High Performing Teams Sagely Advice !

EFFECTIVE EXECUTIVE AUG.2009

Building High Performance Teams

High Performing Teams Sagely Advice !

– Doris Kearns Goodwin

In our research, we uncovered different types of teams. A traditional team is one that gets together typically to accomplish a task; emphasis is on the task and the individual and unique strength of each team member. Self-directed teams are more process-focused and concerned that the "teaming" results in a good experience for all members. HP Teams seem to be able to simultaneously focus on the task and the process, on the team and the individual.

Entelechy conducted research of over 50 different studies on high performance teams. Some studies focused on motivation; some on trust; some on leadership; others on vision; still others on many other topics. The more we investigated, the more the characteristics of high performing teams fell into place.

Several important themes emerged which we used to develop a model. This model will enable you to more effectively identify and address what your team needs to become high performing.

HPTs are Concerned about the Process and the Task

High performance teams are clear about WHAT they are to do – the

TASK – and HOW they do things – the PROCESS.

TASK is concerned primarily about WHAT gets done.

PROCESS is concerned primarily about HOW things get done. High performance teams continue to be high performing even when the task changes because they have established processes.

HPTs are Concerned about the Team and the Individual

Another theme that emerged was the distinction between TEAM and INDIVIDUAL. High performance teams have a certain "teamness" about them. People want to be part of high performing teams. They want to contribute to the team and are willing to sacrifice for the team. At the same time, high performing teams recognize the value and contribution of each individual and that individuals have specific needs.

TEAM is concerned primarily with the group as the entity.

INDIVIDUAL is concerned primarily with the group member.

The distinction is important since teams are collections of individuals. There are characteristics about how individuals work and react in teams that are different than how they react in groups or individually. Likewise, there are characteristics about how teams treat individuals that are different than how groups or individuals treat individuals.

Sub-Characteristics

While some characteristics can be clearly categorized as team/individual or task/process, other characteristics aren't as definite and cannot be so easily categorized. Oftentimes, characteristics may fall somewhere between the continua. For example, each of the following characteristics were identified in our research; follow our thinking as we categorize the characteristic starting at the top of the HPT graphic and working clockwise:

• Team = Sense of belonging; leadership; membership; team identity

• Team/Task = Shared common purpose and vision

• Task = Clear tasks, expectations, performance metrics, timelines

• Individual/Task = Shared responsibility; individual accountability

• Individual = Creative talents; respect for diversity

• Individual/Process = Clear decision making, problem solving, and conflict resolution processes

• Process = Strong internal and external communications; norms

• Team/Process = Clear links with other groups and customers.

The Characteristics of HPTs

Keeping the TASK/PROCESS and TEAM/INDIVIDUAL arrows in mind, we labeled all eight areas of high performance teaming:

Participative Leadership

• Envisioning and organizing leadership

• Based on expertise

• Shared

• Team members accept and relinquish leadership

• Creates interdependency

Aligned on Purpose

• Shared purpose

• Clear vision

• Self-directing

• Aligned goals

• Members understand their roles and fit

Task Focused

• The task guides the team and individuals

• Job satisfaction

• Challenge

Shared responsibility

• Members personally responsible for the team and each other

• Accountable

• Loyal

• Shared success

Innovative

• Tap into each other's creativity and talents

• Diversity is valued

• Synergistic

Problem Solving

• Opportunity, challenge

• Decision making

Communicative

• Open, honest

• Inspired

• Proactively share info

• Humor

Responsive

• Client/customer focused

• Interactive

• Mobilize quickly

• Change direction

What's the Big Deal about Teams?

Why are teams popular today? What's changed about our environment and economy that makes teaming so critical? Here are a few of the reasons why teams have become critical in today's economy:

• More orientation towards service and an information society and away from an industrial society

• Rate of change: no single person can keep up

• Knowledge explosion: No single person can know it all

• Most valuable corporate resources are people.

