Six ways to make teams work
The term team has been in vogue for some time. However, few companies leverage the dynamic power of teams. Here are six suggestions that help transform a group of individuals into a team.
#1. Teams solve problems. A team’s agenda should be problems that require solutions. Problems open minds and clarify solutions. For example, saying our problem is a 12% downturn in sales is better than saying, how can we increase sales? Additionally, stating problems offers participants an opportunity to provide creative solutions that may exceed expectations.
#2. Teams are authorized to act. Don’t call a collection of coffee sipping individuals who gather to make recommendations to higher ups a team. Call them an advisory committee. If you’ve adopted a team approach to a problem, give the team authority to dedicate resources, assign tasks, create accountability, and establish time-lines.
#3. Team members matter. Teams have vitality when each participant believes their perspective counts. If participant comments don’t matter, it’s quicker and simpler to forego discussions and announce the decision. Of course, if input doesn’t matter, you don’t have a team.
#4. Teams decide by consensus. It may be difficult for leaders to surrender decision making. However, passionate buy-in by team members is rooted in meaningful participation in decisions that matter. If ultimate decision making is reserved for the “team leader,” you don’t have a team. You have a decision maker with advisors.
#5. Team members are accountable. Slackers sap enthusiasm. If a team member arrives unprepared, I suggest you immediately stop the meeting and reschedule.
#6. Teams disband. One reason teams don’t work is they live too long. If you’ve framed the team’s agenda as a problem, you’ll know when the team has achieved its objective. Kill it once it’s done.
*****
What makes teams work? Do you have a team success story, a tragic story?
Dear Dan,
Actually, I was struggling on this topic for past few days. When people group together to address and solve the issue, they should have single and collective interest. But when they are divided in their interests either explicitly or implicitly, it is no longer a team, and it turns into group. Recently, I was new team member of a existing team. Team organized one function last year and that was a failure. Now the new team with some existing member has been asked to host the function this year. And existing old members do not actively contribute in the meeting. Now, there is a question of interest- self interest or collective interest. Taking input in the meeting is the major problem. Meeting is controlled by few members and meeting agenda is not directed but bifurcated. Here the major question come about leadership. What a leader should do knowing that team consists of people with different interest?
1. Leader should attend meeting and intervene, if required. This will send a strong message to everyone.
2. He should direct team with specific agenda, responsibility and key people and action plan.
3. Change members, if required.
4. Ask other people to monitor the meeting proceedings.
5. Conduct meeting in live video environment. that is directly connected with key people.
6. Everyone should be asked to contribute.
I think these are some thoughts that might be useful to make a dedicated and strong team.
Ajay,
While writing this post, I left out my personal frustrations and bad experiences with teams. I wondered if LF readers might add the dark side of teams to the discussion. I’m glad you did because we learn from failures, frustrations and short-falls.
Thanks for your suggestions on getting a team on track.
I’ve noticed that new blood, if listened to, can make a huge difference.
Sometimes I wonder if old teams should just be disbanded and new ones formed with new members.
I feel your frustration. I think controlling members on a team is one of the greatest frustrations and road blocks to teams that work.
You have my regards,
Dan
Hi Dan,
Great post. We share a similar philosophy on teamwork and the need to really be a team or don’t be.
Here are two posts that hinge to your thoughts. I welcome your comments as well.
—————-
http://katenasser.com/team-building-spring-training-best-teamwork-results/
http://katenasser.com/teamwork-gems-create-startling-results/
——-
I will RT your post on Twitter. All should read it. And I like the graphic.
Warmest wishes,
Kate Nasser, The People-Skills Coach
Kate,
Great having you stop in and thanks for leaving links to your work. I’ll be stopping over to your site.
Best to you,
Dan
I’ve worked with wonderfull teams and I do agree witk a lot that has been mentioned. (You feel the but coming).
But I’m not so sure about the need for consensus decision making. I know I’m tainted by my three years at NATO, but what I’ve certainly learned is that consensus decisionmaking never leads to an optimum.
And another observation: a camel is a horse designed by a commitee.
Hans,
I know just what you mean when you express concern about decision by consensus. It’s definitely a slower process. In addition, there may be a tendency to “cover all the bases” and end up with a mediocre decision.
If speed or distinctiveness are important, perhaps a team approach isn’t appropriate.
If buy-in is important then perhaps the slower approach is necessary.
I’m delighted you brought this up.
Regards,
Dan
Dan & Hans – I have worked with several effective teams over the past 30 years, and believe that consensus is only one method of driving effective decisions. The key is securing enthusiastic engagement and buy in – but also remembering that members value efficient use of their time.
If an issue is minor, allow the issue owner to decide and move on. If the issue is major, the team needs to agree to a decision infrastructure in advance. Generally, open discussion for a period of time is required. Sometimes consensus is appropriate, other times team members will fully support a leader’s decision as long as they feel their point of view has been heard and considered.
Here is a recent blog on the subject: http://bit.ly/b2RG1B
Dan: In the simplest sense the ‘dark side” are sited vs your six suggestions on the “bright side”
Teams the skills and abilities required, developed and acquired (teaming capabilities) are a core competency and barometer of a healthy human eco system in any enterprise.
