ittle time ensuring they actively reflect on and manage their performance.

Case Study:

A leading international medical equipment company appointed a new President for Europe to drive growth in an ‘underperforming’ business. Shortly after his arrival he called a meeting of the top team to discuss business objectives for the next three years. With a background of 5-6% annual profit growth the team were given new goals nearly twice what they had been delivering. The President asked each Regional Director to prepare their sales and marketing strategy and present this at the next management meeting. With support functions present, and some re-negotiation of the details, these plans were signed off and the three Regional Directors asked to report progress on a monthly basis. However, after 12 months, growth had improved only marginally.

Under pressure from Corporate office, the President invited a trusted former colleague to take a look at the business. Through a series of confidential interviews he discovered that - despite their markets being remarkably similar - one region was achieving volume growth by ‘bundling’ high-margin and low-margin products

Businesses need teams. With the pressures to deliver higher revenues, greater customer satisfaction, enhanced operational efficiency and faster speed to market, success requires more than the brilliance of any individual. But even when leadership teams consist of the company’s best and brightest, high-quality teamwork at the top remains elusive for most organisations. Why?

Leadership teams that bring together strong individuals can be the best – and the worst – of worlds. When each individual just delivers on his or her own competencies, however effectively, the team is not truly functional. It’s the ‘synergy’ created between talented individuals – the tapping of the collective potential – that lies at the heart of successful leadership teams.

So, what’s the key to creating this synergy? We believe, quite simply, it’s talking that creates great teamwork. What sets high-performing teams apart is their ability to engage in high-quality conversations: conversations which go beyond an exchange of information to those that have the power to transform performance.

We have found that teams who engage in regular, quality, focused debate about their strategy, capabilities and behaviours are significantly more successful than those that don’t. And, we know that when teams fail to effectively discuss a course of action, wider business performance inevitably suffers.

The job of leadership is to ask and answer the right questions. Below, we suggest the kinds of strategic questions teams need to explore in order to create a platform of effectiveness. Many of these may appear obvious, yet experience tells us that frequent ambiguity, inconsistency and disagreement in these areas are significant factors in team underperformance.

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PURPOSE & STRATEGY

1. “What is our purpose?” Without doubt, a clear and compelling purpose attracts, energises and retains great people; without it, even excellent teams frequently have low levels of collective energy and commitment. One piece of research2 shows that 70% of executive teams lack clarity on what they are aiming to deliver to customers. Ironically, even the presence of corporate mission and value statements don’t always ensure this. As market conditions change, competitors reposition themselves and new threats and opportunities open up, questions like “what type of business do we want to become?”, “what do we want to achieve together” and “who do we want to beat?” help create shared purpose. Yet few teams take the time needed to create this type of clarity upfront. The implementation challenges that many teams experience can frequently be traced back to the need for these fundamental, ongoing conversations.
2. “What is our strategy?” Most senior teams take time out each year to discuss strategy. But, often, the “talk doesn’t walk”. With corporate strategy documents frequently inches thick, and with little relationship between functional strategies, it’s no wonder that implementation can be slow and messy. Strategy – both its management and measurement – is best built on a simple model and a shared language. And, a growing body of evidence suggests that leadership teams who adopt this approach outperform those that don’t. The most effective teams focus their strategic conversations around a few simple questions that help create an integrated approach. For example; “what must we achieve financially?”, “what must we deliver for our customers to achieve our financial goals?”, “what must we excel at operationally?”, “what sort of culture and leadership will enable our strategy?” etc. Teams that regularly debate these types of questions, and actively consider the causal linkages, are more able to identify where new issues need to be addressed, and see emerging gaps in their thinking. Consequently, they react more speedily to address key strategic issues before they become really significant barriers to performance.
3. “What is our implementation plan?” Research shows that effective strategy implementation remains a key concern for most CEO’s3. Perhaps this is because the nitty-gritty of strategy implementation is rarely explored by top teams. Questions such as “which elements of our strategy require teamwork, and which don’t?”, and “what should be handled cross-functionally versus functionally?” are crucially important and winning teams robustly debate these issues. They also seek agreement over other details, including performance measures, resource allocation, governance and decision-making boundaries. Agreeing regular check-points to review progress, learn from experiences and ensure people are delivering as agreed is also vital – many teams invest too little time ensuring they actively reflect on and manage their performance.

Case Study:

A leading international medical equipment company appointed a new President for Europe to drive growth in an ‘underperforming’ business. Shortly after his arrival he called a meeting of the top team to discuss business objectives for the next three years. With a background of 5-6% annual profit growth the team were given new goals nearly twice what they had been delivering. The President asked each Regional Director to prepare their sales and marketing strategy and present this at the next management meeting. With support functions present, and some re-negotiation of the details, these plans were signed off and the three Regional Directors asked to report progress on a monthly basis. However, after 12 months, growth had improved only marginally.

