Forster N. - Maximum performance (2005)(en)

210 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

•more opportunities for social loafing and freeloading to occur: the larger the group, the lower the performance of some individuals will be;

•low-performing or badly organized large groups may drag down the motivation and productivity of high-performing individuals;

•a greater likelihood that the team leader will make autocratic decisions on behalf of the team.

Nor is there a simple answer to the question, ‘What is the best type of team?’ This is because teams come in a variety of shapes, sizes and characteristics. Take the example of rowing. In this situation, you can have up to eight people rowing backwards as fast as they can without talking to each other, being yelled at by the one person who is not the captain and doesn’t row in the boat. In races, the cox determines the speed and direction of the boat. Next there is the stroke, who sets the rowing pace for the other rowers to follow, but may not be the team’s captain. Off the river, the captain of the crew becomes the visible leader. He has a say in the selection of the crew, and also has responsibilities for discipline, motivation and morale. Last, there is the coach, who rarely (if ever) gets to actually row in the boat, but is responsible for the team’s fitness, motivation, team development, setting long and short-term performance targets, race tactics and checking up on the opposition. At first glance, this could be regarded as a very odd way of organizing a group of people, but it is perfectly suited to the task of transporting a sophisticated piece of equipment and up to eight athletes down a course as quickly as possible.

To return to a point made earlier, simply putting people together and calling them a team does not mean that they will work together successfully. Building an effective team requires time and commitment, as well as the ability to create a team structure and processes appropriate to the tasks at hand. High-performing teams establish agreed rules about appropriate behaviour, commitment and punctuality at meetings. Questions of ‘what’, ‘when’, ‘where’, ‘who’ and ‘how’ are clearly understood and this means that the team can then deal with their work tasks efficiently. People understand their individual responsibilities and the higher goals towards which the group is working. They have a deep sense of purpose (‘One for all and all for one’). They are willing to confront each other over difficult issues, and there are no subjects that cannot be discussed, analysed or criticized. Highperforming teams are committed to excellence in all spheres of their activities and have a deep sense of mutual responsibility for the team’s results. Two of the most respected writers on teams, Katzenbach and Smith (1983), have suggested that there are eight steps to building high-performance teams:

LEADING AND MANAGING TEAMS 211

•selecting new recruits on the basis of their skills and potential ‘fit’ with other team members,

•spending some time together creating an esprit de corps and building up personal rapport between individual team-members,

•establishing clear rules of behaviour and team protocol,

•creating a sense of urgency to energize and motivate the team,

•setting clear, challenging goals and tasks for team members, within agreed time frames,

•challenging the team regularly with new ideas and information,

•ensuring that all team meetings are well organized and managed effectively,

•providing the team’s members with positive feedback, recognition and rewards.

A number of theories and models have also been developed in order to identify the variety of roles that are performed in successful work teams. The best known of these is Meredith Belbin’s model. He identified eight key team-roles.

1Chair/coordinator: has overall responsibility for leading the team and coordinating the activities and goals of individual team members.

2Company worker: a task-focused individual who has a strong drive to achieve the team’s objectives, but may be less able to develop good interpersonal relationships with other team members.

3Shaper: often intelligent and assertive and likes to contribute ideas, but may not want to be a leader. Can become frustrated and impatient if their ideas are not accepted.

4Resource investigator: usually stable, extroverted and sociable. Likes to get ideas and information from people outside their team. Good at locating and accessing information. May lose interest in team projects quite quickly and may not be good with the minutiae of team tasks.

5Monitor/evaluator: good at critiquing ideas and reality-testing the team’s ideas and proposals, but may lack creativity and an ability to innovate.

6Team worker: often extroverted, sociable and may be the team ‘joker’. Concerned about team harmony and morale. May be less good at taking hard decisions or doing the practical work that is required to achieve the team’s goals.

7Plant/originator: often independent, creative and intelligent. Likes to offer new ideas and innovative suggestions. May be introverted and indecisive.

