Executive Summary

This study examined communication and collaboration within ABC Inc. to offer insights regarding current patterns of collaboration, strategic alignment, and organizational performance. In total, 42 people were invited to participate in the survey. 38 respondents completed the survey for a 90% response rate.

Key findings in this report include:

Section 1

  • ABC Inc. is exceeding expectations in terms of growth and net margin (two of the more important performance indicators), but is not viewed by ELT members as exceeding expectations in other key areas.
  • ABC Inc.’s COVID-19 response has been perceived positively with most employees indicating that communication has been clear, they feel supported, safe, and confident that the ELT will lead ABC Inc. effectively through the pandemic.
  • Nearly 75% of respondents indicated that they are experiencing no barriers to carrying out work after COVID-19.

Section 2

  • Overall, there are strong levels of strategic readiness (i.e., combined clarity, appropriateness, commitment). However, commitment is stronger than perceived clarity or appropriateness of the strategy. Differences exist at the group-level for strategic readiness, which suggests opportunities for targeted intervention.
  • A deeper analysis of strategic priorities by team reveals points of alignment across teams and also differences in emphasis. For example, while many teams rated growth as the most important strategic goals, individual teams rated other strategic goals as ABC Inc.’s highest priority.
  • There are differing opinions among respondents in terms of the extent to which ABC Inc.’s ability to achieve its strategic priorities will be impacted by COVID-19.

Section 3

  • The ELT are most engaged in conversations about strategy development and implementation. When the ELT is engaged in strategic conversations, these conversations occur across a wide range of groups but tend to be with people who are relatively new to ABC Inc.
  • Several teams are infrequently engaged in strategy formulation and implementation conversations. This may indicate an opportunity for cultivating more cross-department strategic conversations.

Section 4

  • There is a need to strengthen strategic communication and perceived goal alignment at some critical points of needed intergroup collaboration.
  • There are opportunities to increase intergroup trust and competence perceptions.

Section 5

  • Most teams are functioning independently at relatively high levels. However, there are some teams who may need additional support to achieve top-level functioning.
  • As an example, there are very high levels of perceived competence within most teams (see Section 5), but rather low trust perceptions from outsiders of a number of teams (see Section 3). Open-ended comments further support these findings and suggest that efforts aimed to improve the understanding of what other teams are doing will improve the overall collaboration within ABC Inc. 

1. Performance and Adaptability

Performance on Key Indicators versus Expectations

ELT members rated the performance of the organization on each indicator in reference to expectations. The scatter plot displays performance as well as relative importance information.

  • Upper right: Performing well in areas of greater importance
  • Upper left: Performing well in areas of lesser importance
  • Lower right: Performing below a satisfactory level in areas of greater importance
  • Lower left: Performing below a satisfactory level in areas of lesser importance

Response to COVID-19

Survey respondents were asked about ABC Inc.’s overall handling of the COVID pandemic to date. The percentage of people who “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” with each statement is presented to the right of each bar in the graph.

Response by ELT

Response by ELT by Team

Response by Supervisor

Barriers to Carrying out Work after COVID-19

Survey respondents were asked to identify barriers that may prevent them from maintaining their normal workload while working from home. This graph displays the percentage of respondents who selected each answer. The barriers in the graph are listed below:

Label Description
No Barriers There are no barriers to me maintaining my normal workload
Connectivity Connectivity at home is not the same speed or quality as at work
Caregiving I have caregiver responsibilities (e.g., dependent children, parents) at home and limited time to conduct my normal workload
Household I have household chores at home (e.g., meal planning and preparation, cleaning) that limit my time to conduct my normal workload
Workspace My physical workspace at home is not the same quality as that at work
Resources My resources (e.g., equipment, technology, support services) are preventing me from working at my normal pace
Access I can’t access specific software, information, or other resources that I normally do at work

2. Strategic Readiness

An organization’s performance and agility in response to changing business environments depends on its strategic readiness.

The readiness of organizations to implement their strategy is contingent on the following key strategic conditions:

Clarity

A clear strategic vision provides the organization with direction into an uncertain future. If clarity is low, leaders may become overwhelmed or distracted by tasks that are irrelevant or even counterproductive to meeting strategic goals.

Appropriateness

Leaders who agree with the goals and objectives of the organization’s strategy have a greater sense of ownership and are more motivated to implement the strategy. If leaders resist, this resistance should be investigated to inform strategic thinking and planning.

