By Hubert Saint-Onge
Too often, the ineffective management of interdependence is the silent destroyer of organizational performance. Organizations can unlock significant potential by first recognizing and addressing this issue. As organizations increasingly pursue strategies to enhance value creation by integrating the value chains for their products and services, they must significantly improve the critical points of interdependence internally and externally. Yet, leaders are not giving interdependence the attention it deserves, missing out on the potential benefits it can bring.
A recent Wall Street Journal article reported that Hyundai was eliminating the Chief Marketing Officer role and replacing it with two positions: Chief Creating Marketing and Chief Performance Marketing. This approach reflects an often-felt need to form teams with more specialized capabilities. However, their interdependence is not a choice: they must work closely together to leverage outcomes. The article referred to competitors anonymously commenting that they did not see this unprecedented structure work because these two groups unquestionably have to rely on one another to have the desired impact. This point of view implies that they believe it would be impossible to effectively manage the level of interdependence that would emerge between them with this new structure.
As strategic execution requires increasingly complex organizational structures, partnering across organizational boundaries to leverage knowledge and capabilities by sharing responsibility for achieving specific goals becomes essential. My experience tells me that leaders are not recognizing this reality. It requires a significant perspective shift to leverage the potential of the multiplying interdependence points emerging across organizations. Leaders must address this issue to ensure their organization’s ability to perform by improving the dynamics of interdependence.
This article focuses on helping leaders understand interdependence dynamics and respond effectively when they falter. My next blog will explore fostering effective collaboration in organizations.
Leadership culture and interdependence
Research from the Center for Creative Leadership proposes that leadership cultures can best be described in three categories: dependence, independence and interdependence. In a ‘dependence’ leadership culture, those in authority assume the full responsibility for exercising leadership. There is no room for self-initiative. Conformity is the mould shaping how people work and interact with one another. Secondly, an ‘independence’ leadership culture stems from individuals assuming responsibility within their knowledge and expertise. They confidently exercise their respective roles with minimal interactions. Thirdly, in an interdependence leadership culture, work is a collective activity where people collaborate closely to deal with challenges. They combine their knowledge and capabilities to come up with value-adding solutions that would not be otherwise possible.
When collaborating closely across boundaries, self-initiation is essential to effective interdependence. As they emerge from a ‘dependence’ culture, people cannot constantly ask their leaders for approval. Others accustomed to their ‘independence’ find it unnecessarily taxing to listen and compromise with others. When reaching a stage where the strategic context requires interdependence, it becomes intolerably unproductive to remain stuck in either a ‘dependence’ or ‘independence’ leadership culture. Once leaders become aware of the limitations imposed by their existing leadership culture, they must undertake a change process to work effectively in an ‘interdependence’ context. Only then will they get the organizational headroom they need to cope with the velocity and complexity of unrelenting change in the marketplace.
The dynamics shaping interdependence
The schematic below portrays the relationship between ‘interdependence’ and ‘counter-dependence’. On the horizontal axis, interdependence is halfway between ‘dependence’ and ‘independence’. If the leadership culture imposes conformity behaviours, participants will not be able to exercise the self-initiation required to move purposefully – constantly checking with the upper echelons in their respective functions will slow down the ability to make things happen. On the other hand, if someone is at the far end of the independence end of this axis, they will not have the propensity to compose with others to arrive at the best solution for everyone involved. The optimal position for team members on this dimension is for them to fit at the halfway point. The schematic shows trust must be in the positive zone to function effectively in an interdependent organizational context. The lower the trust level, the more dysfunctional and less productive interdependence will be.
As depicted in this schematic, relationships can quickly evolve into counter-dependence when a team member starts questioning what other team members from another function are doing—akin to how teenagers sometimes question their parents at every turn. The inherent polarity between accountability and interdependence often creates tensions that can strain and undermine trust among people working closely together.
If you’re in a high dependence mode, you can’t be genuinely interdependent—because you won’t bring out issues, you won’t act as a partner. You can’t truly add value to the relationship because you’re in a highly compliant mode. In the long run, high dependence will evolve toward counter-dependence. It’s a matter of time before independence also evolves toward counter-dependence because you cannot interact productively with one another to resolve issues and address challenges.