8Finisher: a perfectionist, who is interested in the details of a project and likes to check that the team has completed a task successfully.

212 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

Can become over-concerned about trivial details and signing-off on a project.

(Adapted from Belbin, 1993)

What practical applications might this model have? First, Belbin’s research has shown that successful teams have this diversity of roles fully covered, while less successful teams lack some of these. This does not mean that you need to have an individual ‘plant’, ‘resource investigator’ and so on in your team. But it does follow that these skills and competencies need to be spread amongst the individual members of the team. Second, the precise mixture of these skills and competencies will be shaped by the team’s objectives, and those of the organization of which it is a part. For example, if you are working in an organization where new ideas and innovation are important, you will need more shapers, plants, resource investigators and monitors (for example, in a biotechnology company). If you work in an organization where adherence to strict rules, regulations and legal standards is important you’ll require more monitors and finishers (for example, in a department of immigration or a taxation office). In a small business, you may need two or three individuals who are able to fulfil all or most of these roles.

Other research has indicated that other kinds of diversity in teams can be extremely beneficial (for example, Goodman, 1986). In Chapters 1 and 3 we identified the issue of selective perceptions and how these shape, in a very fundamental way, our views of the world and of other people. The natural consequence of these is the tendency that many leaders have to separate their followers into distinct groups, an ingroup of people they instinctively like (the ‘cadre’) and an out-group of people they like less (the ‘hired hands’). Many leaders do this and, for the most part, without even thinking consciously about it. Each group is treated differently, with the cadre being allowed more latitude in behaviour and much closer relationships with the leader. However, there can be dangers associated with this. There may be a tendency to hire only people who are ‘like us’, leading to the emergence of a management team of ‘yes’ men and women and, over time, to widespread organizational sclerosis and nepotism.

While it can appear to be a perfectly rational decision to bring in people we know to form a new team in an organization, this can have several negative outcomes, particularly when creating new senior management teams (Cornell, 1998a). Known as ‘consanguineous nepotism’, this tendency to ‘hire your mates’ can be fraught with dangers. First, a lack of formal hiring processes may mean that the wrong people get jobs. Second, there can be an impact on the morale of existing personnel

LEADING AND MANAGING TEAMS 213

when they see the boss’s mates being wheeled in ahead (or instead) of them. It also suggests inadequate succession planning and a lack of faith in the incumbent management. Third, there is a potential danger that the leader in question is building up a power base of compliant ‘yes’ men and women, rather than developing an effective senior management team (the ‘in’ and ‘out’ group phenomenon described in Chapter 1). Fourth, the new people may not fit the new organizational culture and, if existing staff are rubbed up the wrong way, this could lead to an exodus of employees. Employees who choose to leave may then be in a position to damage the company by trading sensitive information to competitors. Corporate psychologist Ken Byrne, of the Ballin Group, made these comments in 1998:

The reality is that executives are more mobile and realise that they are going to be judged, maybe very quickly, so their career depends on getting a team working quickly. In that situation, it is a rational choice to bring in the people you know. It may not always be the best choice, but it is a logical one [ ] the most common mistake is for senior executives to surround themselves with people like themselves. That only works when the new person is coming in to perform exactly what they were already good at.

(Abridged from Cornell, 1998a)

In practical terms, this means that all leaders and managers should be wary of recruiting new team members on the basis of ‘Is this person like me?’ judgments (for example, white, male, Anglo-Saxon and into gridiron/rugby/soccer). All available research evidence shows that the most successful business teams are made up of a variety of personality types, and we will return to this important issue in the context of gender and diversity issues in Chapter 6.

One of the biggest mistakes a person can make is to put together a team that reflects him/her. I find that it is better to put together people in teams who have disparate skills and then make all those disparate skills work together. The real role of the team-leader is to figure out how you make diverse people and elements work together.