Teamwork is not new. Our history depicts us as team-based hunters and gatherers. The industrial age changed us into individualistic automatons useful for the number of hours we can apply to our work. The information age and communication age is requiring that we move back to team-based work. We are coming to rely more and more on each other's unique contribution and expertise.

The companies that can harness the untapped potential in individuals through the use of teams will have a competitive advantage over those who can't.

HPTeams vs. Other Types of Teams

In our research, we uncovered different types of teams. A traditional team is one that gets together typically to accomplish a task; emphasis is on the task and the individual and unique strength of each team member. Self-directed teams are more process-focused and concerned that the "teaming" results in a good experience for all members. HP Teams seem to be able to simultaneously focus on the task and the process, on the team and the individual.

What are the similarities and differences between traditional, self-directed, and high performing teams?

Self-Monitoring - The Ninth Characteristic

In conducting the research, we kept encountering a characteristic that defied categorization (or at least wouldn't fit the model as we'd defined it). We found that HPTeams were especially adept at objectively and continuously monitoring how the team was doing. Not only did HPTeams monitor progress towards the goal (task monitoring), they also took regular "temperature checks" to see how they were doing as a team – or even as individuals within the team.

Because the self-monitoring happened in each characteristic (and because it seemed that everyone shared responsibility in monitoring and reporting on the team's progress and health, we added inward-pointing arrows in the model to call attention to this ninth – and omnipresent – characteristic.

Building HPTeams

While conducting the research and creating the above model proved to be informative and interesting, describing HPTeams is only the prelude to building them. (And in defending the importance of research and the resulting categorization, recall the quote: If you don't know where you're going, any road will do).

To build HPTeams:

• Identify your team strength and personal contribution

• Consider the eight characteristics and identify where your team needs the most help

• Take responsibility and declare how you will contribute to effectiveness of the team.

Entelechy Speaks to Marshall Goldsmith about Coaching

I've had the pleasure and honor to meet some of the world's greatest leaders and leadership gurus, from Sir Richard Branson, General Tommy Franks, and Captain Mike Abrashoff to Dr Warren Bennis, Dr Henry Mintzberg, and Tom Peters. And I get paid to do it! Through our work with Linkage Inc., we help support their broadcasts of these famous people by designing and developing participant and facilitator guides that many clients use to turn a 90-minute presentation into a true learning and growth opportunity.

I recently had the opportunity to meet with Marshall Goldsmith, world authority in helping successful leaders get even better by achieving positive change in behavior – for themselves, their people, and their teams. His newest best-seller, What Got You Here Won't Get You There, has sold over a million copies in two months!

In his coaching, Goldsmith emphasizes the importance for successful leaders to first have a realistic view of their own successes before attempting change in themselves or in others. Goldsmith bluntly states, "One reason that it is hard for successful people to change is that successful people are (in a positive way) delusional." Successful people, Goldsmith has found, often ascribe their success directly to themselves and their behaviors. Successful people, sometimes to their peril, believe:

• I am successful

• I act a certain way

• Therefore, I am successful because I act a certain way.

In reality, asserts Goldsmith, successful people may have achieved success in spite of their behavior! And that behavior may be preventing them from moving ahead.

What are the most common sins, the most common leadership bad habits? Goldsmith identifies these 20:

1. Winning too much: The need to win at all costs and in all situations.

2. Adding too much value: The overwhelming desire to add our 2 cents to every discussion.

3. Passing judgment: The need to rate others and impose our standards on them.

4. Making destructive comments: The needless sarcasm and cutting remarks that we think make us witty.

5. Starting with No, But, However: The overuse of these negative qualifiers which secretly say to everyone that I'm right and you're wrong.

6. Telling the world how smart we are: The need to show people we're smarter than they think we are.

7. Speaking when angry: Using emotional volatility as a management tool.

8. Negativity, or "Let me explain why that won't work": The need to share our negative thoughts even when we weren't asked.

