Picture a charismatic leader. Maybe she founded the company – maybe she’s been CEO for a long time. She holds the strategy, has great followership from the executive team, and owns the board relationships personally. She’s the face of the business to the external world.
While this gives a picture of a strong organisation from the outside, there are major risks associated with this type of leadership. What happens if the CEO decides to move on? If she burns out? If she becomes unwell? Not only is that a major business continuity risk – it’s a dynamic that’s fundamentally born of codependence.
Situations like this are often brought about by a CEO that thrives on being “needed,” being “important,” being “good”. Pair this with a need from the organisational system for the CEO to remain, and a mutually reinforcing dependence grows over time. The CEO feels the business can’t survive without her – and the rest of the business feels the same.
The risk, in any codependence, is that both parties stay “stuck”. The CEO becomes stagnant as she’s not challenged by the system – she’s never disrupted and therefore can’t grow. And the organisation is limited by the imagination and capability of one person. If the system is lucky, that person’s capability is significant. Some businesses are less fortunate.
We’ve also seen this codependency with managers and their teams.
Let’s imagine a new marketing director. He wants to establish himself at C-suite level – while also making sure he doesn’t let go of the great operational delivery that triggered his promotion.
In theory, he delegates his “old” work to his team. But he doesn’t really. Worried that they won’t deliver to the standard he needs, he steps in, convinced that he’s helping them by showing them what to do. His team sometimes feel frustrated by this, but like the fact that he’s always there to help them when things get tough.
Again, both parties stay stuck.
The marketing director is dependent on delivering his former portfolio of work to feel competent, capable, and good. His team are equally dependent on him to save them from their own potential inadequacies; from being accountable. Their potential contribution is undermined by their manager, in the guise of helpfulness.
Again, in this example, the dependency keeps things stuck. But the scope of the issue doesn’t just sit at a team level – it affects the whole system. By putting too much focus on his team, the marketing director’s attention is drawn away from the requirements of his C-suite role, and his impact suffers. The compression leaves gaps, stifling more strategic contributions.
These examples are simplified, generic, and caricatured. But they’re emblematic of common phenomena we see when coaching leaders and teams.
The solution?
We need to separate the person, the role, and the organisation. Through reflection on how a leader’s identity is tied up with their role, we can start to disentangle them. And through insight into the interactions between leaders and their teams, we can ensure that each element is functioning independently.
Indigogold is a leadership advisory firm based in London and New York, working globally to strengthen organisations from multinationals to scale-ups. Our focus is on coaching, team effectiveness, and leadership development. We give our clients the support and skills to build (and sustain) state-of-the art leadership capability to ultimately drive business outcomes.
Contact us on info@indigogold.com to find out more.