What is Your Level of Organizational Savvy?

Take this Savvy Test Based on a Real Life, High-Stakes Case Study

The foundation for being savvy in the workplace and life starts “between your ears.” This refers to your ability to analyze people, actions, and situations. Savvy awareness leads to better decisions about who to trust and who not to trust; which proactive or protective skills to deploy; and even being able to predict behavior.

I’d like to invite you to analyze a case study based on my coaching engagements (Anne S). This will both test and expand a crucial skill of Savvy: Awareness.

[Suggestion: Read/Review the article, “What is Organizational Savvy?” before you analyze the case study].

After you read and reflect on Anne’s situation please answer some questions, and also see how many key savvy principles, concepts and skills you can spot. I will discuss 10 of these after you have had a chance to review what happened.

Case Study Questions:

1. What mistakes did Anne make? Recently Warren Buffet remarked, “It’s great when investors learn from their mistakes but it’s even better when they learn from other people’s investment mistakes.” That’s the same approach here. What can you personally learn from her mistakes?
2. What could Anne have done differently? If Ann possessed Org Savvy awareness and skills what would she have done to protect herself?
3. What should she do now? Of course the aims of Savvy are to avoid finding yourself in these kinds of situations, but now that some of these perceptions have formed, what are her options?

Bonus Question

4. Why do you think Anne, not Stuart, was given a coach?

Case Study

Charles T is the president of the snack division of a large food and beverage multinational company. Recently he was thrilled to learn that the board had selected him to replace the current CEO, when he retires in 3 months. The Chairman of the Board explained to Charles that this would give him time to find his replacement at the snack division. Charles replied that he already had a good choice for that role, Stuart R, the current head of sales. The Chairman pushed back, saying, “We don’t think Stuart is ready and we prefer you look outside the company. Please evaluate all strong female candidates”.

After an accelerated search process Charles was able to convince Anne S, the CEO of a smaller competitor, to lead the snack division. He explained that he expected to be CEO for 5 years and hoped that she would be able to replace him and become the company’s first female CEO. With regards to Stuart, he told Anne that it was “her call” whether to keep Stuart in her division or send him to work in another business unit. He expressed that his preference would be for her to retain and mentor him so that he could be her backup. She replied that she looked forward to working with him and also learning from him.

In the snack division, Anne renewed her relationship with Francoise, a VP of human resources, who worked with Anne twelve years ago.  When they went out to lunch Francoise took a deep breath and said, “Anne, I am taking a big risk in telling you this but we go back a long way and I want to give you a “heads up” about the situation you are walking into. If you use this information please don’t say you heard it from me.” She went on to explain that Charles and Stuart are extremely close. Not only have they worked together for 15 years but they have very strong religious and geographical ties.       

To make things worse, Stuart benefits from the “halo effect” and can do no wrong in Charles’ opinion. In the past Stuart has used his close relationship and frequent communication with Charles to blame (“bad mouth”) and marginalize his rivals in the company. Francoise concluded by strongly recommending that Anne “ship” Stuart to another division while she was in the “honeymoon” period with the power to do so.

Anne thanked Francoise for the information and advice but expressed that she was not worried about Stuart. She said, “I am in a very strong position. Charles needs me and Stuart needs me to mentor him to replace me some day.”

Over the next three months the following events occurred:

• Stuart neglected to invite Anne to some key meetings. When she learned about it he explained that he did not think the meetings were the best use of her time and that Charles did not attend those meetings when he was in her role.
• On several occasions Stuart withheld key information from Anne. Twice, when Charles asked her questions related to these matters she was unable to answer.
• Stuart arranged to have weekly calls with Charles, without Anne’s knowledge. When Charles would ask about how Anne was doing, Stuart would use phrases like “she doesn’t seem to like getting her hands dirty”, “I think she likes to operate at 30,000 feet”, “she’s great at the macro but doesn’t seem interested in learning about the micro.”

Stuart’s comments were sure to alarm and upset Charles, who likes “hands on” leaders who are knowledgeable about the details of their business.

10 Savvy Concepts/Skills

I’m going to lay out the key aspects of Savvy that I see in these events. As I explain them I will also give you my thoughts on the case study questions.

#1. Healthy Selfishness, #2 Use Your Power

Of course, once it’s clear that Stuart is an overly political leader who will marginalize and sabotage you if he can, the smart thing to do is to get him out of your organization. Feedback or even coaching is unlikely to change someone like Stuart. My point of view is that even before seeing who Stuart is, Anne should have decided to only keep him around for a short time. Why? Stuart is an ambitious person who was just passed over, who has a privileged, close relationship with the CEO. Being savvy means understanding human nature, self-interest, and ambition. Anne is starting a new role in a new company with aspirations to be the CEO. “Healthy Selfishness” would guide her to remove this risk in a way that is fair to Stuart and the organization. “Use your power” to say to Charles, “I’d like to keep Stuart in his role for 3 months. We have a lot to learn from each other. I see he has worked his whole career in this division. For him to reach his full potential I will work with HR to find a challenging role in one of our other divisions.”

In fact, after a month of coaching, this is exactly what she did. Later I will explain what happened to Anne and Stuart.

#3 “Soft” No’s

Org Savvy is comprised of many communication skills including “collaborative vocabulary, managing perceptions, effective self-promotion, persuasion and influence, and “soft” no’s.