Under pressure from Corporate office, the President invited a trusted former colleague to take a look at the business. Through a series of confidential interviews he discovered that - despite their markets being remarkably similar - one region was achieving volume growth by ‘bundling’ high-margin and low-margin products

urs are significantly more successful than those that don’t. And, we know that when teams fail to effectively discuss a course of action, wider business performance inevitably suffers.

The job of leadership is to ask and answer the right questions. Below, we suggest the kinds of strategic questions teams need to explore in order to create a platform of effectiveness. Many of these may appear obvious, yet experience tells us that frequent ambiguity, inconsistency and disagreement in these areas are significant factors in team underperformance.

CONVERSATIONS ABOUT PURPOSE & STRATEGY

1. “What is our purpose?” Without doubt, a clear and compelling purpose attracts, energises and retains great people; without it, even excellent teams frequently have low levels of collective energy and commitment. One piece of research2 shows that 70% of executive teams lack clarity on what they are aiming to deliver to customers. Ironically, even the presence of corporate mission and value statements don’t always ensure this. As market conditions change, competitors reposition themselves and new threats and opportunities open up, questions like “what type of business do we want to become?”, “what do we want to achieve together” and “who do we want to beat?” help create shared purpose. Yet few teams take the time needed to create this type of clarity upfront. The implementation challenges that many teams experience can frequently be traced back to the need for these fundamental, ongoing conversations.
2. “What is our strategy?” Most senior teams take time out each year to discuss strategy. But, often, the “talk doesn’t walk”. With corporate strategy documents frequently inches thick, and with little relationship between functional strategies, it’s no wonder that implementation can be slow and messy. Strategy – both its management and measurement – is best built on a simple model and a shared language. And, a growing body of evidence suggests that leadership teams who adopt this approach outperform those that don’t. The most effective teams focus their strategic conversations around a few simple questions that help create an integrated approach. For example; “what must we achieve financially?”, “what must we deliver for our customers to achieve our financial goals?”, “what must we excel at operationally?”, “what sort of culture and leadership will enable our strategy?” etc. Teams that regularly debate these types of questions, and actively consider the causal linkages, are more able to identify where new issues need to be addressed, and see emerging gaps in their thinking. Consequently, they react more speedily to address key strategic issues before they become really significant barriers to performance.
3. “What is our implementation plan?” Research shows that effective strategy implementation remains a key concern for most CEO’s3. Perhaps this is because the nitty-gritty of strategy implementation is rarely explored by top teams. Questions such as “which elements of our strategy require teamwork, and which don’t?”, and “what should be handled cross-functionally versus functionally?” are crucially important and winning teams robustly debate these issues. They also seek agreement over other details, including performance measures, resource allocation, governance and decision-making boundaries. Agreeing regular check-points to review progress, learn from experiences and ensure people are delivering as agreed is also vital – many teams invest too little time ensuring they actively reflect on and manage their performance.

Case Study:

A leading international medical equipment company appointed a new President for Europe to drive growth in an ‘underperforming’ business. Shortly after his arrival he called a meeting of the top team to discuss business objectives for the next three years. With a background of 5-6% annual profit growth the team were given new goals nearly twice what they had been delivering. The President asked each Regional Director to prepare their sales and marketing strategy and present this at the next management meeting. With support functions present, and some re-negotiation of the details, these plans were signed off and the three Regional Directors asked to report progress on a monthly basis. However, after 12 months, growth had improved only marginally.

Under pressure from Corporate office, the President invited a trusted former colleague to take a look at the business. Through a series of confidential interviews he discovered that - despite their markets being remarkably similar - one region was achieving volume growth by ‘bundling’ high-margin and low-margin products

what type of business do we want to become?”, “what do we want to achieve together” and “who do we want to beat?” help create shared purpose. Yet few teams take the time needed to create this type of clarity upfront. The implementation challenges that many teams experience can frequently be traced back to the need for these fundamental, ongoing conversations.

“What is our strategy?” Most senior teams take time out each year to discuss strategy. But, often, the “talk doesn’t walk”. With corporate strategy documents frequently inches thick, and with little relationship between functional strategies, it’s no wonder that implementation can be slow and messy. Strategy – both its management and measurement – is best built on a simple model and a shared language. And, a growing body of evidence suggests that leadership teams who adopt this approach outperform those that don’t. The most effective teams focus their strategic conversations around a few simple questions that help create an integrated approach. For example; “what must we achieve financially?”, “what must we deliver for our customers to achieve our financial goals?”, “what must we excel at operationally?”, “what sort of culture and leadership will enable our strategy?” etc. Teams that regularly debate these types of questions, and actively consider the causal linkages, are more able to identify where new issues need to be addressed, and see emerging gaps in their thinking. Consequently, they react more speedily to address key strategic issues before they become really significant barriers to performance.

