Attributes of Joint Leadership Teams

A variety of conditions lead some organizations to delegate jointly to more than one person primary responsibility for a business unit, task force, or project. The idea that more than one person can have "primary" responsibility for something is a bit of a puzzle, but nevertheless, it's a common situation. It can work well. And it can also develop into a potful of trouble. If you find yourself inclined to establish one of these configurations, or you're a co-leader yourself, or you work in or with a unit that has joint leadership, it's advantageous to know the risks. Knowing what kinds of problems can develop, and knowing what limitations these structures have, can be helpful. This post is a high-level view of the kinds of factors that can affect the performance of joint leadership teams (JLTs). I'll be exploring JLTs in more detail in coming posts.

Attributes of joint leadership teams

One way of categorizing JLTs is according to the size of the leadership group. Dyads, triads, tetrads, … all are possible. Probably the most common form of JLT is the pair, in which just two people are designated as having primary responsibility for the effort. Often, the number of co-leaders is determined by political considerations, especially when the group is supposed to "represent" the interests of a set of teams or business units. See "The Politics of Forming Joint Leadership Teams," Point Lookout for January 4, 2023, for more.

Other factors that affect the risk profile facing the leadership group include, as examples, the factors below.

Group longevity

The group Probably the most common form of joint
leadership team is the pair, in which just
two people are designated as having
primary responsibility for a group effortcan be a short-term task force, a project, a long-lived business unit, an entire enterprise, or something else. Groups with longer lifetimes face greater external risks, as the rest of the enterprise has more time to mobilize its political capabilities.

Breadth of knowledge required

The group might be trying to achieve something that requires a broad base of knowledge, best provided by a group of leaders. Settings in which success depends on divergent practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, or rules are likely to find JLTs appealing. [Gibeau 2016] Although a JLT might be appealing at first, it's important to weigh carefully the advantages and disadvantages of the JLT approach.

Sources of funding

In some cases, the organizations that provide funding for the group require specific persons to have leadership positions. This is one way funders can manage risks related to lack of knowledge about some of the leadership candidates. Unfortunately, although the JLT configuration might offer some comfort in that respect, it brings along risks of its own.

Captivity

A captive JLT is one that's embedded in an organization. Examples include the leadership teams of projects, task forces, task teams, or business units. These are likely the most common forms of JLTs. Members of a captive JLT are subject to the performance standards of the host organization, and (usually) supervision by a responsible superior. These mechanisms provide some mitigation of the risk of toxic conflict within the JLT.

Last words

In next week's post, I explore the properties of JLTs that affect their agility. In two weeks, I examine the organizational politics of forming JLTs. And in three weeks, I examine some risks that are specific to JLTs.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Occasionally we have the experience of belonging to a great team. Thrilling as it is, the experience is rare. In part, it's rare because we usually strive only for adequacy, not for greatness. We do this because we don't fully appreciate the returns on greatness. Not only does it feel good to be part of great team — it pays off. Check out my Great Teams Workshop to lead your team onto the path toward greatness. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Virtual and Global Teams:

Toward More Engaging Virtual Meetings: II

Here's Part II of a set of simple techniques to help virtual meeting facilitators enhance attendee engagement.

Disjoint Awareness: Systematics

Organizations use some policies and processes that can cause people in collaborations to have inaccurate understandings of what each other is doing. Performance management, politics, and resource allocation processes can all contribute to disjoint awareness.

The New Virtual Meeting: Digressions

The bane of meetings everywhere, even before the COVID-19 pandemic, has been digressions. But there are reasons to expect the incidence of digressions in meetings to increase now. What reasons could there be, and what can we do about digressions?

Newly Virtual Politics: Choices

Pandemic or not, workplace politics marches on, though politics might take slightly different forms in a pandemic. Those different forms make new choices available, and render some formerly effective choices ineffective.

Fractures in Virtual Teams

Virtual teams — teams not co-located — do sometimes encounter difficulties maintaining unity of direction, or even unity of purpose. When they fracture, they do so in particular ways. Bone fractures provide a metaphor useful for guiding interventions.

See also Virtual and Global Teams and Virtual and Global Teams for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info