Team Building - Developing Performing Teams

The command and control style of leadership is becoming redundant and the team-based approach to work is increasingly becoming popular. The article explains the characteristics of great teams and the leadership approaches to building performing teams.

The Michael Dell, the founder and CEO of DELL Computers, believes that business is all about building teams and building talent in the organization. According to him, it is the most essential component of success as diversity of ideas and input helps a lot in making better decisions. Dell always encourages his teams, even if some of their products fail or have to be scrapped. He motivates them to work better on their next product. In April 1993, John Medica, who led the development of Apple's PowerBook, was put in charge of the Notebook division of DELL. By the time he took over, one product had already been canceled and the development of other products was taking longer than expected. After a realistic assessment of the situation, it was felt that only one of the products under development - the Latitude XP - would be competitive in the market. The company decided to cancel several products that were in the development stage. This demotivated the engineers who had spent a lot of time and energy developing the products that had been canceled. To motivate them, Dell reinforced the company's strategy to the notebook group and encouraged them to pull together to make the Latitude XP a success.

Dell realized that aligning teams toward a common objective and creating the same incentive system across the entire company would help direct everyone's talent toward creating value for customers and shareholders. At Dell, people work in teams of two to receive, manufacture, and pack an order for delivery to a customer. The profit sharing incentive encourages them to be productive as a team. Hourly metrics are posted on monitors on the factory floor so that each team can see if its performance meets the company's goals. Dell also believes that 360° performance appraisals help identify areas that might require further development or improvement and also keep people focused on achieving their goals as a team. He believes that teamwork is all about people who are interested in each other's growth.

Moving From Command and Control to Teamwork

As more and more organizations move towards a team-based approach to work, the command and control style of leadership is becoming redundant. Leaders are playing the role of facilitators more and are now expected to teach their team members, and let them make decisions for the team. A team-based approach is expected to improve efficiency and productivity levels in an organization. However, the transformation from a command and control style to the team based approach can be confusing and grueling. Companies expect their middle level managers to transform themselves into team leaders. They are expected to coach, motivate, and empower their people.

However, very few managers or companies really understand the transformation process. Most managers find the transition difficult to make. Often, the things they were encouraged to do during the command and control days are no longer appropriate. These managers do not realize the shift in mindset and the behavioral skills required to be successful team leaders. Managers in their new role are not sure what long-term effect this team-based approach will have on their careers. Soft skills such as communication, conflict resolution, and coaching though crucial for success as team leaders may not add much value to their resumes. According to some, being an effective team leader does not guarantee promotion within a company or opportunities outside². Managers should not worry if they are asked to make the transition from the command and control style to the team-based approach. They can acquire the skills needed to be effective team leaders: patience to share information, trust in others' abilities to make decisions, and willingness and ability to share power with team members.

Understanding Teams & Teamwork

What is a team? A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, a set of performance goals, and an approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.3 To become a powerful unit, all the team members should have a common commitment. Without a common commitment, all the team members will perform as individuals. Developing common commitment requires a common purpose in which the team fervently believes. The way they shape their purpose is contingent upon the demands and opportunities placed by the top management. The top management determines the character, rationale, and performance challenges for teams. The management should give enough flexibility to the teams to develop commitment based on the given purpose, specific goals, timing, and approach. Successful teams invest significant time and effort to determine collective and individual purpose. Unsuccessful teams fail to create a collective and challenging aspiration due to various reasons such as lack of emphasis on performance, lack of effort, and poor leadership. Successful teams convert their common purpose into specific performance goals.

Without these specific performance goals, members of the team lack clarity on their contribution and perform in a mediocre manner. When purposes and goals of the teams are consistent, and are backed by team commitment, they lead to improved performance. Teamwork plays an important role in the success of any organization. Teamwork characterizes values that encourage listening and responding constructively to others' views, providing support, and recognizing the interests and achievements of others.⁴ These values ensure team performance, individual performance, and organizational performance.

