 44 percent of the members said

P A P E RW O R K I N G

14

“Paul was a smart guy, and a

great performer, but in the

end I fe l t he was holding me

and the rest of the team

hostage. A guy l ike that can

destroy an execut ive team.”

TypicalOutstanding

44%

3%

Figure 5: Integrity Level of Team

Percentage of team members who answered "yes"

Does the team have at least one member who challenges the group to live up to its values and norms, even when it ispersonally uncomfortable and/or professionally risky to do so?

that their fellow team members would take such an action.

For example, an executive team in our study was contemplating the immediate

closure of a factory. Several members argued in favor of closing the factory

because it was not productive. Shutting it down would help cut costs. This

hard-line view was gaining steam when one team member spoke up:“One

thing we always say at this company is that we show respect for people,” she

said. “How is closing the factory this way consistent with that core company

value?”

It was risky for this team member to say that—on some executive teams such

candor could be suicidal. But because the team leader had created conditions

of trust on the team, the team member felt she could safely present the oppos-

ing point of view.

After lengthy debate, the team agreed that shutting down the plant right away

could have serious repercussions with employees, the union, customers and

the community, and they agreed at that meeting to keep the plant running.

Enabl ing product ive conf l ic t

The team described above has the emotional intelligence to deal with conflict.

Strong team leaders create an environment where team members understand

that conflict is good, as long as it is over ideas, not personalities. Contrast that

with the situation at the pharmaceutical company described in our opening

vignette. The team members had a tacit agreement with one another not to

speak their minds in meetings. The reason: One of the ground rules established

by Martin, the team leader, was that “conflict is bad.” He never explicitly said

so, but his reaction when members disagreed with him sent the message loud

and clear.

Achiev ing h igh in tegr i ty on a team

Team leaders can create the conditions that encourage team members to deep-

en their commitment to integrity. For example:

■ Speak your mind. The CEO should make clear that when team members

disagree with issues relating to team goals, they should speak out. Team

members should recognize that holding back, for political reasons or for

fear of reprimand, undermines the effectiveness of the team. A top teamP A P E R

W O R K I N G

15

Strong team leaders create

an environment where

team members understand

that conf l ict is good, as

long as i t is over ideas,

not personal i t ies.

leader at a major financial institution had this to say to a team she was plan-

ning to relaunch:“When I reorganize this team, I need people who will be

providing thoughtful input. If you don’t express your ideas, you’re not ful-

filling the purpose I intended for you as a member of this team. That does

not mean you won’t play an important role at the company. It just means

you won’t be at this table.”

■ Walk the talk once you have signed on. Hay researchers have often seen

teams whose members agree to a measure while in a team meeting, but

who then do everything they can to thwart the goal later. In teams charac-

terized by outstanding integrity, members recognize that they must subordi-

nate their narrow interests to those of the group. The CEO should say:

“Raise objections, engage in conflict over ideas, but if the group decides to

go forward anyway, act in a manner that supports rather than under-

mines the initiative.”

■ Speak for those who are not present. CEOs assemble top teams to bring

together people who have complementary abilities and a variety of opin-

ions. But on teams with strong integrity, when a team member is absent

her colleagues express her views for her: Natalie couldn’t make today’s

meeting, but I know she would disagree with what’s been put on the

table today. Let me try to sum up how Natalie would react to this pro-

posal. We have seen teams where the absence of one member was per-

ceived as an opportunity by other members to drive through proposals to

which the absentee might object. In other words, Let’s pass this thing

before Natalie gets a chance to object to it. Such low-integrity behavior

erodes the effectiveness of a team. It undermines trust.

4 . S u p p o r t t h e t o p t e a m

Our research showed that CEOs who want outstanding teams must arrange to

provide them with strong organization support by providing their members

with sound data and forecasts. But CEOs must also see to it that team mem-

bers get training and that their efforts are adequately rewarded.

It is especially important for a CEO to set compensation that is appropriate,

but also encourage top team members to buy into the goals set by the team.

Doing so delivers a strong message about what a company values. Compen-

sation also can be a powerful tool for accomplishing top team goals.P A P E R

W O R K I N G16

In teams character ized by

outstanding integri ty,

members recognize that

they must subordinate

their narrow interests to

those of the group.

At a major financial institution we studied, the CEO and the executive commit-

tee decided that for strategic reasons the company’s European division would

operate in maintain mode rather than growth mode during the next year. That

meant that the division would get no increase in its capital expenditures budg-

et. The head of that business unit was unhappy about the decision. After all,

he had to go home and deliver bad news to his troops and he left the meeting

torn between his role as a business unit head and his role as an executive team

member.

Because all executive team members effectively wear two hats, there is no way

to eliminate this conflict completely. But imagine if the CEO at this financial

institution had set a variable compensation system that included bonuses and

long-term incentives for helping the company as a whole attain its corporate

goals. The head of the European unit still would have gone home wounded—

but could have looked forward to rewards to help salve those wounds.

5 . P r o v i d e d e v e l o p m e n t

CEOs who are outstanding team leaders periodically review team performance.