The constituting of team expresses the collective belief of the individuals and enterprise as a whole or their résonne detere for being associated.
1. Team is rudderless and a destructive force to its members morale both while participating and the contagion spreads back with them to their ongoing responsibilities when it lacks a quantifiable objective (s)
2. Feel good exercises or teams posed as decision makers when the decision has already been concluded and the team was just a “beard” for appearances or worse after the requisite skills and experience are assembled become a destructive force to its member ……
3. Emasculating individual members or the team as a whole become a destructive force . . . .
4. Discovery, analysis, judgment application when organized results in individual and collective POV, most team members recognize that the weight of the evidence should be applied (decision making) to the issue or opportunity posed. If you asked me to work on a viable solution and then the decision descends from on high, I have to begin to think that this same logic applies to my daily accountabilities and becomes a destructive force. . . . .
5. Issues require analysis, judgment and solid recommendations. When members let down others on the team work load gets shifted, deadlines slip and the energy of the entire team is leached away and becomes a destructive force . . . . . .
6. With energy and focus at inception with clear quantitative goals established, matched with diligent rigorous analysis, and solid quantitative or prescriptive direction, and solid implementation constructs are a life cycle. Perpetuating a feel good group that expands its mandate corrupts its charter. Limiting participation to only “those judged worthy” to constitute teams within any enterprise creates a tiered higher achy and limits growth of individual and collective strength. This new class of beings of those whom god has touched become a destructive force . . . .
Good ones Doc. I would add that to your “dark side” thoughts:
When a leader establishes a team to postpone a decision or give the impression that s/he is doing something.
Always remember, as Coach Wooden once said, “Never mistake activity for achievement.”
Jim: Your CV and the breadth of your work makes your comments most welcome. I note we share and interst in Coach Wooden’s leadership philosophy and most importantly its implementation and perpetuation through out life.
With his recent passing the Wooden Train Systme is presently on hold. this reflects the seminal role Coach Wooden still played in the taining and the wishes of his family for a period of quirt and reflection after such a long and productive life.
For any contributors who wish to substitue a primer for the full show I suggest Coach Wooden’s Leadership Game Plan For Success (McGraw-Hill).
Love #5 and see examples of the lack of prep happening often but without repercussions for the perpetrator. I think it’s a symptom of the pace at which people are working and it’s become the norm in some environments. It’s a common theme for coaching too, trying to get the work horizon to move a little further away to allow some valuable thinking (and prep) space. Favourite words of wisdom on this…… “the longer the horizon, the smoother the moves.” Really sums it up for me.
Bev,
I based #5 on the concept of mutual respect. We show respect to each other when we do what we say we’ll do.
The tension of teams is they are slower than delegating decision making to one person. Hence, we need strategies to keep them moving forward.
I’m also glad you mention the importance of “thinking time”
Best,
Dan
Dear Dan
Ok, Ive read the blog post and I still may hold to my view that if you do not allow the meeting to go forward it may be “punishing” the team rather then adressing the behaviour of the team member.
Kim,
Agreed it is harsh. Perhaps if ground rules are set up at the teams first meeting it would help.
What if the team agrees, we don’t meet unless everyone is prepared?
Thanks for your comment.
Dan
Dan, thanks for the post.
I’ve definitely seen some teams that didn’t work out, and the reasons you cite frequently have contributed. A few of the learning points I’ve picked up along the way:
– A real team is a group of people who work together toward a common goal – they share interests and are focused on the same agenda. Work is largely accomplished synchronously with a high level of integration, and the whole is more than the additive sum of the parts.
– A work group is a group of people who work asynchronously as individuals and then additively combine their work pieces to create a whole is a work group, not a team. For simpler projects this can actually be preferable to the full investment in a true team.
– If you bring together a group of people with different interests, goals, and agendas you have a committee, not a team. Don’t expect much teamwork.
I would also make a quick comment on your comment regarding consensus (#4), purely based on my experience in my own organization. I might rephrase that as “Involve all team members in the decision-making process.”
I agree that it’s important for the whole team to buy into decisions that are made. However, I’d suggest that this has more to do with getting all the best ideas out, deciding (as a team) which one(s) are best, and determining as a group which direction to take. If everyone agrees, great! But you may have some members who simply don’t want to get on board, and spending a lot of time trying to build consensus can be costly. In my opinion, the leader’s job in this situation is to ensure that those people feel heard and understood, and if we don’t go the direction they recommend that they understand why. The leader can then ask for their support with the chosen direction, and assure them that their opinions matter and will continue to be heard.
Tim,
Thanks for your comment.
I enjoyed how you broke down different groups by function. Thanks.
In addition, point #4 has garnered many interesting comments. Time vs. timeline is a huge factor. Thanks for adding it.
Cheers,
Dan
Dan: We seem to hold Coach Wooden in high esteem. with his passing the Wooden Leadership Seminar Series in which he was such a powerful physical prescense is on hiatis at the family’s request.
For any followers of your blog a great primer is his volume Coach Wooden’s Leadership Game Plan For Success (McGraw-Hill).
