Galvanise the performance of your team with these lessons from the Democratic primaries

Insights — and pitfalls — on how to build a high-performance organisational culture

First published on
Feb 12, 2020

If you want insights about how to build a high-performing organisational culture, the U.S. Democratic Party primaries are a useful point of reference — although not in the way you might hope.

In recent weeks, the process has seen internal antagonism, deep public divisions over policy direction, organisational incompetence — and even concerns about outright civil war. Such issues have pulled focus away from Trump, the candidates’ common enemy. In failing to conduct its search for a leader in the manner of a coherent political party, the Democrats’ ability to win the election is questionable, regardless of who ends up in charge.

These issues are being mirrored in the UK’s Labour leadership election, where internal party sensitivities are so great that not one single candidate has yet dared to break cover with a meaningful case against the Government.

So what can business leaders learn from all this? Start with behaviour. My 15-plus years of research into high-performing organisations with over 120 businesses including the BBC, LEON, Adidas and KPMG suggests that impact cultures — those that are resilient, responsive and innovation-friendly — exhibit a number of common competencies. One of the main ones is “agenda alignment.” And it is one of the biggest problems for both the Democrats and Labour.

Agenda alignment is a complex concept. It is commonly mistaken for a Panglossian, Start With Why-style statement of purpose (the kind loved by politicians), but in reality it contains three interconnected elements.

Vision buy-in

Vision buy-in refers to the extent to which an organisation’s people feel a sense of everyday personal connection to its overall direction. Achieving buy-in is the foundation of agenda alignment.

True vision-buy in is not achieved by the individual agreeing with a campaign promise (or statement of purpose), conveniently forgotten when voting is over. Instead, achieving buy-in is an ongoing task, to do with creating then fulfilling a psychological contract with every individual you serve. 

To start this process, a vision must be set from the top, in a spirit of collaboration and humility, by leaders who recognise that the organisation is more important than they are. It must then be communicated regularly in messages and media that resonate with its audience. People will not buy a vision from a leader who believes that their personal brand outweighs the needs of the collective.

In business as in politics, it is understandable that wannabe leaders have differing visions for the future. But when competing visions undermine the intrinsic unity of the organisation that the candidates are purporting to serve, problems arise. (For another example of this dysfunction in action, see the UK Conservative Party’s gruelling divisions over Brexit, 2015-TBA.)

Agenda alignment is not a matter of denying or burying conflict.

Conflict management

On any project — and any organisation you care to name is basically a large project — conflict is inevitable. 

This is partly because agenda variance within groups of people is natural. We all have different priorities, even when working towards shared goals. It is also because the road to anywhere worth going is ambiguous and uncertain. This predicts disagreements on direction.

Agenda alignment is not a matter of denying or burying conflict. On the contrary, it is about embracing it as a vital ingredient of progress. High-performing cultures seek to identify, acknowledge and resolve conflict openly, quickly and for the greater good. 

By way of contrast, symptoms of poor conflict management include long-festering disagreements, dogmatic in-fighting and a myopic inward focus at the expense of helping the customer or tackling the competition. Ring any bells?

It is healthy that political candidates disagree with each other. But when they fail to manage or resolve their conflicts in a way that maintains focus on the common enemy, they sacrifice the overall prosperity of their organisation for individual one-upmanship. This also holds true in non-political organisations.

Autonomy

Organisations that are responsive, resilient and innovative are clear on the levels of autonomy that their people enjoy.

High levels of autonomy mean that individuals are empowered to make a lot of decisions with minimal upwards consultation. Lower levels of autonomy predict a higher degree of collective decision-making (although this does not automatically equate to inefficiency).

The problem with autonomy is often not the amount on offer but a lack of clarity within the organisation about it. Too often, “we believe in autonomy” is a more socially acceptable way of saying “we’re not sure what we’re doing.” Not being clear with your people about what you expect from them is not symbolic of autonomy, it is simply an absence of strategy.

Organisations can also offer too much autonomy to their people, including their leaders. When this happens, energy is dissipated in too many directions, open warfare can break out around individual agendas, and arguments distract from practicalities. Again, does this feel familiar?

It is right and proper that senior leaders have the right to act under their own steam. But when doing so undermines the potential for consistent collective action, the progress of the individual can destroy the performance of the team. Once more, as in politics, so in business.

The Democratic and Labour parties are at a crossroads. With no shared vision through which to achieve buy-in, a seemingly non-existent ability to manage conflict well, and autonomy at the expense of unity, their ability to lead their countries is in question — regardless of who ends up leading the parties.

Political parties are broad churches, of course — perhaps more so than businesses. But the challenge for leaders of all types of organisation is clear: get your agendas aligned and your mission will stand far greater chances of success.

Explore more

Latest thoughts

Giving a team the inspiration and technique to scale ideas
“Brilliant, astute, knowledgeable, and witty.

Phil grasped our business challenge with incredible speed and led us to rethink how we do business.”

SARAH MASON – CMO, COSMOS
REPAIRING A BUSINESS-CRITICAL RELATIONSHIP
“I’m not sure, but Phil might be a magician.”

JULIE BISHOP – CO-CEO, IT NATURALLY
Getting change past the post in a complicated context
“Transformational for both my personal and professional growth.”

STUART WILLIAMSON — CHIEF CORPORATE AFFAIRS OFFICER, THE JOCKEY CLUB
Instilling accountability to help a great team do great things
“Real smarts, and the external perspective we needed.

We are now securing industry standards of margin.”

NEIL CRUMP – CEO, AURORA HEALTHCARE
COMPREHENSIVE STRUCTURAL CHANGE
“Incredibly responsive and empathetic to our specific challenges and ambition.

Phil inspired and challenged our leadership team to ensure that our transformation had our people at its heart.”

Darina Garland, Co-CEO, Ooni
Enabling a Board to work to its full potential
“His years of experience allow for a highly credible, disciplined and empathic approach.

Phil offers the right balance of push and encouragement.”

VIV HSU – PARTNER, JBI
rarr
larr