Barriers to Performance: GPS-Global Providing Professional Services on the Global Stage

Michael Walton
Director of People in Organisations Ltd., 22B Downshire Road, Bangor, BT20 3TN Northern Ireland, UK; Visiting Senior Lecturer, Thammasat Business School, Bangkok. E-mail: michael.walton@btinternet.com

This case charts an intervention within a global professional services organization in need of renew and change. An organization review was initiated to identify the 'barriers to performance' within this prestigious organization. Four critical challenges emerged, each of which revolved around the culture and the structure of the organization. From the executive board down, the necessary remedial action was taken.

Introduction

This case study charts an intervention within a global professional services organization headquartered in one of the major European cities with offices and branches throughout the globe. It is a well-known prestigious organization and highly regarded for the wide and extensive array of services provided.

The material presented is based on my notes and experiences of working as an external advisor with the chief executive and the executive team, together with a number of other significant directors, within this prestigious global organization.

My exposure within GPS-Global was over an extended period and my many individual discussions were backed up by in-depth psychometric profiles, third-party observations, coaching sessions and personal disclosures together with confidential insights from several participants (McCall and Simmons, 1969; Richardson, 1997; Gill and Johnson, 2005; and May, 2006). My 'close' involvement with this organization has enabled me to contrast (i) what key people told me and what I actually saw and experienced, and (ii) what they said they would do and what they actually did in practice. There was often a sharp contrast in expressed beliefs and behavior-in-practice. Such contrasts do not necessarily reflect duplicity or lack of genuine intent but can reflect the changing day-to-day realities, opportunities, and dynamics of business life.

My privileged access to the Executive Board et al. combined with my long-term involvement, enabled me to be build up a 'rich-picture' (Checkland, 1981) of my clients working environments and departmental cultures from the inside, 'warts and all'.

The Culture of GPS-Global
Traditional, polished, risk-averse, even-paced, bureaucratic, thoughtful, superior, reserved, and conservative could be applied when describing this organization. In part these adjectives reflect the legacy and tradition of this evolving professional services organization but they also reflect the tone, behavior and feel of the organization when observing its staff going about their work in the 21st century.

Its financial security relied on several revenue streams including annual fees from members and affiliates, educational activities, specialist data services, conferences, continuing professional development study programs, and professional guidance manuals. Such financial stability however induced a sense of complacency, entitlement and indulgence. There was little sense of urgency or of focused intentionality; it was all a bit too calm and measured and relaxed in spite of the many underlying issues awaiting resolution. The organization's prominent, very well appointed and prestigious HQ premises-in a smart part of town-reinforced the satisfaction felt on becoming a member of staff. Marble fittings, wood paneling, high ceilings generated a sense of calm, purposeful intent. Features which were totally congruent with the professional ethos and nature of the professional membership this organization had been formed to serve.

Whilst it's face to the outside world perfectly matched its external marketing and publicity initiatives internally it was somewhat different. Decision-making was a slow, bureaucratic and protracted business; too many people were generally involved and too many people wanted to have their say if only to justify their presence at yet another meeting. GPS-Global seemed to have generated an internal 'meetings culture' in which many spoke but few were prepared to reach a decision and actually make things happen.

In any organization, the Business Plan should be the central basis from which overall corporate priorities are determined and funds accordingly allocated. As one would expect GPS-Global invested considerable effort went into the development of the annual Business Plan.

In spite of such good intentions however-and in part because of the unwieldy organizational structure in place-overarching corporate priorities to which each Executive Director (ED) felt obliged to deliver were difficult to achieve.

It was for example difficult to assess the profitability of some of the products, in addition the systems underpinning market intelligence and information were inadequate. Each ED tended to fiercely protect their own functional responsibilities and GPS-Global was described as having a 'Silo' mentality complete with Turf Wars, shifting alliances and bruising ego battles! Openly addressing such difficulties had proved difficult to sustain and so a veneer of superficial cohesion-rather like a culinary glaze-flavored the interactions of the executive board.