“Soft” no’s are a very important way of setting boundaries and advocating for your needs while maintaining the spirit of collaboration. So for Anne this (eventually) took the form of “3 months”, “learn from each other”, “help him reach his potential” versus a flat out NO to Charles’ request.

#4 Study Power

This was Anne’s first crucial mistake of omission. She had a solid pattern of success coming into the role and was confident in her leadership style and strategic thinking. So while it is understandable that she focused on learning the business and adding value, savvy would have alerted her that “Study Power” is always a priority and a necessity.

I remember the second meeting I had with Anne when I said to her, “I have never coached Charles but here are 12 important things I’ve learned about him from observation and my network.” After I explained the 12 aspects of Charles’ leadership and personality, Anne was quiet, almost stunned. But when she spoke, I could see she had begun a crucial shift towards embracing Org Savvy. She said, “Marty, now that you highlight these things, I can see they are all true. Honestly, it’s embarrassing to admit but I haven’t been paying attention.”

Studying power in an organization reveals many kinds of valuable information but for Anne the most important was “The Scorecard.”

#5 “Know the Real Scorecard”

The “scorecard” is the lens through which you are being evaluated. There is a cultural scorecard, a role scorecard and a leadership scorecard. In this case study, Anne did not study Charles’ leadership scorecard and because it was quite different than hers, this lack of awareness left her vulnerable. Anne’s scorecard emphasized strategic thinking and building a cohesive team. Charles placed an extraordinary value on “getting your hands dirty” and learning the business on a ground level (e.g. riding the trucks, stocking the shelves, etc.). He didn’t trust anyone who didn’t acquire these “micro” details. Of course Stuart knew Charles better than he knew himself. So he knew exactly how to marginalize Anne (keeping her out of key meetings, withholding information that Charles would expect her to know). He also used his knowledge of “the scorecard” to describe Anne in the way that would hurt her the most with Charles when he was “managing the airwaves.”

#6 Managing the Airwaves/Buzz

Growing up in Brooklyn in the 50’s, my brother, father and I watched a lot of sporting events and prize fights on TV. Many times when a match looked lopsided, my dad would say, “Boys, this is going to be like amateur night,” inferring that one side had no chance of prevailing.

In organizations when one person is “managing the airwaves” and the other person is abandoning the airwaves it’s equivalent to “amateur night.” Stuart night not have been that competent at some aspects of his job but he was a master of creating a negative buzz about his rivals. He leveraged his access to Charles to establish the exact perceptions that would hurt Anne:

“likes to operate at 30,000 feet”

            “doesn’t like to get her hands dirty”

            “not interested in learning about the “micro”

#7 Detect Deception, #8 Leverage Your Network
We all can benefit, in work and in life, by developing a good “BS detector.” For CEO’s it is an essential leadership skill. When I got to know Anne I learned that based on her extensive record of achievements, she was very confident in her ability to work with, and win over anybody. This over confidence caused her to ignore some behaviors (not being invited to meetings, not being provided with timely information) and to not give proper weight to Francoise’s warning.

One of the main reasons to build and maintain a network is to get these kinds of “head’s ups” in time to protect yourself. Francoise is explaining about the “halo effect,” the access, and the precise pattern of sabotage. Not only is there nothing in it for her to come forward, she is taking a significant personal risk, depending on Anne to maintain confidentiality.

#9 The “Halo Effect”

The “Halo Effect” is very real in organizations, and families. It is a major senior management blind spot. In this case, Stuart and Charles shared common geography, universities and religion, and worked together for 10 years. In addition, Stuart was very astute at managing up. Once Stuart moved on to another division, his “halo” was quickly tarnished. Within 2 years he was exited from the company and had several failed ventures when he went on his own.

I really want to drive home some points here. The power of the “halo effect” and leveraging access to “manage the airwaves” is not to be underestimated!! This is why Anne was given a coach, not Stuart. Stuart had weakened Anne’s position to the point that if she had confronted him too early it would have looked like retaliation. That is why she chose a way to move him to another division without giving him feedback. After she responded to the coaching, and improved her standing, she did give some senior HR leaders her feedback about working with Stuart.

You may have handled the situation differently. Org Savvy is not an exact science. What always helps is awareness, seeing reality. Learn more in my article  about the “Halo Effect” (found on on www.optimumassociates.com).

#10 Marginalization and Sabotage

In my article “Handling Sabotage” (found on www.optimumassociates.com) you can read about a dozen common forms of marginalization and sabotage. In this case study you read about not being included in key meetings, withholding information, and tarnishing reputations/”creating a negative buzz”. The keys to protecting yourself, team, and sometimes the company is to “see if coming” (predict behavior) and know in advance how you are going to respond. [See chapter 13, Rule 10: Protect Yourself from Sabotage and Marginalization, in the book A Woman’s Guide to Power, Presence and Protection].

What Happened to Anne and Stuart?

I mentioned that Stuart’s shortcomings eventually were revealed. Anne was able to course correct with Charles and deliver outstanding results at her division. However, before Charles retired, Anne was offered the top role at a very large company (4 times the size of the division she was leading) and became a nationally recognized CEO.

Reflection Questions

1.  Did any of Anne’s mistakes contain personal lessons for you?
2. Which key Org Savvy concepts/skills did you learn or relearn?