Last week’s Ataraxy Friday was about the Anna Karenina Principle: “All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” There are endless ways for things to go wrong and only a few ways for them to go right. Chasing down every way it could go wrong is exhausting, while building the few things that go right is simpler.
This week I want to follow that thread more fully into leadership teams, because my industry has a habit of doing it the hard way.
There are thousands of profiling tools, diagnostics and leadership models out there. Some are blunt and some are forensic. Many of them end up with talented leaders working very hard to fix a minor quirk, after a deep dive that mostly told them what they already knew.
Over the years I’ve noticed that the teams that work best tend to share three things. None of the three is about removing a fault. Each one is something you move towards.
The first is that the individual people in the room are genuinely in the room. Each person shows up fully: undistracted, open, and being themselves rather than a carefully curated performance of themselves. You’ll know the opposite when you’ve seen it; some are on their phones, some are drafting their defence while someone else is still talking, some are only there to deliver their message, others only there because it was in their calendar – closed and not engaging in any actual problem solving. In the good teams, people are playing for the team to win, not just for their own patch.
The second is that the environment makes showing up worth it and winning possible. There’s a plan people are genuinely connected to and want to see succeed. Each person’s part in it is clear, and it’s fair. Nobody pays a price for asking a question or challenging the boss or a colleague. People trust the decisions, both in the way they were arrived at and in the follow through. When people don’t trust the discussion, what is the point engaging in it? Without this trust, every decision gets relitigated in little cliques after the meeting.
The third is that they know how to disagree well. These teams can argue, influence each other and solve problems together. They’re made up of people who see things differently, which is the whole point of having them, and they’re good at folding those differences into a better answer rather than an exercise in defending territory. Disagreement in these teams is seen as the feedstock for traction, not a threat.
That’s the whole list. A team with all three is resilient to a lot of individual quirks, and a team missing one will miss opportunity no matter how polished its profiling reports are.
You’ve probably noticed that you could swap “leadership team” for “family” in almost every line above and it would still hold. Being present, having a fair and safe space to play, and the ability to disagree well without it becoming personal is a pretty good start. (I’ve tested this theory at my own dinner table, and the results are mixed, with wine being a key factor 😊). The principle stands, though.
Think about your leadership group: which of the three is missing?
- Are the individuals consistently Present, Flexible, Authentic?
- Is there space for people to win? Clear outcome, open discussion, clear strategy
- How do they problem solve together? Do they argue, influence, and disagree well?
Take the quick [Integrated Leaders Diagnostic] for a fast and targeted baseline to build from.