Full of good intentions many 'exciting' plans were hatched but few progressed to completion because of these competing priorities, fuzzy lines of responsibility and accountability. This was not because of ill will, incompetence, or laziness but primarily because unresolved competing priorities and contrasting personal agendas between several EDs had been tolerated for too long which impaired organizational performance and reduced staff morale.

There was no central mechanism-such as a central clearing house-for setting down a clearly understood hierarchy of the many priorities which the Business Plan spawned. Consequently, the jumble of priorities persisted and as a result development initiatives tended to became prioritized and actioned on the basis of (i) the force of personality; and (ii) political connections of the sponsoring ED more than organizational need.

Activities tended to be over-engineered and overcomplicated. A growing 'meetings culture' had taken hold with far too many people wanting to be involved resulting in a convoluted, rather than a direct and straightforward approach to resolving issues.

The executive board's 'hands-off' approach, far from empowering directors and managers to take action, seemed to have had the opposite effect and fueled turf fights, generated meetings overload, confusion about priorities and fostered ambiguous accountabilities.

The Executive Board were experienced as being remote, 'out of touch' and 'distant' from the rest of the organization. Initiatives sanctioned by the Executive Board too often became diluted in intensity and mired in endless discussions by those given the responsibility for implementing them.

The organization was 'top-heavy' and GPS-Global suffered from 'Title Inflation'. There were just too many directors and heads of functions with several 'Directors' only 'managing' one colleague and with very few having cross-functional responsibilities.

Presenting Issues and Dynamics
The organization had become 'stuck' in a log jam of competing priorities combined with an unwillingness-at all levels-to address performance issues, address unfulfilled promises or tackle neglectful patterns of working. There were no adverse consequences for nonperformance. Performance issues were often dodged or fudged or tacitly accepted. Insufficient sharing of good ideas and practices led to duplication of effort, staff frustration and avoidable competition for scarce specialist skills and financial resources. There was a marked tendency to delay making decisions when difficulties arose-or when tensions were aroused-much to the frustration at executive board level who just wanted their more junior colleagues to get things done.

The rather 'hands-off' approach-adopted by executive board which was intended to drive the organization forward ceded too much flexibility to too many. The CEO's dynamism, ebullient challenge and constructive intent often faded below the top Executive Director Team. Schisms within the top team impeded organizational effectiveness and frustrated attempts to accomplish the constructive changes needed. GPS-Global increasingly suffered from the drag of complacency and comfort!

The organizational structure had emerged 'like Topsy' with too many with the title of director or manager. There was a preoccupation with ego, status and position which seemed to relegate direct action almost as an afterthought. Attending meetings on the other hand was welcomed. Meetings were full of well-meaning people, with lots of talking, and a culture of self-importance. In general, the organization seemed to prefer passivity over action, acceptance/support over challenge, compromise over adverse comment, and endless discussion over task achievement.

The Executive Board was viewed as distant, remote, relatively invisible, indulgent and self-important. They were perceived as unwilling to take decisions and 'get their hands dirty' and described as 'Teflon-coated'. There was a profound sense of 'Them and Us'-they were experienced as disconnected from the organization they were responsible for leading. There were tensions and schisms within the executive team with strongly defended Fiefdoms and Silos a characteristic of GPS-Global as an institution. Some of the Exec Team were feared and experienced as very difficult, and penalistic, to work with. 'Hero to Zero' dynamics, untouchable 'Sacred Cows' and dangerous IEDs were seen as lying in wait for anyone foolish enough to push for change within GPS-Global unless they had the support of the CEO!

The CEO was universally highly rated as an entrepreneurial spirit, very approachable, genuinely interesting to engage and work with. The CEO was also capable of generating too many ideas and possibilities for the average person to cope with! A positive, creative and highly valued force for change.

