StratPro™: The Strategic Business Transformation Process

By Allen E Fishman

You don’t have to stay in the rut of running your business based on the tyranny of the urgent. StratPro™ will have you leading your business strategically so your organization can address the things that need timely action.
StratPro™ strategic business planning will impact every single component of you

• Language: English
• Publisher: Direct Communication Service, Inc
• Release date: Jul 25, 2016
• ISBN: 9780984014972

Allen E Fishman

Allen Fishman is Founder and Executive Chairman of The Alternative Board (TAB®), the world's largest franchise system offering peer advisory groups and coaching services for business owners. Among other things, he created the methodologies for the TAB system, which have benefited over 15,000 business owners and their businesses in many different countries. Mr. Fishman holds a finance degree, Magna Cum Laude, and a Juris Doctorate law degree. Mr. Fishman is a noted expert on privately held companies. He has been featured in numerous international media venues and is a featured speaker at business engagements around the world. In addition, he is a best-selling author of business books that share his business insights. His books include, 7 Secrets of Great Entrepreneurial Masters: The GEM Power Formula for Lifelong Success, 9 Elements of Family Business Success: A Proven Formula for Improving Leadership & Relationships in Family Business, Strategic Business Leadership and The Alignment Factor: Unlock Potential, Boost Employee Performance, and Increase Profits. For over a decade, Mr. Fishman wrote the nationally syndicated newspaper business advice column, Business Insights. Mr. Fishman was President and co-owner of a consumer electronics chain, which after attaining great success became a NASDAQ-traded public entity.

Book preview

CHAPTER 1

Team Alignment Workshop

When we initially designed StratPro, our first workshop focused on creating the long-term vision of the organization. All good strategic transformation efforts need to have an exciting vision that guides the process. Yet, when StratPro facilitators began delivering the workshops, they realized that unless the Strategic Leadership Team is fully aligned, an exciting vision and well-thought-out plan really doesn’t matter. They were right. The first step of a transformation effort needs to get the leaders aligned. StratPro starts with the Team Alignment Workshop.

StratPro’s two primary tools for achieving this alignment are a DISC Assessment and discussion and a Communications Commitment Exercise.

The Dysfunctional Team

Prior to developing StratPro, I worked with a team of highly capable executives in a strategic planning engagement. Each executive knew their part of the business very well. The team collectively had a high degree of technical competence in their respective areas.

The workshops started off very well. The team was excited to work on the strategic aspects of their organization. They were glad to have an external facilitator in the room to lead the process so they could all concentrate on the discussions. The first couple of workshops were positive, and the team felt like they made real progress. Yet, I noticed that the team kept coming back to issues within the team. I would get the workshops back on track, only to have the conversation devolve into team dynamics.

This continued for a short while longer, but eventually the strategic planning effort just lacked genuine progress. The team simply was not prepared to work on more strategic aspects of the business until they sorted out issues among themselves.

While this was a high-skilled team, their skill level didn’t matter much. The team simply did not trust each other. They would make a commitment in the room, but when they left, they’d have individual discussions that undermined the outcomes from the workshop. The team made decisions in the workshop, yet, when they came back for the next workshop, those decisions were already compromised. All the skill in the world could not compensate for the dysfunction of this team.

The Five Dysfunctions

Patrick Lencioni wrote a seminal book on the topic of team dynamics, called The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. According to Lencioni, the five dysfunctions are:

•Absence of trust—unwilling to be vulnerable within the group

•Fear of conflict—seeking artificial harmony over constructive passionate debate

•Lack of commitment—feigning buy-in for group decisions creates ambiguity throughout the organization

•Avoidance of accountability—ducking the responsibility to call peers on counterproductive behavior which sets low standards

•Inattention to results—focusing on personal success, status, and ego before team success

When most people see this list, they understand that an absence of trust, a lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and being inattentive to results are big problems for teams. Most leaders, however, think that conflict is bad.

Lencioni explains that there is bad conflict and there is healthy conflict. A team that resists all forms of conflict, even if they disagree with someone to remain comfortable, is not a high-performing team. Instead, high-performing teams welcome healthy conflict. They embrace debate on substance, ensuring it is not personal. The team respects the opinions of each other, and all members are willing to have their ideas challenged so that the group gets to the very best result.

Lencioni summarizes his findings as follows:

Successful teamwork is not about mastering subtle, sophisticated theories, but rather about combining common sense with uncommon levels of discipline and persistence. Ironically, teams succeed because they are exceedingly human. By acknowledging the imperfections of their humanity, members of functional teams overcome the natural tendencies that make teamwork so elusive.

Lencioni identified what a team should NOT do if they want to be a high-performing team. So, what should a high-performing team do?

What Would Aristotle Do?

Google hires the best and brightest engineers on the planet. Yet they struggle with the same kinds of experiences that I described above. All of their teams have high-performing individuals. Some teams succeeded while other teams failed. They launched a massive study named Project Aristotle to identify why some teams excelled while other teams fell behind.

