In my previous ‘Achieving Full Potential: Entering the Path’ blog I state that, “Organizational full potential is achieved through its people achieving their full potential. Therefore, leaders who focus on helping their people achieve their full potential are helping create the building blocks essential to their organization (business, non-profit, government, family, etc.) reaching its full potential. In other words, there is a greater probability that their organization will achieve the maximum it is capable of being. This principle is the foundation of the ‘Full Potential Model’.” In this blog we will briefly explore the ‘Full Potential Model’.
Full Potential Model
Achieving Full Potential as an organization, leader, or individual cannot not be achieved in a vacuum. Individual and organizational full potential is achieved through symbiotic and synergistic relationships between two or more people and between individual people and the organizations to which they belong. The Full Potential Model focuses on developing those types of relationships at three levels—
- Between two individuals in the same or different work groups. Peer to peer or employee to leader.
- Between the members of a work group acting in concert as a unit under the direction of their leader.
- Between two or more work groups operating as an enterprise under the direction of the senior organization leader, e.g., president, chief executive officer, or owner.
Defining and Developing Symbiotic and Synergistic Relationships
To understand the types of relationships we are striving to build at each level let’s quickly review the definitions of these two key phrases—symbiotic and synergistic.
Symbiotic: An interdependent relationship.
Synergistic: Characteristic of or resembling synergy, which is the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.
Symbiotic relationships exist throughout organizations whether we are discussing individual role relationships or those between two departments or divisions within an enterprise. No individual or group in an organization is an island unto themselves. Each plays a role in one or more processes in which they are both the customer of a product, service or data and the supplier of a value-added product, service, or data. In other words, they are dependent on another individual or group for a required input to effectively provide what is needed by yet another individual or group who is dependent on them for an input. The first step to achieving full potential, individually and organizational—is to identify, understand, and effectively engage each of these relationships.
The second step in achieving full potential is to work within each symbiotic relationship to identify the opportunities to develop synergy—making the output of the relationship greater than the sum of its parts. This requires a shift in focus from self-interest to sacrificing for the greater good. It also requires seeking a win-win solution that is greater than either party’s initial ideas or input. It is not a compromise, but rather a third solution born from the original ideas, but more mature, creative, and impactful than just combining them.
Application to Level 1 Relationships
The quickest and easiest way to identify a symbiotic relationship between two individuals in the same or different work groups, whether peer to peer or employee to leader, is to map/diagram their shared process. This helps each party understand the interdependence that exists between them and the other party(ies) that contribute to the process. Then synergy can be achieved when all parties contributing to the process are committed to engaging in process improvement with an eye toward process optimization. However, this will frequently require some individual sacrifice (a “taking one for the team” commitment). Like with the Law of the Harvest, the seed must be sacrificed for the plant to grow and render its abundance.
Application to Level 2 Relationships
For a symbiotic and synergistic relationship to develop between the members of a work group each individual and the whole group must be willing to overcome the inherent dysfunctions that inhibit team development and instead embrace the attributes of a high-performance team—Vulnerability-based Trust, Positive Productive Ideological Conflict, Unifying Commitment, Personal and Shared Accountability, and Focus on Results. (See “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team” by Patrick Lencioni). Full commitment to developing and maintaining these attributes can bring the level of sustained performance needed for achieving full potential individually and as a true team.
Application to Level 3 Relationships
Developing and maintaining symbiotic and synergistic relationships at the senior levels of an organization requires three ingredients. 1) The Five Attributes of a High-Performance Team must be present and evident between the senior leaders, including the senior most leader. 2) Clear support for the development and maintenance of high-performance teams throughout all departments and divisions. 3) A sustained commitment to continuous process improvement throughout the enterprise, from the senior most leader to each individual front-line employee and all parties and groups in between.
How healthy are the relationships within your organization? Are they symbiotic or operating in a vacuum? Do the outputs of your work processes appear to be the sum of the inputs or the results of synergy?
Wayne, there is a lot to unpack here, whew! Your statement, “1) The Five Attributes of a High-Performance Team must be present and evident between the senior leaders, including the senior most leader,” makes me pause. Even when the attributes are present between the leaders, is it always evident? That is a tough one, and I don’t think we always understand the unintended messaging that telegraphs through an organization, often unintentionally, by not being deliberate and thoughtful about what and how we communicate with and about other parts of our organizations.
Christine, great observation and question. Thank you! Given we are imperfect human beings creating and working in imperfect organizations, I believe the answer is ‘No’ to the attributes always being perfectly present. We definitely don’t understand the unintended messaging that telegraphs through the company and that is why Vulnerability-based trust is the foundation and must be present as close to always as possible. People have to have the confidence that they can speak up when a communication has a negative impact without fear of retaliation of some form. Such situations are where Personal and Shared Accountability come in. At one time or another we are all guilty of our intent not matching our impact. But we are typically blind to it because we are convinced the communication was received as intended. So we need our people, at all levels of the organization, to feel safe to speak up and share their perspective about our communication. Only then do we typically see that our impact was different than our intent and we can follow-up with an apology, as needed, and clarifying communication to gain understanding, feedback, and hopefully shared commitment.