9. Withholding information: The refusal to share information in order to maintain an advantage over others.

10. Failing to give proper recognition: The inability to give praise and reward.

11. Claiming credit that we don't deserve: The most annoying way to overestimate our contribution to any success.

12. Making excuses: The need to reposition our annoying behavior as a permanent fixture so people excuse us for it.

13. Clinging to the past: The need to deflect blame away from ourselves and onto events and people from our past; a subset of blaming everyone else.

14. Playing favorites: Failing to see that we are treating someone unfairly.

15. Refusing to express regret: The inability to take responsibility for our actions, admit we're wrong, or recognize how our actions affect others.

16. Not listening: The most passive-aggressive form of disrespect for colleagues.

17. Failing to express gratitude: The most basic form of bad manners.

18. Punishing the messenger: The misguided need to attack the innocent who are usually only trying to help us.

19. Passing the buck: The need to blame everyone but ourselves.

20. An excessive need to be "me": Exalting our faults as virtues simply because they're who we are.

Once leaders have a realistic perspective on their behavior – behaviors that account for their success and behaviors that are impeding the leader from "getting there" – these leaders are poised to help themselves and help others break through their performance ceilings.

In addition to helping the already successful leader achieve breakthrough performance personally, Marshall Goldsmith's eight-step approach for behavioral coaching enhances the leader's ability to coach and interact with their employees. His approach allows leaders to determine the desired behavior of someone in their position, to interact with their stakeholders to get opinions and feedback on their performance and expectations, and to repeat the process to achieve specific goals and for continual growth. In doing so, Goldsmith tackles the "delusion" and creates an environment safe for constructive criticism – Goldsmith calls it "feedforward" – and development.

Goldsmith's approach – by his own admission – is neither earth-shattering nor innovative. So why then do CEOs and other leaders retain Goldsmith for hundreds of thousands of dollars an engagement and why do over a million readers describe his latest book as "life-altering" and "a must-read"? It's because Marshall Goldsmith practices what he preaches; he is the coach's coach, the leader's leader. He is forthright, upfront, and brutally honest.

And he's quite successful. His success, Goldsmith explains, is due to the fact that he only selects clients who are willing to take a hard look at themselves and change. While many of us at the front line and supervisory level don't have the luxury of coaching only those who we know will change, we can focus our attention on those who are more willing instead of naturally focusing on those who are less willing.

Many of the principles in Goldsmith's approach to coaching and change mirror those that form the foundation for Entelechy's developmental coaching. Our model is used by managers and supervisors to develop the capabilities and confidence of their employees. Goldsmith's approach helps people change themselves; Entelechy's approach helps people develop others. Yet, both recognize that:

• People may not have an accurate perception of their behavior and the impact of their behavior; another perspective is valuable.

• People do not naturally seek and accept feedback. It's against our nature to set ourselves up for criticism.

• Even when they seek it, people often react defensively to feedback regardless of how "nicely" it was delivered or how "helpful" the deliverer's intentions. People will naturally defend or explain why they did what they did.

• Most people, given guidance and perspective, will know how to improve themselves and their performance.

Marshall's approach to creating behavioral change in executives and other leaders is a journey in assessment, prioritization, action, and reassessment. Leaders must seek feedback from others, identify and prioritize the changes needed, act on the most important change, and ask others if they've noticed the change.

Entelechy Speaks to Doris Kearns Goodwin about Leadership

That is what leadership is all about: staking your ground ahead of where opinion is and convincing people, not simply following the popular opinion of the moment.

– Doris Kearns Goodwin

Author of Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

Many leaders have inspired, but none perhaps as much as Abraham Lincoln, the US's 16^th president. Stories of persistence – Lincoln was defeated seven times before he was elected president – stories of integrity – Lincoln walking miles to return a library book that was due – and stories of leadership make Lincoln a likely role model for business leaders.

As a historian and an author, Doris Kearns Goodwin uses President Abraham Lincoln and his cabinet as the ideal example of collaboration and leadership. Goodwin's most recent book, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, examines the dynamic team Lincoln created during his presidency. Lincoln surrounded himself with political enemies – many who despised him. However, Lincoln knew that they were the best individuals for the job and HIS job was to create the best TEAM of individuals.

