Disagreements, favoritisms, internal negotiations, external pressures are just a few of the challenges that CEOs face in the business environment. Some CEOs would try to find a middle ground in order to maintain the performance and equilibrium in the organization and mistakenly fall in the error of prioritizing some tasks over others. The simple assumption or idea that stability is what the shareholders need when the market battleground is now more complex than ever. Nonetheless, there are some CEOs that would embrace every approach, separate discrepancies and encourage interdependencies between groups with the finality to take advantage of its synergies.
Good leaders embrace internal differences and avoid partiality. Actually, there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing. This is precisely what drive organizations to brighter horizons. Dynamism and changes are healthy for the business future.
There is no doubt that leaders try their best to compromise with all the stakeholders and avoid polarization within the organization. But the simple fact of maintaining stability do not help organizations to move towards innovation and improvement because taking risks is an inherent part of the process of evolution in a business. Due this reason, I profoundly disagree when CEOs or managers grapples to traditional sets of goals and do not drive the organization to new horizons.
Understandably, fears can emerge during changes but taking risks, experimenting and learning from failure is the only way to improve shortcomings and flaws. Therefore, a synergistic approach can succeed when internal competition such as personal, geographical or cultural is left aside and collaboration becomes part of the company’s values. For instance, some global organizations may have the brightest people and share diversity of ideas, but plans can get lost if an ideological friction separates them, even more when they are not based together in one place, affecting the main goal.
Overtime, stakeholders such as consumers and employees are demanding more social responsibility and requesting further recognition to organizations respectively. Yet, simultaneously, short-term shareholders demand major profits. It goes without saying that without consumers is not possible to make profit and without shareholders there is no investment. Therefore, how CEOs can employ a synergistic approach when there is the need to prioritize? This is a clear example of how each group is interdependent internally and externally. As within companies, product development cannot be innovative without the efficiency of operations and operations cannot be efficient without innovative products at certain point. Thus, the task by the CEO would be how to favor both stakeholders instead of negotiating trade-offs so as to keeping the stability for a short term in which may trigger issues in the future.
It sounds challenging and complex, but the truth behind is that if an organization starts to focus in short term results, one of the groups will always be affected. For instance, there may be a negative impact in product development as they focus in future projects and, without investment in research, an organization is risking its competitiveness and positioning in the long run. Therefore, thinking long term, CEOs enable and give capacity to product development to generate new ideas, hence empowering sales to increase profit and more profit means more investment for new ideas.
Finally, below we can observe the key difference between leaders with traditional approach and synergistic approach: