Your drive for efficiency gets in the way of results!

January 30, 2015 0 comments

It has now been decades since globalization has become the norm for businesses reaching a certain size. Ever since, we have heard leaders explain how challenging the phenomenon of leading a “remote” or “virtual” team is. And in fact, it is. “How do I create an alignment in values, objectives, interests, strategies across borders, cultures and beliefs?” “How do I keep them engaged and passionate when I do not seem them regularly?” ”How do I maintain trust and cooperation amongst my various locations?” are some of the questions we keep on hearing most.

Recently, some of my partners and I went back to the drawing board and redesigned an old simulation of ours with the following criteria:

Aims at showing how distance and interdependency (one team’s success depends partially on another team) may create lack of clarity, stress and poor business results.

The business simulation is totally clear upon the fact that teams belong to the same company, although they all have their own accounting and performance measurement system. The interdependence requires people to share (or trade?) information and (actively?) support each other, although being at a distance and under physically and mentally challenging circumstances.

Speed, quality and efficiency are some of the obvious metrics. We have replicated what matters on the VC2 Matrix from our friends and colleagues, Nick van Heck and Paul Verdin. So, obviously, teams’ competitive and efficiency buttons are rapidly pushed.

This drive for efficiency ends up into brief, to the point and “professional” communication between teams (through any means they like but usually via Whatsapp, mails, sms or calls): “Team 2 this is team 4. What do you have for me? OK this is what I have for you…”

When the simulation comes to an end, there is a sense of achievement, some frustration, sometimes suspicion but people generally feel that their result will be quite good as they ran like hell, solved the challenges they were confronted with and if, yes, there were a few egos bruised, at the end they did well.

When the review starts and that they discover how astronomically far they ended from what was possible and desirable, in terms of business results, they are under shock, sometimes in denial: “But we did what the simulation asked for –suggesting by the same that the simulation played them instead of them playing it-“, “But we have been really efficient, look at our efficiency scores!” Yes and you completely failed to grab wonderful opportunities that were calling you.

The learnings are usually very rich, once the passion, anger and disappointment leave the space to humility and willingness to learn. Why did those remote teams do so poorly and failed to see the opportunities that the business was offering, when all had intellectually understood that they were part of the same firm or SBU and that they had to collaborate and not compete against each other?

Usually, the lack of strategic clarity comes up as one of the reasons. So what? Should we have had a strategy department set up? What says they would have had a better view on the unknown opportunities that we failed to see? In the old days, in a somewhat comparable simulation we ran with another firm, there was a corporate strategy department which invariably ended up being blamed for the poor results. The unfortunate members of that team could only explain that they were so far from the action “How on Earth could you expect us to do anything from where we were? You were not even listening”.

So what could have created the shared strategic clarity, generous engagement, alignment on values, true collaboration?

The drive for efficiency, no matter how legitimate and necessary can lead to disaster by creating the wrong culture. And here are the three criteria one need to keep in mind when preaching efficiency 8specially in a remote/virtual team context):

  • Transactional vs relational: In a 2012 post, I explained that the drive for efficiency may let us drift towards transactional attitude. ”You only interest me in the short term, in the measure that you may be of use to me. I call you because I need you!” There is nothing wrong with that, it is efficient and to the point. But if this way of connecting becomes the dominant pattern, at the exclusion of the relational/generous style (How can I help you to help me? I heard times are challenging for you, I am just calling to see how you are), this apparent efficiency will soon transform the SBU/company culture into a highly conditional one (I will help you IF you can help me) instead of a generous one. In our simulation, the teams fail to create and capture significant opportunities by this lack of empathy, leading to a lack of curiosity.
  • Demanding vs benevolent: Philippe Bobin, the head of career development for the 300 top leaders at the Belgian chemical group Solvay, has transformed our Challenge and Support matrix which he found to cold and mechanistic into being demanding (exigeant in French) and benevolent (bienveillant). Focusing exclusively on efficiency will invariably push the leadership style towards highly demanding and hardly benevolent. This may create stress, fear of failure, compliance, obedience, low innovation and a blame culture. These attributes are lethal in a remote context. Suspicion will creep in and grow. Benevolent leadership style (when it is coupled with demanding) will create trust, risk taking, creativity, generosity and a far richer strategic mindset than the high demanding/low benevolent style.
  • Decide vs explore: Efficiency will shorten the time for exploring, scanning the periphery, trial and error. “Time is money, time is ticking” will blow away the much needed strategic time, spent exploring. Stress tends to severely reduce our capacity to explore, accept different opinions and be curious about why people’s view contradict ours. When our style is exclusively decisive, at the exclusion of exploratory, we create a stress in our organization and, here as well, its capacity to seize disruptive opportunities will be reduced.