Any group of people working together does not form a team. Thus, committees, councils, and taskforces are not always teams. There is a clear difference between teams and work groups. The performance of a work group is a function of its members' performance as individuals. The performance of a team is a function of both individual results and "collective work-products". Activities like interviews, surveys, and experiments generally need involvement of more than one person. Such activities can be considered as "collective work-products." Working groups are common and more useful in large organizations where individual accountability is important. They are formed to share information, insights, and perspectives. The members of work groups come together to help each other perform better. The meeting of these groups also reinforces individual performance standards. The focus of work groups is on individual performance and accountability. There is no mutual responsibility for each other's performance as in teams. There is no question of incremental performance-contribution that results from two or more people working together in groups. The emphasis of work groups is always on individual goals and responsibilities. For better understanding of differences between working groups and teams refer to table 1.1.

Principles of Great Teams

Warren Bennis⁵ conducted a study to identify the principles that made great teams successful. He studied teams that worked on the Manhattan project⁶, and those who worked in the Palo Alto Research Center (PARC)⁷ of Xerox, Apple Computers⁸, Lockheed Skunk Works⁹, and Walt Disney animation studios. According to Bennis though all these teams were extraordinary in their own way, there were some principles that were common to all and these principles apply to all the organizations where these teams worked. The principles¹⁰ are:

Shared Dream

All the great teams shared the dream of making the world a better place to live in. They sincerely believed that they would change the world for the better. These teams were obsessed with what they were doing and did not treat their work as simply a job but a fervent quest. The shared dreams and beliefs gave them the cohesiveness and energy needed to work.

Mission is Bigger than Ego

During the Manhattan project, one team member had a problem working with a colleague, and decided to leave. But the project leader reminded him that the mission was more important than individual egos and this made the team member rethink his decision, and ultimately stay back. This example shows how great teams placed mission way above individual egos.

Protection from Leaders

All the great teams had leaders who protected the team members from the corporate headquarters. These leaders managed to keep the headquarters satisfied and told their team members to remain focused on their work. In all these cases, the leaders tried to maintain physical distance from the headquarters and this seemed to have helped in achieving their missions.

Fostering Enmity A team with even the noblest of missions benefited when it had real or invented enemies. For example, the enemies of the Manhattan project were the Japanese and the Germans. An implicit mission such as destroying the enemy is more motivating than an explicit mission. During the heydays of Apple computers, its mission was to bury IBM and Apple's advertisements reflected this enmity. Dare to be Different Great teams generally consist of people who consider themselves as mavericks and are generally at the periphery of their disciplines. They like to operate on the fringes and do not have respect for the mainstream thinking or activities. As Bennis says, their sense of operating on the fringes feeds their obsession to succeed. Pain & Suffering A place in great teams is rarely assured without personal sacrifice. The nature of their work is such that the team members generally go through intense pain and suffering.

At Skunk Works of Lockheed, the team members could not disclose information on their project even to their families. The team had to work in a cheerless, rundown building at Burbank, away from headquarters and main plants.

Strong Leaders

Though great teams are nonhierarchical, egalitarian, and open, yet they have strong leaders. As Bennis observed, the leaders in great teams are not always the most intelligent or capable in the team but neither are they passive players. They are like curators who appreciate and preserve talent in the team. Great teams make great leaders.

Meticulous Recruiting

Great teams are a result of understanding what talent is needed in the team, and spotting where the talent is available. The leader of the team and the other members consider recruiting a serious exercise. This ensures that the right people are in the right place.

Young and Energetic

All great teams had people who were quite young. Young people have the physical stamina necessary to withstand the arduous tasks involved. They do not consider anything impossible and that makes them accomplish the impossible. Great teams are also young in spirit, ethos, and culture.

Great Teams Deliver

 Great teams always believe in tangible outcome. Steve Jobs gave adequate importance to this aspect at Apple. He reminded his team that their work was not good enough unless it resulted in a great product at the end.

