When it comes to leading enterprise transformation, everyone knows that the odds of failure are high – most research studies cite 70-80% of them fail. Of all the countless forces that torpedo transformative endeavors, none is more agonizing to watch than those leaders inflict upon themselves. We continue our series on the habitual rationalizations that grab hold of leaders and undermine their efforts. The rationalization we are covering this week is: Reporting Enmeshment – staying too long in one reporting relationship that co-dependently weakens you both.
Rationalization: We’ve made a great team for many years, and she is now a well-prepared successor.
Reality: Reporting to the same person for many years creates co-dependence that masquerades like teamwork and blinds you to flaws you aren’t seeing.
In one of our client organizations, The Global Senior Vice President of Operations left after not getting a promotion he wanted. After some consideration, the CEO gave the job to the successor in waiting, a man who had reported to the previous executive for more than a decade. He was rough around the edges, and it wasn’t clear that he fully grasped the need for change. What was clear was that his views of the world, his leadership style, and his understanding of the business had been profoundly shaped by the man who had led him for most of the formative years of his career. To be sure, he was a very smart man and a deserving up-and-comer who had learned an enormous amount during that time. But the hidden cost to his development was only revealed as he attempted to take the throne himself and assert his style of leadership on the organization. He and the rest of the organization quickly discovered that his voice sounded too much like the predecessor, and that from this perch and with the large change initiative ahead of them, something different was required.
When an inidividual contributor is promoted to a management position or when a manager climbs the ranks to executive leader, there is often a prototypical leader in mind whose behavior they attempt to emulate. This platonic form is not genuine, and thus organizations get facsimiles instead of originals. Philosopher Rene Girard calls this our “mimetic desire.” Mimetic desire is the idea that we do not come to our behaviors through an autonomous manner, but that we are first influenced by an external “Other.” This mimetic desire can be seen in all relational systems (family, neighborhood, even country), but in the business context, it is most often seen in reporting relationships. Nearly all of the executives we work with can point to a superior or mentor who they emulated and who took the time to develop them. These relationships are crucial to professional development, but can be harmful if not managed appropriately.
People who are being groomed for broader executive roles must be intentionally moved around the organization to be rounded out. Staying too long under the influence of one leader, no matter how apparently good the relationship and no matter how well it looks like you are developing, can be hazardous to the developmental health of an otherwise promising, high-potential executive on whose future the organization is betting.
Organizations are not families, and they most often feel like battlefields. It is no wonder than that we rationalize staying in the caring and supportive reporting relationships that we establish. From executives we hear things like, “I am so glad to invest in her. We spend hours together each week, and I think she is going to be with us a long time.” From successors we hear things like, “We make a great team, and he totally understands my developmental needs and is so committed to me. He gives me all the time I need.” But it is when caring, understanding, and supportive moves to enmeshment that we should be leery. Enmeshment, or the over-reliance on another, can be difficult to discern. Some possible signs are:
- The opinion of the more senior leader dictates too many of the actions of the direct report
- Senior leader is obsessed with controlling the actions of the direct report
- Obsessive behaviors about each other’s needs
- Direct report begins too many sentences with, “Bill said” or Bill wants” or “I checked with Bill and…”
- When inevitable resentment sets in from other direct reports – the Lake Wobeggon syndrome – both defend their relationship
- Tolerance of bad moods, overreactions, and unavailability
- Speculation that the relationship is more than what it appears to be
These enmeshed relationships are deceptive because it seems as if the senior leader is seeking the development of others and is doing so selflessly. However, enmeshed leaders often hook up the emotional hose to their successors to fill an emotional need of their own rather than truly developing someone for the future of the business.
This enmeshment all but guarantees that professional development across the organization is a mile deep and an inch wide. This can create envy and comparison among peers and, as we discussed earlier, may inhibit the cross functional growth of the one that you are pouring into. Executives must see their investment in others as valuable and spread value throughout the organization. While the emotional and relational connection may not become as deep, the impact on the organization’s talent will achieve great depth.