They found that there are five attributes to a high-performing team:

•Psychological safety: Psychological safety refers to an individual’s perception of the consequences of taking an interpersonal risk or a belief that a team is safe for risk-taking in the face of being seen as ignorant, incompetent, negative, or disruptive. In a team with high psychological safety, teammates feel safe to take risks around their team members. They feel confident that no one on the team will embarrass or punish anyone else for admitting a mistake, asking a question, or offering a new idea.

•Dependability: On dependable teams, members reliably complete quality work on time (vs the opposite – shirking responsibilities).

•Structure and clarity: An individual’s understanding of job expectations, the process for fulfilling these expectations, and the consequences of one’s performance are important for team effectiveness. Goals can be set at the individual or group level, and must be specific, challenging, and attainable.

•Meaning: Finding a sense of purpose in either the work itself or the output is important for team effectiveness. The meaning of work is personal and can vary: financial security, supporting family, helping the team succeed, or self-expression for each individual, for example.

•Impact: The results of one’s work, the subjective judgment that your work is making a difference, is important for teams. Seeing that one’s work is contributing to the organization’s goals can help reveal impact.

We’ve all had experiences like the one I described above. The team consists of top performers in their areas. Yet, the team dynamics are poor. People are reluctant to speak up and challenge each other. They feel like there are repercussions for what they say. Rather than getting the best thinking from the team, the team gets only a fraction of the group’s potential.

Imagine what it would be like if the Aristotle findings were practiced. The team has collective meaning and purpose. Everyone feels safe to voice their opinion. Conflict occurs but is focused on finding the best solution and not on personal attacks. The leader of the group is an equal participant with everyone else and welcomes being challenged and getting the best ideas from the group.

This is psychological safety. And this is what we strive to achieve in StratPro workshops.

Using DISC to Improve Team Alignment

StratPro utilizes DISC as a starting point to improve SLT alignment. DISC is the HOW of your actions, that is, behaviors. Research has consistently shown that behavioral characteristics can be grouped together into four quadrants, or styles. People with similar styles tend to exhibit specific types of behavior common to that style.

One of the challenges with poor-performing teams is a lack of understanding of each other and appreciation for what each team member brings to the team. A person’s behavior is a necessary and integral part of who they are. In other words, much of our behavior comes from nature (inherent), and much comes from nurture (upbringing). The DISC model merely analyzes behavioral style; that is, a person’s manner of doing things.

The DISC profile describes the core behavioral styles that determine how a person solves problems and interacts with others. It shows the pace at which they feel comfortable working, and the way they respond to rules and procedures.

The DISC profile consists of the following four primary categories:

•Dominant: Demanding, decisive, direct, and fast-paced

•Influential: Social, enthusiastic, fast-paced, and persuasive

•Steady: Patient, sincere, calming, and dependable

•Compliant: Accurate, precise, slow-paced, and analytical

To expand on these categories:

•D stands for Dominance:

People with this primary behavior style place emphasis on accomplishing results and the bottom line and have high confidence.

Common behaviors are seeing the big picture, being blunt, accepting challenges, and getting straight to the point.

Someone with a high D score on a DISC assessment (a high D) may express their emotion through anger.

•I stands for Influence – or Influential:

People with this primary behavior style place emphasis on influencing or persuading others. They tend to be open and value relationships.

Common behaviors are enthusiasm and collaboration. They tend to like receiving attention.

A high I tends to express their emotion through optimism.

•S stands for Steadiness:

People with this primary behavioral style place emphasis on cooperation, sincerity, and dependability.

Common behaviors include not wanting to be rushed, calmness, and being supportive and collaborative.

They aren’t comfortable with a lot of change or chaos.

High S individuals tend to not express emotion. They can be tough to read. You may need to ask more questions of a high S to understand what they are feeling.

•C stands for Compliance:

People with this primary behavioral style place emphasis on quality, accuracy, expertise, and competency.

Common behaviors include independence, objective reasoning, and detail orientation.

They need the facts – sometimes all the facts – before making decisions.

They can be perfectionists.

High Cs tend to express their emotion with fear. They don’t want to be wrong.

Note that individuals who are high in multiple DISC areas will demonstrate a blend of the behaviors for each.

Why is DISC important? By understanding the behavioral styles of the people you regularly work with, the communication and effectiveness will increase substantially. Also, your greater self-awareness will help you become a better communicator.

StratPro includes several exercises working with DISC reports to assist SLT alignment. First, the SLT discusses the behavioral areas that the team overall is strong in and weak in based on the profiles of the whole team. Some teams will identify that they are concentrated in one or two areas of the DISC and light in other areas. This will help explain some of their past challenges as a team and put steps in place to address them.

