Seven Ways to Develop Smart Teams
Fearful teams pretend they agree with you when they don’t. When was the last time someone spoke against something you said?
Better yet, are team conversations rich with options and alternatives? Or, are the people around you just dumb?
You’re team probably isn’t dumb. Bring out their wisdom rather than shutting it down.
Decide or explore:
Create interactions that rise above agreeing or disagreeing. Find ways to explore issues, rather than stating positions.
Defending positions doesn’t expand options.
The pursuit of decisions – something all leaders do – invites positional conversations that narrow options.
Positional conversations explain, support, or defend. They’re useful when making decisions. But, wise leaders expand and explore options before making decisions.
“Thinking isn’t agreeing or disagreeing. That’s voting.”
Robert Frost
Thinking conversations:
- Label conversations as, exploration-conversation. “Let’s explore our options.”
- When you hear positional language, stop it. “I agree with you, or, that sounds good.” is positional.
- Send them away to find solutions. Stop solving problems for people. “Why don’t you come back with a couple solutions we can explore this afternoon?”
- Define the big picture and desired results, but don’t define the path forward.
- Involve other departments or specialties.
- Frustrate people with dissatisfaction. “Can we find three more options?” Even when you’ve found “the” answer, ask for more.
- Withhold decisions.
Bonus: Talk with people who are actually doing the work.
Decisions end exploration.
Leaders tap the brains on the team. Conformity may feel warm, fuzzy, and safe, but it never innovates.
Your team doesn’t explore because you don’t want options. You’re too busy deciding. Time doesn’t allow you to explore options for every issue. But, the habit of fast decisions hinders exploration.
Teams that don’t explore repeat the past.
How can leaders create environments where teams create and explore options?
“Yes men/women” are quick fixes to one’s ideas that lead to unimaginative solutions. Not settling with the status quo and delving into the heart of the problem provides robust long term solutions.
Thanks Michael. Lets invite people to speak.
I really like the topic of this post, Dan. I won’t say whether or not I agree with your thoughts, because that would be taking a position (haha).
Instead I’ll ask a question in response – you argue quick decisions don’t allow for innovation, but do you allocate more time and resources to some decisions while simply quickly acting on others? And how do you identify which decisions are “important” enough to put the additional time and effort into exploring multiple options?
I have a feeling that in some cases, it’s best to move quickly in deciding on a solution rather than lingering on the issue too long. What do you think?
Thanks Jerry. I have a feeling that there’s a place for quick decisions. 🙂
What’s the impact?
Are we solving a short-term problem or developing long-term solutions.
How many people are impacted?
What’s the visibility?
Will higher ups be watching?
I’m glad you added your voice to the conversation. You’re “right” if you don’t mind me saying. Not all decisions/conversations are the same.
I like your #7 — “finding the second right answer” has been a good practice in my world, to approach situations from a completely different direction, in doing so a new perspective of the problem/issue is often uncovered.
Thanks Ken. I really like the terminology, “Second Right Answer.” You aren’t expressing dissatisfaction with the first answer, just looking for a second.
Agree — I picked up this terminology from Roger VonOech author of “A Whack On The Side of The Head” about 20 years ago — It stuck! 🙂
I like surrounding myself with smart people and have, when given the option always made certain my teams have the time and the freedom to think outside of boxes. One of my key leadership styles is to not lead solution meetings, but only come when invited after throwing the problem at the right ‘doer’ and their team. It as a process that has worked very well.
Thanks Ivalentinedean. You have the courage and trust to let other shine. Great example. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Yo, Edwards Demming, start with the folks with boots on the ground.
Fires burn up!
Connect those why’s on the ground floor. When people feel valued and listened to and the leader has their back….trust emerges.
When that does not happen, lips lie. Everybody is out to protect themselves but say to everyone, everything is great.
SP back to making oxy.
Thanks Scott. “Fires burn up!” kaching!
There is more competition out there than any other time in history. The complexity of the buiness world is increaseing at an alarming rate. Customers expect more, employers demand more, ‘with less’ as leaders fight the good fight to get it all done-many have reached their breaking point. In my opinion, there has never been a time in history where building solid DIVERSIFIED Teams has been so important. The challenges I mentioned are real, and are really urgent. At the very core of any successful team is a common phylosophy, “Identify individuals committed to the future, ‘not’ just their future, but the future of their teamates, employer, customers, and shareholders. The day you realize (The Team), multiplies your leadership effort and your impact many times over, is the day you understand the true secret of teams. “A very good, very useful read, Mark Millers – The Secret of Teams. Read it, live it, apply It !!!!! Cheers Dan.
