Chemistry

The establishment of a organisational chemistry in alliances - the fast track to success.

The word chemistry has been adopted by the business alliance community. It has been said that in selecting an alliance 3 things have to be present; a long-term win, a short-term win and cultural chemistry. Corporations, consultants and writers generally acknowledge that business relationships thrive where personal and cultural chemistry has been established.

This posting seeks to deconstruct the notion of chemistry and looks at how organisations might increase the chances of creating this hugely powerful business enabler.

First, we will look at why it is so important. Then we will define what it is. Finally, and most important, we will explore how we can develop chemistry within alliances.


Why is the establishment of chemistry so important?

Identifying, establishing and developing chemistry is a critical feature of alliance management.

Why should this be?

In short it is the short cut to results. How so?

Chemistry defines a healthy and complex cultural and inter-personal fabric. Within this fabric alliances can develop and execute on plans, exploit opportunities and face challenges positively.

Chemistry is the thread that runs through the 12 guiding principles of alliance management (see previous posting).

Amongst these 12 guiding principles the dominant notion is trust. For two or more individuals who enjoy a special combination of styles, ethics, personalities, humours, interests, pre-occupations or ambitions trust comes with the package. A betrayal of that trust would be unthinkable. This in turn spawns a form of integrity. Integrity that flows from shared and understood principles.

Communication is facilitated. Often much communication is unnecessary. So much is just understood. This leaves the alliance the time to focus on the achieving extraordinary results. These are the difficult objectives that deliver unassailable competitive advantage, the ‘stretch initiatives’.

Conflict can be heated. But neither party will sacrifice the relationship on a single issue. There is too much to lose. Conflict will be resolved.

Chemistry delivers the principles of respect and enlightened self-interest.

Broadly speaking chemistry brings better results quicker. Chemistry by-passes process. Chemistry motivates. Chemistry facilitates playfulness. Chemistry delivers commitment and diligence. It delivers positive, motivated and productive teams. It brings fun. It brings efficiency. It creates happy and fulfilled people.

In summary, it is good.


What is chemistry?

This word ‘chemistry’ is a two-edged sword. To those who have experienced this complex state it offers a label and is an excellent description. It is true to say that those who have worked in a business relationship that has that special feeling recognize it immediately. Likewise its absence is starkly obvious.

To help establish what chemistry is, let's look at what it isn't.

Every alliance relationship is unique. Let’s look at five broad categories of relationship state. The first four define what chemistry is not. The five identified here are:

1. Politeness
2. War
3. Process only
4. Partial chemistry
5. Sunlight and love (chemistry)

Politeness.

This is the 'low stress absence of chemistry' state.

This is comfortable but unproductive. The relationship is friendly and business-like. The nature of the alliance is defined and planning has taken place. The clues for this state are lots of long and positive meetings that involve large numbers of relatively junior attendees. Watch out for the word ‘workshop’. The boat is never rocked.

There is a bias away from execution. Workshops are deemed to be productive and encouraging. Time passes and no real results are achieved. Effort is applied to process definition. Short cuts are rarely sought.

This is the equivalent of the student who spends all his revision time building and updating his revision timetable. The examination arrives, he has worked very hard but has actually done no revision.

This situation can continue as long as the organizations involved will tolerate it. This can be a surprisingly long time.

There is a variant of this state. There are occasions where an alliance relationship is delivering real value and benefits but this has nothing to do with the team that is responsible for the alliance. The team plans and meets in isolation. This can make polite process difficult to spot. The problem here is twofold. First, the team is a wasted resource as they are actually not influencing anything. Secondly, the alliance will have no direction or driver. The alliance will be acting tactically. The participants are not engaged. This suggests that the relationship is not delivering all it could and may have a short life-span.

These alliances are thought to be good until the real world barges in. Issues will arise which cannot be avoided. Conflict will test the relationship. The signature of the politeness relationship that is dying is a mutual attitude of supervised neglect. Nobody really cares.

War

This is the 'high stress absence of chemistry' state.

Thankfully this is unusual. There is a positive aspect to constant conflict. It means that the relationship is important to both sides. War is often a symptom of a clear reliance one upon the other combined with a fundamental clash of cultures and mis-trust. If this reliance was not present the pain of war would be avoided; both sides will go their different ways.

An important healthy relationship may have been neglected. The chemistry that was once there has quietly leaked away. The organizations go to war. Suspicion replaces trust. An adversarial approach exists. In order for one party to win the other has to lose. There are battles to win the upper hand. Commonly one side starts referring to themselves as ‘the customer’. The number of misunderstandings rises. Human error becomes conspiracy. Stress stifles motivation and clear thought. The ability to execute on initiatives disappears. The alliance is unable to steer through hard times. The alliance is at the mercy of the environment. It is a negative spiral that must be broken. It is no fun.

Process only

This is the state of not having chemistry and not wanting chemistry.

The objectives sought are specific, have fixed boundaries and timescales. Project planning and process are put in place to deliver those objectives. Chemistry would be good but is not needed.

The question here is that can this be regarded as an alliance? It is probably more a collaboration. This begs a further question that if the relationship is to be moved from collaboration to alliance perhaps something more than process should be sought. It is a question of management judgement. Process can be a slow and cumbersome basis for a relationship. Where speed, creativity and flexibility are required it might not be enough.

Sometimes the oft- discussed notion of ‘co-opetition’ falls into this category. Two firms collude for a specific purpose but cannot go further because they are fundamentally competitors.