Second, StratPro includes exercises to help SLT members understand each other as individuals. Healthy communication erodes when people compartmentalize each other and don’t interact with them as individuals. Members see each other’s DISC and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each other’s styles. This helps them better understand each other and also adapt each other’s styles to fit the individual they are communicating with.

In this part of the workshop, it’s not uncommon to hear comments like:

•Now I realize why our conversations seem to be frustrating to both of us.

•I now understand why I saw your lack of emotion as not caring. It’s just part of who you are.

•Your need to drill down into so much detail always felt like a waste of time to me. But I can see that we have different profiles and our need for details varies markedly.

While these insights are valuable for the team to better understand each other, the result from the DISC discussion should not simply be a theoretical exercise. If SLT members leave this session understanding each other but not making commitments to improve, then the workshop falls short.

Instead, each SLT member should make a number of concrete commitments to the group in areas they will improve on, based on their DISC style. While we can’t change who we are, we can adapt our styles and also put processes in place to compensate for behaviors that may impact the overall team. For example, if a high D tends to dominate the conversation, they may commit to letting other people speak first.

The SLT may also realize that the overall group has gaps. They may not have anyone with high attention to detail and may realize this causes them to gloss over important details. They may decide to recruit another employee in the organization to the SLT who is a high C.

A Safe Place: Committing to Building Trusting Team Communication

The other exercise in aligning the SLT is the Communications Commitment Exercise.

You might think the communication in your company’s meetings, especially executive meetings, is just fine. Chances are, it’s not. You just get used to a certain style of communication. Individual team members slip into certain patterns. Some team members dominate the conversations (do they really have the best ideas?). Other team members hold back or even become withdrawn. The group dynamics after a while seem normal. But, just think about what your leadership would be able to achieve if the team was able to break down communication barriers, allowing all team members to participate fully in discussions. We’ve seen what a group of smart people can accomplish when they have a process for communicating optimally. It’s amazing.

A powerful proprietary technique, called the Communications Commitment Exercise, can quickly help you create open and trusting two-way communication. Communications Commitment creates a sanctuary – a safe place – for two-way communication. It does so through a series of interactions that effectively lower the natural defenses people raise in response to perceived attacks from others. Once each party in an exchange starts lowering their defenses, communication can, and does, improve.

A facilitated session with this exercise will get the best result. This exercise involves three questions. The responses must be written down as the questions are read aloud, and there should be no judgment as to the rightness or wrongness of the written responses. A best practice is for the responses to these questions to be written down on a flipchart by the facilitator so that all parties can easily read them.

The first question to ask is:

What characteristics must be present for you to feel totally safe – so safe that you can be completely honest and open with those around you?

The second question to ask is:

When someone does not feel safe in a meeting, they don their armor. Different individuals use different types of armor.

What characteristics cause you to don your armor?

The last question to ask is:

How can we benefit from taking off our armor and making a commitment to improved communication?

Each attendee offers answers to the questions. Once the exercise concludes, the resulting input forms the organization’s Communications Charter. This charter identifies all the things that the team commits to not doing in their meetings and that cause them to don their armor, and all the positive behaviors that they commit to doing, so that every team member brings their best self to each meeting. The positive behaviors can be considered above the line behaviors and the negative behaviors below the line.

One of the keys to keeping the environment safe for open two-way communication is the willingness of all participants to make a commitment. That commitment is mandatory and is as follows: In future meetings, each person will refrain from any of the comments or actions identified as causing other attendees to don their armor.

If any party is not willing to agree to this condition, the Communications Commitment Exercise will not deliver positive results for you or your organization. On the other hand, if all parties are willing to make this commitment, this exercise will result in a significant improvement in the effectiveness of your communication. It’s as simple as that.

An important element of the Communications Charter is that it is policed by all attendees. If, despite this mutual commitment, an inadvertent violation of the Charter occurs, one person in the group must politely point out that one of the attendees is in violation. Following this process requires a change in paradigm in most groups, one that explicitly encourages each attendee to tactfully, but persistently, engage with another team member when they perceive a violation of the Charter. It might sound like this: You know, Jim, I hate to say it, but I think you just interrupted me there, and with all respect, that’s not what we agreed to.

The key moment in the Communications Commitment process comes not when the agreement is made, but when people hold each other accountable for fulfilling its terms. The communications list developed by one company’s planning team noted that using the expression stupid to refer to an action or comment by another team member was a major cause of armor being donned and of open communications shutting down. At the very next meeting, one of the members referred to an idea being expressed as stupid. Immediately, another member politely, tactfully, and persistently pointed out the commitment the group had made to not use the term stupid. The person who had used the word instantly apologized, and the tense atmosphere relaxed. Over a year later, the owner of the company commented that he was amazed at how quickly the cooperation among his management team had improved from the moment when attention was called to this type of violation of the Communications Charter.

Once you have completed the Communications Commitment exercise, the Communications