A Tale of Two Leaders

I’ve been coaching a lot in the past several months – both incredible wins and hard losses, but all hard fought.  My teams are working harder and the quality of interviews keeps rising.  I’m impressed with their energy and commitment to excellence. One of the things I’m noticing as I spend more time around presentation teams is the way in which company leaders interact with their presentation teams during the interview preparation and right before the team leaves for the interview.  I’m seeing some profound and, quite frankly, shocking differences.

Let me illustrate by way of two cases from two different teams.  Each team was working diligently to prepare for a very important, potentially game changing interview.  Each team also struggled to get through their content at some point in the preparation process, as is normal for most large, complex interviews.  As most of us in marketing and business development know, interviews seldom come together seamlessly. They generally go through a creative process that sometimes resembles the making of sausage (tastes great at the end, but really messy and difficult to create, even though it follows a logical production process).  Teams struggle as part of the creative process because they challenge ideas and they try new strategies to develop and deliver interviews that are different than the status quo.

In the first case, one of the owners of a large construction company walked into the room during one of the early creative meetings.  He went around the room to each team member, expressing gratitude for the team member’s contribution and offering the full support of the organization to the effort.  He introduced himself to me and thanked me – the hired coach – for agreeing to be a part of the pursuit.  He introduced himself to the outside team members and expressed his excitement for the firms to be able to collaborate.  After sitting through the meeting for a short time, he gracefully exited.  When the team was ready for a run-through – not the final one – he came back, and while sitting through through the rehearsal, provided some very insightful, but very supportive feedback.  He clearly moderated his comments to the skill level of each speaker and was very careful to support the work the team had done in the hours he was not in the room. 

In the second case, one of the owners of a design firm sat through a very short period of the first team meeting and spend much of that time expressing his perspective on the project.  He provided some very insightful comments, but left before team members could engage with him or ask questions.  He reminded the team how important the interview was and how he needed the team to bring home the project.  At one of the later rehearsals – again, not the final one – he sat through a portion of the presentation and proceeded to lambast the team for not performing to his standard.  He expressed disdain for the design of the presentation and told the team he thought it would not work well.  He picked apart the delivery skills of one of the younger team members.  Then, he left the room for another appointment.

Quite a difference.  In the first case, the team was treated respectfully and with gratitude for their efforts. Team members were trusted with the presentation and the content.  As a result, each team member worked his or her hardest to excel and had an easy time integrating the relevant feedback into the presentation, making it better. Team members left for the interview relaxed, confident, and knowing they had the full support of their leadership.

In the second case, the team was treated disrespectfully and with disdain.  Team members felt belittled and at a very late hour, began questioning their plan and content, even though the time for wholesale changes had clearly passed.  Team members spent the next hours fretting over the overall approach to the interview vs. coming together and feeling confident.  It was truly a disappointment that the leader of the firm did not ever see the overall approach to the interview before offering criticism. In one short interaction with the team, this individual created uncertainty and unease with a strategy that could have been fun and innovative.

So, what’s the take away?   The role of the company leader in the performance of a short-list team cannot be underestimated.  Leaders need to either engage in the entire process or trust their teams, entering the process strategically to support their teams and provide meaningful assistance.  In the first case, the company leader was not simply a figurehead.  He provided insightful and relevant comments that were easily integrated into the team’s performance, making it better.  In the second case, the leader provided global comments based on limited information that tore down the confidence of both individuals and the team as a whole.

That one team won and the other team lost is probably not due to the leaders and their engagement with the team.  But, the behavior of each, both separately and in juxtaposition to each other revealed volumes about the respective companies and how they will ultimately work together on real projects.  Leaders need to think about the power of their words as amplified by their role and their experience and tailor their content and their tone to the situation, the audience, and the timing.  Leaders can inspire confidence and incredible performance or they can tear down confidence and create fear and increased stage fright.  As with all things – leaders need to behave intentionally to drive the outcomes they want for their employees and their firms.