I like the idea of inviting exploration instead of position jockeying. I like to encourage this most among decision makers by diving into how well they understand the impact/perception to the customer (which can also mean employees if it’s a solution/problem more specific to front line employees).
Where does it rank among the everyday problems the customer is having?
Are you certain the solution will not make something else in the customer’s life worse?
Have you experienced this problem yourself from the customer’s perspective such that you have a good feeling the solution will really “fix” it.
This is more about understanding the customer pain points in a wing-to-wing perspective (not just how they use your product or services) so that we are finding the best fit solution through true brilliant innovation, rather than just lazily asking the customer what the ‘fix’ should be (in the 1800’s, no customer asked for a car, they asked for faster horses and better whips).
This is actually me. I screwed up and was logged into a new Twitter account I had just created a few days prior.
Reblogged this on THE STRATEGIC LEARNER and commented:
I follow a good number of leadership blogs … I share from only a few. Dan Rockwell is one of the regulars. His thinking is clear and useful and his communication style is personal and easy to read.
Great reminder thanks Dan.
Exploration is a critical component in great teams and leadership. I also find it useful to mentally frame a conversation in terms of assumptions, beliefs and known facts. We need each of these at different times, however the critical thing is to be aware of their presence – to go ‘one better’ and challenge where the idea/ concept/ notion / answer is currently at.
Go well. Richard
My position here is that I agree…
Seriously and sadly, nearly all of this is so very, VERY true. Yes, conformity makes people feel warm and fuzzy — it does not always work. It only works in rare situations such as IF and when people are truly on the same page in those seldom occurring situations.
And as Coding101 wrote: “I like the idea of inviting exploration instead of position jockeying.” — position jockeying is one of the great banes of all things in the world, it infrequently solves real problems…
Really needed this topic…. I use this quote way too much “why create the wheel”….When doing what I’ve always done because I’m too busy or not feeling creative!
Also, being decisive is good leadership right? What about that?
The beauty of “smart” non-conformity is that everyone ultimately conforms. There was a rather bright, non-conformist, hippie Professor of Sociology at the Univ of Cal, Berkeley, who spoke to conformity in reference to the Haight-Ashbury movement in the 60s, and about inner city gangs. Professor S.I. Hayakawa saw how kids would not conform to the rules of mom and dad in the family, and so would leave the family only to conform to the rules and dictates of the leader of a gang. How ironic is that?
We see this kind of “socialization” in “most” organizations today. We hire people for the dimension we envision they can bring to our
staff and organization. The day they come aboard, however, we “train” them to be and do like everyone else in our organization–and they conform. Yet, we ask them to think outside the box.
UNLEARNING is as important as learning. Unlearning is learning! It’s almost as difficult to make man unlearn errors as learning knowledge. All of us who are worth anything invest our life in unlearning our follies, or expiating our mistakes. Leadership is as much a progressive unlearning of false ideas as it is the learning of true virtues. Only when unlearning strips away errors of thought and attitude—can we decide to start anew, so we can “think” without conformity, yet “act” in conformance with our consumers.
Rick, really like the reference to the changes that follow after the hiring process. “So-o true”! Organizations sucsess thrive’s on original idea’s yet most still insist on uniformitty and conformitty…… SGT Steven L.
Hmmm, no disrespect Rick but I have to disagree on that first sentence “The beauty of “smart” non-conformity is that everyone ultimately conforms.” I thought about this overnight on responding or not and felt I should for the other non-conformists out there. Primarily because of that phrase on “smart” non-conformity (I really do like the “smart non-conformity part).
Not everyone ‘ultimately’ conforms; I mean that I’m pretty sure that you yourself most likely know at least one person who does not conform…? Blue hair…
Me, I despise conformity, just my nature (I don’t mean being argumentative or always contrarian), I can’t seem to help it.
In high school, I did the most unconventional thing (at that time) – I was in the band (concerts & marching), on the football & track teams, a club president and in the honor society – I really disliked conforming to doing “this or that” as everyone else was doing. Now, this combo seems to be very common, which is excellent.