Commitment

Challenges commonly arise with any large scale strategic initiative. The effort leaders invest in implementing the strategy is a strong predictor of implementation success. Leaders who are not committed to their role in the strategy may not persist, and if they falter, those who report to them are likely to as well.

Overall Strategic Readiness

This graph displays overall views in the organization regarding strategic clarity, appropriateness, and commitment. Scores above 3 indicate that respondents generally agree that the strategy is clear, in the best interest of the organization, and that they are committed to their role in executing the strategy.

This graph provides a closer look at the variability in responses regarding strategic clarity, appropriateness, and commitment. This information provides a more nuanced view of the strength of opinions held and the level of agreement among members of the organization.

Group-Level Breakdown of Strategic Readiness

The information in this stacked bar chart provides a sense of each group’s current level of strategic readiness.

Each section of the bar depicts the group’s average score for clarity, appropriateness, and commitment. Together these three elements make up the level of strategic readiness within each group.

As before, scores above 3 for each section of the bar indicate that respondents generally agree that the strategy is clear, in the best interest of the organization, and that they are committed to their role in executing the strategy.

The information in this chart may be used to identify where groups stand in their current readiness and which factors need more attention to improve their readiness to implement the organization’s strategy.

Strategic Alignment

When members of an organization share the same priorities they are better able to align their efforts towards the pursuit of common goals.

ABC Inc. employees were asked to rank the strategic goals of the organization in terms of their importance to the organization.

This radar chart shows how the various teams within ABC Inc. evaluated the importance of the different strategic goals as well as the degree to which teams within ABC Inc. are aligned in terms of their perceptions of the importance of the organization’s strategic goals.

The strategic goals for ABC Inc. are represented on the perimeter of the circle. The average level of importance of that strategic goal to each team is represented by a point on the line corresponding to each goal. Alignment across teams is indicated by the degree to which the profile shapes of the different teams are similar as this indicates that they share similar conceptions of the importance of the various strategic goals pursued by ABC Inc..

You can further examine this plot by clicking on team names in the legend in order to isolate a specific team’s profile, or to compare the rankings provided by specific sets of teams. Hovering over a point will show the average ranking, the team the ranking belongs to (also denoted by color), and the strategic goal being ranked.

Perceived Impact of COVID-19 on Strategic Priorities

Members of the ELT were asked to indicate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted ABC Inc.’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives.

The graph below provides a summary of their responses. Each section of the bar depicts the percentage of respondents who endorsed that response option for a given strategic priority.

3. Critical Connections

An organization’s ability to implement its strategy, achieve its performance objectives, and maintain agility in response to changing business environments is, in large part, determined by how its leaders and teams work together. We refer to these as the critical connections driving your organization’s success.

Network Vulnerabilities

Robust communication networks regarding strategy formulation and implementation are critical among members of the upper levels of your organization.

  • Strategy formulation conversations address the competitive environment, the organization’s current strengths and weaknesses, and how the organization can leverage its resources and capabilities to create competitive advantage.

  • Strategy implementation conversations address how your organization can motivate employees to execute strategy, allocate resources, and coordinate work to achieve strategic objectives.

When these networks are overly dependent on a small number of people, they are at greater risk for potential disruption (e.g., if key individuals in the organization leave there will be a substantial drop in connectivity as well as potential bottlenecks that might be gatekeepers slowing the work of too many others). This chart shows the incremental drop in network connectivity when the most central members are removed.

  • Red line - A proportionate drop in network connectivity based on the number of people removed from the network (baseline).

  • Green line - Actual loss in strategy formulation connections (e.g., when the top 10% connected people are removed, the number of relationships drops by a disproportionate 19.6%).

  • Blue line - Actual loss in strategy implementation connections (e.g., when the top 10% connected people are removed, the number of relationships drops by a disproportionate 18.7%).

Level of Each Group’s Engagement in Strategy Formulation

Level of Each Group’s Engagement in Strategy Implementation

Composition of the Executive Leadership Team’s Strategic Network

The information below provides insights into the types of people who are engaged in strategic conversations with members of the Executive Leadership Team. The graph describes conversations that include an ELT member. This information can be used as a comparative baseline representing conversations that are happening throughout the organization. We provide information based on gender, organizational area, and tenure breakdown.

Gender

Team

A comparison of the columns in each table below suggests that the members of some groups are disproportionately engaged in conversations regarding strategy formulation and implementation with ELT members.

