by Lee G Bolman
Stories
In high-performing groups, stories keep traditions alive and provide examples to guide everyday behavior. Group lore extended and reinforced the subtle yet powerful influence of Eagle’s leaders—some of them distant and remote. West’s reputation as a “troublemaker” and an “excitement junkie” was conveyed through stories about the computer wars of the mid-1970s. Stories had it that when he had a particular objective in mind, he would first go upstairs to sign up senior executives. Then he went to people one at a time, telling them their bosses liked the idea and asking them to come on board: “They say, ‘Ah, it sounds like you’re just gonna put a bag on the side of the Eclipse,’ and Tom’ll give ’em his little grin and say, ‘It’s more than that, we’re really gonna build this fucker and it’s gonna be fast as greased lightning.’ He tells them, ‘we’re gonna do it by April.’”18
Stories of persistence, irreverence, and creativity encouraged others to go beyond themselves, adding new exploits and tales to the Eagle Group’s lore.
Humor and Play
Groups often focus single-mindedly on the task, shunning anything not directly work related. Seriousness replaces playfulness as a cardinal virtue. However, effective teams balance seriousness with play and humor. Surgical teams, cockpit crews, and many other groups have learned that joking and playful banter are essential sources of invention, attentiveness, and team spirit. Humor releases tension and helps resolve issues arising from day-to-day routines as well as from sudden emergencies.
Play among the members of the Eagle project was an innate part of the group process. When Alsing wanted the Microkids to learn how to manipulate the computer known as Trixie, he made up a game. As the Microkids came on board, he told each of them to figure out how to write a program in Trixie’s assembly language. The program had to fetch and print contents of a file stored inside the computer. The Microkids went to work, learned their way around the machine, and felt great satisfaction—until Alsing’s perverse sense of humor tripped them up. When they finally found the elusive file, they were greeted with the message “Access Denied.” Through such play, the Microkids learned to use the computer, coalesced into a team, and practiced negotiating their new technical environment. They also learned that their playful leader valued creativity. Humor was a continuous thread as the team struggled with its formidable task. Humor often stretched the boundaries of good taste, but that too was part of the group’s identity.
Ritual and Ceremony
Rituals and ceremonies are expressive occasions. As parentheses in an ordinary workday, they enclose and define special forms of behavior. What occurs on the surface is not nearly as important as the meaning communicated behind and beneath. Despite the stereotype of narrowly task-focused engineers with little time for anything nonrational, the Eagle Group understood the importance of symbolic goings-on. From the beginning, the leaders encouraged ritual and ceremony.
For example, Rasala, head of the Hardy Boys, established a rule requiring that changes in the boards of the prototype be updated each morning. This allowed efforts to be coordinated formally. More important, the daily update was a ritualistic occasion for informal communication, bantering, and gaining a sense of the whole. The engineers disliked the daily procedure, so Rasala changed it to once a week—on Saturday. He made it a point always to be there himself.
Eagle’s leaders met regularly, but their meetings focused more on symbolic issues than on substance. “‘We could be in a lot of trouble here,’ West might say, referring to some current problem. And Wallach, Rasala or Alsing would reply, ‘You mean you could be in a lot of trouble, right, Tom?’ It was Friday, they were going home soon, and relaxing. They could half forget that they would be coming back to work tomorrow.”19 Friday afternoon is a customary time to wind down and relax. Honoring such a tradition was all the more important for a group whose members often worked all week and then all weekend. West made himself available to anyone who wanted to chat. Near the end of the day, before hurrying home, he would lean back in his chair with his office door open.
In addition to recurring rituals, the Eagle Group convened intermittent ceremonies to raise their spirits and reinforce their sense of shared mission. Toward the end of the project, Alsing instigated a ceremony to trigger a burst of renewed energy for the final push. The festivities called attention to the values of creativity, hard work, and teamwork. A favorite pretext for parties was presentation of the Honorary Microcoder Awards that Alsing and the Microkids instituted. Not to be outdone, the Hardy Boys cooked up the PAL Awards (named for the programmable array logic chips used in the machines). The first was presented after work at a local establishment called the Cain Ridge Saloon.