A long time ago during Marine boot camp – I hated conformity (even though I knew I had to follow the rules). I hated it so much that I was kicked out of the platoon leadership position twice for being a non-conformist (albeit a respectful non-conformist). But they kept putting me back in charge because the replacements were not as good.
I never disobeyed or questioned orders but I would have an ever so slight pause and look in my eyes…
Even today, I barely meet the dress code for work. Oh I wear a tie to work but many days I do not. And on many of the days I do wear a tie; I loosen it or remove it early in the day – even during meetings with 1 & 2 star admirals/generals and other senior civilians.
I speak up during meetings, which I always encourage others to do, no matter who is talking. I speak up when it might be or is necessary to do so (not just blurting out comments of course) and whether it is imparting creative or logical information or even playing the devil’s advocate. As you know, many people are afraid to speak up or are of the mistaken belief that what they say does not matter.
Of course I do follow all the ethics and discrimination rules – mainly because it is the proper and right thing to do, not just because someone made rules for everyone to conform to.
For years at several firms across the country, I’ve made my own work hours, definitely off-kilter from the regular authorized work hours. But I was good at what I did with justifications for doing so – but I had no plans to be a regular 9-5er.
What I’m trying to say and why Dan R. posted the article, is just that, in my eyes, people from all walks of life can continue to be ‘successful’ non-conformists. That is, if they are successful at what they do (not necessarily the best & brightest) AND are respectful of those around them (as people and what they also have to offer) AND can provide valid justifications for whatever they do that is.
One can conform to be civil – but everything else is off the table… 🙂
Sorry if I went off on a different tangent than what you may have intended, it really is the non-conformist in me doing all this response….
And on Steven L stated in his reply; “So-o true!” I second it because nearly all corporations do that, even military and other federal/state/local institutions.
I also like your comment on UNLEARNING – brilliant…
These are great tips for business leaders trying to create effective teams. Teamwork has become so important in business today – I hope everyone can adapt this mentality. I like number 6 because it forces team members to be active and involved in critical thinking.
I will relay this information to the clients I counsel.
Thanks!
Enjoyed the Robert Frost quote, “Thinking isn’t agreeing or disagreeing. That’s voting.”
This is a good reminder to stay vigilant in understanding the issue at hand. It can be extremely easy to provide a quick vote without considering other options or concealed risks.
Labelling an entire category of objections as “positional” and refusing to consider them is a neat way of disallowing criticism of your argument and making it unassailable, as if it was implicitly true. I don’t agree to participate in that re-frame.
You said: “The pursuit of decisions – something all leaders do – invites positional conversations that narrow options.”
The goal of management is to allow the work to get done. That requires either doing nothing and letting competent employees to do the work they are paid for (preferred), or making a decision to allow work to begin (already a sign of under-empowering your employees, and micro-management, both bad things).
Either way the work is the end result, and sorting through options is meaningless busy work for the managers who want less accountability, and less responsibility, by offloading decisions from themselves and putting it onto the nebulous shoulders of their crowd of underlings.
After all, why make any decision yourself when you can just allow employees to intellectually bludgeon each other to insanity with their competing ideas?
What inevitably happens is that the loudest and most stubborn employee, often with the weakest argument that requires the least effort to explain (i.e. “Do nothing, make no changes, continue on our current course”), and/or is the most important and threatens to leave if they don’t get their way, wins because they are the last to give up. Everyone else who actually cared about their ideas got tired of hitting their heads against the walls along the way and gave up.
Is that how you want people to run their business?
That turn of phrase “too many chefs spoils the soup” might be trite but is absolutely accurate. So here’s my competing advice: want to be a good manager where there’s a decision to be made, where you haven’t empowered anyone to decide, and your employees can’t agree? Pick one employee that is technically competent with expertise in that area, empower them with the authority to make the decision about how to proceed, AND MAKE THEM THE ONE TO CARRY OUT THE WORK.
Good management: Empowering someone to do the work you pay them for and making sure they are responsible for the implementation of their ideas, then being able to evaluate it when it’s done as their success or failure.
Bad management: Inviting a free-for-all between all your employees, to get the worst possible outcome, and then imposing the unhappy decision on everyone that didn’t agree to it in the first place.