Strategy Formulation Network

Team ELT Conversations
1 Team 1 15.8%
2 Team 2 13.2%
3 Team 3 10.5%
4 Team 4 10.5%
5 Team 5 10.5%
6 Team 6 10.5%
7 Team 7 7.9%
8 Team 8 5.3%
9 Team 9 5.3%
10 Team 10 5.3%
11 Team 11 2.6%
12 ELT 2.6%

Strategy Implementation Network

Team ELT Conversations
1 Team 1 15.0%
2 Team 2 15.0%
3 Team 3 10.0%
4 Team 4 10.0%
5 Team 5 10.0%
6 Team 6 10.0%
7 Team 7 7.5%
8 Team 8 7.5%
9 Team 9 5.0%
10 Team 10 5.0%
11 Team 11 2.5%
12 ELT 2.5%

Tenure

Strategy Formulation Network

Tenure ELT Conversations
1 0-5 years 60.5%
2 5-10 years 2.6%
3 10-15 years 18.4%
4 15-20 years 7.9%
5 20-25 years 7.9%
6 25-30 years 2.6%

Strategy Implementation Network

Tenure ELT Conversations
1 0-5 years 55.0%
2 5-10 years 2.5%
3 10-15 years 20.0%
4 15-20 years 12.5%
5 20-25 years 7.5%
6 25-30 years 2.5%

4. Intergroup Collaboration

Effective intergroup collaboration at the top of the organization is a critical driver of success.

Comparison of Required versus Actual Collaboration between Groups

This network below depicts groups that need to work very closely (e.g., to jointly diagnose and solve problems or complete tasks) if the organization is to achieve its strategy. This information is drawn from the interdependence mapping activity, and shows where the greatest level of interdependence is required between groups for the strategy to be a success.

This network depicts the intensity of strategic implementation conversations between groups. Lines represent communication channels in which more than 50% of the conversations that could occur between members of different groups are occurring. These very strong strategy implementation communication channels indicate a high level of collaboration.

Priority Alignment throughout the Organization

The extent to which the priorities of different groups are in alignment can spur or derail collaboration between groups. Members of each group provided ratings for all other groups using the following scale: 1 = Not at all, 2 = To a small extent, 3 = To a large extent.

Colors represent the perceived goal alignment.

To read this priority alignment “heat map” read across the rows.

We conducted a comparison of the extent to which there is perceived priority alignment between teams that need to work together intensively. This comparison revealed that there is one team pairing (see below) in which at least one group perceives their priorities to be misaligned.

Intergroup Trust and Competence Assessments

The extent that people outside of a group’s boundaries perceive members of that group as trustworthy and competent will impact a group’s ability to collaborate effectively with other groups.

Trust

The chart below presents the percentage of each group’s incoming connections that perceive members of the group as having motives, honesty, and character that they strongly trust.

Competence

The chart below presents the percentage of each group’s incoming connections that perceive members of the group as having the technical skills, experience, and dependability needed to fulfill their work obligations.

5. Functioning as a Team

The final section of this report provides a deeper look at the extent to which each team agrees that they need to and actually do work independently as as a team, are cohesive, collaborate and engage in joint decision-making, and produce three essential outcomes of leadership (direction, alignment, and commitment).

Gap Analysis of Needed and Actual Interdependence

A hallmark of a team is the interdependence of people who must work closely together to accomplish a goal or task.

Within-Team Trust and Competence Assessments

Trust and competence is also critical to effective collaboration within teams.

Trust

The chart below presents the percentage of teammates who see each other as having motives, honesty, and character that they strongly trust.

Competence

The chart below presents the percentage of teammates who see each other as having the technical skills, experience, and dependability needed to fulfill their work obligations.

Levels of Cohesion, Collaboration, and Joint Decision Making

The more groups need to actually function as a team, the more important it is for the group to be cohesive, collaborate, and engage in joint decision making.

Cohesion

The members of cohesive groups get along well, enjoy working with each other, and have good relationships.

Collaboration

The members of collaborative groups volunteer to help manage the workload when teammates are busy, are flexible about switching responsibilities to make things easier for each other, are willing to help each other work and meet deadlines.

Joint Decision Making

Groups that engage in joint decision making are able to better execute actions in a coordinated way. They have a clear understanding of each other’s needs and expectations, let each other know when their actions will affect another member’s work, and have a shared understanding of joint problems.

