

June 2012
In This Edition | High-Performance Teams
"From Integration to High Performance: How Life Technologies Transformed Leadership and Culture for Strategic Growth"
Leader’s Corner: | Merging the High Performance way |
Howard Guttman: | Is Your Team Planning to Fire You? |
Mark Landsberg: | From a Consultant’s Notebook |
Mark Stevenson

President & COO
Life Technologies
Mark Stevenson is president and chief operating officer of Life Technologies, a $3.6 billion global technology company with 10,000 employees and with customers in more than 160 countries. It is known for developing innovative solutions to solve some of today’s most pressing scientific challenges. The company was formed in 2008 as a result of the integration of Invitrogen and Applied Biosystems (AB).
What were your title and role at the time of integration?
I was president and chief operating officer of AB. I then moved into the same position with newly formed Life Technologies.
How much attention was paid to people and cultural issues prior to and immediately following the integration?
We put significant focus on cultural issues. Invitrogen and AB were two California companies, each with its own culture. For example, Invitrogen was focused on consumables. It was faster-moving, made decisions quickly, and sold its products through a different sales channel than AB. AB focused on instruments, which tended to involve larger projects, was slower-moving, and had a different sales proposition.
What did you did you do to bridge the cultural divide?
We first developed a vision for the new company and then laid out a clear “to be” culture.We called it our one common understanding. It represented the key attributes we valued and wanted to live by. So, we had a clear mission and values.
When you set this strategy and “one common understanding," how did you involve your senior team?
The senior leadership team was deeply involved in the process. It formulated a mission statement, which we defined as “shaping discovery and improving life.” Team members next laid out five core values, such as transformative science, tangible quality, positive momentum, connectivity, and living as a global citizen. This helped to forge a common sense of purpose. We also identified five personality traits.
Leader's Corner: |
---|

What do you mean by “personality traits?"
This involved identifying the traits that defined us, such as being engaged, curious, driven, insightful, and responsible.
Was there much discomfort or wariness among team members, who came from two different organizations and now were being asked to agree on a common mission and set of values?
There was lots of excitement about our future direction. The wariness involved figuring out how people would work together.
In addition to clarifying “the vision thing," was there any other key action you took during the first 100 days that was especially helpful in bringing a new energy to Life Technologies?
The most important thing we did was focus on our customers. Our mantra became, “Do no harm to the customer.” Many integrations become too internally focused. Instead, we looked externally at customers and also at the back-office changes needed to ensure that we did no harm to them.
“Do no harm?" Can you give us an example of this?
We had two back-end IT systems. On day one, we said to our customers, “There’ll be no change. If you’re buying from AB or Invitrogen, continue buying that way. Your salesperson will continue to be the same.” We wanted this to be a seamless transition in the eyes of our customers.
At what point did you decide to move toward a high-performance, horizontal model for your team and organization?
We initiated the high-performance process about two years following the integration. Life Technologies had four divisions, and they all were operating according to plan. But they were self-contained and working as four separate companies. We needed greater consistency in global manufacturing, and we needed to drive out about $50 million a year in manufacturing costs. This required adopting a centralized manufacturing model. I also had to change the leadership of the commercial organization. It was time to become more interdependent as a leadership team and organization.
What were you hoping to achieve in creating a high-performance, horizontal model?
I wanted members of the leadership team to move from operating as individual unit heads to operating as a unified, interdependent team: one that was aligned, was accountable for one another’s—and my—success, operated with clear protocols, and could put all the issues on the table and get them quickly resolved.
How long did the trek to a high-performance team take?
It was about a nine-month process, and it is still an ongoing journey.
Did you then cascade the process down through your organization?
Not initially. The high-performance process stayed with my leadership team for another year. Based on previous experience, I knew that if you did not have the top team well aligned, you could not effectively move the process to subgroups. After a year and a half, the leaders on my team, by their own initiative, decided to have the processes embedded in their own teams. It’s now integral to our four business units and the functions within them, such as our commercial and sales operations.
What difference did the high-performance, horizontal approach make in your organization?
As a high-performance team, we could face hard choices—for example, how we are going to allocate the shrinking R&D budget across the four businesses—have the tough conversations, and work through those issues as a team. There was less need for top-down decision making and no infighting among the four groups. Also, when issues come up they’re dealt with much more rapidly by team members, without involving me. The speed of decision making and issue resolution is much faster.
And now that you have all this time on your hands, what are you doing with it?
I have time to think more strategically and focus on innovation and driving new growth. In that regard, we just made a major acquisition.
During the last several years, you had to deal not only with the challenges of integrating two companies, but with the severe and prolonged economic downturn. How did this impact your business?
We were growing in mid-single digits, but when government cut its budgets, there was a direct impact on us. In 2011, we missed our financial targets.
How did you deal with the situation?
We took out significant costs in the summer of 2011, but we were able to do this by cutting areas that we, as a team, felt we could cut while still achieving our objectives for earnings growth for the year. We entered 2012 much stronger and are now better positioned for growth.
What criteria did you use to make these tough choices?
What would drive revenue growth with customers? What core capabilities did we need to protect in order to fund our future?
How did having a high-performance team help you make—and implement—these tough decisions?
We were able to have a much more rigorous, depersonalized, but candid debate about the areas we needed to fund. We put all the viewpoints on the table. The team came together to make the right choices, and it felt good about the choices it had made.
What have been the results of the steps you have taken, both financially and in terms of your people?
In terms of people, we have a much stronger leadership team and far greater ability to communicate the changes we made to the broader organization. Financially, our first-quarter revenue and earnings grew, and we exceeded external expectations. It’s a good start in a tough market.
What did you learn about leading an organization in difficult times?
It’s critically important that the leader and the team face reality. By having a high-performing team, you can have those candid conversations about what reality is. With this in hand, it’s easier as a team to set priorities and then align everyone on where to put energy and resources. The execution of the plan is much simpler and quicker with your team behind you to execute.
Is Your Team Planning to Fire You? |

