The Integrator – (paeI) style

In the analogy of the five friends who went hiking to a lake, their friendship and sense of belonging expressed itself in a need to do something together. First, that need was satisfied by drinking beer; then by hiking to a lake; then by working together either to lift the rock or to come up with another plan.

The process of identifying a new way to satisfy that ultimate purpose – going on a hike rather than drinking beer – was (E)ntrepreneuring, the (E) role. The organizing of the hike – where to meet, what time, who would bring the picnic basket – belonged to the (A) role, or (A)dministering. The actual act of drinking beer, hiking to the lake, or removing the rock from the path – the act of doing whatever satisfied the purpose of the interrelationship at that moment – was (P)roducing, the (P) role.

But what is the common denominator in all these activities? Why are these people drinking beer together, going on a hike together, lifting the rock together, in the first place?

Physiological studies show that humans need to interrelate. What is the worst punishment in a prison? Solitary confinement. Come to think of it, imprisonment in itself is a partial isolation and thus a punishment. The role of developing and nurturing the need to affiliate is what makes an organization viable and thus effective in the long run.

What would happen if your organization were managed by an executive who was an outstanding (P), (A), and (E)? This person is a knowledgeable, achievement-oriented, task-oriented, effective, no-nonsense (P)roducer, as well as an outstanding (A)dministrator running a tight ship: Everything is systematic and well organized, correctly done at the right time. In other words, the organization is effective and efficient.

In addition, this executive is an outstanding (E)ntrepreneur, constantly adapting and improving the organization so that it is really moving and adjusting to the changing environment.

Now, what happens to the organization when this manager dies?

The organization also dies. Why? Because the (P), (A), and (E) roles are necessary, but they are not sufficient if the organization is to be effective and efficient in the long run.

Organizations should be managed so that they can survive for thousands of years. Look at the Catholic Church, for example. It has existed for two thousand years and it could go for another two thousand. Why? Because it has established a set of values that each individual in the organization identifies with.

To do that, you must have (I)ntegration.

(I)ntegration means uniting people to develop agreement and build group support for ideas and their implementation.9 If the role of (I)ntegration is performed well, people will learn to work as a team instead of as individuals, able to compensate for any task that happens to be missing or deficient.

(I)ntegration builds a climate, a system of ethics and behavior, that encourages everyone to work together so that no one is indispensable. To (I)ntegrate means to change the consciousness of the organization from mechanistic to organic.

What does this mean? To be mechanistic is to care only for your own interests while I care only for mine. Look at a chair. If one of the legs breaks, do the other legs care about it? No, that’s the broken leg’s problem.

If the four legs were internally interdependent – i.e., organic – then if one leg broke, the other three could realign themselves into a tripod shape to maintain the chair’s functionality. But there is no internal interdependency, no organic relationship among the parts of the chair. Thus, when its functionality is damaged, it is dependent on external intervention for repair.

Something similar happens in mechanistically oriented organizations. Let’s say there is a problem with sales. The company is going broke. The (P)roduction department says, “That’s not my problem. That’s a sales problem.” In reality, however, there may be something (P)roduction could do differently that would save the company.

In comparison look at your hand. If one finger breaks, your whole body feels it. There is empathy. And not only that: When one finger breaks, the other four fingers on that hand will try to compensate for the loss. That is organic consciousness. There is interdependency, there is cooperation; it’s synergetic instead of being individualistic, independent, and frequently adversarial.

“Yes, but in the case of a hand, the fingers all share the same head,” a cynic might argue. Not always. What if the finger that broke belongs to your four-year-old son? It’s not your finger. So why are you in pain and unable to focus? Because it belongs to someone you love, and his pain is your pain.

So (I)ntegration does not have to be physical. It can be emotional and/or spiritual. It is driven by a sense of belonging and affiliation.

When your kids are fighting, you don’t always solve their problems for them, do you? Why not? Because you are trying to promote just that sense of interdependency and affiliation. You might say, “Hey, you’re family; you’re supposed to be helping each other. I’m not going to be here forever. You must solve your own problems.”

Let’s say you and your family are packing up the car for an outing, and you find your son sitting in the car and waiting. “Why aren’t you helping?” you ask him.

“My stuff is already in,” he responds.

“Get your rear end moving and help the family!!” you’d probably shout. “You are not alone here. Your job is done when the whole family’s job is done.” Right?

A family is more than a group of people; a hand is more than five fingers. There is a sense of interdependence fostered by common values and vision, among other variables. (I)ntegration involves creating and nurturing a culture of mutual trust and respect and thus cooperation; it involves the leader making himself dispensable so that the group can continue to function if anything happens to him – or any other individual member.

Look at a sports team. If you put together a team of stars, each from a different team, who have never played or trained together, and play them against an above-average team that’s been playing together for a long time, who would probably win the first game? It’s likely that the above-average team would win. Why? Because the star team has not yet developed its team consciousness; its members cannot yet predict: “If he does that, I can back him up by doing this.” That sense of cooperating to reach a common goal is what we mean by teamwork.

(I)ntegration turns individual (E)ntrepreneurship into group (E)ntrepreneurship. If a manager does not (I)ntegrate, does not nourish group (E)ntrepreneurship, then in extreme cases the group will be unable to initiate action or determine goals in his absence. Thus, (I)ntegration is a necessary component of good management. Companies that rely on any one individual for continuous success in their operations inevitably will face a crisis if that individual leaves or dies. Even organizations that have been managed by a (PAE–) – the dash in the code signifying that the (I) role is missing or deficient – will find themselves in trouble if that manager leaves before a team feeling – an esprit de corps around an effective course of action – has been developed.

