I frequently hear managers talking about creating ‘high performing teams’ with little sense as to what it really means and the effort required to get there. This is an overused phrase that has become detached from its original definition. It is almost a slogan whose meaning is frequently used to imply that all teams should somehow or other be able to deliver exceptional results or risk being dismissed as a failure. High performing teams tend to emerge, rather than be planned, and will usually disperse once the goal or objective has been reached.
The word performance has itself become a piece of management jargon. In the context of an individual or team, the dictionary definition of the word is simply ‘an action’. In management speak it has come to imply a level of achievement. A more accurate and perhaps more meaningful word is effective which is defined as ‘successful in producing the desired or intended result’. Teams may not often be able to achieve the rarefied heights of being regarded as high performing, but it is a much more realistic aspiration in any organization that the team should be regarded as working effectively. A far better ambition is to be part of a highly effective team, in that it is both readily achievable and sustainable provided both the leader and the team are prepared to put in the work.
WHAT KIND OF TEAM DO YOU NEED?
This is an important question. As mentioned above, creating a genuine team is hard work. It takes time, energy and a lot of thought. The resources required are not always easily available, particularly when you are working under pressure. Building a real team may be impractical and unnecessary. Creating a collaborative, energized group is often a highly satisfying process, but it may not be essential to the delivery of your team’s objective. There are many situations where real teams are less important. Some examples include:
• Organizations dealing with processing of goods or information, where the inputs and outputs are largely predictable and there is little variation.
• Small organizations where the leader/manager can handle the majority of external interfaces and directs her assistants on the specific tasks needed to fulfil her objectives.
• Organizations with fixed hierarchical structures and strong cultural norms around communication, which exist in stable environments not subject to external economic, social or political pressures.
• Steering committees (which could include the Management Board) whose role is to find consensus amongst a group of individuals representing their own department or workgroup.
As a general rule, if you believe you can maintain genuine control of your internal environment and external conditions are stable, then the short-term transactional arrangements of a workgroup will probably be sufficient. There are many examples of organizations where process and procedure are strongly embedded, establishing a degree of stability and consistency. The culture of conformity that has emerged in these organizations works well, up to the point that the external environment changes.
As the world shifts, however, the foundations upon which conformity is built will start to become less stable. When organizations need to work out how to adapt to the disruptive forces of change, that is when we need real teams. So consider what kind of team you would like and then think again about the team that you are actually going to need.
Large complex projects need to engage a range of skills and experience to design and deliver the desired outcome. Few teams have the luxury of a prolonged selection process to choose the perfect profile. Most members are chosen on their perceived ability and the extent to which it is felt they will fit. Beware of creating teams that are too homogenous, i.e. made up of people just like you. Whilst such teams have been shown to gel quickly, they usually lack the creative edge needed to overcome difficult problems. Alternatively everyone is so action-oriented that the individuals ultimately fall into conflict.
PICKING THE RIGHT TOOLS FOR THE JOB
Building the norms you need requires choosing the right tools for the job. Some tools should be standard to every team’s early development. Understanding where complexity is likely to be an issue, particularly with external stakeholders, will encourage every member to start looking beyond their own specific area of expertise and see the challenge as a whole (Tool 1). Assessing the project environment (Tool 2) is an explicit mechanism that ensures the team know from the start what they are likely to be up against.
There are some standard norms that need to be discussed and established early on. Meetings should have clear rules around timekeeping, use of mobile phones during meetings and the recording of agreed actions. Whilst these rules should ultimately be non-negotiable you will find that compliance is much stronger if the team feels they have created the rules rather than having them imposed (Tool 13). The tools that shape communication such as the use of collaborative language (Tool 22) and allowing everyone to have a voice (Tool 24) are good examples of the direct use of mechanisms to establish positive behaviours that may be specific to your team. These tools are explicit and the outcome of any discussion should be recorded in writing and the team held to account if they do not comply.
There are other rules that establish less comfortable norms depending upon the team’s mission. If excellence/best in class is going to be required to achieve a tough goal, how are you going to go about it? For example, do you need the team to be challenging each other, pushing the best ideas to the top (Tool 34)? This can be quite disruptive to group process, but if you aspire to excellence then this is what will be needed. Similarly, if the team is working through a complex series of tasks, its effectiveness will significantly improve if it willingly seeks feedback both from within the team and from its stakeholders. The team therefore need to be open to criticism and to use feedback to learn and then adapt (Tools 14 and 42).
Other norms are shaped more subtly. Tools for establishing a compulsive vision (Tool 10 – ‘The Big “Why”’) and ‘Building a future story’ (Tool 15) do not place any rules on the team, but instead nudge the team to focus on what they have in common, irrespective of their different personal and professional backgrounds. The development of trust has repeatedly been shown to be fundamental to the development of a cohesive unit. The more time team members take to understand each other, the stronger the bonds that will hold them together. So whilst mutual understanding is a powerful norm, you cannot create a rule or process that will force it to happen. Instead you must rely on the tools that will help build mutual comprehension. There is great value to be had from encouraging a team to reveal their fears and vulnerabilities. Studies consistently show that once team members start to empathize with each other at a deeper level, they bond more closely and really start to become mutually accountable. Exercises such as ‘How to motivate or annoy me’ (Tool 16) are a great start, but any of the tools that encourage the team to explain both what they think and what they feel will help strengthen the team.
The book also includes some remedial tools to help the team regain its balance. These are particularly useful on long projects where fatigue can set in and inter-personal conflict starts to affect the team