Partial chemistry

Alliances are often formed between organizations that are themselves large and complex. Naturally this means that an alliance can exhibit some or even all relationship states simultaneously. A possible useful approach to this complexity is to treat each entity separately whilst all the time attempting to encourage the cross-contamination of the good practise and experience.

Sunlight and love (chemistry)

Chemistry is not perfection. Whilst chemistry can obviously grow between individuals, this rarely can be applied to organizations that are often complex and large. But first you must define the phenomenon realistically and look for the clues.

The alliance is delivering planned results consistently and predictably (and usually a bit /lot more). There are ambitious plans for future initiatives. Execution outweighs analysis and planning by a very large extent. All functional areas share a relationship style. Conflict and differences are handled quickly and unemotionally. Communication is frequent, short and effective. Scheduled reviews take on a lower importance. If these observations exist there is a good chance that the alliance has entered the chemical zone.

It is subtle and complex. So apply a simple rule when looking for this precious state of affairs. Ask those that work within the alliance regularly whether or not they enjoy the experience. Ask them whether or not they dread dealing with those in the other organization. When they are left a message how long does it take for them to call back? The signs of chemistry are written on people’s faces. The actions they take and the language they use are full of clues.


Developing chemistry

It is arguable that some alliances will never achieve this state. A view of whether or not chemistry can be created depends very much on the view one takes as to how it comes about.

Once again chemistry is subtle and complex. It often defies rational scrutiny. In some cases a cultural chemistry is expected. For instance, two firms that have developed and grown in California’s silicon valley over the same period should be expected to exhibit the same values and outlook when doing business. However, to really exploit the advantage of alliances one should not restrict alliance candidates to organisations that a born of the same cultural ‘egg’.

Customers may wish to formalise an alliance with suppliers. This may represent an opportunity for them to develop new and future business strategies. This moves a relationship away from just a sell to / buy from situation. It moves to a sell with and together relationship.

There are five broad categories of how chemistry is achieved in alliances.

1. Organisations naturally enjoy a synergy of cultures for whatever reason. This is good alliance selection and sometimes just good old luck.

2. Certain behaviours increase the chances of chemistry developing.

3. The identification of pockets of chemistry and in recognising them, they are nurtured and built on.

4. Chemistry is born from individual relationships.

5. Chemistry follows people with certain personality styles around.



So how can we give chemistry the best chance of developing?

Below are some strategies and activities that can be employed to move an alliance closer to a healthy chemistry.

1. Individuals that ‘click’ is really important (chemical source 4). Two strong motivated, charismatic and influential people can carry whole organizations towards our goal. More than two is better. On the other hand the two people who do not get along can kill what could be a good alliance. Picking the right individuals is key.

2. There are some cases where the choice of alliance to deliver strategy is very broad. There are a number of candidates for an alliance. In these cases the alliance with the chemistry selects itself. Alliances where there is none can de-select quite early (chemistry source 1).

This begs the question should alliances be initiated top down or bottom up?

3. Work hard and been seen to work hard (chemistry source 2). Nothing builds respect like individuals who are prepared to put in extra effort to make an alliance work. Whatever misgivings that may be present can be compensated by diligence.

4. Recognize and focus on the ‘soft issues’ (chemistry source 2). Lead by example. Demonstrate trust. Look for ‘leaps of faith’. Give. Identify and promote good behaviours. Play a scrupulous and explicit ‘straight bat’.

5. Find those individuals who work well together and sponsor them within both organizations (chemistry source 3). It also gives them more power to deliver more of the same. If they become more influential the alliance will benefit.

6. Really get to know the other organization (chemistry source 2). Accumulate all the information you can. This includes everything from corporate strategy to what are the hobbies, interests and motivations of individuals. What does the political landscape look like? Who in influential? Who is not? This minimizes gaffs and offers effective issues and individuals on which to focus.

7. Identify and share explicitly your guiding principles. This way your alliance ‘partner’ will feel more secure. They know where they stand and will be able to predict how you will behave. Consistent and predictable behaviour builds trust.

8. Set expectations clearly. Publish and promote the 12 guiding principles (see previous posting). These can be adapted for emphasis depending on the alliance.

9. Recognise and value of good luck (chemistry source 3). Don't rely on it. Monitor and consider the suggestions above. Times change. People move on. The business environment changes. Be vigilant. Recognise and value what you have. Nurture it.


What are the obstacles to chemistry?

There are many. Some are subtle. Some are obvious. Here are a few of the more general ones.

1. Prejudice – intellectual, racial, sexual, age and rank.
2. Snobbery
3. Lack of respect
4. Lack of trust
5. Perceived lack of commitment
6. Personality clashes
7. Badly handled conflict
8. Conflicting personal agenda
9. Factional infighting – politics and conflicting agenda
10. Inconsistent behaviour


Each problem once identified will influence which is the mix and emphasis of some of the solutions outlined above.


Chemistry and competitive analysis

Competitive analysis should also include information and intelligence about the nature of the relationships between your competition and their alliances.

Look out for the clues of chemistry amongst these relationships. Chemistry is an excellent barrier to place between your alliances and your competition. The reverse applies. Are you ‘locked-out’ of a relationship?

Is there a part of you competitor’s business that is experiencing irrational success? Are they working alone? If not, you may have found their match made in heaven.

Business is a social science. The social elements are hardest to manage. They can be mysterious. But where there is mystery, there lies opportunity.