If you want to get something done, put a powerful person on your team. If you want to ruin the team, in order to get more done, put one or two more powerful people on the team. Productivity will decrease.
This is the conclusion of a recent study by two academics at the University of California Berkeley Haas School of Business, and reported by Shankar Vedantam on NPR’s Morning Edition. This research, conducted by Angus Hildreth and Cameron Anderson, shows that when more than one powerful person is on the team, competition between the powerful leads to dysfunction. Each one is jockeying to be in charge.
Psychologists refer to this trait as dominance. It is a trait that can be measured by observation but also through personality assessments. Dominance is a topic that arises frequently in executive coaching, typically because an executive shows too much of it.
The truth is leaders need dominance in order to put themselves forward. It is a characteristic that emboldens their sense of autonomy as well as their desire to be in charge. But as with all such things too much of it is dangerous. It leads to arrogance and hubris as well as a failure of accountability. Overly dominant individuals have so much faith in themselves that when things go wrong it cannot be their fault; it must be the fault of others.
The piece on NPR offered some solutions. One is to allow less dominant individuals on a team to work out the details before the powerful people become involved. For example, let the staffers do the work of framing objectives. Doing this will jump-start the project and give the powerful individuals something to build upon.
Another technique is to allow each dominant person to “preen” a bit in front of the group before working collectively. This technique allows dominating types to prove their worth to others. Additionally they are asserting their own self worth. At times dominant people – despite their outward show of power – can feel insecure. They need constant reassurance, which often comes in the form of subordinates stroking their egos.
Leaders do need to learn to defer. We do it naturally to our supervisors but less so to our peers. And that is why – as the NPR piece iterated – team function can be hampered by power hungry members. Many teams are composed of more than one dominant individual. This can be positive when you have people motivated to get things done. It can be negative if the motivation turns into plays for individual dominance rather than the collective good.
The team supervisor – or senior executive – needs to insist on cooperation and collaboration. This he or she can do as a group. Wise supervisors also go a step further; they meet privately with everyone on the team to talk about the project.
With non-dominant people you simply layout the task and ask for their ideas. With dominant individuals you let them sketch out their ideas first and then you thank them for their participation. You also make them feel important by thanking them for their participation.
But that’s not all. The supervisor must make it very clear that success will require total team effort. Each individual is responsible for results. Failure to achieve is a failure of team as well as a failure of individuals who will be held accountable. Putting people on such notice sends a message that powerful people understand: their reputation is on the line and that can nudge them to become more cooperative with teammates. Insisting on collective responsibility ensures that dominant people focus their power on team goals, less on personal ones.
Dominance is vital to leadership but as with all power it must be used appropriately in order to benefit others not simply the individual.
Note: For more information on the research cited in this post read Failure at the Top: How Power Undermines Collaborative Performance by Angus Hildreth and Cameron Anderson UC Berkeley Haas School of Business
