"You're always working on two fronts: your specific goal, and the relationships you have," says Cohen. "And people always send off messages about what matters to them. It's good politics to make people feel good."
Rule 4: Success can create opposition.
You've positioned your idea for broad appeal. you've tested the waters with informal polling. You've evaluated your currencies. Now it's time for the real work of the campaign: cutting the deals, big and small, that turn your goal into a reality - and reckoning with the resistance that any campaign generates.
"A campaign is really a series of exchanges," argues Herminia Ibarra. "You swap influence and inspiration for support from all kinds of people. You also have to deal with adversaries. Opposition often comes quickly - and from unexpected places. You need to be smart about taking in information and about dealing with misinformation."
Xerox's Cindy Casselman had a ready-made information network in the form of her SCO team. But she needed both money and programming talent. So she launched a deal-making spree across the company. "I met with our CIO, Pat Wallington," she says. "I met with the head of education and learning, Carolyn McZinc. I identified reasons why they would want to help. I said to Pat, 'You spent all this money on a new infrastructure. If you give me a little money, I'll put content there.' I said to Carolyn, 'You enable learning at Xerox. I'm going to provide you with a place to make that happen.'"
Casselman also cut a deal with her boss, Joe Cahalan, Xerox's director of communications: He would allow her to work on the project, but only if she raised $250,000 for the WebBoard on her own. Piece by piece, Casselman got the funds. "I was shocked," Cahalan admits. "I still don't understand how she did it."
But Casselman's very success began to ruffle feathers. And opposition (or at least healthy skepticism) started in an unlikely place - with Joe Cahalan. The closer the WebBoard got to becoming a reality, the more he appreciated the stakes involved in the project. "Up to that point," he says, "I had given Cindy free reign. But I became dictatorial about one thing: I didn't want the site to have a false start or to get a bad name. I didn't want people to visit and be disappointed."
Then came more opposition - this time from Casselman's own department. She'd been so busy selling her idea to other parts of Xerox that she'd overlooked the people closest to her. A few of her colleagues resented Casselman's high profile. And many of them worried about the extra work. "I had this vision," Casselman says. "I saw this as the North Star. But other people asked, 'Does this mean we're doing news? Are we going to have to write for this every day?'"
A compromise emerged. Casselman would conduct a 30-day trial before the WebBoard's public debut. Cahalan could then assure himself of the WebBoard's quality, and the communications department could get a feel for the work. It was a nerve-wracking month for Casselman, but the trial was a huge success. That success was no accident. "The more open you are," argues Allan Cohen, "the better prepared you'll be when opposition shows up. Always work to build a climate in which everybody can put information on the table. The most creative solutions to conflict come from being completely open."
Rule 5: Don't ignore the aftermath of success.
Election day for Cindy Casselman was November 15, 1995. Chairman and CEO Paul Allaire traveled to Dallas to deliver the keynote address for Xerox Teamwork Day. Allaire celebrated the spirit of cooperation at the company. He spoke honestly about a recent round of job cuts. He talked about the future. And he described Xerox's newest internal communications tool - the WebBoard.
"We want this site to become a place where Xerox people come to do work," Allaire said. "A place where you'll find the information you need to do your job and learn new things; a place where there's a community of Xerox people with whom to share information and best practices."
It was a huge win for the SCO team. It was also the beginning of the end for its campaign. The team had never developed a strategy for the aftermath of success. Everyone shared the unspoken assumption that after the WebBoard's creation, Xerox would create a stand-alone team to maintain and improve the site. Bad assumption. The WebBoard never became a formally independent unit. Tight budgets limited its expansion. Rick Beach returned to his regular duties. Malcolm Kirby left the company. The SCO disbanded. "I was so focused on creating the WebBoard," Casselman explains. "Nothing was going to stop me. But once it was up, I couldn't maintain that energy. It's very successful, but I had a much bigger vision."
Recent Comments | 2 Total
June 20, 2009 at 9:13am by Peter Freeth
An organisation with around 200 employees working in the public sector asked us to develop a coaching program for their senior managers which would accelerate the implementation of their new strategy.
An ambitious 10 year business plan needed strong leadership to guide an underlying culture change, shifting the focus of the business from a public sector mentality to one of business and commercial awareness. The CEO had been in place for only a short time, having been promoted rapidly from company accountant to Finance Director to CEO.
We coached the CEO to develop this strategy, and this evolved into a coaching program for the senior managers, supporting them in implementing the strategy in their own areas of the business.
From the beginning, the CEO avoided key issues during coaching and inconsistencies began to show during conversations between the CEO and the Directors. During a strategy workshop, Directors closed ranks, recited rehearsed statements about the strategy and looked to the CEO for approval.
After just two months into the coaching program, it was clear that some managers' ideas to implement the strategy were being blocked, whilst others were contradicting themselves and avoiding accountability. The CEO was continuing to avoid key issues and was making very little progress overall.
The main issue appeared to be the avoidance of accountability. Staff would avoid work that they were not interested in and their managers would take on extra work rather than make individuals accountable for their actions, so work flowed up the organisational structure rather than down and managers took on a higher workload resulting in longer working hours, greater stress, mistrust and resentment .
We called a meeting with the CEO and told her that we were closing the coaching program.
The fundamental issue was that the CEO was manipulating her managers and the board in order to support her own hidden agenda; her early exit. She knew that she did not have enough experience as a CEO to secure her next position, so the only option was a significant achievement in the form of a merger with another organisation which would give her an instant successor from outside the organisation, enabling her to block succession from within. She had already removed two Directors and had identified a third who she was setting up to fail in key performance areas. She influenced board elections to ensure support from new members and gave the impression that she was protecting her team from the board in order to control communication between them.
This complex system of control and manipulation bred mistrust, avoidance and dishonesty throughout the management team and began to create a barrier to the CEO's own hidden agenda. The business was disintegrating faster than she could orchestrate her exit, and at some point the board would take the exit decision away from her, leaving her with neither the experience nor the achievements to move forwards yet equally unable to move backwards.
At our final meeting, we told the CEO that we had identified all of this, and that we were no longer part of the game. Although she was surprised at our withdrawal from the program, she admitted to everything that we said. She recognised the risk that she faced, and the danger that she was putting the company in. If we had said nothing and continued to coach her, the coaching would have been ineffective because of her manipulation and avoidance. By admitting to her behaviour, she had taken responsibility for it and no longer needed coaching. Either way, our feedback was more valuable than any coaching ever could be.
www.askrevelation.com