Developing Teams and Teamwork
Article by Dr. John E. Kello
Teams are everywhere! They are the molecule out of which the contemporary High Performance Organization (a model to which many organizations aspire) is constructed. In such organizations, teams do production, teams manage projects and make recommendations, and teams provide direction and oversight to the organization. Members of effective teams multiply each other’s efforts and results -- the “synergy” of teamwork -- and a huge body of research and practice points to the conclusion that teams can and usually do substantially outperform the same number of individuals working individually. In short, we do teams because teams do work. They are an essential vehicle for organizational excellence.
A prominent author in the field of Organization Development, John Kotter has written extensively on organizational change. In his classic Harvard Business Review article, “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail”, Kotter notes that a common denominator in failed culture-change efforts is the “failure to build a powerful guiding coalition”; if an organization is going to successfully make culture change on a large scale, there must be a broad-based effort led by more than one individual, no matter how highly placed, how smart, or how persuasive that individual may be. Other things need to happen as well, of course (Kotter identifies some 8 critical elements of an effective organizational transformation all told), but the team that forms this guiding coalition is an essential foundation and centerpiece. This basic logic applies not only to large-scale whole-system change, but also to changing critical sub-elements of the system, such as our approach to production, quality, and safety. Teams do the work.
But, not all teams are highly effective. In some cases the potential power of the team is not harnessed. As an example, quite a few of the professionals I have worked with feel that even with the supporting team structure of a committee, they have to personally do an awful lot of the pushing and pulling themselves to make a difference. They are sometimes more solo performers with a cast of observers than leaders of a powerful guiding coalition, and as such, they are often unable to accomplish as much as they would like as quickly as they would like.
What are the Characteristics of an Effective Team?
Based on decades of team-effectiveness research and practice, the following features appear to be central:
Not too big, not too small. Sometimes constraints require very small or very large teams, but we know that teams work best when their membership numbers around 7-10, plus or minus a few. A lot of research in social psychology on group dynamics points to the conclusion that the “small group process”, the effective functioning of a small cohesive group in terms of quality of work output and quality of group climate, is optimal with about 7-10 members (again, plus or minus a few). With fewer, there may not be critical mass for brainstorming, or enough hands to do the work. With more, there is a crowd, and it is hard to build real cohesiveness as a unit. Team cohesion-- the sense of mutual commitment to goals and to each other -- is essential to team effectiveness (though it can be overdone, and must be handled with caution -- see below).
Multi-functional and multi-level. There is sizable research literature on the value of the “diverse team”. Such teams may take longer to coalesce and work smoothly as a unit (OK, they will take longer, and sometimes a whole lot longer), and there is certainly more potential for misunderstanding, conflict, and disagreement, especially early on. But, if well managed, the broadening and enriching diversity of background experience, ability, and viewpoints can be invaluable, and can more than offset the slow lift-off of a diverse team. The work of effective multi-functional/multi-level teams is also often better accepted, and more easily implemented, than the work of more homogeneous, one-dimensional teams (e.g., the engineering group makes a major equipment change, or the safety committee unilaterally introduces a new incident reporting procedure). All of my organizational experience compels me to take the position that the first-line supervisor is the critical lever for turning plans into behavioral results, and I would argue vigorously that first-line production supervisors should be represented on any team whose work significantly affects the core operations of the business.
Focused on measurable results. Teams exist to achieve objectives in alignment with the overall organizational mission and goals. The more that those objectives are stated in clear, specific, and actionable terms, the more motivated team members will be to work towards achieving them. Unless and until the team has a clear and compelling mission and set of targets and knows how to track progress -- to keep score -- there is not much need to worry about the softer human-relations aspects of teams. This “first, focus on performance” point was strongly emphasized in the now-classic book “The Wisdom of Teams”, authored by Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith, as an essential and foundational principle of real team concept.
Enlightened, inspiring, and empowering leadership (as always). The leader plays a primary role in setting and communicating the Vision and Mission, providing overall direction, setting objectives, establishing roles and responsibilities, establishing accountability, and ultimately, leading a team to high performance. With this in mind, it is important that leaders be alert to the thought-suppressing effect they can have, definitely by position, and sometimes also by personality. There are numerous tools and techniques that leaders can use to encourage open participation and the free flow of ideas, and to avoid dominating the proceedings or otherwise suppressing input. The point is to maximize performance and minimize “groupthink” (whereby members self-censor, and put more value on agreeing and supporting the leader than on making a good decision). I suggested above that cohesion, usually a highly desirable state, is a two-edged sword, and can be overdone. Indeed, unless team dynamics are carefully monitored (again, the leader plays a central role here), cohesiveness can become a primary goal in itself; groupthink is the dark side of cohesiveness.
Leadership is an interactive, two-way proposition. Good leaders don’t just provide one-way direction. They empower team members to speak up, offer ideas, give feedback, and even share leadership.
Teams and Teamwork “Grow”
Merely getting a group together and calling it a team does not automatically make that group an effective, interdependent, and mutually supporting unit organized around common goals. Truly effective teams, the kind of powerful guiding coalition that Kotter prescribes as essential in leading major organizational change don’t just happen. Even if they are sized right, multi-functional and multi-level, focused on measurable results, and well led, it always takes time for working groups to be developed into effective teams. That said, the mere passage of time is not enough. Real team building is never a “microwave” or “shake and bake” process. The group must be actively led through something like the stages of team development that psychologist Bruce Tuckman envisioned and popularized some years ago -- “Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing” -- in order to get to the mature state of high performance, to function effectively without day-to-day push or pull by the leader, and thus to truly multiply efforts. Certainly, the leader must provide direction, focus, and task clarity to the budding team, at least at first. Gradually, the leader should back out of the directing role to take on more of a coaching and delegating role, allowing and encouraging (even requiring) team members to take more initiative and make more decisions without close supervision. In short, the team management style used by their leader is a major factor in determining how far the team will go toward high performance, how quickly they will get there, and how smooth or bumpy the journey through the growth stages will be.
Final Thoughts
Chances are you are part of a team, or several teams. The department in which you work probably identifies itself as a team. You may also be on a project team (or several of those). Perhaps you are on a safety committee, which is a team that is focused on the mission of improving safety performance and building a positive safety culture, with all that that implies.
When a team is well constructed and well led, the long-term result can be a guiding coalition that truly magnifies the impact of the individual leader and helps weave into the fabric of the organization a steady focus on excellence. Indeed, such a team can make all the difference in building a durable, self-sustaining, positive culture of excellence.