team assume they have nothing to contribute. They expect to listen much and contribute little. However, new employees, especially those who have been on board less than 90 days, are a valuable asset. I like to call them “fresh frogs,” based on the old wives’ tale about how a frog dropped into a pot of boiling water will jump out, but a frog put into lukewarm water that is slowly heated up will become a cooked frog. Extending the metaphor to the corporate world, the other members of the executive team have been in the pot for years and may not even realize the water is boiling.
I asked Marcos, “What is the stupidest thing you saw when you joined the company?” When he paused to ponder this question, I piped up, to the team’s laughter, “The list is so long, he’s trying to pick the most important one.” I explained to the team that when you interact with a fresh frog, you need to resist the urge to quickly explain things. It’s more valuable to ask the fresh frog, “Why do you ask that question, what do you see that we don’t?” After that, the other team members would stop and listen attentively whenever Marcos spoke up.
The Politician – the individual who tells everyone a different story behind closed doors. Jack tells Joe, “Just between us, Jolene is an idiot and I don’t have any confidence in her ability.” He tells Jolene, “Just between us, I don’t believe Joe appreciates your hard work.” He avoids any meetings where Joe and Jolene would hear the same story from him. The Friday morning of the planning meeting, Jack actually phoned in to say he wouldn’t be attending since he had finally scheduled a sales meeting at the Mexican consulate. Bill told him to get his sorry butt back to the company meeting. Strategic planning was important stuff and he wasn’t buying Jack’s story that the meeting with the consulate had to be held now.
I prodded Jack during the strategic planning meeting to respond with substance. His backup strategy (if he couldn’t tell everyone a different story) was to try to get away with issuing meaningless platitudes when speaking in front of the entire team. He found he couldn’t sustain his political behavior when he was constantly forced to go on record in front of everybody.
The Provocateur – the individual who never considers an issue closed, a discussion concluded, or a decision final. As often as not, when the group accepts his passionately made suggestion, he immediately comes out against it. He appears committed to perpetuating a frenzy of uncertainty and inaction. On the second day of the strategic planning meeting, the Friction PR executive team began to set the agreed-upon strategy to paper. Julian, this team’s provocateur, immediately tried to reopen each decision. “The strategy has us growing too fast. The targeted profit margin is too low. How will we develop new products when we can’t even get today’s products working?” On and on he went.
Never do something stupid because of something written on a sheet of paper. The written strategy is a communications tool, not a license to do stupid things.
Patiently but firmly, I reminded Julian of the pledge he and the rest of the team had taken at the start of the meeting: “We will never do something stupid because of something written on a sheet of paper. The written strategy is a communications tool, not a license to do stupid things.” I reinforced the chemistry of strategy formula of what we want the future to look like, why we want that future, and how we change the status quo to achieve that future. “We can’t begin moving in a direction until we decide where we want to end up,” I said. “Rather than flailing, we will make adjustments along the way. Asking and answering how is what action planning is all about. This is the next step after providing answers to the questions of what and why.” Over time, Julian was able to productively channel his energy into making sure conflicting viewpoints were aired while accepting and embracing the team’s ultimate decisions.
The Sectarian – the individual who sees their role as only representing the thoughts of their function, department, and/or people. Caroline, the Human Resources Director, saw her role as representing HR, and only HR. Whenever the discussion turned to areas other than HR, such as sales, production, or finance, she tuned out. She didn’t understand that her experience, insights, and perspective were valuable and required to shape the optimal strategy for the company.
I pushed her out of her comfort zone, requiring her to comment on each issue discussed. This drew her into the overall strategy development. As it turned out, she triggered one of the meeting’s “aha” moments when she commented on a production issue from her perspective.
The Theorist – the individual who won’t be around in three to five years to live with the consequences of the team’s strategic decisions. (As Lucius Annaeus Seneca pointed out over 2,000 years ago, “Be wary of the man who urges an action in which he himself incurs no risk.”) This team had two theorists, Jill and Patrick. Jill had recently tendered her resignation, planning to move to a new company at the first of the new year. She had been invited to the planning meeting because of her expertise. She pushed back whenever we discussed any strategy that would require investments this year that could impact her year-end bonus. Patrick was a business colleague of Bill’s who served on the board of advisors and who kept pushing for risky strategies he had read about in the Harvard Business Review that could make the company millions – in the unlikely case that they would work for Friction PR. Failure would have no impact on Patrick, since he had no skin in the game.
At the end of the first day of the planning meeting, at my suggestion, Bill excused them both from attending the second day, since they wouldn’t be accountable for the implementation or suffer any consequences from a poor strategy. The takeaway lesson here is that your strategic planning team shouldn’t include “lame ducks.”
Building the executive team
Building a healthy executive team is a process. There is no magical alchemist’s stone that will do it. I’ve observed that team-building programs that are external to the work environment, like popular “ropes courses,” have limited impact. Too often attendees have told me that the behaviors learned in the woods stay in the woods and everyone reverts to the same old way of acting the next day. As with strategic planning, those team-building programs that integrate with the day-to-day execution of the business have proven to be far more effective.
Building personal relationships through the development and execution of strategy builds a healthy executive team. Working with hundreds of teams has led me to an understanding of the chemistry of success for strategic planning meetings. Here are the approaches proven to work:
Strategic meetings need a large block of uninterrupted time with flexible ending times.
Define the meeting type: Separate strategic meetings from tactical/operational meetings. Operational meetings need to have firm ending times so as not to impact other scheduled commitments. Strategic meetings need a large block of uninterrupted time with flexible ending times. You don’t want to be close to having worked through a major issue or decision when a team member has to leave to catch a flight.
Limit members: Limit the total number of team members in strategic planning meetings to between five and twelve people. With fewer than five, you don’t have sufficient heads in the business; over twelve and the dynamics of strategic discussions and decision-making break down.
Change members periodically: Have the fortitude to change the composition of the executive and planning team over time. Internal and external changes will periodically require new expertise and insights. This is a working group, and membership is not a reward for longevity at the company. Every member should have the attitude and aptitude to contribute to the strategic direction. Thinking strategically doesn’t come naturally to everyone, so allow sufficient time for people to sync with the requirements. However, once it’s clear that this