Doc,
Thanks for the recommendation,
Best,
Dan
Dear Dan,
An interesting post with your suggesting 6 good ways that a team can work effectively. Lot depends on the clarity of purpose with which the team gets formed. The selection of right group members is vital and driving a team with defined process steps to handle the assigned task become the responsibility of a team leader.
Nothing works if you find a team leader of a complacent type and looks for consensus approach. In case of diverse views or some members throwing their weight around, the leader needs to play his role and set the pace encouraging new ideas and innovation.
Professionalism and the needed discipline can make a huge difference for a team to remain effective in terms of its delivery.
Dear Dr. Asher,
I like your comment that complacency and disciplines are important
factors. We need to discourage complacency and encouage discipline.
I think that may make a great difference.
Dr. Asher,
I don’t think enough can be said about getting the right people on the team. This indicates that success may be determined before the team actually meets.
Regards,
Dan
I don’t understand what u mean in ur last point. Killing a team once its done? Could you explain this further?
James,
I’m working under the assumption that a team is formed to solve a specific problem, #1. Teams should stay in existence any longer than they needed. In my experience endings can be difficult. This means that teams may outlive their usefulness.
Regards,
Dan
Hi Dan,
Although you may scramble a group of relevant people and call it a TEAM, just so to address a problem, I would like to look at TEAMs at a more deeper, lasting, selfless, bonding, sustainable, preventive, focus, enjoyable and continuously learning to grow.
In a fast paced digitally divided world, the workplace is missing some of the values of what makes a team great. Be it the CEO who adopts a armchair style leadership or the tea lady who selflessly serves without a recognition. Yes, it may sound utopian thinking. Then again, is that not what defines character in people, culture, management and ultimately what we all live for in search of meaning.
The kind of TEAMS I refer to have the bigger picture in mind as opposed to just merely solving a part of the puzzle. Members operate at a “revolutionary” pace of radical thinking to seriously and effectively “deculturalise” the workplace in unleashing the creative and innovative talent of people beyond the rhetorics.
After 6 months of trying, HR was asked to take down the banner on “Employee Suggestion Program”. I guess, the top decided to rest on their laurels, since they have all the answers and solutions to poor quality issues.
Trust and faith is very important to TEAM functionality. If you can’t even place your trust in people then what you have, at best are, blind doers who can’t wait to see the solution fail or worst still drag on under the false pretext, it’s going on well. And, the biggest joke would be to reward the team’s efforts for having made the journey so far!
Sounds familiar ?
Hi Dan,
Although you may scramble a group of relevant people and call it a TEAM, just so to address a problem, I would like to look at TEAMs at a more deeper, lasting, selfless, bonding, sustainable, preventive, focus, enjoyable and continuously learning to grow.
In a fast paced digitally divided world, the workplace is missing some of the values of what makes a team great. Be it the CEO who adopts a armchair style leadership or the tea lady who selflessly serves without recognition. Yes, it may sound utopian thinking. Then again, is that not what defines character in people, culture, management and ultimately what we all live for in search of meaning.
The kind of TEAMS I refer to have the bigger picture in mind as opposed to just merely solving a part of the puzzle. Members operate at a “revolutionary” pace of radical thinking to seriously and effectively “deculturalise” the workplace in unleashing the creative and innovative talent of people beyond the rhetorics.
After 6 months of trying, HR was asked to take down the banner on “Employee Suggestion Program”. I guess, the top decided to rest on their laurels, since they have all the answers and solutions to poor quality issues.
Trust and faith is very important to TEAM functionality. If you can’t even place your trust in people then what you have, at best are, blind doers who can’t wait to see the solution fail or worst still drag on under the false pretext, it’s going on well. And, the biggest joke would be to reward the team’s efforts for having made the journey so far!
Sounds familiar ?
Great inputs Dan.
I’ve struggled to figure out the ‘consensus’ based decision making part. The team does need to buy-in to the decision but not sure if it’s practical & effective to have a consensus on most decisions.
Tojo,
Thanks for leaving your first comment. I hope you become a regular.
You along with many others pushed back on “consensus decision making”
Best to you,
Dan
Great tips Dan. I wholeheartedly agree with showing team members that their perspectives matter. It’s a great motivator when people on the team actually feel valued and important. I also like the idea of letting teams do their thing independently, it gives people more power to come up with ideas and make decisions without outside constraints.
I am challenged by the idea that consensus must be the main decision making tool in an organization.
Yes, I am totally in agreement that more than one person’s opinion will benefit the final say. And I’ve experienced that many times great leaders will recognize that their team will consistently make highly effective decisions 98% of the time. After all, one of the great components of a world class team is leadership.
But that 2% of the time that decision making doesn’t fit consensus, this is when the proclaimed leader steps forward and makes the call. There is a very good reason why this person is paid and acknowledged as the leader of the team.
This doesn’t take away from the power of the team. In fact, the team looks for their acknowledged leader to step up and make the tough calls when needed. It provides confidence and security to the team when situations like this happen, that they know that progress won’t be stalled while waiting for the whole group to see the final decision in the same light.