History shows that Lincoln respected and valued his opponents while he was running for office, and later sought after them to join his personal cabinet. Doris Kearns Goodwin takes an in-depth look at the five men, "the rivals," who deliberated to find solutions to some of the greatest challenges ever faced by any nation in history.

Abraham Lincoln presided over a team comprising of a past rival, three of his presidential nominee running-mates, and himself. Each man was capable of bringing a perspective to the White House that Lincoln could not. Lincoln overcame past differences to surround himself with the most capable men for office. As a result, Lincoln secured opposing viewpoints, and found solutions for a country in peril and civil war.

The first on Lincoln's line-up was Edwin M Stanton. Stanton was a former rival of Lincoln's and the two despised each other since they were both at a celebrated law case six years before Lincoln asked Stanton to join his cabinet. Lincoln then focused his attention to convincing the three men who ran against him in the Republican Party nomination to join his team: Salmon P Chase, William Seward, and Edward Bates. Lincoln saw these three men as the most qualified men for his position, and knew their political know-how would be beneficial to him, to the team, and to the country. With humble presence, Abraham Lincoln sought these men in order to balance his inexperience in government.

Lincoln led this team of men in a very democratic way. Every man was encouraged and supported to have a voice, whether the opinion was popular or not. His team did not comprise men who would agree with everything Lincoln proposed. Nor did his team comprise men who were spiteful in losing, focusing on overthrowing Lincoln's power. These men served as checks and balances to ideas and solutions for problems no one could solve before Lincoln's presidency.

Lincoln followed ten leadership principles that made him one of the world's best leaders. They are:

1. The capacity to listen to differing points of view, to let his advisors argue with him, and question his assumptions. He created a climate in which people felt free to disagree without fear of consequences.

2. The ability to learn on the job, acknowledge errors, profit from mistakes, withstand adversity, and come through trials of fire. Everyone is broken by life, Hemingway said, "but some are strong in the broken places." This ability, Stephen Covey argues, "literally turns failure into success." It is not our mistakes that hurt us most, but our response to those mistakes.

3. A ready willingness to share credit for success, creating what has been called "an emotional bank account," a reservoir of good feeling. Harry Truman once said, "You can accomplish anything in life so long as you do not care who gets the credit."

4. The willingness to shoulder blame for the failure of subordinates.

5. An acute awareness of your weaknesses which will allow you to compensate for them, like Lincoln in forming a team with his opposite, Stanton.

6. The ability to control emotions. Lincoln had a ritual of writing hot letters hoping if he put it aside he would cool down psychologically and never need to send it. If he did lose his temper, he followed up with a kind gesture immediately.

7. The ability to relax. Lincoln understood how to relax, replenish his energies, and shake off anxiety. He used the theatre and humor as stress relievers so he could keep a clear head in the office.

8. At crisis moments, his immediate instinct was to go to the battlefield, walk amidst the soldiers, visit the wounded in the hospitals, bolster morale, and assess the situation directly. This reaction is equivalent to managing by walking around. Indeed, he never lost sight of the people he represented. His White House was open to ordinary people. Sensitivity to currents of opinion allowed him to become a master of timing.

9. Persistence. Lincoln possessed a quiet but steely resolution to stick to his long-term goals even at moments when his own popularity was at stake.

10. Vision and communication skills. Lincoln had a remarkable ability to communicate his goals to his countrymen, with stories, everyday metaphors, as well as with a beauty of language.

Abraham Lincoln embodied these leadership traits. Because of his realistic and "for the people" attitude, he was able to construct and run a team without getting caught up in personal vendettas and gains. As a result, today's leaders are left with the tips and examples from the Lincoln administration to better their leadership and decision-making.

Company leaders and executives are left with five key lessons learned from how Abraham Lincoln as a man, a politician, and as a leader operated. They are:

1. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer

2. Be studious

3. Be modest – keep a low profile

4. Be available – solicit feedback

5. Never give up.

Combined with Lincoln's ten leadership principles, applying these lessons will help you increase your leadership capabilities.

