A complementary team
If the ideal manager, executive, or leader is non-existent, then what should we be looking for?
We know that in order to make decisions that create and maintain effective and efficient organizations in the short and long run, four roles must be performed. Every company needs individuals who possess the (E)ntrepreneurial and (I)ntegrating qualities that can guide a united organization into new courses of action; (A)dministrators who can translate the ideas of the (E)ntrepreneurs into operative systems that (P)roduce results; and (P)roducers who go and make it happen– in short, (PAEI).
But we also know that the four roles are incompatible; it’s very difficult to be result-oriented and at the same time to be detail- and efficiency-oriented, visionary, and finally, people-oriented. It’s too much to ask. We know that kind of manager exists only in textbooks.
We described what happens when only one role is being performed, and the other roles are not: You get pathological extremes like the Lone Ranger, the Bureaucrat, the Arsonist, and the Superfollower.
But it is possible to find good managers who have mastered at least one role and meet the minimum needs of the others. I would code such managers as at least a (Paei), or (P)roducer; a (pAei), or (A)dministrator; a (paEi), or (E)ntrepreneur; and a (paeI), or (I)ntegrator.
Thus, in order to have good management, organizations must realize and accept a new paradigm, based on the reality that a group effort among people with complementary styles is the only workable solution. We need a team of leaders, managers, executives, whose styles are different, who complement each other, who can work together and balance one another’s biases, who excel in at least one of the four roles which are different from each other, and who are above the minimum threshold of competence in the other roles. Instead of talking about a single individual who manages it all the roles of (P)roducing, (A)dministrating, (E)ntrepreneuring, and (I)ntegrating must be fulfilled by a complementary managerial team, because no one person can perform them all.
I want to emphasize the word complementary, because normally, when I say to a manager, “We need a team,” he replies, “Yes, you’re right. I am going to hire several more people like me.”
That is not a team. That is cloning.
Look at your hand. Every finger is different. The pointing finger is the most flexible and versatile; few consider the fourth finger, the “ring finger,” as functional. But can you imagine a hand composed of five pointing fingers? It would not work as well. What makes a hand a hand is that every finger is different and complements each other.
Hiring more people like ourselves, no matter how skilled we are, isn’t a good idea either. We need to hire people who complement us where we are weak – and we are all weak in some area! We need a team in which the members are different from each other, not similar to each other, as far as their style is concerned.
And when I use the word “team” of people whose styles are different, I’m not talking about hiring somebody who knows marketing and somebody else who knows finance and a third person who knows accounting. These are differences in knowledge. I’m talking about differentiation in style, in behavior. We need diversity of styles, not only of religion or color or gender or race, etc. Each person’s style should complement the others’ by balancing their naturally biased judgments. If a team is composed of people whose judgments are all the same, the team is very vulnerable. If it is completely incompatible, it’s also vulnerable. A team is strong and viable when it has different styles that act united.
If you analyze the history of any successful organization, you will see that its success was due to a team of people whose styles, behavior, and needs were different but who worked together well nevertheless. Although organizational success is usually attributed to one person, a team is almost always behind that person, which enables him or her to perform well.
For example, many people think of the Ford Motor Company as Henry Ford’s individual success story. But according to Peter Drucker, during the period when it was growing into a success —that is, from 1907 through the early 1920’s— the company was, in effect, run by a top management team, with James Couzens co-equal to Ford in some areas and acting as the final authority in others. Only after Couzens left in 1921 did Ford become the lone top manager. It is hardly surprising that Couzens’ departure impaired the company’s competitive capability.
The managerial mix
A managerial mix can occur successfully at all levels of the organizational hierarchy, but it does not evolve naturally all by itself.
So how do we build managerial teams in which the players are different from each other, and how can we encourage and support their ability to work together, avoiding the unproductive trap that I call “management by committee?”
Not every team of managers is workable or competent. Each team member must possess specific qualities in an ideal managerial mix. Then, the team itself must be capable of achieving certain goals.
What are the necessary characteristics for each member of such a team? First, besides excelling at one or more of the four roles, he must have no dashes in his (PAEI) code. Thus, the combination
(P---) plus
(-A--) plus
(--E-) plus
(---I)
will not work. Any manager with even one blank in his code will be incapable of working well with the person who excels in that role in the team. He will be inflexible and will have difficulty developing and inspiring mutual trust and respect with that person.
A manager as a team member should have no blanks in his (PAEI) code and can achieve a minimum threshold of competence in any managerial role. This means he will be familiar with and capable of recognizing excellence in areas where he is relatively weak, and he will accept and even support others’ differences.
He will realize that he himself is, by definition, imperfect – which suggests that he understands and appreciates the value of his strengths and the cost of his weaknesses. Thus, he actively seeks to complement his strengths and weaknesses with those of other team members. In doing so, he knows and expects that there will be a certain amount of conflict, and he works hard to manage that conflict when it arises.
When individuals join together and become a group – it doesn’t matter what kind of group – we know that in addition to being individuals, they become part of another entity with its own distinct identity, which, like any identity, is rooted in one’s developed values, tendencies, and habits.
As an entity, then, the ideal managerial mix will demonstrate certain values and behavior. What are they?
In order to be functionally successful, the most basic requirement is that the team must have a style, or “personality,” that will be allowed to flourish in its organization’s climate. This can be tricky. For instance, a bureaucratic organization probably needs an (E)ntrepreneurial team to head its marketing department, but will a bureaucracy really tolerate an (E)’s intense, aggressive style? Probably not. Often, it is necessary to change the environment, perhaps by restructuring the organization, before a managerial team – even a great one – can be productive. We’re going to get into that in more detail in Chapter 8.
Second, in every team, the buck has to stop somewhere. In other words, among the team members, there must be an acknowledged leader.
This may seem contradictory, but it is not. In a (PAEI) team, all the team members are not equal; our paradigm of a (PAEI) team actually supports, rather than discourages or eliminates, the role of individual leadership. In fact, group decision-making without a leader produces a structure “that can lead to delays or impede the decision-making process,” as Aetna’s management complained after unsuccessfully replacing its company president with a team of people. A complementary management team whose members are all equal could lead to stalemate and, eventually disintegration. What the (PAEI) model does suggest, however, is that the leader needs the rest of the team to help him make decisions. So we need to choose a leader capable of maintaining a team environment and operations.
Finally, each team must be composed of members whose strengths specifically complement the others’ weaknesses. This can only be determined on the most personal, individual level. Let’s say a prospective team member is a (Paei); he is not only strong at (P)roducing, but he has the ability to perform whatever other combination of managerial roles may be required. But if none of the other team members excels at (I)ntegrating, as an example, the team as an entity will be weak in (I) and thus unsuccessful.
To determine whether or not a manager’s style is appropriate for a specific team, one has to analyze all of the team members as if they were components of a whole (which, as I explained above, is true.)
Thus, this hypothetical (Paei) may not be appropriate for this particular team despite being an excellent manager and even a good team player. What is needed is a manager who excels at (I)ntegration.
Some Classic Combinations
There isn’t one magical combination of managers that produces an ideal team. There are at least several configurations that can work. One simple model, easily grasped, is:
a (Paei), and
a (pAei), and
a (paEi), and
a (paeI).
Even better would be a team composed of:
a (PaeI), and
a (pAeI), and
a (paEI).
In this latter configuration, all the team members excel at (I)ntegration as well as some other role; thus each has the potential to transcend good management and become leaders. Each can lead – but with a different orientation. (Nevertheless, only one of them should have authority over the group’s decisions.)
As Ford’s success shows, a successful organizational team does not have to be composed of four people; there could be three, or even two.
One traditional model of a complementary team – the typical “mom-and-pop store”– consists of a (PaEi) and a (pAeI). The “poppa” opens new stores, finds new products, and sets prices, while the “momma” takes care of the books and deals with the customers.
But it doesn’t have to be a store; it could be a multinational company with billions of dollars in revenues. Years ago, I lectured to the top management of Phillip Morris. The CEO approached me afterward and said, pointing to the gentleman next to him: “Dr. Adizes, I would like to introduce you to Mama.”
Why don’t you ever hear of a “momma store,” or a “poppa store?” Because there is no successful poppa without a successful momma! It takes a complementary team to build a store (or, for that matter, a family). Show me any successful organization, and I’ll show you a complementary team.
Although success is never guaranteed, certain combinations seem by nature doomed to failure. One example is if a (PAei) supervises a (paEI) in the hierarchy. What will happen? The (E)ntrepreneur will be suffocated under the (PA). The (paEI) needs to dream and to communicate his visions. But the (PAei) is so focused on order, on peace and quiet, that he will feel threatened by the (paEI)’s dreams. If the (paEI) wants to survive, he will have to stop giving wings to his creativity and completely give up his dreams and aspirations.
Conversely, a (paEI) cannot successfully supervise a (PAei) either. I believe we saw a tragic example of that in the Watergate scandal in the 1970’s. Richard Nixon was President, with H.R. (Bob) Haldeman and John Ehrlichman under him in charge of the White House staff. Nixon had ambitious visions of statesmanship – (E); but he was also an insecure person badly in need of support – (I) – as was indicated by his bitterness toward the critical media. So he found himself some (PA) types who would support and serve him blindly.
The result could have been a fantastic misunderstanding: Nixon, an (EI), gave directions that may have been too general, which were interpreted and implemented by Haldeman, a (PA) type without any real vision or ethical considerations.
One reason the partnership of a (PAei) and a (paEI) is potentially disastrous is that both the (P) and (A) roles are exclusively concerned with short-term goals, while the (E) and (I) roles are focused on the long term.
Another theory is that the problem has to do with left- and right-brain thinking. The (P) and (A) roles, I suggest, are performed on the left side of the brain, which operates logically, sequentially, rationally, analytically. (E) and (I) roles depend more on the right side, which is more random, intuitive, holistic, and subjective. Thus, combining two managers – one with left-brain strength alone and the other with only right-brain strength – will cause too much confusion, miscommunication, and conflict.
To be a competent team player, one must have a bit of both orientations. That’s why the combination of a (PaEi) and a (pAeI) can work well, as long as the (pAeI) doesn’t object to playing the supportive role. Hospitals, operas, theaters, and universities are often run by such partnerships.
A (PaEi) is more function-oriented, while a (pAeI) is more form oriented. But instead of being focused on one to the exclusion of the other, each of these managers makes decisions based on consideration for both short- and long-term goals. The (PaEi)’s role should be to look at the what, in both the short run, (P), and the long run, (E); while the (pAeI) should concentrate on how, mechanistically in the short run, (A); and organically in the long run, (I).
While the combination makes sense, it is also crucial that function lead form; thus in this model, the (PaEi) must be the leader.
Last updated