The Crunch Tipping Point
GPS-Global had failed once again to meet its Business Plan and whilst the Management Board (to which the CEO and the Executive Board reported) were understanding about this their patience was growing thin with yet another disappointing performance. The drag of comfort and complacency, organizational inertia, the top-heavy and confusing structure and a sense of indulgence and of unwarranted privilege were some of the internal 'cultural factors' impacting negatively on the end-of-year results.

The CEO in particular, and some members of the Executive Board, felt they could no longer allow the organization to fail to meet its ambitious plans or tolerate a growing sense of organizational malaise. But they felt stuck and unclear about how best to proceed to 'unblock' their organization!

A significant impetus for change came from several disappointing Staff and Member Surveys which indicated the need for change. In particular, an external Engagement & Empowerment Survey, as in the previous year's results, had once again identified how many staff felt engaged but that there were organizational barriers which were impeding their performance. They cited the organization's structure as the primary impediment to constructive review and change.

Following these disappointing survey ratings, the CEO and the executive team initiated an independent review to dig deeper into the reasons for such disappointing results. An external management consultant, who was already working within GPS-Global, was invited to undertake this assignment.

The CEO selected a number of key directors and managers-representative of the global organization as a whole-who were invited to participate in the review exercise and to be interviewed by the external consultant.

Diagnosis and Approach
Over 25 individual interviews were conducted on a confidential basis. Some were face-to-face meetings but mostly were conducted remotely using Skype and other communication channels because of the geographical spread of the interviewees. Some of these key Directors and Heads of Function were interviewed more than once. The CEO and the other members of the Executive Board were interviewed in depth.

A simple and straightforward approach was used to elicit data which was manually recorded by the Consultant who asked each respondent the same series of uncomplicated open-ended questions about the organizational culture and their experience of working within GPS-Global (see Appendix 'A'). Several interviews had to be rescheduled because we ran out of time. The interviewees demonstrated insight, commitment and a firm desire to enable GPS-Global to become more effective, less political and more dynamic. They were full and frank in expressing their views and valued the opportunity to influence how the organization could 'be better' and more effective.

Respondent data was anonymized for reasons of confidentiality. The cumulative data was then coded to identify common themes and any key factors which unified seemingly discrepant data were noted (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996).

It had been made clear, in the CEO's initial invitation to interviewees, that the results of the confidential interviews would be collated and summarized for the executive board who would subsequently share the main points with respondents. There was a very clear intention-from the CEO et al.-that this initiative would drive future organizational change. The need for change was apparent and would not be ignored.

Outcomes and Action
Whilst the key messages from the engagement survey highlighted the need to review the structure, the individual confidential interviews revealed that it was about the culture and the ways of working which were the key changes that needed to be made. It was the highly politicized nature of GPS-Global which emerged as critical to change if the organization as a whole was to banish the inertia which had come to afflict this proud organization. The respondents' emphasis on reviewing the organizational structure had been the cosmetically acceptable way-the convenient handle-in order to open up a wider debate about the dysfunctional aspects of GPS-Global's internal dynamics and outmoded structure. Overwhelmingly GPS-Global was viewed as a fantastic organization to be a part of and the HQ offices were experienced as great places to work in. However, respondents emphasized many significant operational weaknesses which needed to be rectified without any further delay. Critically, there was on the one hand (i) insufficient clarity of purpose across the organization as a whole combined on the other hand, with (ii) unrealistic expectations of what the organization could achieve on the global stage.

The muddle of variable and conflicting priorities, lack of cross-functional sharing and a general lack of cohesion had enabled some senior staff to reinterpret corporate priorities to their own advantage. They were able to justify, if challenged, doing what they wanted to do rather than what they had been told to do!

It was suggested-perhaps unfairly-that a 'meetings culture of coffee and cakes' had taken hold in which endless discussion was favored over firm action. "Conflicting forces' were perceived to block our excellent capabilities." One senior director expressed his frustration about the situation and lamented just how effective the organization was .... When all our Stars (i.e., our key staff) are aligned we achieve wonderful things! (NB this coming together of talents was perceived to rarely occur however).