Leadership is often depicted as something people have or they don't. The "haves" are expected to know the right answers and are expected to make the right decisions for all involved. The "have-nots" are expected to follow the leaders. However, when it comes to real leadership, especially during times of crisis, it is unheard of to find one man capable of solving everyone's problems. True leadership entails knowing who is capable of helping, and when you need to be helped.

Abraham Lincoln displayed the principles of a great leader. His humility and ability to set aside personal disagreements with his formal rivals was the key to his political success. He surrounded himself with the most capable men in politics. These men gave him different perspectives on political issues, and offered a wide variety of potential solutions. As a result, Lincoln was able to make decisions that were not made to serve one purpose, but made to please a nation.

You – as your company's leader – can follow Lincoln's leadership principles and lessons in order to strengthen your leadership capabilities. Surround yourself with the most capable men and women by putting aside personal issues or concerns. Give every person a voice, and an arena in which to speak. Do not simply be the representative for your team. Rather, build your team with people who augment your own capabilities – who can contribute and add value.

Entelechy Speaks to Henry Mintzberg about Coaching

Recently, a colleague of mine (Judy Brophy at Daniel Webster College, Nashua NH) asked me, "Why don't MBA programs teach their students how to manage the performance of their people? They teach them finance, business, marketing, organizational systems; but they don't teach them how to work with and through people."

I decided to ask two of my favorite thinkers on such topics, Warren Bennis and Henry Mintzberg. Dr Bennis, arguably the "father of leadership" having been the first to clearly differentiate management from leadership, believes that "so little of [the MBA curriculum] is grounded in actual business practices, the focus of graduate business education has become increasingly circumscribed – and less and less relevant to practitioners." In his Harvard Business Review article, "How Business Schools Lost Their Way", Dr. Bennis describes how business schools, once trade-schools for management apprentices have evolved into centers of research, which, while valuable for theory and science, are devoid of "the stuff of management."

In his article, Dr Bennis makes reference to "one outspoken critic, McGill University professor Henry Mintzberg." Having talked with Dr Mintzberg previously (see my article "Entelechy Speaks to Henry Mintzberg about `MBA=Leader' and Other Half-Truths"), I thought this would be a good time to reconnect with a question that builds off of Judy's and asks:

Why don't managers coach and develop their people? Even if B-school students learned how to develop and manage the performance of their people, would they? They and their incumbent colleagues certainly don't seem to now! I called Dr Mintzberg for his thoughts, knowing that he would shoot straight from the hip.

The Interview

• TT: Why aren't managers and supervisors taking the time with employees to coach and develop them, knowing that employees are the ones who do the work?

• HM: I suspect that there are two broad reasons. The first is the pressure and the pace, particularly in the US, has gone up enormously and I don't think that it's just competition. I think there's a kind of freneticism." For example, e-mail makes managers much more frenetic. You're constantly being interrupted and you feel you need to react instantly. The pace and pressure to respond and react takes away from any time you may have planned to meet with employees or even to walk down the hall to see how employees are doing.

Additionally, the emphasis on shareholder value has made companies much more mercenary. For example, the whole emphasis on leadership has driven a wedge between managers and other people. Everyone struts around pretending to be a leader, and I believe that doesn't help communication, it just hinders.

There are still many managers who simply don't have people skills – many of whom have done MBA programs and use that as a way of launching themselves into management positions. They would have never gotten into managerial positions naturally. (TT: See Henry's book, Managers Not MBAs.)

Another reason that managers don't spend a lot of time with employees is because of the high turnover/movement of high potential managers. Some companies have policies of turning their managers over every couple of years, which I think is sheer madness. What this does is it forces the manager to think, "I'm not going to waste my time since I'll be gone soon." (TT: And the same reaction can be said for the employee.)

