The psychology of referral. Why our clients and friends bet their reputation on us

A few years ago, I wrote this article about company purpose. I wanted to help founders articulate why they created their company and why investors, employees and customers should consider joining them.

For many of my impact-driven clients, the articulation of company purpose is, well, a no-brainer. It is the big, hairy problem they are striving to solve. The reason they get out of bed in the morning. Their all-encompassing "why" is clear.

As companies scale and team structure naturally expands and evolves, it becomes vital for translation to occur - translation of the company purpose into team purpose - especially at the Executive level. Each team within the company needs to understand their specific contribution to achieving the overall mission, which is role-modelled from the top down.

This week, I want to get more specific about what happens when two leaders with differences like priority, values, capability or personality attempt to bring their teams together to achieve a shared outcome.

Ideally, the 2 leaders would kick off their work together by talking openly about things like:

What are the most important things to know about each other as we commence this work?

Given the differences in our leadership styles, what will it be like for our people to work with us? How can we make things easier for them to navigate us?

Given our relative strengths, what roles should we each play in leading this work? How can we make sure our teams understand our division of labour?

When should we work together, and when will it be best to work independently?

How will we keep ourselves accountable to each other and to our teams?

How will we make decisions throughout the project?

What will we do when we disagree? How can we ensure our teams have clear direction on our resolution?

Of course, we can't always rely on the ideal. Sometimes, the leaders will diverge, taking their teams with them.

As companies scale, dependence on collaboration increases. No single function can go it alone. A combination of specialist skills and resources is often required to tackle the trickiest challenges and achieve the desired outcomes.

This complexity can make our people feel like they're on a rollercoaster – full of ups, downs, and unexpected turns. It can be hard to rank priorities, focus efforts and feel a sense of progress.

In physics, when those rollercoasters (wavelengths) come together simultaneously, it's known as constructive interference - the waves get bigger - an apt representation of the stress experienced in teams as the demand for collaboration increases.

Art and science are involved in allocating a task to the right person with the necessary experience and judgment to get the job done. It’s not easy; like any skill, it takes practice, reflection and iteration to get it right. The desire to be a “better delegator” is a common theme in the coaching conversations — and while it’s important, I would argue that founders focused on the pursuit of scale should be focused on a different question.

What do I need to do to create the optimal level of autonomy for each member of my team?

Talking to leaders in a broad range of organisations, from early-stage startups to ASX20, has led me to conclude that confusion between actual and desired culture is a common problem. In particular, it’s common to see leaders actively choosing to anchor internal rhetoric with aspiration. This is designed to clarify the team's target state— a worthwhile endeavour. There is a but here…unless the sense of aspiration is explicit — ‘we strive to be…’ rather than ‘we are…’ — it comes with the risk that dissonance is created between a team’s day-to-day experiences and the rhetoric. And that dissonance makes it hard for people to know how they should behave. Should they do what they see or do what they hear? If the team does not believe that leadership understands the difference between reality and aspiration in culture, it will likely erode the organisation's trust and commitment.

Is it time to broaden our focus when it comes to work relationships? Making friends is one of the best parts of work - but it isn’t a guarantee. So how do we collaborate well even if we don’t get along?

Is it time to broaden our focus when it comes to work relationships? Making friends is one of the best parts of work - but it isn’t a guarantee. So how do we collaborate well even if we don’t get along?

how do we create the optimal conditions for team performance?

"If you're racing between things, you're probably creating friction and debt at unsustainable levels. When you build flow first, you can then sustain greater velocity over time."

So how can we create an atmosphere where achieving team flow leads to the speed and direction required?