How do you succeed when your team does not report to you ?

The review meeting was getting hot and interesting; the function head was being questioned on the lack of leadership and ability to influence business units to follow defined standards; after all he had defined the standards and formulated implementation guidelines. Then why was he not able to get the business to follow them ? Weren’t the standards touted as industry benchmark, leading edge best practices, and emerging technologies that would put the group in leadership position locally and among the best globally ?

Matrix organizations have interesting group dynamics; there is functional reporting normally a dotted line to the department head and a straight line reporting typically to business unit in a diversified business group or geographical unit like a country head in a multinational company. In almost all cases the straight line drives the agenda for the person with the dotted line is left to drive synergies, cost optimization, standards, governance models, and the unified agenda across business units/countries.

For the newly inducted CIO it was not the first time working in a matrix structure, his earlier avatar had clearly defined boundaries for each role. At every node of the matrix the accountabilities were commensurate to the authority vested and influence expected. He had thrived in the position that helped bring value to both sides; his managers – straight line and dotted – acknowledged the contribution and maturity. Teams within his span of control as well as the matrix into which he reported enjoyed good relationships.

He took the role for its larger span of control, a different industry and domain, the challenge and the opportunities the new role presented and off course monetary value. Overall it appeared to be a great jump from his prior assignment which had reached a plateau. Reality hit him hard on his head when he met his peers and collective boss – the CEO in the first management meeting. The structure was unique to him and the dynamics hitherto unknown, made his skin crawl on his ability to create professional success.

Each group function head played two roles: the first to set strategy, direction and define standards that the group was expected to follow. This part was easy for most of the CXOs and function heads who were knowledgeable and well recognized as high performers in the industry. The group of experts thus depended on the partner ecosystem to help them craft the solutions and processes that were expected to be followed by business units; implementation was also left to the respective business unit functional heads.

Business functional teams were not obligated to follow directives or policies defined by the group; they could almost get away with anarchy. Matrix reporting had created a structure that the straight line manager could override the dotted or define alternate path for his business unit. It would appear to be a ceremonial position with a lot of responsibility but no authority to control outcomes, a fact that did not surface during the interview. Results were expected from the titular heads to ensure that the group has synergies and commonality.

The specific case really did not matter, it required a different structure and approach to solve the problem at hand. The Group CIO reasoned it out with the Group CEO and other peers in the room to highlight limitations the structure imposed; he also pointed out cases where mandates were followed, the group heads had ensured that respective members were subservient or underqualified thus open to listening and following diktats. The problem it created was larger than the current issue being discussed with suboptimal talent.

Making some sense to those present, the CIO pushed forth the agenda to unify the team; while the structure could be amended over a period of time, he gained acceptance to the idea and way of working. Step by step he worked on the antagonists to the idea, nudging, pushing, helping them win, he brought them to neutral ground within 6 months. A surge of activity followed with the group now harmonized and working with agility and synergizing effort, they reduced individual budget allocations and time to market.

Is the model replicable ? The answer is yes though requiring significant effort beyond normal for the leader to bring everyone to common and shared objectives. Instances can be found widespread of failure to capitalize on such an opportunity, accepting destiny and remaining an Advisor whose knowledge and expertise stays underleveraged by enterprises. Power struggles are always detrimental to progress, it would serve leaders and corporations well to recognize these before they become a malaise for the company.

Right doses of right Leadership can indeed drive Big Hairy Audacious Goals !

It was a difficult project to begin with and starting from the business team and the solution providers and the implementation team were all cautious in their predictions of success. In this part of the world it was the first time that such an audacious project was been executed; there were a handful of global precedents and they too had seen significant challenges in achieving successful adoption by the business. The team attempting the feat was a collection of disparate skills which added to the challenge, they had no choice.

The project was conceptualized by the CEO – it could have been termed as his pet project – who painted a dream that few could visualize. He was convinced that if he did pull it off it would be a benchmark in an industry that was beset with delays, cost overruns and quality issues. His man Friday and close confidant was put on the job to find people willing to take the risk and become part of the team. Thus empowered, man Friday reached out far and wide to enroll an eclectic group which had created unreasonable success in the past.

Naysayers many, they warned citing instances of failures of mammoth proportions; any normal person would have probably been dissuaded, but the assorted team had never said no to any danger – perceived or real. Their confidence in attempting the journey was akin to the first team that successfully climbed virgin peaks. Internal pessimists decided to go along with a detached passion while the optimists decided to take on the project of their lives to partake in the glory should the summit be achieved.

So the project got off to a tentative start with the bunch of experts with no prior experience but loads of attitude, commitment and willingness to explore uncharted territories. They broke down the problem into micro steps which appeared achievable even by rookies. A monitoring system was put in place to carefully analyze every step, sign-off, and celebrate every step that took them forward. Challenges were scrutinized and alternatives tested with speed until they found the solution that fit the mosaic.

Stumbling through the journey the team slowly aligned to the task at hand; each individual contributor came from high ground of past success with associated ego and a winning formula that worked for them. The CEO stayed glued to the ground taking stock frequently, pushing the team to drop their differences and doubts. It took effort for them to arrive at common ground, but they did in their loyalty to the CEO and the challenge the project represented, a peak unconquered, a path untrodden, a batch un-lapelled.

Collectively the group now functioned like a well-oiled machine; the journey seemed easier than it did at the beginning, the road smoother and the target achievable. The CEO continued to charge the team showcasing their success to one and all while plaudits were showered on his audacious vision. As the finish line showed up on the horizon it brought many doubters back wanting to bask in the derived glory; their disconnect from the project visible, their faces clearly plastic in their celebration of imminent achievement.

Study conducted by Standish Group for over two decades clearly outlines the first and foremost reason for project failure as lack of Management focus; this project had more than a fair share of management oversight, in fact at times the group wished that they would be left alone to work. The CEO though overpowering in his demeanor, he knew when to back off and when to push. The end result was for everyone to see and learn from; the industry celebrated his success and many attempted to emulate it.

On another part of the world another enterprise in the same industry with the same set of internal and external challenges decided to pursue the safe path which was the norm. They too started their journey around the same time with resources available unwilling to take undue risks. The CEO – an able man – believed that his will shall be done, delegated the responsibility with an occasional tab on progress. Hearing of success in the other project he berated his team and their inability to complete simple tasks.

Leadership is not just about defining the vision and charging the team to execute; effective leadership requires a lot more, a connect to the ground, knowing when to push, when to back off, finding the right resources, and empowering them while keeping different personalities together. Leadership is not vested only with the CEO or a title holder, it can be practiced by anyone who is charged with a cause and willing to take a stand. Are you ready to get into discomfort zone to try something new ?