• TT: Let's look at the pressure and the pace for a moment. It seems that the pace and pressure are getting worse. With PDAs like Palm Pilot, Treo, and Blackberry, and constant 24/7 connectivity to everyone everywhere, there's increasingly less chance that managers will find the time to meet with employees for coaching or developmental discussions. Would you agree?

• HM: Yes. I'm rewriting my first book, The Nature of Managerial Work, and my publisher said, "Henry, you need to write more about this freneticism. It's important stuff."

• TT: So what should a manager do?

• HM: Slow down. Take a deep breath. Pause. Reflect. Coach ourselves; I think coaching ourselves is an interesting example of pausing and reflecting. (TT: See www.coaching ourselves.com for more information and discussion about Henry's involvement in a program where managers coach themselves on a variety of topics of interest to them.) Here you get together with a bunch of other managers for lunch to just talk about the things that are important to us as managers.

• TT: What are the advantages of coaching ourselves as opposed to attending a training event?

• HM: The advantages include knowing that we've done it ourselves, we've thought it through ourselves, and we own it. It's our territory. Don't get me wrong; training can provide skills that managers can't get on their own. But unless they apply those skills – and pause to reflect on how they're doing with those skills – the training is inconsequential.

• TT: Different topic. Are some types of managers better at – more open to – coaching than others?

• HM: Look, the whole subject of management styles has been researched ad nauseam. Managing isn't about a style. My research and experience show that managing happens on three planes. It happens on an information plane; managers have and share information. It happens on a people plane; managers deal with and through people. And it happens on an action plane; managers do things. All three are important. While coaching may be about the people plane, coaching and developing people is not about being a people-oriented manager, it's about being a well-rounded manager.

One of my major criticism of most management and leadership gurus is that they focus on one element of managerial or leadership effectiveness and promote it to the exclusion of everything else. For Michael Porter it's thinking. For Tom Peters it's acting. For another, it's something else. In reality, managing is about all those things. These gurus are all wrong because they're all right – you need to look at management from all managerial activities. I understand their focus on a singular aspect of management or leadership; that's how you get to be a guru. But it does a disservice to managers who then see management as only thinking, or only acting, or only leading. Leading is a good example: nobody wants to be a manager any more; everyone wants to be a leader!

Reflections

Henry Mintzberg doesn't hold back. He faults the frenetic pace that companies have inculcated into their culture as a primary contributor to the lack of employee development and coaching. Additionally, "talent management" – the latest buzzword within human resources these days – may actually contribute to the problem; developing high potential candidates for managerial and leadership positions means that these managers are typically reassigned after a couple of years. There's no time – and no incentive – to slow down and develop people!

Frenetic managers tend to have frenetic employees. When managers spend time with their employees to discuss specifically how each employee is contributing to the company, employees become less frenetic and more productive and more enthusiastic and.

I also think that our learning and development community shares some of the culpability. Our search for faster and more accessible training via WBT and podcasts and the like has given managers a sense of release from the responsibility of coaching and developing their people. Need customer service skills? Take two WBT courses and see me in the morning. Actually, you DON'T need to see me in the morning; the Learning Management System (LMS) will tell me how you did. All better. Next!

Suggestions

Of course, employees share responsibility for their own development. But why managers don't actively guide and shape that development for the good of the organization – and their own success – is beyond me. The answer is simple, but maybe not easy:

• Managers need to be told to develop their people. Until company leaders make people development a priority, only renegade managers (or smart managers) will see the potential that lies within each employee and tap into it.

• Managers need to be smart, well-rounded managers. They need to see people development as a key responsibility, as important as sharing information or making decisions or planning budgets.

• Managers need to pause and reflect and discuss what's working and what's not working with their peers.

• Employees need to press their managers for guidance and face-to-face time. Make it easy on your manager; identify one thing you want to develop (that would be good for the department) and have a couple of suggestions for how you're going to develop those skills.

This material is copyright 2009 Entelechy, Inc. It may be reproduced and distributed when accompanied by this copyright and contact information. Contact Entelechy, Inc. atinfo@unlockit.com or by visiting our website at www.unlockit.com. All Rights Reserved.