We worked with this team for nine months where we observed a normal learning cycle while following their development at 3-month levels. This structure consisted of a parent and child company. The parent company acquired the child company to capture a new venture in a vertical integration of services.
The main problem that needed to be fixed was that the parent company had no idea what the child company was all about and didn’t really care about the new acquisition but had selected an executive to head the integration of both companies together. The executive of the parent company was not very well engaged with the child company and only did rudimentary activities with the leadership of the child company, such as reporting P&L, working through major problems, etc. The leadership team in the child company felt as if the parent company didn’t care about them at all. This set up dichotomies of problems inside both companies. Indeed, the child company’s interactions before the parent company executive was present showed their disdain for the new parent company and the executive in particular.
In Month 1 of training, the executive never showed up and he never engaged in either of the two assessments given to be completed prior to our first meeting. However, after taking his first assessment (after some cajoling), we found that his BP10 Talents and Roles showed him to be a very introverted individual: he was very talented but didn’t know how to work well in a team environment. This became even more apparent in Month 2, where he did engage in our Workshops. However, midway through Month 2, somehow there was a fire lit underneath him. All of the sudden, he became super-involved with this team, wanting to make them shine, wanting to give them whatever help they needed to succeed – he became ALIVE and an active bridging force between the parent company and his new “child!” He started to understand himself, and then how to work within this new team. He realized that he really did care for them and what they were creating for the parent company – and the rest of this team returned his newfound care back to him – it was true, mutual care.
In Month 3 when we started to learn about their TeamingAcumen Framework results, we realized why some of the scores made sense as the parent company hadn’t really divulged to the executive or the child company why it had been acquired. This was evident in its initial Goal Alignment score. Simply put, neither of the companies could agree what goal they were working toward, so both sides fell very short in achieving any kind of goal accomplishment. Goal Alignment and Team Structure were the team’s lowest scores. We then started to dive into each element to learn what we could focus on to raise competencies, as well as scores. We also paired BP10 Talents and Roles with the competencies needed so we could harness the goodness of the Talents and Roles in achieving even better outcomes.
Throughout Month 3 and in subsequent months, the alignment of Elements increased through the interactions between the executive and the child company’s leadership team. People started to trust one another. They started to lob balls to each other – which they caught! And who then sent them flying to other members of their teams.
This team went on to beat their 2nd 3-month survey and even best some of the 75th percentile benchmarks for Interpersonal Behavior and Team Effectiveness. Each subsequent Element increased its scores from between 0.08 to 0.67 per element with an average increase across the elements of 0.37 points!
This group of excellent individuals had finally become “One Team” and they were very much equally engaged with each other from that point onward. It was the stuff of Dream Teams!