Recognizing points interdependence points in the organization
Most organizations have points of interdependence that have yet to be explicitly recognized. Leaders can identify them by looking for a cross-functional group where members regularly interact to make specialized contributions toward achieving shared objectives. The more formal identification of these points of interdependence will allow management to provide them with support, processes and mechanisms that facilitate their work together. Providing the right level of support to these pockets of interdependence will enhance the organization's overall performance. The proper governance structure must be implemented to enable the leaders of the functions involved to provide oversight without an overly imposing structure.
Returning to the Hyundai example mentioned at the beginning of this article, splitting the Marketing function into two separate groups without this support would predictably create difficulties at their interface. The leadership challenges related explicitly to the cross-functional teams working in interdependence points include:
People with various specializations may approach their work differently, creating issues among team members.
Coordinating tasks and responsibilities can surpass what those involved are capable or willing to tackle. Each specialization may hang onto its workflows and priorities, making it harder to synchronize efforts.
Compromises are often needed as people work across disciplines. They may have to deal with how other team members approach their work.
The need to collaborate under pressure across several unfamiliar disciplines may result in a more intense climate.
Team members might not understand the contributions and constraints of other specializations, which can lead to unrealistic expectations and frustration. They may also not be sensitive to the difficulties involved in different tasks other members have to perform and voice unfair judgements on their effectiveness.
The team members with different specializations might prioritize aspects of the project differently and cause misunderstandings.
Conflicts could occasionally emerge with the functional teams where they belong in the formal structure.
Specific ways of ensuring teams at interdependence points will function effectively:
Foster direct communication across team members, focusing on building trust (and avoiding voicing complaints that erode trust because these management interventions can easily be interpreted as blaming).
Adopt collectively owned team principles.
Recognize and value the strengths and expertise of all members.
Emphasize the value of cross-disciplinary work.
Build a common purpose for the team, including team-wide agreement on the specific targets to be reached.
Ensure that roles are well-defined, understood and respected.
Resolve issues that arise without delay, particularly those that could negatively affect trust in the team.
Put in place an agreed-upon escalation process to deal with issues that arise with the home functions of team members.
Tightening accountability while reinforcing interdependence
Clearly defined accountabilities are essential for organizational success. Performance-based financial incentives reinforce the drive to realize targeted outcomes. However, accountabilities and incentives oriented to individuals instead of teams or organizational goals can hinder interdependence. Optimizing value creation in interdependence points requires team members to orchestrate and coordinate work across specialties or focal points. Ensuring a collective sense of ownership for goals and emphasizing shared ownership for the ‘interdependent point’ team's success makes it possible to define accountabilities and associated incentives with positive outcomes.
If you’re in a high dependence mode, you can’t be genuinely interdependent—because you won’t bring out issues, you won’t act as a partner. You can’t truly add value to the relationship because you’re in a highly compliant mode. In the long run, high dependence will evolve toward counter-dependence. It’s a matter of time before independence also evolves toward counter-dependence because you cannot interact productively with one another to resolve issues and address challenges. You cannot work things out in a way that recognizes the team members’ respective contributions and interests.
Emphasizing accountability and ownership encourages individuals to take the initiative and be committed to creating value. Team members must also recognize that to optimize value in an interdependent context, they must collaborate with others who contribute to creating this value. Dysfunctional team interactions can quickly lead to denying the value others bring and having them second-guess whether they are being taken advantage of despite their efforts. The key is to create a team climate with a harmonious blend of mutual respect, commitment, ownership, and collaboration.
There is a constant tension between healthy interdependence and less productive counter-dependence. Teams can only develop a healthy interdependence when there is a high-trust climate, as shown on the vertical axis of the diagram (above). This underscores the critical role of trust in fostering healthy interdependence.
Conclusion
Organizations can have highly performing “interdependence points” if the leadership recognizes and supports them without imposing unnecessary structure. This will allow people with complementary capabilities to work interdependently as opportunities arise and contribute significantly to the organization’s agility.
Comments