Cohesion and management

Very often, when we talk about the relationship that must prevail in a management team, we use the comparison with a soccer team. Indeed, the leaders of a company must show cohesion in their daily activity for multiple reasons.

First, the leaders of a company have an exemplary rolefor all employees. If a management committee should, openly, express dissent or even rivalries, it is obvious that at the lower levels of the company managers and employees would be inclined to imitate them, which can quickly create an unmanageable situation.

Second, to be at the helm of a company, sitting in a collegiate body, is to assume the conduct of a business on behalf of the shareholders and according to an established and approved strategy. It would therefore be legitimate that, in view of this objective, the whole team forms only one.

Especially since the lack of cohesion is often translated into political games, obstacles, ... leading to a certain loss of efficiency whose consequences can be significant.

Many people have seen in their professional experience the ravages of this lack of cohesion, which are even more pronounced when management prefers denial to action.

I personally experienced this when, discussing with the CEO, I told him of my finding of a lack of harmful cohesion and made him proposals for remediation. The following week, he explained that the cohesion was excellent. A real situation of denial that was detrimental to the group.

How can the HR function play a role?

It is clear that leaders are, above all, women and men, with their personality, their professional and personal history, their ambitions, ... In short, as much grain of sand that can seize the machine.

The role of an HRD (who is also a member of the collegiate body and can also be a carrier of a grain of sand) is, depending on the situation of his/her company, to take preventive or curative measures.

He/she must maintain an independence of mind and a certain distance to be able to make an analysis regarding the existence or not of a managerial cohesion. Depending on his/her analysis, he/she can propose remedies. I believe that a management committee can always strengthen its cohesion and that this can only be beneficial for the company and all its stakeholders.

Preventively

As I explained above, cohesion (or lack thereof) is the result of interpersonal relationships involving different factors including personality, ambition, career, power, money, ...

As HRD, it is important to know the management team, its strengths and weaknesses and the interactions that this analysis involves between people. This knowledge is acquired day after dau by exercising the function but can also be facilitated and objectified.

Different methods exist on the market that through surveys and/or interviews can schematically determine the characteristics of each and the relationship between each other.

To name just a few: ColorInsight, MBTI, Profil4colors, ...

These methods are very interesting. I had the opportunity in the past to participate in this type of exercise on the entire HR management team with Colorinsight and I must admit that the result both personally and in the relationship between individuals were bluffing.

I was recently re-reading the report about myself and it continues to be a real source of reflection and personal improvement.

The mapping of the team obtained allows both to manage the current situation but also, in case of recruitment, to find the person whose profile will be the most appropriate puzzle piece to strengthen the team.

The Organization (with a capital O) of the team is also crucial. The roles and responsibilities of each must be clear and precise. Shadow areas are all possibilities for friction, misunderstanding, conflict.

More clarity means less risk of friction for team members. This obviously does not mean that it is necessary to manage in silo, far from it but the responsibility of each one must be indisputable.

Curatively

Faced with a difficult and sometimes even deleterious atmosphere, the aforementioned means can be used to describe the existing situation (as is) and to understand it. The role of HRD will be to propose mitigation actions.

In this area, we never go from black to white. Working on difficult cohesion takes time and requires commitment from each member of the team. Each actor must be willing to participate in problem solving and agree to hear feedback that is not always obvious.

Informal discussions, extra-professional activities, roleplay, mentoring, ... can be a source of resolution.

It will also be important, sometimes, for the HRD to step aside and prefer to consult an external consultant if his/her objectivity could be questioned. In each case, it is an analysis to be carried out in this respect.

Finally, when the company and its leaders have invested to improve cohesion and one of its members is unable to play the game, more radical decisions may be necessary.

In conclusion, in this area intrinsically linked to human capital and the organization of the company, the HRD has a central role to play that makes his/her action tangible, measurable and with high added value.