Cultural Hierarchy versus Organizational Hierarchy
This case study might be a familiar one to many readers. We have all lived with the realities of cultural versus organizational
power plays. We have all been in situations where both the overt organizational rules, as well as the covert, cultural norms,
play out in very interesting ways.
In each business, there is an official hierarchy. Often it is illustrated by a flow chart in a handbook or listed in a human
resources document. This official hierarchy states who is in charge of which department or division, who plays which position
on which team. Just below the surface, though, is the equally powerful and almost as easily known unofficial or cultural
hierarchy. Rarely is this cultural hierarchy written down, let alone verbalized in any formal way, but it is just as important.
In fact, it might be said that in some cases, the cultural hierarchy is even more powerful than its official counterpart.
Written down or not, we all KNOW without a doubt who the unspoken leaders are. Often, they are people whose official status
might be only second or third from top. In some cases, they might be in positions even lower on the official hierarchy, but
their official status is meaningless, because everyone knows it is that person who is the "go to" guy or gal. That's just the way it is.
Which brings me to a consulting assignment I experienced wherein a talented, hard-working, but new VP learned a very tough lesson.
I was brought in by a CEO to work with a bright, capable VP who had been in his position for about a year. The CEO informed
me that this VP was having considerable personnel challenges and needed an extra set of ears and eyes.
In this situation, it turned out that a rogue director, one who was experienced, tenured, and very good at his job, but also
one who had some unresolved power and anger needs, was mucking up the works for all, especially this relatively new VP. Using
every opportunity at his disposal to usurp the VP's power, this rogue director was wreaking havoc on the VP's time and energy.
At meetings, this director would directly challenge the VP's decisions. Behind the scenes, he would badmouth and undermine
the VP's instructions and ideas. The rogue director disrupted projects and communications by trying to run them "his" way or
"the way they had always been run." The VP tried subtle and positive means to change the director's behavior; however, things
were getting worse. The talented VP was keeping his cool, but was running low on patience. The CEO knew that termination of
this particular rogue director would have been a kind of political suicide, but given his level of frustration, the CEO was
ready to make this less-than-nurturing change if his director didn't get in line soon. His only real hesitation in firing
the director was that by doing so, the CEO might further diminish the VP's power in the eyes of his staff. Also, the insightful
VP continued to encourage the CEO to see how (when he wasn't being such a pain) the director could still be an asset to the
organization.
To build trust, the CEO introduced me to the entire staff as his organizational
consultant. He defined my roles and
responsibilities in general terms. Officially, I was brought on to facilitate communication at staff meetings and assist
with efficiency measures toward improved productivity. (Not shared with the staff at large were my indirect objectives:
to get the VP and the director working together or advise the CEO on an alternate plan of action.) With measures for my
success and timelines in place, I stepped into the fray.
I observed at a few staff meetings and witnessed the awkward struggle for power between the VP and the rogue director.
I saw how the VP was subtly but inadvertently giving his power away time and again. It was clear that the staff valued
the new VP and wanted to follow him, but they were unsure if they should "break" from this rogue director who had been
their unofficial leader for quite some time. Both the VP and the staff needed some help to break this cycle. During this
observing time, the VP and I engineered my involvement in staff meetings, so that trust would be the outcome. Then, when
my input was considered valuable to the whole, the stage was set. During one staff meeting, an opportunity presented itself
and I stepped in.
I asked the staff directly. "What do you want in
your VP? What are the skills, behaviors, actions, etc.,
that you value and
require right now?"
They were unsure at first how to respond, but given time to process the question and given some encouragement, they realized
it was time to speak up. There were no wrong answers. It was likely that some staffers could clearly see what was going on
and approved of the intervention. There seemed to be a collected sigh of relief that at last the power struggle was going
to be resolved; there was a heightened sense of energy and forward movement once the process began. The VP (and the rogue
director) had a chance to listen and observe while I facilitated and charted the responses, the questions, and the comments.
The entire staff shared in detail what they wanted with one exception: our rogue director would not participate.
As the session went on and as I prompted, the VP then shared with his staff what he wanted and what he had to offer. Not
surprisingly, the staff and VP were in close alignment on almost every point. The only person not on the same page was
the rogue director who sat silent during the process. He declined to participate and took a "pass" at each of his turns.
His passive and silent behavior spoke volumes.
Finally, I asked each staff member directly: "Will
you agree to follow the VP? Yes or no?"
As I went around the room, each person agreed to follow the VP. Few even hesitated. They were sincere and ready. Finally,
when we reached the rogue director, he was faced with a very tough choice. He stated he wasn't sure if he could work in
this new environment, he said. A conversation then ensued between the staff and the director, as witnessed by all. Even
with the director feeling isolated and with his covert support system dwindling, the VP made it clear that the director's
input was valuable and desired. That said, the VP also made it clear that dissention was no longer an option. There was
work to be done. The politicking was over. Now was the decision making time and the choice was simple: Step on or step off.
In the end, the staff had publicly decided to follow the VP and the rogue director saw the writing on the wall. It hadn't
been a battle or even the war. The situation had been reframed. The overt, official message was clear: get on board or
be left out. The implicit message also rang true; being left out might mean being kicked out, but it was clear that all
wanted him to stay.
After a few days of his reflection, the rogue director decided to acquiesce and stay. (It would, however, be remiss not to mention that
he tried one or two final, albeit unsuccessful, attempts at bullying the VP.) The VP had stood his ground with the whole
staff witnessing his strength. This proved to be enough to remove this rogue director from his unofficial position of
power without destroying the staff in the process.
In our debrief, the CEO and the VP shared that they learned some key lessons. In particular, when subtler and gentler
tactics just won't work, sometimes forcing a verbal consensus and commitment in front of witnesses is a powerful tool
for leaders to use. The desire for power and control are normal and natural, but in the wrong hands, their results can
be counterproductive, and the sooner this is managed, the better. Dealing with peer pressure and cultural hierarchies
can be tough. Yes. But, given the right tools and the right support, smart leaders can be even tougher.
In real time, this VP learned to assert himself proportionately, but decisively. He handled himself with the grace and
wisdom that earned him the respect of his colleagues, including the respect of the maverick director who had previously
opposed him. The CEO did not have to terminate the rogue director, and the staff was relieved of the unhelpful cultural
pressures they had unconsciously helped to sustain. Success was measured easily in both the cultural and the organizational
realms. The department was back on track.