The same values and spirit were reinforced again and again in a continued cycle of celebratory events:
Chuck Holland [Alsing’s main submanager] handed out his own special awards to each member of the Microteam, the Under Extraordinary Pressure Awards. They looked like diplomas. There was one for Neal Firth, “who gave us a computer before the hardware guys did,” and one to Betty Shanahan, “for putting up with a bunch of creepy guys.” After dispensing the Honorary Microcoder Awards to almost every possible candidate, the Microteam instituted the All-Nighter Award. The first of these went to Jim Guyer, the citation ingeniously inserted under the clear plastic coating of an insulated coffee cup.20
The Contribution of Informal Cultural Players
Alsing was the main organizer and instigator of parties. He was also the Eagle Group’s conscience and nearly everyone’s confidant. For a time when he was in college, Alsing had wanted to become a psychologist. He adopted that sort of role now. He kept track of his team’s technical progress, but was more visible as the spiritual director of the Microteam, and often of the entire Eclipse Group. Fairly early in the project, Chuck Holland had complained, “Alsing’s hard to be a manager for, because he goes around you a lot and tells your people to do something else.” But Holland also conceded, “The good thing about him is that you can go and talk to him. He’s more of a regular guy than most managers.”21
Every group or organization has a “priest” or “priestess” who ministers to spiritual needs. Informally, these people hear confessions, give blessings, maintain traditions, encourage ceremonies, and intercede in matters of gravest importance. Alsing did all these things and, like the tribal priest, acted as a counterpart to and interpreter of the intentions of the chief:
West warned him several times, “If you get too close to the people who work for you, Alsing, you’re gonna get burned.” But West didn’t interfere, and he soon stopped issuing warnings.
One evening, while alone with West in West’s office, Alsing said: “Tom, the kids think you’re an ogre. You don’t even say hello to them.”
West smiled and replied, “You’re doing fine, Alsing.”22
The duties of Rosemarie Seale, the group’s secretary, also went well beyond formal boundaries. If Alsing was the priest, she was the mother superior. She did all the usual secretarial chores—answering the phones, preparing documents, and constructing budgets—but she found particular joy in serving as a kind of blessed den mother who solved minor crises that arose almost daily. When new members came on, it was Seale who worried about finding them a desk and some pencils. She liked the job, she said, because she felt that she was contributing something of real significance to the project.
BUILDING A SOULFUL TEAM
The experiences of the Eagle Group, Skunk Works, and Red Squadron are unique. But the leadership principles behind their success can be applied to teams anywhere. After extensive research on high-performing groups, Peter Vaill concluded that spirit was at the core of every group he studied. Members of such groups consistently “felt the spirit,” a feeling essential to the meaning and value of their work.23 Warren Bennis could have been writing about the Eagle Group, Skunk Works, or Red Squadron when he concluded, “All Great Groups believe that they are on a mission from God, that they could change t
he world, make a dent in the universe. They are obsessed with their work. It becomes not a job but a fervent quest. That belief is what brings the necessary cohesion and energy to their work.”24
CONCLUSION
From the Eagle Group’s experience and from what we know about Lockheed’s Skunk Works and Team Six’s Red Squadron, we have distilled tenets that can guide leaders in building great teams.
How someone becomes a group member is important.
Diverse leadership supports a team’s competitive advantage.
Example, not command, holds a team together.
A specialized language fosters cohesion and commitment.
Stories carry history and values and reinforce group identity.
Humor and play reduce tension and encourage creativity.
Ritual and ceremony lift spirits and reinforce values.
Informal cultural players make contributions disproportionate to their formal role.
Soul is the secret of success.
Team building at its heart is a spiritual undertaking. The leader’s work is both a search for the spirit within and the creation of a community of believers united by shared faith and culture. Peak performance emerges as a team discovers its soul.
NOTES
1. Leavitt, H. J., and Lipman-Blumen, J. Hot Groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
2. Isaacson, W. Steve Jobs. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011, p. 144.
3. Pfarrer, C. Seal Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama bin Laden. New York: Macmillan, 2011, p. 29.
4. Ibid.
5. Schlesinger, L., Eccles, R., and Gabarro, J. Managerial Behavior in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983, p. 173.
6. Kidder, T. The Soul of a New Machine. New York: Little, Brown, 1981.
7. Ibid., p. 179.
8. Ibid., p. 109.
9. Ibid., p. 119.
10. Ibid., p. 116.
11. Ibid., p. 179.
12. Ibid., p. 191.
13. Ibid., p. 66.
14. Ibid., p. 63.
15. Ibid., p. 75.
16. Ibid., p. 60.
17. Ibid., p. 50.
18. Ibid., p. 44.
19. Ibid., p. 132.
20. Ibid., p. 250.
21. Ibid., p. 105.
22. Ibid., pp. 109–110.
23. Vaill, P. “The Purposing of High-Performance Systems.” Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1982, pp. 23–39.
24. Bennis, W. G. “The Secrets of Great Groups.” Leader to Leader, Winter 1997, no. 3. This article can be accessed at http://www.leadershipasheville.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Bennis-The-Secrets-of-Great-Groups.pdf.
Part 6
Improving Leadership Practice
Leaders see more and get more done when they develop and use key leadership capacities:
They reframe on the fly and use alternative scripts to guide their thinking and action in critical situations.
They know the “shape of their leadership kite,” build on their strengths, and find ways to compensate for blind spots.
They employ a holistic, multiframe approach to change.