Team Size and Skills

Generally the number of people in a team ranges from 2 to 25. The majority of teams studied by Katzenbach and Smith11 had less than ten members. According to them though a team of 50 or more members is theoretically possible, but such a team will invariably break off into sub teams and will rarely function as a single and cohesive unit. This is because interactions can be rarely constructive in such teams. A team with around 10 members can be far more effective than a team that has more than 50 people. In the latter, individual differences, functional differences, and hierarchical differences are more when compared to a team with members. It is also easier to have joint accountability in small teams. Large teams also have to address issues such as availability of physical space (more people means more space), time (it is difficult to identify an appropriate time for so many people to meet), and crowd or herd behavior. Such issues limit the wholesome involvement of people in the team and as a result a cohesive team rarely gets built. It is also difficult for large teams to shape their common purpose.

As the group has too many people, common purpose ends up as superficial missions or well-meaning intentions. Without a clear purpose, no concrete objectives can be reached and without concrete objectives, team members are not sure about their roles in the team. This leads to cynicism, which blocks future team efforts. For teams to be successful, a right mix of skills is as important as right size. Teams need to have an appropriate complement of skills to accomplish the team's task. Often these skills are lacking in many potential teams. The skills necessary for teams can be broadly classified into technical or functional expertise, problem solving and decision-making skills, and interpersonal skills.

Composition of Teams

Teams are often formed based on personal compatibility or formal position. Very rarely are they formed based on the functional expertise of their members. It is important for teams to have problem-solving skills to identify problems and opportunities, evaluate the different options, available to them and decide which option is better. The understanding among team members and shaping of a common purpose depends on effective communication and constructive conflict.

This is turn depends on interpersonal skills such as risk taking, active listening, helpful criticism, and appreciation of the interests and achievements of others. Only rarely do teams have all the skills necessary to accomplish the task. So selection of team members should be based on proven skills¹². Commitment to a common approach (the way things have to be accomplished) is at least as important as commitment to purpose and goals. The team must have clear idea as to how the purpose and goal of the team is going to be accomplished. There should be an agreement (refer to Exhibit 1.2) on:

• Who will do what?
• What are the schedules, and how they are to be met?
• What are the skills that need to be developed?
• How the team will take decisions?
• On what basis will the team change the existing way of accomplishing its purpose?

Exhibit: 1.2
Team Learning at Boston Celtics

Boston Celtics is a basketball team. This team won 11 of the 13 World championships held between the years 1957 and 1969. How did it do so? Red Auerbach13, the coach of the team, made sure that every player was on the team as long as he contributed to winning. Everybody's role in the team was clear. Bill Russell (arguably the best basketball player ever), a player on the team, recollects what his coach told him: "He told me that he was counting on me to get the ball off the backboard and pass it quickly. This, plus defense, was to be my fundamental role on the team, and as long as I performed these functions well, he would never pressure me to score more points. That conversation was worth a whole season of tactical coaching." In this case the coach assured Bill Russel that he did not need to improve his score at the cost of team's success. The coach of the team was intensely focused on bringing out the collective potential of his team. Team learning was a key part of the Celtics' daily practice. The coach and the team used to explore various ways to improve their game and tactics. The team members had a high level of solidarity among themselves. Retiring players used to give tips to new players on the competition. Bill Russel further adds, "On the court, the most important measure of how good a game I'd played was how much better I'd made my teammates play."

Adapted from "Fifth discipline field book," By: Peter M Senge, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Robberts, Richard B. Ross, Bryan J. Smith, Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing group (1994), p351.

The shaping of a common approach needs:

• Details of the task to be accomplished and

• A fit between individual skills the team task In effective teams all the members do equivalent amount of work. Everyone in the team, including the team leader, contributes to the team's work-product¹⁴ in a concrete way. The feeling that everyone is fulfilling his or her role can be an emotionally motivating factor, which can stimulate improved performance.

