Adèle selected her process improvement team very carefully. She needed to ensure that different types of expertise and knowledge were represented. Each of her team mates had specialised knowledge of a particular division of the company. Every single one also came to the table with a unique career path and background. She got to know her colleagues quite well during the interview process and was very pleased with the team she had assembled. They were extremely competent and motivated to improve the company’s operations.
Enthusiasm for the undertaking soon waned as Adèle encountered several obstacles to team dynamics. When Adèle asked for critical feedback from her colleagues on an initiative, the criticism was at best mute. She knew that the proposed process change wasn’t optimal but her highly qualified and knowledgeable colleagues didn’t pick it apart. Adèle was faced with a trust issue. She had to work very hard to press home the point that constructive criticism and feedback were always welcome because the medium and long term competitiveness of the company was at stake.
To reinforce the need for open communication she gave a few examples of flaws or problems in the initial proposed process change. It took some time but the voices of her team members were starting to be heard.
Building on that confidence, team members were now suggesting their own improvements and changes. In an effort to empower her colleagues Adèle encouraged her team members to shop their ideas around to different departments and people throughout the company. Feedback was always a good idea. Her team left the meeting enthusiastic about engaging the rest of the company with their proposals. Unfortunately they came back rather discouraged and a few were disgruntled by the negative and sometimes harsh response they received. It seems that quite a few others in the company were satisfied with how things were and didn’t want to see “yet another change”. Hearing this message so much demoralised the team. Consequently Adèle had to put extra effort at keeping morale up.
Not much of a surprise but teams are made up of people. And people encounter non-work issues. Hugo just happened to be going through a particularly nasty divorce. His attention wandered and he had to make different appointments: with the realtor selling their former joint home, with his lawyer, with the insurance people and things of such. It was a shame for Hugo personally to go through such a terrible episode in his life. It was also devastating for Adèle who relied on Hugo’s human resources expertise. The process improvement initiative was experiencing a huge setback with Hugo’s attention being drawn elsewhere. Hugo was human and Adèle tried her best to remain human in her relations with him as well – showing professional compassion and providing leeway to give him the space and flexibility he needed to sort out the major transition in his personal life.
Then it came time to implement. Working hard to keep everyone’s attention and focus on the process improvement plan, Adèle had to remove distractions from the team. Senior management had imposed last-minute reporting requirements. They were at best a nuisance. The requirements were otherwise much more work to do by a fast approaching deadline. So in part for her own sanity and in large part to ensure the motivation of her team, Adèle pushed back on the new reporting criteria. She stood up for her team and their work and negotiated changes to the evaluation obligations. Her teamed breathed a sigh of relief. They still had more work to do from orders from on high but thanks to Adèle’s efforts, the new monitoring methodology and timeframe would be much more manageable.
Some of the leadership challenges that Adèle faced were work-related – how to assemble the right team of people who are willing to engage and be truthful with one another with the aim of providing the best impact possible. Tied to these kinds of challenges were how to keep the team motivated when there is push-back from the organisation and senior management dumps more work, often unnecessary, onto the team. In Adèle’s case, she could renegotiate the workload and requirements, in many other circumstances there is no such opportunity. Adèle also had to keep in mind that her employees were human with lives outside of work. And quite often their personal lives interfere with their work lives – be it in the form of a divorce or marriage, a birth or a death, an illness or an elderly parent moving in with the employee. Adèle had to be mindful of employment legislation and the rights of the employees, while being human and showing compassion, and balancing all of that to ensure that the organisation’s goals were met.
In short Adèle had to communicate clearly with her colleagues, provide support where appropriate, ensure that they understood and believed in their work, and found the courage to continue with their objectives.