Since an organization’s life span should be longer than the life of any individual, effective long-range continuity depends on building a team of people who understand, trust, and respect each other, and who complement each other’s abilities. (I)ntegration creates that effect.

When there is no (I)ntegration taking place, no one is focused primarily on the company’s long-range, holistic interests. Instead, everybody is looking out for himself, often at the company’s expense. The stockholders are trying to milk the company. Management is trying to get maximum rewards for itself, with stock options, golden parachutes, and endless fringe benefits. Labor is campaigning for the best salaries and job security. Among all of these competing interests, it’s possible to arrive at a working consensus in which everyone is getting his interests satisfied while the company is actually going bankrupt. That is what is said about certain developing countries: “Rich people, poor country.”

When I find a situation like this in the organizations I coach, I often dramatize the dilemma by bringing an empty chair to the table. I place the company name on the front of the chair and ask, “If someone were sitting in that chair, what would he say? What does this company want?” When I let the participants play out that scenario, I hear voices that have previously been silent. In this exercise, I am playing the (I)ntegrating role.

So, although (P) appears to be the purpose of our existence – to satisfy our clients’ needs – it is in fact only the immediate, short-term purpose. What is our continuous endless purpose? To satisfy our need to interrelate.

I repeat: Interrelating is the ultimate purpose of our existence. We are social animals. We need each other, period. We even keep dogs or cats sometime for no other reason than because we need to be needed, to interrelate. In the United States, dogs are trained to visit patients in hospitals; some studies have shown that a dog’s attention and affection can speed up the healing process.

There is nothing in this world that doesn’t exist to serve something else by functionally interrelating to it. If it serves only itself, then it is a cancer and serves death. The pen I write with is useless if it does not leave a mark on paper. Breathing has no meaning unless the oxygen feeds my body. Nothing in itself is functional; everything is functional in relation to something else. The ultimate reason any system exists is (I)ntegration, the (I) role. Indeed, managers with the ability to perform that role have the potential to go beyond good management and become leaders

Management style

There are two types of (I)ntegration – passive and active – and three directions: Upward, lateral, and downward.

A passive (I)ntegrator will (I)ntegrate himself into a group of people. An active (I)ntegrator can (I)ntegrate a group of people among themselves. Because in management, (I)ntegration must be active, we will concern ourselves here only with active (I)ntegration.

Upward (I)ntegration is the ability to (I)ntegrate people who are higher in status, authority, rank, and so on. Lateral (I)ntegration is the ability to develop peers into a cohesive group. Downward (I)ntegration provides leadership by establishing cohesion among subordinates.

A very effective lateral (I)ntegrator may function poorly as a downward (I)ntegrator, tending to be arrogant with subordinates. In fact, it is unusual for a person to be an excellent (I)ntegrator in all directions.

Let’s talk about the characteristics that a good (I)ntegrator brings to the organization.

Perhaps surprisingly, the (I)ntegrator is the most creative of all the management types, since he must make decisions from a more diffused and less structured database. (I)ntegrating is even less programmable than (E)ntrepreneuring, because (E)ntrepreneuring does not necessarily deal with people, whereas (I)ntegrating involves uniting individuals with diverse interests and strengths behind a group decision.

In (I)ntegrating (E)ntrepreneurs, one has the additional burden of forging their individual creativities into a cohesive unity, to develop group risk-taking out of individual risk-taking, to fuse an individual sense of responsibility into a group sense of responsibility.

The (I)ntegrator clarifies issues by finding the common threads of deep – not just superficial – agreement, and by assimilating contrasting values, assumptions, and expectations.

A successful (I)ntegrator also must make himself dispensable. His subordinates must be trained to be capable of replacing him. Ideally, in a cohesive group almost any member should be able to lead. To take a military example, if any soldier in a squad can take the squad leader’s place and be accepted when the leader is killed, this demonstrates that the leader was a good (I)ntegrator. If the squad scatters when the leader is killed, then the (I)ntegration of the unit was insufficient, although the leader may have been a competent commander in other respects.

The (I)ntegrator is sensitive to others (i.e., empathetic), and he is capable of deductive thinking (i.e., able to infer what people really want to say from what they do say). He has few ego problems of his own, which enables him to hear and respond to other people’s expectations, problems, and needs rather than his own.

The late Juscelino Kubitschek, former president of Brazil and founder of Brasilia, was such a leader. When asked whether he was for or against a certain political program, he replied: “I am neither for nor against it: I am above it.”

The (I) Role in Leadership

The (I)ntegrator is unique in that he not only provides for future organizational continuity, he also enables the organization to function smoothly in the present. His role is essential for success, both in the short run and in the long run. Finally, his is the one role that must be present in order for leadership to occur.

Input	Throughput	Output
The roles	Make the organization	In the
(P)rovides for client needs	Functional; the effective	short run
(A)dminister	Systematized; thus efficient	short run
(E)ntrepreneur	Proactive; thus effective	long run
(I)ntegrate	Organic; thus efficient	long run

You can be a good manager even without (I). Managers can be strong in two or even three roles – (PAei), (PaEi), (pAEi), (PAEi) – but unless one of them is (I)ntegrating, they will not be leaders. For leadership to occur, the (I) role must enhance whatever other roles a manager excels at performing. (See Chapter 11 for a more detailed description of leadership.)