Team accountability is as important for the success of a team as a common purpose and a common approach are. One characteristic of great teams is mutual accountability. Accountability for the team's performance needs commitment and trust. These will naturally grow when all the members of the team are diligently pursuing common objective. The common purpose, and common approach will finally make the members responsible for the team's performance as well. All the effective teams surveyed felt that working with a common purpose, a common approach, and mutual accountability made their experience both energizing and motivating unlike their regular work.

Leadership Approaches That Foster Team Performance

Though there are no guaranteed approaches to improve team performance, yet some approaches mentioned below can help in ensuring higher performance levels. Recruit for skill and skill potential In general the management starts thinking about the skills required in a team only after the team has been created. This seems to be a wrong approach. People should be selected based on their existing skills and their ability to learn new skills in the future, and not on the basis of personalities. Be concerned about first impressions Initial impressions matter a lot. Members of potential team look for signals in the first meeting to confirm, suspend, or dispel their assumptions and concerns. They observe people in authority (team leaders; executives who setup, oversee, or influence team formation) very carefully. A leader has to reflect on what he is doing and what he is saying and realize that he is being observed critically.

Spend time together

Team members have to spend a lot time (both scheduled and unscheduled) together at least at the beginning. Such collective spending of time can bring in creative insights and personal bonding. A leader has to ensure that the members of the team interact. He needs to understand that when they are interacting, higher intelligence, which is far superior to that of any single member in the team, is at work. Unfortunately executives and managers are not used to deliberately spending time with their subordinates. They need to change this behavior. Successful teams have always spent lot of time together learning how to be coherent teams. Spending time together does not just mean time spent physically together. It also includes time spent interacting through electronic means, fax, or phone.

Frame necessary guidelines to govern team behavior

Guidelines help teams to bring about predictability in their behavior. Guidelines help teams to fulfill their purpose and achieve organizational goals. A leader can setup guidelines on issues such as attendance for meetings, matters to be discussed, the level of secrecy to be maintained, the analytic approach that is going to be followed, and the contribution of members to team's performance etc.

Promote a culture of urgency and high standards

A leader must make his team members believe that the team is there to accomplish an urgent and worthwhile purpose. The more urgent and meaningful the team's purpose is, the better will be the team's performance. Teams generally perform better while they experience demanding and compelling situations. This is the reason why organizations with high performance ethics can form successful teams easily at short notice.

Value contribution and positive feedback

Teams, like individuals need positive reinforcement. So a leader has to give positive feedback to his team members. Giving recognition is also important because it creates, and affirms desirable and new behaviors that improve team performance. A leader can give recognition and rewards in different ways. He can, for example, address the team directly about the urgency and importance of its mission. He can also offer direct compensation for contribution to the team.

Identify tasks that can be accomplished immediately

Effective teams trace their cohesiveness and optimism to key performance oriented events. A leader has to set some challenging goals for his team in the initial stages. These goals should be such that they can be accomplished in the early stages.

Let the team redefine purpose and goals

A team can commit the mistake of assuming that all the information it needs is available in the collective experience and knowledge of its members. A leader must ensure that his team always has access to the latest information because this information can help the team to understand its performance challenges better. This understanding can further motivate the team to reinvent and redefine its common purposes, goals, and approaches.

Team Learning

We all know that the real work in organizations is done by teams and not lone individuals. So for organizations to be effective, they need effective teams. Teams need to constantly operate at a higher level of intelligence than that of individual members. Thus, teams need to be continually learning. The cost of neglected learning can be high. To avoid this, teams need to be aware of the following: Team Conflicts It is commonly assumed that great teams do not entertain or have conflicts. According to Peter Senge, on the contrary, great teams encourage productive conflict. In these teams, the free flow of conflicting ideas leads to creative thinking.15 Conflict becomes, in effect, part of the ongoing dialogue. In fact, visible conflict of ideas can be one reliable indicator of continual learning. Conflict is a common feature in most organizations. Organizations arrive at their vision only after going through certain level of conflict. The shared vision of an organization emerges from the conflict of personal visions. Even when a vision is shared there are different ways of realizing it. This difference is certainly a source of conflict.