If efficiency and creativity, value capture and value creation, getting results and developing your people matter to you, in a remote or local team context, I recommend you test yourself with those 6 styles: transactional and relational, demanding and benevolent, decisive and exploring.

Enjoy your 2015 journey!

  • Blessings for an engaged and impactful 2015!

    December 27, 2014 0 comments

    “Blessings for an engaged and impactful 2015!” were the wishes I received from our US partner, Bob Devlin. I found them original and in line with what we preach and believe in, at work. And my mind started to wonder: What kind of people will create engagement and impact in 2015 and later? I started thinking of ordinary and uncelebrated…

    Read the full article →

  • Which kind of Apostles will I be in 2015?

    December 18, 2014 2 comments

    A few months ago, my daughter and I were invited in Rome for a speech on my book. During our free time, we visited the “Eternal City”. We are not religious but have a strong respect for the believers, as long as they do not feel obliged to rape, torture and kill in the name of their faith and have…

    Read the full article →

  • How can I fly like an eagle when I am surrounded by turkeys?

    December 12, 2014 0 comments

    I always loved this provocative “question”, symbol of contentment and leadership arrogance, that one of my ex-colleagues loved to use, in order to help well intentioned leaders realize that, maybe, they were part of the problem that they were complaining about… We all know leaders, honestly convinced that they have done their best to empower their organization: The strategy had…

    Read the full article →

  • The demise of the invulnerable leader

    December 5, 2014 6 comments

    Maybe was it synchronicity? A dramatic article and a book, both having the theme of bullying in the background, were offered to me recently. In a November 2014 “The New-Yorker” article, Allen Kurzweil recalls the traumatic experience he lived as ten years old, in a British Private School, located in Switzerland. Having briefly been a boarder in a catholic, boys…

    Read the full article →

  • Are you, as an individual, ready to lead in the Disruption Economy?

    November 28, 2014 2 comments

    Now, if even the “usual suspects” in strategy consultancies (who still hire people mainly on quantitative tests as far as they are concerned) are getting into the arena of Leadership Development and telling others how they should do it differently, this may mean that those firms start to understand the vital importance of human capital and leadership or… that business…

    Read the full article →

  • Emotional vs Facts based memory

    November 21, 2014 8 comments

    I am just walking out of the office of a young and successful C.E.O. in France. He spoke at length about his organization and was surprised, almost disappointed, that, by the end of the 90’ meeting, I hadn’t taken many notes of what he had explained, with pride and passion. “You have an amazing capacity for Story Telling, did I…

    Read the full article →

  • Welcome to the “Experience based Advertising”

    November 15, 2014 4 comments

    I understand that, if you are London based, you may have come across this type of surprising advertising (I suggest you switch the sound off as the comment is in French and unnecessarily disruptive). The first three extracts made me reflect: Rather than requesting a “passive consumption” mode from the public, they engage it, through being emotionally part of the…

    Read the full article →

  • The wake-up call

    November 7, 2014 4 comments

    Those of you regularly working with us, know the VC2 matrix (Value Creation vs Value Capture) created by Nick van Heck ( and Paul Verdin. Rapidly explained, Value Creation (vertical axis) is the perception of value that your company creates in the eyes of its customers/clients. Value Capture (horizontal axis) is the financial return your company is making by selling…

    Read the full article →

  • Prediction logic vs Creation logic

    October 30, 2014 0 comments

    Following-up on last week’s provocative title (“If you wish to kill innovation, hand it over to R&D!”), here is another short clip from Jay Rao, who teaches innovation at Babson College. His logic should strike a chord with us all. Jay compares large corporations, who tend to prefer using the Prediction Logic, with smaller, entrepreneurial organizations, which prefer the Creation…

    Read the full article →

  • “If you wish to kill innovation, hand it over to R&D!”

    October 25, 2014 1 comment

    Did I wake you up, especially if you run R&D in your organization? Do not take this provocation too personally. In the 80’s, at the highlight of the TQM (Total Quality Management) wave, the qualiticians themselves used that joke: “If you wish to kill quality, create a Quality Department!” And this provocation is valid for strategy, marketing, finances and even……

    Read the full article →