Back 

Greg, CEO of a mid-sized financial services corporation, has been on board for 6 months. His selection as CEO was controversial; some board members argued that Greg did not have the experience to create the turnaround that the corporation needed. The performance turnaround would be difficult, not only because of market factors, but because the corporation is an established regional bank that has had little employee turnover in its lifetime. Its excellent performance for most of those years instilled a belief in many employees that the status quo was what made them so successful. The market reality changed when the recent mergers of several competitors created a more competitive and fast-moving market.

New CEO enters a difficult environment…
Greg’s entrance into the organization was difficult not simply because of the dissent on the board, but because the search was prolonged and his position vacant for many months. The departure of the previous CEO had created fear, resentment and the exit of some key vice presidents. The absence of a leader further fed the rumor-mill that the bank was floundering. These variables plus media statements that "major changes must occur" for the bank to survive, served to only exacerbate the "dig the trenches" mentality.

Within 3 months of his selection, Greg replaced 2 of the 8 executives on the executive committee. (Two others had departed with the predecessor.)  While all members were technically adept, they did not seem to gel like he had expected.  The committee meetings were very stiff and formal, despite his attempts to use humor and small talk to get everyone to open up.   When an issue was discussed most members argued their point of view purely from their functional perspective.  Decisions were almost impossible as there was little compromise.  One member seemed to take an informal leadership role which made others seek her approval.  This prevented the kind of risk taking that he felt was needed.  

Greg, pressured by the shareholders to turn performance around quickly, faced a daunting task. He recognized that creating a collaborative, discriminating and action-oriented executive committee was critical. In the 6 months since Greg was selected he tried many tactics to create a productive team. With the consultation of HR, he held a retreat, used techniques he thought would enable the committee to work more comfortably with each other and changed the manner with which he held his regular team meetings. While minor movement occurred, little significant change was apparent.

Seeks help after exhausting his resources…
Greg sought a referral from a fellow executive outside the bank for a consultant that could help him see the situation accurately, create a clear plan for change and who was not prone toward "fads" in management. He had had far too many experiences in which he paid premium prices for such services that in the short run seemed useful, but in the long term created little change. He was cynical, but he desperately needed help. Greg was referred to Emersus Consulting.

Deciding if there is a fit…
At the end of their first meeting, they clarified the expectations each had in working together. In addition they agreed to a process for how they would resolve disagreements that may come up in the process. The consultant shared with Greg the premises she operates from when she works with executive teams, her approach to the actual work, and why it works. Before formally deciding to work together, the consultant suggested that Greg take time to reflect on their meeting. She emphasized that he needed to feel a level of comfort with her in order for the process to be optimally effective. She requested that he decide after a couple of days of thought.

Surfacing group dynamics…
After they agreed to work together, the consultant met one-on-one with each executive committee member (as well as others who are not part of the committee but who work closely with them). She explored the same issues as she had with Greg. With the executive committee members, she also assessed their motivation to work to improve the committee’s functioning. After reviewing all the information gathered, the Emersus consultant summarized the information and created a recommended plan of action. She next met with Greg to explain why she was recommending the course of action. During that meeting, they altered the plan based on other information that was relevant.

The beginning…
The Emersus Consultant spent the next 2 months with the team during their regularly scheduled team meetings and once a month in a committee meeting dedicated solely to the process. The consultant’s approach was to integrate the team development work into the work that occurred in regular meetings. She regularly taught them to look at the process of their work, at their individual contributions to the way work got done, and brought up issues that seemed to be "under the surface."  Through the course of these meetings, the committee began to identify group behaviors that hindered team effectiveness. They began to learn specific communication processes that would enable them to address unproductive behavior. They further identified explicit expectations they had for each other and agreed to team-wide operating guidelines.

Concurrent to the meetings, the consultant worked one-on-one with Greg to improve his facilitation skills, his understanding of group dynamics and certain leadership patterns that worked against the team’s progress. Occasional one-on-one meetings occurred with other individual committee members who struggled with making change.

Conflict intensifies…
In month 3, the group had moved to a greater level of directness. This naturally created more conflict in meetings and made many members uncomfortable. Despite their hesitancy to communicate in a manner that would elicit disapproval, the committee gradually became more comfortable with conflict. They did this, in part, because they developed a process in which dissent was a regular part of discussions.

Evolution and breakthrough…
The team’s progress was fairly predictable. Initially, they moved through the period characterized by superficial niceties to a phase of polarization when the real problems began to be identified. The team’s period of chronic and intense conflict changed when they were forced to find a way to work with the conflict. They next were required to address the roles each had donned in the development process (informal leader, devil’s advocate, harmonizer, etc.), and discussed ways to "share" or rotate the roles. This would force all members to take responsibility for all process work, however uncomfortable. As mentioned above, this work was done in the context of the problems they addressed in meetings, tasks required of them to lead the company.

With the growth of the team towards more self-responsibility and the exodus of one committee member, the team realized a new level of functioning. Trusting now that dissent and risk taking was encouraged, productivity and efficiency improved.

During month 4, the team dedicated one day of its strategic planning retreat to review their progress, identify new goals and plan ways to achieve them. Some members felt like they had progressed "far enough" and felt they needed to return to a focus on "just the business aspects" of their work.  A lively discussion commenced in which members debated whether re-focusing was good or not. Many wondered if they would be able to maintain the level of development they had achieved claiming that they still felt "shaky." The members agreed to commit to another 4 months of work, although altering the manner with which they would work on team issues.

Evaluation and committee membership changes…
Over the course of the following 4 months, the team continued to fluctuate up and down through the various stages of development, often depending on the issues they were addressing and any outside influences that affected their work. When they were in month 6, one member took a job with a new company and the members discussed how they would need to acclimate the new vice president into the system. Their development work continued.

Greg reported that the ever since month 4, the committee had improved considerably.  He felt that the team was working together to make the significant changes required for the bank to respond to the market changes. He still yearned for a more creative work approach to problem solving and even more risk taking. He knew that without the work the team did in the areas of trust and communication, they would never be able to move to another level of functioning.  He felt they were ready.... 

The Emersus consultant continued to work with Greg, but from afar.  She felt that her continued presence would prevent the group from developing on their own.  She did though, coach Greg when he was stumped and did not know how to move the team.

**This case study comprises aspects of a variety of consultations with executive teams by Emersus Consulting.

Back