How leaders kill great teams

Nothing kills a great company like internal schisms. When an organization is divided against itself, its end is near because divisions create factions with each of the factions taking a different position on all issues concerning the organization. The effect of this is that rather than working for a common cause and building up the organization, each of the camps will work towards protecting its own position and increasing its scope of influence even if such is detrimental to the establishment’s wellbeing. If this continues unchecked, it could sound the death knell of the organization. Schisms are antithetical to organizational growth. Divisions in an organization should be prevented at all cost but sometimes schisms in organizations are precipitated and promoted, albeit inadvertently, by the leaders.

 

How leaders cause division in their own organizations

Leaders unwittingly create division in their organizations by doing the following:

 

Focusing only on the strong, ignoring the weak

By virtue of their position, leaders are familiar with the capacity of those who work with them. They know who can deliver on any particular task. They know those who understand their heartbeats and can keep pace with them. They know those who will give them the least difficulty in project execution. Consequently, when there are tasks to be done, the tendency is for the leader to go for the person he is confident will deliver promptly without giving others any chance at all. Every time there is a task, his mind goes straight to a certain person or some persons and without any consideration for others he gives the assignment to his preferred person or persons. Oftentimes, leaders who resort to the same set of people all the time are trying to achieve efficiency and effectiveness, getting maximum output from minimal input.

Although the leader may think that his action is justifiable because his intention is to give a task to the person that is best suited for its execution, if the trend continues over a period of time, those who are overlooked will feel discriminated against and might interpret the leader’s action as favouritism. They may form a clique to counter what the leader is doing. If this is not dealt with decisively, it is capable of bringing an organization on its knees.

The downside of this is that because the leader is confident about the capacity of some of his team mates and he is also comfortable with them, apart from giving them more responsibilities, he is also likely to push them forward for benefits and promotions. This is what actually breeds resentment and heightens the feeling of discrimination. Those considered fit for high tasks and responsibilities by the leader are likely to be tagged as the leader’s ‘kitchen cabinet’, ‘inner circle’ or ‘special task force’. All of these indicate a division in the workplace and poses a threat to the health of the organization.

 

Leaders going for those who are like them

Relationship in the workplace or elsewhere has a lot to do with chemistry. As it is said, like attracts like. Therefore, some leaders always opt to work only with those who are like them; people who think like them or act like them; people they like generally. So, when there is anything to be done, it is a safe bet to guess who the leader would give such assignment and who would not be considered. While the leader’s reason may be that bonding affects quality of a task as well as the speed of execution, the fact is that those who are not considered for the task would not only feel left out, they will also feel out of place and accuse the leader of favouritism. Since they do not see themselves as insiders, getting them to commit to what the organization is doing becomes herculean.

 

Effects of favouritism

Favouritism, either real or perceived, is injurious to an organization. These are the effects.

 

Loss of trust in the leader

If a leader is perceived as favouring some members of staff, he will lose the trust of those who are not enjoying his favour. Leadership is built on trust and when trust is lost, not much of leadership is left. Followers expect their leaders to protect their interests. Part of protecting the interests of the people is guarding against their being shortchanged. So, when a leader who is supposed to protect the interest of his people is the one working against same by not creating opportunities for them to grow on the job while doing same for others, he stands the risk of losing the trust of those who had hitherto believed in him.

 

Division in the system

When a leader patently shows that he prefers some members of his workforce to others, he sets the stage for division in his department or organization. Mystery is said to love company. So, those who feel sidelined and discriminated against are not unlikely to form a group to work against the interest of the leader who has sidelined them.

 

Strive within the organization

Strive is the natural follow up to division. A leader has the responsibility of ensuring unity among the members of his group. If he fails to do this, he will harvest the result of strive and unhealthy competition among the people. This could result in his efforts being sabotaged and the result he wanted to achieve by picking on those he trusted to execute a task would be defeated.

 

Success becomes difficult

A team that works as one stands a great chance of being successful but the one that is working against itself will find it difficult to move forward. Therefore, by giving the impression that he prefers some of the workers to the others, the leader has pitted some people in the organization not just against the favoured ones but also against the organization. Therefore, recording real success may elude the organization because the workforce will be working at cross purposes.

 

Accusation of incompetence

If a leader keeps relying on the same set of people to carry out his tasks, he may be accused of incompetence. A leader is supposed to be able to work with different kinds of people. But if he is only able to work with just some people and keeps going back to the same people all the time, he will give the impression that he is probably using those people to cover his deficiency. He will have a daunting task to convince outsiders that the choice of people he uses is not a consequence of his incompetence.

 

Frustration

While some people may not be too bothered about being bypassed by the leader, those who consider themselves as good as those favoured may find it extremely difficult to stand being repeatedly underutilized and overlooked. They are likely to get frustrated and leave the establishment. This could be counterproductive for the organization because by the time it realizes its need for such people it might be too late and replacing them could come at a very high cost.

 

How leaders avoid favouritism

Leaders can take steps to guard against falling foul of favouritism or being perceived as engaging in favouritism.

 

Be leader of all, not leader of some

The leader must position himself as everybody’s leader and not some people’s leader. Therefore, he must give equal opportunity to all; everybody must be given a chance to either stand or fall. The leader must deliberately avoid leaning to a side. He must ensure that nobody is justified to accuse him of favouring one person over others. Though every man has his preferences, a leader must develop himself to the point of not allowing his personal preferences to blind him to others in his group.

A leader must desist from judging any of his team members before trying him. The fact that an individual failed at a task once is not enough to deprive him of getting another chance for as long as he remains on the staff. The leader must have a broad mind that gives everyone a chance. When there is a new task, as much as it is practicable, it should be thrown open and everyone allowed to prove their mettle.

 

Deliberately seek good in people

A leader must develop a system that will not make anyone in the organization feel ostracized. While it is natural to want to push the major tasks to those with proven ability to deliver, if everyone is made to feel important, this will not unnecessarily create a problem in the system. One thing a leader can do is to make it a habit of catching his people doing good and letting others know about it. A leader must deliberately look for the good aspect of his people and broadcast it. Not only will this foster unity, it will also boost morale and ensure commitment to corporate goals.

 

Train them or loose them

If a leader notices a deficiency in any of his team members, he should correct that by exposing such person to new knowledge through training programmes. A good leader does not leave a person at the same level that he met him, he has a duty to work towards the person’s improvement. So, instead of complaining about a person’s deficiency or sidelining him as a result, the leader should help him to get over that difficulty. However, if after series of exposure to training opportunities the leader is still not satisfied with the person’s level of performance, it is better to let go of him rather than keeping him and turning him into an enemy within.

Letting go of such people is in their own interest. Being freed, they are able to look for other places where their skills could be better appreciated and their capacity optimized.

 

Last line

The workforce is an organization’s most important resource. Resources are to be deployed by the leader to get results. If a leader only relies on a fraction of the workforce to get results, he is not only shortchanging those ignored, he is also shortchanging the organization.