Have you ever found yourself in a room where a colleague is making a submission and thinking to yourself, “Where did he/she get that from? I thought we all had input in this and what I am hearing is completely off tangent! This will certainly not go well because if I am asked, my response will be totally different from what my colleague is saying!”

What are some of the factors that lead to the situation outlined above?

In my humble experience, corporate actors use information to perform different roles. For example, the Finance department will use certain information and documents to inform the need to make payment. The internal auditor will use the same data to provide assurance as to whether the procedures and processes have been followed. At the end of the day, the two roles meet at a place where the whole team will come to a common understanding of the team position on the matter. This way, interventions, if any, will be consistent with the general position.

There are, however, situations where, an individual or a smaller team decide to further process a matter without recourse to the collective, thereby creating new positions from those agreed earlier by the whole team. This is especially dangerous if that smaller team is entrusted to articulate the team position.

Such kind of behavior is counter productive in the sense that the congruence of the team is lost and cracks, silos and all manner of negativity begin to reign.

Actors should always bear in mind that the organization is stronger and more successful as a well oiled machine.

Pull and push your contributions towards the goal of success in a consensual, respectful and collective manner. Further, understanding the team role and its structures is a very helpful attribute for actors.

Where there is need to review a position due to certain realizations or developments, the team should be accordingly engaged so that they are part of resetting what they had earlier resolved and no one is left behind or left out.

Let’s share!