“What is our implementation plan?” Research shows that effective strategy implementation remains a key concern for most CEO’s3. Perhaps this is because the nitty-gritty of strategy implementation is rarely explored by top teams. Questions such as “which elements of our strategy require teamwork, and which don’t?”, and “what should be handled cross-functionally versus functionally?” are crucially important and winning teams robustly debate these issues. They also seek agreement over other details, including performance measures, resource allocation, governance and decision-making boundaries. Agreeing regular check-points to review progress, learn from experiences and ensure people are delivering as agreed is also vital – many teams invest too little time ensuring they actively reflect on and manage their performance.

Case Study:

A leading international medical equipment company appointed a new President for Europe to drive growth in an ‘underperforming’ business. Shortly after his arrival he called a meeting of the top team to discuss business objectives for the next three years. With a background of 5-6% annual profit growth the team were given new goals nearly twice what they had been delivering. The President asked each Regional Director to prepare their sales and marketing strategy and present this at the next management meeting. With support functions present, and some re-negotiation of the details, these plans were signed off and the three Regional Directors asked to report progress on a monthly basis. However, after 12 months, growth had improved only marginally.

Under pressure from Corporate office, the President invited a trusted former colleague to take a look at the business. Through a series of confidential interviews he discovered that - despite their markets being remarkably similar - one region was achieving volume growth by ‘bundling’ high-margin and low-margin products

ationally?”, “what sort of culture and leadership will enable our strategy?” etc. Teams that regularly debate these types of questions, and actively consider the causal linkages, are more able to identify where new issues need to be addressed, and see emerging gaps in their thinking. Consequently, they react more speedily to address key strategic issues before they become really significant barriers to performance.

“What is our implementation plan?” Research shows that effective strategy implementation remains a key concern for most CEO’s3. Perhaps this is because the nitty-gritty of strategy implementation is rarely explored by top teams. Questions such as “which elements of our strategy require teamwork, and which don’t?”, and “what should be handled cross-functionally versus functionally?” are crucially important and winning teams robustly debate these issues. They also seek agreement over other details, including performance measures, resource allocation, governance and decision-making boundaries. Agreeing regular check-points to review progress, learn from experiences and ensure people are delivering as agreed is also vital – many teams invest too little time ensuring they actively reflect on and manage their performance.

Case Study:

A leading international medical equipment company appointed a new President for Europe to drive growth in an ‘underperforming’ business. Shortly after his arrival he called a meeting of the top team to discuss business objectives for the next three years. With a background of 5-6% annual profit growth the team were given new goals nearly twice what they had been delivering. The President asked each Regional Director to prepare their sales and marketing strategy and present this at the next management meeting. With support functions present, and some re-negotiation of the details, these plans were signed off and the three Regional Directors asked to report progress on a monthly basis. However, after 12 months, growth had improved only marginally.

Under pressure from Corporate office, the President invited a trusted former colleague to take a look at the business. Through a series of confidential interviews he discovered that - despite their markets being remarkably similar - one region was achieving volume growth by ‘bundling’ high-margin and low-margin products

ittle time ensuring they actively reflect on and manage their performance.

Case Study:

A leading international medical equipment company appointed a new President for Europe to drive growth in an ‘underperforming’ business. Shortly after his arrival he called a meeting of the top team to discuss business objectives for the next three years. With a background of 5-6% annual profit growth the team were given new goals nearly twice what they had been delivering. The President asked each Regional Director to prepare their sales and marketing strategy and present this at the next management meeting. With support functions present, and some re-negotiation of the details, these plans were signed off and the three Regional Directors asked to report progress on a monthly basis. However, after 12 months, growth had improved only marginally.

Under pressure from Corporate office, the President invited a trusted former colleague to take a look at the business. Through a series of confidential interviews he discovered that - despite their markets being remarkably similar - one region was achieving volume growth by ‘bundling’ high-margin and low-margin products together, while the other two divisions were simply driving sales by reducing costs across the range. These differences in order management and product batching were further impacting supply and distribution; providing the business with an unwanted reputation for poor service. Support functions were therefore spending much time ‘fire-fighting’ customer and operational problems.

Facilitating a working session with the management team the advisor was able to open up a debate on the best sales and marketing strategy for the business as a whole, together with the best approach to implementation across manufacturing and distribution, service, finance and HR. With alignment across all parts of the business the team were able to move forward in a more coordinated and united way that ensured customers were at the centre of their thinking. Results improved dramatically.

Parts 2 and 3 will discuss conversations about capability and behaviour, and how a leader can create the environment for high performance.