You likely had this experience far too many times: A group of middle or upper managers grimaced when leaving a tense executive meeting with C-level executives co-presenting a new org vision or org change or significant org news. Couple manager / directors nod to each other pointing to the water cooler. A few of their peers follow for the “the meeting after THE meeting”. They speak quietly just loud enough for their coworkers to hear but not loud enough for the C-level to hear from the boardroom. In some context the whispers say things like “They do a good show but they are not aligned”. In other context the whispers say other things like “Are they crazy? This is not going to work!” Or perhaps you heard whispers like “What does this mean? Who is in charge of this change?”

Or perhaps you’re a consultant hired by a C-level executive to endorse and guide a significant change. Maybe a Digital or Agile of Customer transformation? You enter THE meeting knowing the engagement will be 50% political and you leave the meeting knowing the remaining 50% will also be political. And you’re here just to convince unwilling leaders to pursue actions endorsed by whoever is paying you. Perhaps you’re discouraged. Perhaps you’re disillusioned.

But perhaps there is a lot more to these dynamics than the conveniently perceived power struggles…

Now imagine a different scene. Imagine a team of highly talented cross-functional people, each an expert in their field with many years of experience. Imagine what they create has world-wide impact resulting in immense pressure and reputational risk in a highly-competitive industry. Imagine these individuals are keenly aware of the responsibility placed upon them and it’s making them work endless hours, effects their family life, and impacts their sleep. Now imagine they are asked to make extremely complex decisions in very complex organizational ecosystem. Every change is so difficult. Every decision so impactful. What do you think their dynamics would be?

Perhaps you already recognized and witnessed some of these behaviours:

• ALLIANCE – When two or more team members believe in the same decision / direction and they come together (form an alliance) to push this decision / direction forward
• ALLEGIANCE – When one or more team members are supporting another person (rather then a decision / direction) based on trust, fear, or benefit
• ALIGNMENT – When one or more team members gain agreement to their decision / direction. This can be quite gentle but it can also be forceful.
• AWAKING – The rare time when any member presents new information (e.g. market research) that radically changes the mind of the entire group.
• ABSTRACT – When the group disassociates themselves from a decision / direction or even a team member due to their lack of alliance, allegiance, alignment, or awaking

Many observers would like to oversimplify thinking there is only one “currency” that dictates these dynamics, power. In a few organizations that may actually be true. However, in most organizations the truth is more complex. We are dealing with people here and human behaviour is more complex.

Depending on your organizational culture and the C-level team composition, you will have a mix of the following “currencies”:

• EXPERTISE – Domain knowledge providing weight over specific decisions. Sales decisions belong to sales experts. IT decisions belong to IT experts. This “currency” is great for Alignment and Awaking dynamics.
• POWER – Explicit influence over others as a result of direct position (President trumps CFO) or indirect position (son of an owner). This “currency” is often used for Allegiance and Alliance but also when Abstracting other team members.
• TRUST – When team members reputation or wisdom is highly valued for decision / direction. This “currency” is more common in rapidly evolving and less predictable industries (where domain authority is rare) and is often used in Alignment and Awaking.

It’s important to understand that different industries and organizational cultures promote different types of currencies. Science-based organizations should have Expertise as more valuable currency. Nonprofit organizations should have Trust as more valuable currency. Privately-owned organizations will often have Power as a more valuable currency.

Coincidentally, there is a way for describing visualizing these dynamics. Its graph, often called “influence map”, depicting how various decision makers are related to each other and influence one other. It is often used by vendors to identify who they need to ally with, create allegiance with, align with, awake, and abstract… in order to sale their product. Regardless of its less than noble heritage, the “influence map” is extremely useful for consultants, coaches, and any individuals trying to understand (and ultimately influence) these dynamics.

First, observe and understand these dynamics. Second, understand which individuals rely on what currency. Third, understand these are not necessarily some extreme people. They are normal people placed in very extreme circumstances.

I hope this helps you “navigate” C-level dynamics and discussions.

What dynamics and currencies do you observe in your organization?