The Power of N

I thought I’d start out with a fairly simple mental model for thinking about employee engagement and its role in leading transformational change.

Like others, I’ve spent many years being indoctrinated to the concept of the “individual contributor”, which is the equivalent of a non-manager/ doer / worker / employee who presumably spends the majority of their time executing against responsibilities partially or entirely defined by someone else.

While not wanting to delve into the “manager versus leader” topic right now, I can say that I never really thought too much about the language above itself and what it implies if we’re not careful when leading teams.

My assertion is that thinking of team members as “individual contributors” establishes a mental model of linear impact and marginalized value.  In the worst-case scenario, the collective potential of a team of 10 individuals is effectively 10n… the sum of their individual contributions, with no added value beyond what they accomplish on their own, in isolation, given tasks defined, created, and assigned by someone else (their “leader” for simplicity’s sake).  While I don’t know that we’d see much of this ever play out fully in practice, the situation would likely be one where team members work in silos, don’t ask others for help, don’t participate or offer ideas to better the team or the organization, and see innovation and leading change as entirely someone else’s responsibility. 

Something in there sound familiar?  I suspect it does, because it happens almost everywhere in my experience, to varying degrees, based on culture, leadership, and probably a number of other factors.  What I don’t believe the critical determinant is, however, is talent.  If talent is a concern, operating in an “individual contributor” mindset is a sure way to have an adverse effect on the overall math, because arguably there will be individuals performing at less than their full potential, and the impact will be further reduction in team productivity and effectiveness.

So, shifting to the right side of the equation, what we want is to capture the Power of N… the exponential impact that comes from engaging a team fully, maximizing their potential contributions, and shifting from a passive to an active role in innovation and change.  Turning the capability of 10 individuals (10n) to a high performing team that generates the impact of n¹⁰.

Some litmus tests for this kind of environment could include:

• Is there a shared vision to which individuals are able to connect and see their contributions advancing?
• Do team members work across boundaries and collaborate actively with their teammates and others in the broader organization?
• Is there an inclusive environment where ideas from members of the team contribute to the objectives of the team as a whole, solutions presented to customers, opportunities for improvement, etc.?
• Do members of the team actively help coach and guide others in their professional development?
• Is it a cooperative or a competitive environment?

Enrollment is a critical lever in unlocking the collective potential of a team and the proportionate impact that they can have on an organization as a whole.  It requires awareness and humility from a leadership standpoint, because it’s very tempting to present the idea that you have all the answers, are the keeper of the keys when it comes to the vision, and have control of the greater whole at all times.  The problem is that this is the surest way to stifle contribution and innovation, because you also just became responsible for every “good idea”, limited advocacy of your greater cause, and took on the burden of having to direct the lion’s share of the execution, when a self-directed team will be far more productive (and effective) overall… and that is an incredibly limiting way to approach working with teams.

Now extrapolate this out to a team of 25, 50, 100… more… the impact of leveraging the Power of N is in our best interest when we want to promote transformational change.  It has to start with individuals, who execute against that shared vision, help define its advancement, and ultimately determine the bounds of what’s possible.  That is where the most knowledge (and capacity) in an organization ultimately resides and tapping into that potential matters.  With all the organizations with whom I’ve had a chance to work over the years (including clients as a consultant), even the most engaged and well-intended leaders don’t know the realities of the people who are on the front lines, facing the daily challenges, and seeing the opportunities that exist for sustainable change.  Closing the gap between our aspirations and daily realities is important to having an actionable strategy (something I’ll likely write about separately).

So, if any these ideas make sense, the suggestion would be to engage with your team, and ask questions… “Do we have a vision for where we’re going?”, “Are there questions/concerns about it?”, “Is this the right direction/the best we can do?”, “How should we deliver on that goal?”, “What help do we need to make it happen/Are we equipped to be successful?”, “Are we collaborating effectively?”, “How will we know we’ve been successful?”… and listen, and listen, and listen… and respond… and engage.

Today’s question for reflection: Do we want to lead a team of individual contributors producing marginalized results or a self-directed team that is engaged in driving transformation?…  It’s a choice.

Hopefully the thoughts were worth reading… feedback is always welcome.

-CJG 08/13/2021