On mediocre teams, one observes two situations surrounding conflict: the appearance of no conflict, and rigid polarization. In the first condition, team members suppress their conflicting views to continue as a team. In the second condition, though the team members speak out their conflicting views, their positions are clear, and no exchange or change of views takes place.

Defensive routines

Chris Argyris¹⁶ studied management teams for 25 years to identify why managers fail to learn in management teams. He found that these managers avoid constructive conflicts and are defensive when a conflict arises. He also identified some basic differences between mediocre teams and great teams. A mediocre team is different from a great team in how it faces a conflict, and how it copes with defensiveness that arises due to conflict. According to Argyris, human beings "are programmed to create defensive routines, and cover them up with further defensive routines...This programming occurs early in life."¹⁷

Argyris further says that defensive routines are entrenched habits people use to protect themselves from the embarrassment and threat that comes once they express their views¹⁸. People use defensive routines as a protective shell around their deepest assumptions. They employ defensive mechanisms to protect themselves from the pain that occurs when these assumptions are questioned or the thinking behind these assumptions is exposed. While these defensive routines protect them from pain, they also prevent them from learning about the causes of the pain.

What is the source of defensive routines? Argyris feels that people become defensive not because they believe in their views, or desire to preserve social relations but because they dread others finding errors in their thinking. As Argyris says, this fear starts in childhood, and is reinforced throughout life. Defensiveness stops people from knowing about the validity of their reasoning. Defensive routines can do more damage in organizations where incomplete or faulty understanding is seen as a sign of weakness or incompetence.

In such organizations, it is often believed that managers should know everything that is happening in the organization. Thus, they become incapable of accepting their ignorance. Obviously, knowing everything that is happening in the organization or having solutions to all the problems in an organization is impossible. But these managers cannot accept that. As a result, they put on an appearance that they know what is happening, and why it is happening. Over a period of time, their assumptions and behaviors get reinforced. They attain mastery at appearing to know what is happening. These managers are forced to behave in either of the ways shown below: • Some managers internalize the air of confidence and believe that they have solutions to important problems in the organization. To protect their belief they do not accept other alternatives and choose to be closed to other ideas. They believe that to remain confident they have to be rigid. • Other managers believe that they need to know what is causing problems in the organization. They also believe that they have solutions to the problems but are not very confident of the solutions. However, they maintain a mask of confidence and hide their ignorance.

Thus, some managers become highly skilled at using defensive routines that preserve their image as capable decision makers. Slowly, this behavior sinks into organizational culture. According to Argyris individuals play political games in organizations because that is human nature and the nature of organizations. Human beings are carriers of defensive routines, and organizations are hosts. Once the organizations are infected they too become carriers.¹⁹

As teams are part of organizations, they too exhibit defensive routines. These routines block a team's energies and the talents that could have been directed at realizing the team's purpose. Defensive routines also prevent collective learning in teams.

Overcoming defensive routines

Peter Senge suggests two ways to overcome defensive routines. The first is to diminish the emotional threat that causes defensive behavior. If the assumption that "incomplete or faulty understanding is acceptable in some situations" is proposed and enforced strongly in the organization, managers would definitely be less defensive.

The second way to reduce defensive routines is to make them the subject of discussion. Leaders must learn to confront and discuss defensiveness without arousing further defensiveness. Leaders can adopt self-disclosure as a primary step to confront defensiveness. They can start with an attempt to identify reasons for their own defensiveness. While exploring the causes, they can invite members for joint inquiry. This method aims at reducing defensive routines through reflection and mutual inquiry. The leader is revealing his own assumptions, exposing his thinking, opening them to influence, and encouraging others also to do the same. This method helps in overcoming defensiveness in the team.