by Howard M. Guttman
Leaders beware: Your team may be plotting to fire you.
This past March, Mike D’Antoni “resigned” as head coach of the New York Knicks. It turns out, he and star player Carmelo Anthony couldn’t see eye to eye on how basketball should be played. The team’s owner favored his player, and D’Antoni became history. Mike D’Antoni is not alone. In 2011, marquee leaders such as Yahoo’s Carol Bartz, Hewlett-Packard’s Leo Apotheker, Ernst Lieb at Mercedes-Benz USA, and Olympus’s Michael Woodford, to name a few, were sacked in moves that were sometimes as surprising to the leaders as they were to the business community.
Back in 2007, a Gallup survey found that 24 percent of employees in the United States would fire their boss if given the chance. And among “actively disengaged” employees, the number jumped to 51 percent. I doubt that things have improved since then.
Clearly, no leader is immune from a coup d’état, but smart leaders can lower the odds that they will wind up on executive Boot Hill. We worked recently with a high-powered leader who headed a new business unit of a major retail organization. Although the leader had strong industry credentials and a clear vision and was even something of a firebrand, he remained focused on his own agenda. He played a “me-me” unilateral game and came across as directive and dogmatic, which didn’t sit well with members of his top team, all of whom were seasoned pros. He rarely accepted differing points of view, and when he did, he often would change course unilaterally and then deny ever having done so.

Resentment built up within the senior team. Not surprisingly, the stars headed for greener pastures. Those who remained began to collude with one another, and eventually, the Captain Bligh effect kicked in: His team members decided to throw their leader overboard.
They reached out to his boss and other executives on the next tier up. Before long, the leader went the way of Captain Bligh and the Knicks coach.
Watchouts for Leaders
High-performing leaders come equipped with finely tuned sonar. They pay attention to verbal cues from those around them, especially when they are made with increasing frequency: “I have another point of view”; “That’s not what I understood before”; “You missed my point”; “Is this another change in direction?”; “Yes, but . . . ”; “Don’t you think that . . . ?”; and “Wouldn’t it be better to . . . ?”
In addition, such leaders remain alert to behavioral cues, such as:
Team members no longer seeking them out for conversation
Colleagues retreating to formalistic “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am” responses
Sidebar conversations proliferating
Overt or covert resistance
Issues being tabled rather than resolved
As a high-performing leader, you avoid such symptoms at your peril. At the first sign of trouble, be sure to line up the ducks. Single out the team members you trust. Use them as a sounding board to test your perceptions. Ask, “Are my optics on the money?” If the answer is yes, then carefully develop a strategy to bring the issue to light.
Depending on the situation, you might want to talk privately to those whom you suspect of being outliers. This is the time to tamp down defensiveness and probe dispassionately: “Hey, when you said I missed your point, what did you mean?”; “When you said there’s a change in direction, help me with that.
Often, an effective leader will bring up the issue to the larger group. The focus is always on behavior: “Here’s what I’m observing.” Adept facilitation is a must. On one team comprising U.S. and European executives, the team leader grew alarmed at the growing mistrust and underground behavior of his colleagues. He walked into his team’s quarterly meeting in Paris, opened up an empty suitcase, and put it in the middle of the room, insisting that the team publicly throw its dirty laundry into it.
Two hours later, the suitcase overflowed with the team’s assorted woes. The only problem: The leader was clueless about how to gain closure and get his team to move on.
The lack of closure persisted long after the meeting. The continued infighting and subterfuge eventually led several team members to complain about their leader’s ineffectiveness to the firm’s executive committee. As business results plummeted, it wasn’t long before the leader was reassigned to a lesser role on the headquarters staff.
Whatever the strategy, high-performing leaders deliver a clear message: Things are not working. Underground behavior is not acceptable. We need to change the way we’re showing up.
Beyond being highly sensitive to team dynamics, don’t forget to examine your own behavior. Ask yourself, “Could I be a coconspirator in the dysfunction around me?”
Top 10 Behaviors That Get Leaders Fired
Treating your team members like subordinates or drones
Practicing vest-pocket decision making, keeping your team off balance and surprised
Stealing the credit, being quick to blame
Zoning off your thinking—concealing the whys—from your team
Being dismissive—or worse, belittling opposing viewpoints
Showing up as an ice king or queen, demonstrating no concern on the human level
Showing up as an industry or technical expert, rather than one based on referent or personal power—all IQ, no EQ
Engaging in feed attack rather than feedback
Creating fog, not clarity, especially regarding the rules of the game
Conveying the message that this is my game—and you better play it my way
Leaders live on the edge, especially in tough times. Although they might not always be able to control financial and other business outcomes, they should at least be able to effectively command their teams, ensuring that they are high-performing entities whose members are fully engaged and working together transparently to achieve results for “us.”
Sure, there are no guarantees, but creating a high-performance environment provides the best hedge against what arguably is the most humiliating situation facing a leader: being sacked by those who should have been his or her most ardent supporters.
Speaker’s CornerDecember 5, 2012 Howard M. Guttman - "Building High-Performance Teams in Turbulent Times" Young Presidents' Organization , Philadelphia Chapter - Breakfast Series January 28-29, 2013 Howard M. Guttman - "Building High-Performance Teams", Atmalink, Kuala Lumpur |
From a Consultant’s Notebook: |
Mark H. Landsberg
Here are the field notes from an intervention led by Guttman Associate Senior Consultant Mark H. Landsberg.

