LogoLogo
  • What is Adizes?
    • Adizes Institute
    • Adizes Organizational Therapy
    • Dr. Ichak Adizes
  • 🅰️Dictionary of Terms
    • PAEI
    • capi
    • Organizational Lifecycle
    • Formula Of Success
    • Change Map
    • Decision Making Process
    • Adizes Organizational Transformation
    • 🤝Symbergy
  • 🔠Wiki
    • 8-step Decision-Making Process
    • a
    • Abnormal Problems
    • Accept (a decision)
    • Accommodate
    • Accumulate
    • Accountability (Managerial)
    • Administrator
    • Adolescence; Adolescent Organization
    • AED (Adizes Executive Dashboard)
    • Affair
    • Allocated Expenses
    • Aristocracy; Aristocratic Organization
    • Arrest
    • Arsonist
    • Attribution Analysis Spreadsheet
    • Authorized Power (ap)
    • Backup Behavior
    • Behavioral Curve
    • Benevolent Prince
    • Best in Class
    • Black Book
    • Blue Book
    • Blue Internal Profit Center
    • Brackets
    • Bureaucracy; Bureaucratic Organization
    • Bureaucrat
    • Caminando y Hablando
    • Cascade
    • Cascaded Syndag
    • Chain of Causality
    • Charges to/from
    • Charismatic Guru
    • Christmas Tree
    • Client
    • Client Interface
    • Colleague
    • Column 0
    • Column 1
    • Column 2
    • Column 3
    • Column 4/5
    • Column 6
    • Committee
    • Complementary Team
    • Conceptual Foundations
    • Conduit
    • Constraint Goal
    • Constructive Conflict
    • Consultant
    • Contribution to/from
    • Cost to/from
    • Courtship
    • Creative Contributor
    • Deadwood
    • Death
    • Decentralization
    • Defreeze
    • Dog and Pony Show
    • Delegation
    • Deliberate
    • Demagogue
    • Democraship
    • Destructive Conflict
    • Deterministic Goal
    • Developmental POC
    • Dialectic Convergence
    • Dotted Line
    • Dotted-Line Reporting
    • Dramatic Reading
    • Driven Force
    • Driving Force
    • Early Bureaucracy
    • Entrepreneur
    • Executive Committee
    • Imperatives of a Decision
    • Implementor
    • Make (a decision)
    • Participative Organizational Council (POC)
    • Participative Organizational Council POC), Developmental
    • Phase 0
    • Phase I
    • Phase II
    • Phase III
    • Phase IV
    • Phase V
    • Phase VI
    • Phase VII
    • Phase VIII
    • Phase IX
    • Phase X
    • Phase XI
    • Page
    • Recrimination
    • Responsibility
    • Roles of Management
    • Synerteam
    • Take (a decision)
    • Yellow Internal Service Center
    • Witch-Hunt
  • 📖Library
    • Books by Dr. Ichak Adizes
      • 🧠The Ideal Executive: Why You Cannot Be One and What To Do About It
        • Introduction
          • Organization of the book
        • 1. Barking Up The Wrong Tree
          • A Corporate Fairy Tale (The Outdated Paradigm)
          • What is "Management"?
          • The Fallacy
        • 2. The Functionalist View
          • The Tasks of Management
          • The (PAEI) Code
          • The (P)roducer – (Paei) style
          • The (A)dministrator - (pAei) style
          • The (E)ntrepreneur – (PaEi) style
          • The Integrator – (paeI) style
          • Summing up the Functionalist View
        • 3. What Causes Mismanagement?
          • The Myth Of The Perfect Manager
          • (PAEI) Incompatibilities
          • The impossible dream
        • 4. Mismanagement Styles
          • Confronting the Inevitable
          • The Lone Ranger (P---)
          • The Bureaucrat (-A--)
          • The Arsonist (--E-)
          • The SuperFollower (---I)
          • The Common Denominator
        • 5. Working Together
          • A complementary team
          • The Bad News
        • 6. Can We Talk?
          • A Window on Managerial Styles
          • The Inevitability of Miscommunication
          • Translator Needed
        • 7. Constructive Conflict
          • Good Conflict, Bad Conflict
          • Honoring Diversity
          • Back to the Paradigm
        • 8. Structuring Responsibilities Right
          • Organizational Ecology
          • Why Structure Matters
          • Structuring for Accountability
          • Back to the Functionalist View
          • A template for Good Structure
        • 9. Matching Style to Task