It emerged from the many interviews that the culture within GPS-Global was divisive, inefficient, labored in how it responded to issues and very bureaucratic. The structure had outlived its usefulness and was no longer encouraging cross-functional decision-making or collaborative behavior. Clearly defined accountability and responsibility for action was perceived to be lacking resulting in GPS-Global 'tying itself in knots' in seeking to get things achieved. There was an institutional reticence to address poor performance and tackle counterproductive leadership behavior. A 'blame culture' has taken hold-it had become safer to do little rather than seek to make things happen and risk adverse criticism. There was discomfort in saying 'No' and support invariably trumped constructive challenge, consequently performance issues were either diluted or ignored. The organization was seen as complacent, bloated, "in need of a diet and of fresh blood"-"... we are top heavy, there are conflicting priorities and overall a lack of prioritization ...", there is too little mutual trust. "We are very silo-focused, the executive directors have their own fiefdoms and they operate as Federated States and Private Kingdoms- there is just too little shared clarity!"

The following critical challenges summarize much of the respondent data:
How to re-connect the executive board with the organization at large and how to bridge the gap between the executive directors and their senior leaders (i.e., in order to work better together, collaborate more fully and co-create much more?).

How to balance the drive for commercial revenue whilst maintaining independence as an ethical professional member-services organization (i.e., a need to re-affirm the core purpose of GPS-Global).

How best to re-design the existing organization structure and stop it remaining a barrier to performance? (i.e., it had become dysfunctional and obsolete given the recent evolution of Global-GPS and needed a 're-boot').

How to change the culture-prioritize more effectively, reduce bureaucracy and tame our dysfunctional internal politics (i.e., how to shift from an organization divided into silos and fiefdoms into a more integrated and connected entity).

These challenges formed the basis for protracted discussions with the CEO and the executive directors as shown in Figure 1.

Challenge 1: The Executive Board
The Executive Board was perceived to be remote, relatively invisible, out-of-touch with organizational practicalities and unwilling to get involved in moving the organization forward. They were seen to just " ... fly in, hold Court-make their decisions-and then fly away".

Challenge 2: Core Purpose of GPS-Global
There was confusion about the core purpose of GPS-Global given its position as a professional services organization. The concern for many respondents was maintaining an appropriate balance between (a) the drive for revenue, through the various revenue streams noted earlier; and (b) the focus on providing professional support and educational services for its members and affiliates.

What those interviewed did not want was for the drive for revenue generation to swamp the responsibilities the organization had for professional development and support. Many had deliberately joined a professional services organization-as opposed to a commercial firm-because of the 'professional ethos' of Global-GPS and the responsibilities it had in safeguarding ethical, professional practice by its members and affiliates.

Respondents wanted confirmation that any changes would reaffirm the core 'profession service' would remain as the primary anchor for the organization as a whole and that GPS-Global would not become solely a profit-driven, commercial enterprise.

Challenge 3: Organization Structure
Without exception a fundamental re-think of the organization's structure was felt to be needed in order both to reflect how GPS-Global had evolved over recent years and to enhance organizational cohesion and performance.

The urgent need for a more robust and focused prioritization of the workload emerged as a critical priority. In addition, the need for more rigor and transparency in determining what the key priorities were and then to ensure the necessary processes were in place to achieve them was highlighted by respondents. Better integration between key directorates, fewer 'senior' managers, less political decision-making and better cross-functional working all emerged as key re-design considerations for the CEO et al. to examine.

A re-design of the structure would follow the reconstitution of the 'Executive Director Group' and be driven by the new roles at that level.

Challenge 4: Organization Culture
Superficially, the culture appeared to be very relaxed, engaging, collaborative and purposeful. Below the surface, it was divisive, very political, dominated by Silos and Turf Wars, bureaucratic, slow moving and inefficient in it processes and systems. There was an unwillingness to challenge poor performance, or question the non-delivery of promises; who you knew mattered a great deal. A dysfunctional 'Hero to Zero' blame and self-protective culture was much in evidence.