They root their leadership in a deep sense of self and values.
They weave their own story and that of their organization into a compelling narrative that provides a shared image of where they are and where they need to go.
Chapter 10
Reframing in Action
Most leadership challenges can be framed in more than one way, and every turn of the kaleidoscope offers a different image of the problems and possibilities. Put yourself in the shoes of Olivia Martin, headed to work for your first day in a new job. Your company has transferred you to Atlanta to lead a customer service unit. It’s a big promotion, with a substantial increase in pay and responsibility. You know it won’t be easy. You’re inheriting a department with a reputation for slow, mediocre service. Senior leadership blames the rigid, bureaucratic style of your predecessor, Jack Davis. Davis is moving to another job, but the company asked him to stay on for a week to help with your transition. One potential sticking point is that he hired most of the staff. Many may still feel loyal to him.
When you arrive, your welcome from Rosa Garcia, the department secretary, feels frosty. As you walk into your new office, you see Davis behind the desk in a conversation with three other staff members. You say hello, and he responds by saying, “Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.”
You’re in the glare of the spotlight, and the audience eagerly awaits your response. As Olivia Martin, what would you do? If you feel threatened or attacked—as many of us would—your feelings will push you toward either fight or flight. Fighting back and escalating the conflict is risky and could make things worse. Backing away or fleeing could suggest that you are too emotional or not tough enough.
This is a classic example of a leader’s nightmare: an unexpected situation that threatens to explode in your face. Davis’s greeting is stealthily designed to throw you off stride and put you in a bind. It would be easy to feel trapped and powerless or to do something rash and regrettable. Either way, Davis wins and you lose.
The leadership lenses suggest another set of possibilities. They offer the advantage of multiple angles to size up the situation. What’s really going on here? What options do you have? What script does the situation suggest? How might you reinterpret the scene to create a more effective scenario? In tough situations, reframing is a powerful tool for generating possibilities other than fight or flight. Keep your Leadership Orientations Profile (Appendix) in mind as you explore different scenarios for avoiding the trap that Jack Davis has set for you.
An immediate question facing you, as Olivia Martin, is whether to respond on the spot to Davis’s provocation, or to buy time. If you’re at a loss or you’re tempted to do something you might regret, take time to “go to the balcony.” Try to rise above the confusion of the moment long enough to get a better angle and develop a workable strategy. Even better, though, is to find an effective response in the moment.
Each of the frames generates its own alternative scenarios. Depending on how you apply it, each frame could work well or poorly. Success depends on the script you choose and on your skill and artistry in execution. We describe different scenarios Martin could choose, showing that each of the four lenses can produce either effective or ineffective reactions.
A Structural Scenario
A structural scenario casts leaders as authorities responsible for clarifying goals, attending to the link between structure and environment, and developing a set of roles and relationships appropriate to what needs to be done. Without authority and a workable structure, people become unsure about what they are supposed to be doing. The result is confusion, frustration, and conflict. With the right structure, the organization can achieve its goals, and individuals can see their role in the big picture.
Structural leaders focus on tasks, facts, and logic rather than personality and emotions. They see most people problems as stemming from structural flaws, not personal limits or defects. Structural leaders are not rigidly authoritarian and do not attempt to solve every problem by issuing orders (though doing so is sometimes appropriate). Instead, leaders rely on legitimate authority and try to design and implement a process or architectural form appropriate to the circumstances.
You may wonder what structure has to do with a personal confrontation, but the structural scenario in the box can be scripted to generate a variety of responses.
Here’s one example:
Davis:
Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.
Martin:
My appointment as manager of this office began at nine this morning. This is now my job and my office . . . and you’re sitting behind my desk. Either you relinquish the desk immediately, or I will call
headquarters and report you for insubordination.
Davis:
I was asked to stay on the job for one more week to try to help you learn the ropes. Frankly, I doubt that you’re ready for this job, but you don’t seem to want any help.
Martin:
I repeat, I am now in charge. Let me also remind you that headquarters assigned you to stay this week to assist me. I expect you to carry out that order. If you don’t, I will submit a letter for your file detailing your lack of cooperation. Now, (firmly) I want my desk.
Davis:
Well, we were working on important office business, but since the princess here is more interested in giving orders than in getting work done, let’s move our meeting down to your office, Joe. Enjoy the desk!
In this exchange, Olivia places heavy emphasis on her formal authority and the chain of command. By invoking her superiors and her legitimate authority, she takes charge and gets Davis to back down, but at a price. She risks long-term tension with her new subordinates, who surely feel awkward during this combative encounter. They may see their new boss as autocratic and dangerous.
There are better options. Here’s another example of how Martin might exercise her authority:
Davis:
Didn’t the secretary tell you that we’re in a meeting right now? If you’ll wait outside, I’ll be able to see you in about an hour.