The chart below provides a breakdown for each group of current levels of cohesion, collaboration, and joint decision making. As before, scores above 3 indicate that respondents generally agree that their group is cohesive, collaborates effectively, and engages in joint decision making. Scores below 3 indicate breakdowns in these critical aspects of teamwork.

Leadership Outcomes

Leadership is a social process that enables individuals to work together to produce results they could not achieve alone. The organization’s success depends on each group’s ability to generate three crucial outcomes of leadership: Direction, Alignment, and Commitment (DAC).

Direction

Does the group agree on its overall goals?

Alignment

Does the group coordinate its efforts to achieve those goals?

Commitment

Do group members feel mutually responsible for the group’s success?

Scores below 3 indicate that a group is failing to produce a crucial outcome of leadership. For example, the ELT is struggling to produce a clear direction, which could ultimately undermine the strategic performance of the organization as a whole.

Groups who are not aligned may be dedicated and bought in but they are uncoordinated resulting in duplication of effort, people working at cross-purposes, and things falling through the cracks.

Groups who lack commitment may be coordinated and know what they want to achieve but lack the energy to deliver on things that require real effort.

Groups without direction are willing and ready to collaborate but lack purpose. As a result they spin their wheels, feel uncertain about what they are trying to achieve together, and are pulled in different directions.

Workload during the Coronavirus

Study Background

The development and delivery of this report was supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF SES #1853470) and a Behavioral Research Assistance Grant from the C. T. Bauer College of Business, University of Houston.

Principal Investigators (Research Leads)

Kristin Cullen-Lester, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Management
University of Mississippi

Dorothy Carter, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
University of Georgia

Report Contributors

We would like to thank the following individuals (in alphabetical order) for their contributions to the development of this report.

Greg Bean
Director of the Gutierrez Energy Management Institute (GEMI)
C.T. Bauer College of Business
University of Houston

Curtis Hampton
Data Scientist

Justin Jones, M.S.
Ph.D. Student
Department of Psychology
University of Georgia

Houston Lester, Ph.D.
Quantitative Psychologist

Chris Ross
Faculty Emeritus
C.T. Bauer College of Business
University of Houston

Stephanie Wormington, Ph.D.
Research Scientist
Global Research and Evaluation
Center for Creative Leadership

This study is conducted as part of an ongoing partnership between the University of Mississippi, the University of Georgia, and the Center for Creative Leadership. The aim of this study is to understand the complex web of relationships connecting managers at the top of organizations and how these relationships drive the top team’s performance and the organization’s success.

The design of the project is grounded in ours and others earlier research:

  • Cullen-Lester, K. L., Maupin, C. K., & Carter, D. R. (2017). Incorporating social networks into leadership development: A conceptual model and evaluation of research and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(1), 130-152.
  • Carter, D. R., DeChurch, L. A., Braun, M. T., & Contractor, N. S. (2015). Social network approaches to leadership: An integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 597-622.
  • Raes, A. M., Heijltjes, M. G., Glunk, U., & Roe, R. A. (2011). The interface of the top management team and middle managers: A process model. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 102-126.

The data presented in this report were collected by using/adapting published scales from the following sources:

  • Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 249-269.
  • Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics, and business unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management journal, 27(1), 25-41.
  • Hornsey, M. J., Olsen, S., Barlow, F. K., & Oei, T. P. (2012). Testing a single-item visual analogue scale as a proxy for cohesiveness in group psychotherapy. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 16(1), 80.
  • Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science, 52(11), 1661-1674.
  • Knight, D., Pearce, C. L., Smith, K. G., Olian, J. D., Sims, H. P., Smith, K. A., & Flood, P. (1999). Top management team diversity, group process, and strategic consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 445-465.
  • McCauley, C., Braddy, P., & Cullen-Lester, K. L. (2018). Measuring the outcomes of leadership: Direction, Alignment, and Commitment scale development. Working Paper
  • Noble, C. H., & Mokwa, M. P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: Developing and testing a managerial theory. The Journal of Marketing, 57-73.
  • Quinn, R. W. (2005). Flow in knowledge work: High performance experience in the design of national security technology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(4), 610-641.
  • Simsek, Z., Veiga, J. F., Lubatkin, M. H., & Dino, R. N. (2005). Modeling the multilevel determinants of top management team behavioral integration. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 69-84.
  • Tallon, P. P., & Pinsonneault, A. (2011). Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation model. Mis Quarterly, 463-486.
  • Van Der Vegt, G., Emans, B., & Van De Vliert, E. (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23(2), 124-143.