Presenting Situation
Multibillion dollar North American division of a global pharmaceutical company: mature market, internal and unlinked systems, stalled innovation, a seriously risk-averse culture, bloated product portfolio, and lack of focused marketing and sales, need to create ethics and compliance frameworks, internal competition for dwindling resources . . New president took over in February 2009 to turn around the company.
Charter for GDS
The leader is focused on creating a faster, more interdependent culture, starting with the senior team and cascading throughout the organization. By encouraging horizontal teamwork and strategic decision-making, the leader aims to break down silos and micromanagement. High-performance behaviors, such as accountability and effective communication, are to become ingrained in the organization’s DNA, with senior leaders owning and applying these concepts in their interactions. The goal is to build a leaner, more agile organization, ensuring that high-performance principles are deeply embedded at all levels, ultimately driving improved collaboration, decision-making, and business success.
Process
Step One, during the president’s first 12 months on the job, he and his team underwent alignment and reassessment sessions combined with targeted skill-building efforts. By year-end, there was noticeable improvement, including faster decision-making, quicker issue resolution, and less infighting. The leadership began to think more about the enterprise and the impact of their actions, moving away from turf protection. Encouraged by this progress, the president believed it was time to extend the horizontal, high-performance transformation to the next level: the 150-member leadership team.
Step Two, a survey of the entire leadership team revealed a pervasive lack of trust, minimal cross-functional teamwork, underground conflict, leader dependency, and risk aversion
Step Three, the president held multitier alignment sessions with both the top team and leadership levels, focusing on selective functional alignments in high-priority areas like Marketing, Sales, MIS, and Operations. This helped reduce friction and accelerate speed to execution.
Step Four involved creating a high-performance culture that extended well below the leadership team. Guttman conducted full-day overview sessions with employees three to four levels below the leadership team, exploring the norms, values, and behavioral implications of the high-performance, horizontal model. As a result, the 150 executives on the leadership team began to role model high-performance behaviors, to everyone exposed to high-performance concepts and ways of operating.
Outcomes
High-performance concepts embraced widely, despite some early resistance.much higher level of engagement from top down . . . faster issue resolution, less decision jerk . . . greater collaboration and cross-functional mirroring of top-team behaviors, not only on leadership team but also those reporting to it . . . fewer breakdowns, more strategic focus . . . This despite a workforce reduction numbering in the thousands, plus cuts in operating costs and a pairing of the product line by 50 percent . . . culture shift away from entitled employees to employees as business owners and partners with management . . . President is receiving kudos throughout the organization.
He moved faster and in a more targeted way and achieved greater bottom-line results than his peers.
Key Insights
What a difference a leader makes! By embracing high-performance concepts and behaviors, role modeling those behaviors, holding accountable his senior team and the next levels down to change behavior, he turned around a sagging company.
It takes more than one leader to effect a revolution. It takes a critical mass of key players. . . . Don’t discount the importance of cultural change. . . . Resolving the “soft” issues can be a game changer.
400 Valley Road, Suite 103 Mt Arlington, NJ 07856 Call us @ 973.770.7177 |
Tell us about your experience:
0%Did you read the entire newsletter?
0%Are the content relevant for your organization?
0%Have you read our previous insights?
0%Have you used GDS's services in the past?
You can vote for more than one answer.
Comments