(John Sculley, former CEO, Apple Computers, 1992)

Creating a new work team

For two reasons, it is worth spending a little time looking at the process of team and group formation. First, there will be times when you have to create a new team from scratch, and this is not as easy as it might sound. Second, you may at some time become the leader of a dysfunctional team, and an understanding of how it came to be this way could assist you in finding solutions to its problems. Although there are a number of models describing the process of group formation, they are all variations on the same theme: that new teams go through four or

214 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

five principal life stages from birth to maturity. The best known of these is probably Tuckman and Jenson’s model.

Forming

When people come together for the first time, there may be very little mutual understanding. People may be guarded and defensive, while at the same time trying to make their mark on the group. Active listening may be at a premium. Dominant personalities may seek to take over and set the group’s direction. Their focus may be on the task at hand, rather than the process of building the group. There is little or no achievement of work goals at this stage.

Storming

Members may have opened up more, and issues of roles and responsibilities within the group are being worked out. Exploration and testing emerge. There may be an increased acceptance of others’ viewpoints. The ‘real’ leader may have emerged, or been elected by the group, and may take on a more directive role at this stage. A group pecking order may have developed. Group members are looking for clear goals and direction from the leader. Task performance is still low and more conflict may occur.

Norming

By this stage, the group is evolving into a team, and should have established rules, codes and procedures for working together and be developing a collective team ethos. Leadership may be shared or rotated. Systematic working methods have been adopted. Relationships within the team are well developed. Benchmarks for acceptable behaviour and standards of work are well established. The team will now be starting to work towards its goals.

Performing

The team is now more than the sum of its individual members and has evolved into a cohesive unit. People are clear about their roles and mutual obligations. They are achieving their objectives together, and the climate within the team is challenging and enjoyable. An esprit de corps is now established and the team may be developing a sense of competition with other teams. People develop and grow and support each other in the achievement of work tasks. The team is performing well and achieving its objectives. The team as a whole enjoys teambased bonuses and rewards (adapted from Tuckman and Jenson, 19771).

There are four qualifications that should be added to this basic model.

LEADING AND MANAGING TEAMS 215

•In practice, the progression through this linear process is likely to be irregular, with intermittent regressions between each stage.

•The transitions between stages will be gradual rather than sudden and some groups may have to move through the four stages simultaneously.

•The model largely overlooks organizational contexts and cultures, the environment that provides the resources, behavioural rules, work practices, protocols and information needed for the team to perform effectively (a subject we will return to in Chapters 8–10).

•It also overlooks issues relating to team size, roles and diversity, covered in the preceding sections. This means that, as well as building the team, the leader needs to be spending time and energy ensuring that the team has the right mixture of skills and abilities that will enable it to meet its objectives.

However, this model does have three practical applications for leaders and managers. First, it demonstrates that it is not usually possible to perform well as a team unless it has been successfully formed, and been through some norming and storming, at some point during its life cycle. Second, if establishing a new team from scratch, we should initially focus as much energy on building the team up as we do on dealing with the actual tasks that it is being formed to deal with. This may mean establishing a ‘Team Charter’ of agreed team rules, behaviours and protocols that each member of the team, literally, signs. Third, if we try to rush through this process, and the team is not working well together, it may be necessary to take it back through these stages at some point in the future.2

Managing team meetings

Are you lonely? Hate having to make decisions? Rather talk about it than do it? Then why not HOLD A MEETING? You can get to see other people, sleep in peace, offload decisions, learn to write volumes of meaningless notes, feel important, and impress (or bore) your colleagues. And all in work time! ‘Meetings’: the practical alternative to work.