          • Diagnosing a Type
          • Coding Jobs: A Basic Template
          • The Complementary Team Jigsaw Puzzle
        • 10. The Right Process: the Dialogue
          • The Managerial Tower of Babel
          • Dealing with a (P) – A (P)roducer or Lone Ranger
          • Dealing With an (A) – An (A)dministrator or Bureaucrat
          • Dealing With an (E) – An (E)ntrepreneur or Arsonist
          • Dealing With an (I) - an (I)ntegrator or Superfollower
          • Keeping Your Styles Straight: A Cautionary Tale
        • 11. Converting Management by Committee into Teamwork
          • The Communication Blues
          • Questions, Doubts, and Disagreements
        • 12. The Right People and Shared Vision and Values
          • The Role of Leadership
          • Sharing Vision and Values
          • The Visioning Process
        • 13. Nurturing the Wrong Tree?
          • The Wrong Tree
          • Traditional management Squashes Potential
          • The Management Training Gap
        • 14. The Mission of Management and Leadership Education
          • Decision-Making Programmability
          • The Effectiveness of Training
          • Delegation and Decentralization
          • What Organizations Can Do Themselves
          • The Dark Side of Formal Education
      • 📈Mastering Change: Introduction to Organizational Therapy
        • Acknowledgments
        • Introduction to the new edition
        • Management, Executives, Leadership…
        • Conversation 1: Change and Its Repercussions
        • Conversation 2: On Parenting, Management, or Leadership
        • Conversation 3: Predicting the Quality of Decisions
        • Conversation 4: Efficiency and Effectiveness
        • Conversation 5: The Incompatibility of Roles
        • Conversation 6: Management, Leadership, and Mismanagement Styles
        • Conversation 7: What to Do About Change
        • Conversation 8: Responsibility, Authority, Power, and Influence
        • Conversation 9: Predicting the Efficiency of Implementing Decisions
        • Conversation 10: What Makes the Wheels Turn
        • Conversation 11: How to Communicate with People
        • Conversation 12: Perceiving Reality
        • Conversation 13: Quality of People
        • Conversation 14: How to Convert Committee Work into Teamwork
        • Conversation 15: The Adizes Program for Organizational Transformation
      • 🔄Managing Corporate Lifecycles
        • Introduction
        • Chapter 1. Change and Its Repercussions
        • Chapter 2. Courtship
        • Chapter 3. Infancy
        • Chapter 4. The Wild Years: Go-Go
        • Chapter 5. The Second Birth and the Coming of Age: Adolescence
        • Chapter 6: PRIME
        • Chapter 7: The Signs of Aging n
        • Chapter 8: The Aging Organizations: Aristocracy
        • Chapter 9: The Final Decay: Salem City, Bureaucracy, And Death
        • Chapter 10: Tools For Analysis
        • Chapter 11: Predicting The Lifecycle: A Metaphorical Dance
        • Chapter 12: PAEI And The Lifecycle: Stage By Stage
        • Chapter 13: Predicting The Capability To Solve Problems
        • Chapter 14: The Causes Of Organizational Aging
        • Chapter 15: Structural Causes Of Aging
        • Chapter 16: Organizational Therapy
        • Chapter 17: Treating Organizations On The Typical Path: A Contingency Approach
        • Chapter 18: The Optimal Path
    • Other Books
  • 🔗Adizes Resources
Powered by GitBook
LogoLogo

Social Media

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • YouTube

Contact Us

  • Website
  • Submit a form
  • Get certified
On this page
  • The managerial mix
  • Some Classic Combinations

Was this helpful?

  1. Library
  2. Books by Dr. Ichak Adizes
  3. The Ideal Executive: Why You Cannot Be One and What To Do About It
  4. 5. Working Together

A complementary team

Previous5. Working TogetherNextThe Bad News

Last updated 2 years ago

Was this helpful?

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.

Get your copy of this book, or get it for your !

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?

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.

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 .

📖
🧠
printed
Kindle
Chapter 8