They hold meetings to discuss how the team is doing, what it is doing best,

what it is doing poorly and what it and its members have learned. One execu-

tive team we observed went through a very rocky acquisition together. When

they were about to undertake another, the CEO gathered the team to discuss

candidly what had gone wrong the first time around. As a result the second

acquisition went very smoothly and the team felt a strong sense of accomplish-

ment. As a group, we made this happen. We learned from our mistakes.P A P E RW O R K I N G

17

The Level o fDevelopment , or

coaching, was muchhigher on outs tandingteams than on typ ica l

and poor ones.

PoorTypicalOutstanding

3.9

3.1

Figure 6: How Development Impacts Performance

2.6

Level of Development (Scale of 1-5)

Outstanding team leaders

provide individual coaching

to team members.

Outstanding team leaders, we learned, also provide individual coaching to team

members (see Figure 6).

For example, when a team member does not realize how her personal style

affects others, the team leader can make her aware of it: Your tone was a bit

aggressive in the meeting today, Joan. Soften it a bit and people will accept

your ideas better. If a team member is not participating adequately in meet-

ings, the leader can take the person aside and encourage him to speak up: You

have strong opinions on the topics we discussed today, Joseph. Other people

besides me need to hear them.

C o n c l u s i o n

s our research has shown, top teams can work, and the payoff for com-

panies can be significant—faster execution of the CEO’s agenda,

improved responsiveness to market changes and higher perceived valuations

from institutional investors are three big benefits. The latter should provide par-

ticular comfort—and job security—for CEOs.

But creating and sustaining effective top teams is hard work. Top teams are

organic units. Effective CEOs will take care to nourish and renew them, as they

would any valued living organism. A CEO will never let that team tell itself “We

have arrived.” Yes, leaders should take pride when their efforts create excep-

tional levels of harmony and focus, bring out the best in people and generate

breakthrough thinking. But external conditions, as well as the complexities of

interpersonal relationships on top teams, will conspire to erode whatever har-

mony and focus the CEO has brought about. And CEOs—nobody said this

would be easy—will have to earn their pay once again.

For senior executives who have never run a top team, or for those whose past

experience has made them cynical about teamwork at the executive level, the

five conditions offer a road map for creating successful top teams. For Arturo

Barahona of AeroMexico, the high level of team commitment he got was the

payoff for successfully establishing the five conditions. He recalls that at a team

meeting in early 2001 his sales director was a bit down because sales were off.

“We had economists there explaining how all other airlines were having the

same problems,” recalls Barahona,“but he kept saying,‘I don’t want to use thatP A P E R

W O R K I N G

18

A

Faster execut ion of the

CEO’s agenda, improved

responsiveness to market

changes and higher perceived

valuat ions from inst i tut ional

investors are three big

benef i ts of ef fect ive top

teams.

as an excuse. I feel I’m not delivering for the team.’ We all tried to reassure

him by saying we understood the economic reasons why sales were off. But

he wouldn’t listen. He couldn’t accept that he was letting down his team.”

Although Barahona acknowledges that leaders strongly influence team per-

formance, he insists that it is the team members themselves who actually

make teams work, and who deliver the outstanding results that companies

need to get from their executive teams.

“On top teams you have very talented individuals who demand a lot of them-

selves, but who also have the team demanding more and more of them,” he

says. “People feel tremendous pressure from the group. So you get results that

you wouldn’t get from individuals only acting for themselves. That’s the real

richness of teams.”

P A P E RW O R K I N G

19

ArgentinaBuenos Aires

AustraliaBrisbaneMelbourneSydney

AustriaVienna

BelgiumBrussels

BrazilSao Paulo

CanadaCalgaryCharlottetownEdmontonHalifaxMontrealOttawaReginaTorontoVancouverWinnipeg

ChileSantiago

ChinaHong KongShanghai

ColombiaBogota

Czech RepublicPrague

FinlandHelsinki

FranceLilleLyonParisStrasbourg

GermanyBerlinFrankfurtMunich

GreeceAthens

HungaryBudapest

IndonesiaJakarta

IrelandDublin

ItalyMilanRome

JapanTokyo

MalaysiaPetaling Jaya

MexicoMexico City

The NetherlandsZeist

New ZealandAucklandWellington

NorwayOslo

PolandWarsaw

PortugalLisbon

Singapore

SpainBarcelonaMadrid

SwedenStockholm

SwitzerlandZurich

ThailandBangkok

United Arab Emirates

Dubai

United KingdomBirminghamBristolGlasgowLondonManchesterWindsor

United StatesArlington,VAAtlantaBostonCharlotte, NCChicagoDallasKansas City, MOLincolnshire, ILLos AngelesNew York MetroNorwalkPhiladelphiaWalnut Creek, CA

VenezuelaCaracas

Hay Group Headquarters100 Penn Square EastThe Wanamaker BuildingPhiladelphia, PA 19107-3388USA

Tel +215 861 2000Fax +215 861 2111

www.haygroup.com