We can argue for years about strategy, corporate survivalism, technology, AI and more, but if you really want things to happen it all comes down to proper teams and organisation. Note that I say "proper" and not “best” or other cheap slogans, we are talking about the right team for the job. If the dynamics of the company change, that team might not be needed... that’s life. Finding that sweet spot is one of the most relevant qualities in a leader, the most I dare to say.
“The only levers a CEO has is people and organisation”
Loyalty vs. brilliance
If we oversimplify, a manager must decide if he wants to be surrounded by loyals or brilliant people, and hopefully is a decision and not something that happens subconsciously (spoiler, must times is). Obviously, many teams will have both but its difficult to keep them on the same boat before brilliant people becomes frustrated by the others.
When you’re forming a team it’s difficult to know who is who, keep an open mind and your back covered! Someone who at first seems bright can really be a "smoke seller" when challenged to deliver. Also, quick loyalty vanishes when people are tempted by power and other opportunities.
Real loyalty is to tell you the truth no matter what
A balance between both is necessary. Too much loyalty leaves you with an absence of criticism, that ultimately puts you at risk. On the other hand, an excess of "bright" people makes a team ungovernable and egotistic.
A dose of “blind followership” is not bad from time to time…
Ambition vs. stability
Teams need to evolve as projects do, especially in transformation roles. Being aware of the “moment” helps you choose wisely.
For example, if you manage a stable operation, like a factory, chemical lab or planes, putting a lot of ambitious bright people could be a ticking bomb for unpredictability in quality or churn. On the other hand, having automatons leading a transformation wouldn’t be a good idea…
People are also greatly affected by their personal lifes. A young person living with his parents doesn’t function in the same way as one with small children who is not allowed to sleep at night. Nor those who have older children, 50 years and 2 mortgages… they tend to say yes to everything.
Trying to change someone’ vital needs is imposible
Everything at some point becomes business as usual. Transformations take 2-3 years to start delivering, 1-2 more to scale, optimise and wrap-up things and from there it becomes routine. As you can imagine, teams need to evolve.
At first you will need people with significant ambition and motivation, willing to fight to break the status-quo. Outsiders are a must to see things differently.
Then, you will need more people who know the company and have more experience to deliver the hardest parts of the transformation. You will still require innovative people but they should take the backseat.
In the third is where the team must evolve more drastically. You need “day-to-day people” who probably would never have been able to engineer the transformation but are comfortable managing the outcome, the users, waking up at night to solve an incidence and worry about lowering the cost in the long run.
These moments also overlap over time, so keep an eye on how your teams manage “run” and “change”. There is no simple solution as it depends on the problem but ideally there is some level of “oxygenation” between people managing each.
Keep in mind that some things cannot be taught. Commitment for example is either there or not. People that feel pain in failure and are willing to wake up on a Saturday at 2am to fix a problem. So how do you probe for that on a job interview? I have no idea…
Right hands and successors
Choosing the people you give more responsibility, empowerment and who you consider your “successor” is also key for the wellbeing of the team. Being conscious about it helps you understand the dynamics you are imposing on people.
Having a clear “successor” is the best way to position yourself for something new. Bosses will rarely promote you if they think it will create a void of responsibility. Using your “right-hand” to assume certain functions will give you extra time to be with your teams or think more strategically. This idea succession could also change over time and could be linked to the moment of the project and the company.
Who are you?
And now it's time to talk about you, the manager. You also have some specific skills that are better adapted to certain moments, projects and teams. That is a fact and denying it is useless.
Some managers are strategists who can understand the roots of a problem, visualise the solution and lay the road for victory. Others are resilient drivers on that road, managing teams and delivering impact without getting tired. And others are good on the day to day, which usually end up paying for the salary of the other two.
Do you know which one you are? do you know what are your real skills, the moment in your professional career and how they are conditioned by your personal priorities? Not knowing these will take you down the wrong path or make you assume absurd risks. Holding on to a position where your skills are no longer needed can be one of the fastest paths to become a corporate zombie :-)