The Power of Leadership Teams case When the top management group at Georgia Power Company’s Plant Hammond decided to become a team, everyone was quite sure that they were already a team and worked pretty well together. The top leadership group in early 1995 was 10 people from three management levels and two individual contributors. The management style was much the same as they had been using for many years in the utility industry and was characterized by an emphasis on the chain of command for most decisions—with the important ones made by one or two people. Information and business results were communicated on a “need to know” basis. For the most part, each department operated and made decisions independently. This management style served the utility business well, given its business requirements. The business was relatively predictable and structured with a regulated rate of return, regional market protection, and 100 percent control of access to its own distribution facilities. A watershed development, however, occurred in the early 1990s—a move toward deregulation. This demanded fundamental changes in the way Plant Hammond operated and managed its resources. In the early 1990s, the plant had reduced the number of employees by about one third, resulting in fewer management levels and fewer managers in those levels. In early 1995, the parent organization, Southern Company, implemented a transformation process to improve the plant’s ability to compete. This transformation process required an emphasis on business results at all levels and creation of an organization culture that could deal with uncertainty and competition. As the plant manager considered the requirements for the future, he determined that the structure, processes, and culture of the plant would need to change. Therefore, top management must change how it operated, broadening capabilities at all levels. Processes were needed to manage decision-making risk and gain consensus on direction. A new organizational structure was one of the early steps in their transformation. The structure provided an “outside in” focus—identifying the operations function as the primary internal customer, and grouped plant activities into several functional areas. However, plant management knew that simply changing the boxes on an organization chart was not sufficient for real change. In the summer of 1995, the plant manager and nine other employees took their first step toward becoming a team when they came together at a facilitated off-site meeting. They clarified individual roles and responsibilities on this new team and began developing team relationships. They agreed that the role of each leadership-team member should be one of “shared responsibilities with a functional focus.” Top managers at the plant could no longer make decisions from only their own departments’ view. In fact, managers were required to consider the impact of their decisions— not only on the total plant but also on the total operating system of the Southern Company. Each member took on the responsibility to champion specific transformation activities for the leadership team. The team began to have regular one-day session meetings where they discussed and made decisions on strategic and operational issues. This management team took a key developmental step in 1996 by setting expectations for their behavior and presenting them to their organizations during reviews of the 1996 plant strategic plan. Putting these expectations “on the record” built incentives to act accordingly. The team found several tools to be helpful in its operation and development. One was a common work plan that served multiple purposes: (1) to ensure integration of their efforts and to track team results; (2) to establish member accountability; (3) to facilitate the delegation of traditional plant manager tasks; and (4) as a catalyst to surface strategic issues. Each team member took responsibility for the accomplishment of particular parts of the work plan. The team also used various assessment instruments to understand and deal with the different individual styles of team members. Each team member discussed his or her assessment in an open forum. As a result, members made commitments for change and support. Each team member also formulated his or her own development plan based on these and other assessments. Because one of the plant’s strategies was to improve the capabilities of the management team, the team worked with an outside consultant to identify strengths and weaknesses. The consultant observed each of the team members in work situations and provided specific personal feedback and suggestions over an extended period of time. Each team member reviewed his or her assessment with the group and asked for reactions and recommendations. The consultant also provided feedback on group processes and worked in concert with an internal consultant to improve teamwork processes. Discussion Question What lessons do you think the company learned about transforming its leadership system to a team-based organization?What conditions do you think are necessary for management teams to become “real teams“and not just a grouping of independent functional managers who cooperate with each other?what challenges do such leadership teams face?

Question

The Power of Leadership Teams  case  When the top management group at Georgia Power Company’s Plant Hammond decided to become a team, everyone was quite sure that they were already a team and worked pretty well together. The top leadership group in early 1995 was 10 people from three management levels and two individual contributors. The management style was much the same as they had been using for many years in the utility industry and was characterized by an emphasis on the chain of command for most decisions—with the important ones made by one or two people. Information and business results were communicated on a “need to know” basis. For the most part, each department operated and made decisions independently.   This management style served the utility business well, given its business requirements. The business was relatively predictable and structured with a regulated rate of return, regional market protection, and 100 percent control of access to its own distribution facilities. A watershed development, however, occurred in the early 1990s—a move toward deregulation. This demanded fundamental changes in the way Plant Hammond operated and managed its resources.   In the early 1990s, the plant had reduced the number of employees by about one third, resulting in fewer management levels and fewer managers in those levels. In early 1995, the parent organization, Southern Company, implemented a transformation process to improve the plant’s ability to compete.   This transformation process required an emphasis on business results at all levels and creation of an organization culture that could deal with uncertainty and competition.   As the plant manager considered the requirements for the future, he determined that the structure, processes, and culture of the plant would need to change. Therefore, top management must change how it operated, broadening capabilities at all levels. Processes were needed to manage decision-making risk and gain consensus on direction. A new organizational structure was one of the early steps in their transformation. The structure provided an “outside in” focus—identifying the operations function as the primary internal customer, and grouped plant activities into several functional areas.   However, plant management knew that simply changing the boxes on an organization chart was not sufficient for real change. In the summer of 1995, the plant manager and nine other employees took their first step toward becoming a team when they came together at a facilitated off-site meeting. They clarified individual roles and responsibilities on this new team and began developing team relationships. They agreed that the role of each leadership-team member should be one of “shared responsibilities with a functional focus.” Top managers at the plant could no longer make decisions from only their own departments’ view. In fact, managers were required to consider the impact of their decisions— not only on the total plant but also on the total operating system of the Southern Company.   Each member took on the responsibility to champion specific transformation activities for the leadership team.   The team began to have regular one-day session meetings where they discussed and made decisions on strategic and operational issues. This management team took a key developmental step in 1996 by setting expectations for their behavior and presenting them to their organizations during reviews of the 1996 plant strategic plan. Putting these expectations “on the record” built incentives to act accordingly. The team found several tools to be helpful in its operation and development. One was a common work plan that served multiple purposes: (1) to ensure integration of their efforts and to track team results; (2) to establish member accountability; (3) to facilitate the delegation of traditional plant manager tasks; and (4) as a catalyst to surface strategic issues. Each team member took responsibility for the accomplishment of particular parts of the work plan.   The team also used various assessment instruments to understand and deal with the different individual styles of team members. Each team member discussed his or her assessment in an open forum. As a result, members made commitments for change and support. Each team member also formulated his or her own development plan based on these and other assessments.   Because one of the plant’s strategies was to improve the capabilities of the management team, the team worked with an outside consultant to identify strengths and weaknesses. The consultant observed each of the team members in work situations and provided specific personal feedback and suggestions over an extended period of time. Each team member reviewed his or her assessment with the group and asked for reactions and recommendations.   The consultant also provided feedback on group processes and worked in concert with an internal consultant to improve teamwork processes.            Discussion Question    What lessons do you think the company learned about transforming its leadership system to a team-based organization?What conditions do you think are necessary for management teams to become “real teams“and not just a grouping of independent functional managers who cooperate with each other?what challenges do such leadership teams face?

Accepted Answer

Leadership plays an important role in guiding and supervising the behavior and conduct of…