The diverse and differing challenges and preoccupations of the global territories did not facilitate effective cross-functional working, mutual understandings, the sharing of good practices or collegiality.

The hierarchical structuring of GPS-Global slowed decision-making and this was exacerbated by the considerable global travel demanded of the executive directors. This was a top-down organization where 'the top' were sometimes hard to find!

Hierarchies needed to be dismantled, the profusion of 'senior' positions needed to be pruned and the spans of control of those remaining in leadership positions needed to be broadened. Internal systems-such as for HR and finance-were outmoded and promoted patterns of behavior which diminished cohesion, collaboration and operational effectiveness. Behind each of these components lurked power-politics which generated and sustained the many of the counterproductive problems surfaced by those interviewed. Overtly bringing such political matters into the light made the ripe for inspection, debate and review if genuine change was to occur.

The Follow Through
As a direct consequence of the results from this intervention, the CEO and the Executive Board initiated fundamental changes which addressed the four main challenges noted above. No blood was spilt, some egos were a little bruised and some 'sacred cows' challenged.

The Executive Board was re-structured, Fiefdoms dismantled, a project coordination and planning center introduced; the proliferation of senior leadership roles has been trimmed and progress has been made in tackling the dysfunctional 'blame' culture which had taken hold.

The work is ongoing, and GPS-Global continues to evolve, but the CEO et al. listened to, and acted upon, the outcomes from this 'Barriers to Performance' intervention.

At its core, this case is about the dynamics of power and politics in the workplace and how such motivations can lead to corrosive executive behavior (Walton, 2013 and 2015). The behavior of senior executives sets the example for others to follow and in this case some of those in very senior positions behaved in ways which were profoundly dysfunctional for the organization and in so doing encouraged similar behavior from those around them. According to Zaleznik (1970), "... the competition for power is characteristic of all political structures. And, whatever else they may be business organizations are political structures ...". As this article has sought to convey GPS-Global had become an intensely politicized organization.

Powerplays and politics within the workplace will always be a part of organization life so the issue is to seek to surface and engage with them as transparently as possible rather than pretending they are not there and leaving them to lurk below the surface.

What is particularly interesting in this case is how the organization's pre-eminent leader and influential role model-the CEO-genuinely behaved in an impeccably apolitical, collegial, confirming and encouraging manner in sharp contrast to several of his key colleagues!

It may just be though that his particular political skills are so well-tuned and subtle that others fail to notice! To their considerable credit however all of the members of the Executive Board engaged constructively, professionally and seriously with this intervention even though several of them were fully aware that their roles and responsibilities would be curtailed, or changed, together with the possibility of having to exit the organization.

References
1. Coffey A and Atkinson P (1996), Making Sense of Qualitative Data, Sage, London.
2. Checkland P (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
3. Gill J and Johnson P (2005), Research Methods for Managers, Sage, London.
4. May T (2006), Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process, Open University Press, Buckingham.
5. McCall G and Simmons J (1969), Issues in Participant Observation, Addison-Wesley, Reading.
6. Richardson J (1997), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods, The British Psychological Society, Leicester.
7. Walton M (2007), "Leadership Toxicity - An Inevitable Affliction of Organizations?", Organizations & People, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 19-27.
8. Walton M (2013), "The Rottweiler and the Flying Penguin: Peacock Power in the Workplace", in J Lemmmergaard, and S Muhr ((Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Leadership: Emotion, Toxicity, and Dysfunction, pp. 33-58, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
9. Walton M (2015), "Carnage in the Research Lab: Power, Personality and Neglect", in M Karanika-Murray and C Biron (Ed.), Derailed Organizational Interventions for Stress and Well-Being, pp. 127-134, Springer, Heidelberg.
10. Zaleznik A (1970), "Power and Politics in Organizational Life", Harvard Business Review.