(Spoof email article that appeared in 1998)

A few studies have confirmed what many leaders and managers have learnt through long and bitter experience: that meetings can be a frustrating waste of time, energy and resources, rather than useful forums in which to make decisions. For example, research conducted by Terry Robbins-Jones at the South Australian University School of Information Systems reported that Australian business managers waste up to 40 per cent of their time in useless meetings and hours on talks that ultimately produce the wrong answers to their problems. It

216 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

also revealed that managers spend 30–75 per cent of their time in meetings, of which half produce no useful outcomes (cited by Ramsey, 1997). Another study, by Integrated Vision in conjunction with Australia’s major telecommunications firm, Telstra, reported that one in three executives had admitted to falling asleep during meetings. Eighty-seven per cent said that they daydreamed during meetings, 68 per cent said they had ‘raised their voice in anger’ and 40 per cent had ‘stormed out of meetings’ in the preceding 12 months. The survey, on meeting behaviour and productivity, polled more than 300 executives and found that inefficient meetings were wasting a huge amount of company time and money. The authors of the study claimed that time wasted in unproductive meetings in Australia cost $A2.1 billion a year, or about 3.3 per cent of the country’s total annual gross domestic product in 2000. The study estimated that Australian executives attend, on average, 61 meetings a month. In the UK, senior managers attend, on average, 62 meetings a month, and in the USA they attend 58 meetings a month (cited in Boreham, 2001).

What is surprising about these results is that the purpose of meetings is, ostensibly, to share and disseminate information, to solve problems, make intelligent and rational decisions and, tangentially, to build commitment and esprit de corps in organizations. So why do so many meetings have the potential to go horribly, horribly wrong? The main reason is that many leaders and managers do not invest sufficient time and resources in the organization and management of team meetings at work. To get an idea of how well you manage meetings, please complete Exercise 5.2.

Exercise 5.2

Managing meetings

Below, there are 12 statements about meetings. Before looking at the scoring key below, please indicate which you consider to be generally true or false. First-response answers are best.

Scoring your answers:*

For statements 1, 6, 9, 11 & 12, score 2 points for ‘True’ and 0 for ‘False’ For statements 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 & 10, score 0 points for ‘True’ and 2 for ‘False’

Add up your total score ______

Interpreting your score:

22–24: excellent meeting management skills, 16–20: good meeting management skills,

<14: below-average meeting management skills.

(* Based on the collective team-working experiences of more than 1000 MBA students, 1993–2003. The rationale for each answer is given below.)

How did you get on? Like formal presentation skills, the effective management of team meetings requires a focus on both structure (the ‘what’) and processes (the ‘how’). Structure includes issues such as the organization of the agenda, the items and topics that are to be discussed at the meeting, the duration and location of the meeting, which staff are to be involved, and the physical environment of the meeting. In practical terms, this means:

218 MAXIMUM PERFORMANCE

•setting clear objectives and desired outcomes for every meeting that you chair (even if all of these may not be achieved in a single sitting). If you are dealing with complex issues, prepare your questions about these in advance;

•establishing who should attend (and why). If you have invited ‘outsiders’, delegate one person to look after them;

•sending all relevant information and the agenda to participants at least one week prior to the meeting, with the clear understanding and expectation that these will be read prior to the meeting. Complex and/or detailed documents should always have executive summaries attached. Use ‘AOB’ for any late submissions. Put easy or noncontroversial items at the beginning of the agenda to be dealt with first;

•allowing adequate time for the meeting (but less than 90 minutes whenever possible) and making sure you’ve booked the room you need;

•ensuring that the venue for the meeting is comfortable, has appropriate equipment (chairs, tables, audio-visual aids and so forth), secretarial backup or a rotating minute taker to record the main points of the meeting, and refreshments for lunchtime meetings or for sessions that will last more than 90 minutes.

Process includes preparation for the meeting, setting the objectives for the meeting, agreed rules about appropriate behaviour at meetings, agreed limits on the length of time that people can talk, delegation of responsibilities for specific agenda items, and recording the meeting and actions to be taken following the meeting. In practical terms, this means:

•starting the meeting on time and/or at odd times (for example, 8.57, 11.13 or 1.34). Never wait for latecomers, unless there are exceptional circumstances or reasons for this. Welcome everyone and briefly set out the purpose and main objectives of the meeting;

•never reviewing the contents of the agenda in detail because people should have read through these prior to the meeting. Summarize, as needed, the minutes of the last meeting and what actions have been taken in response to decisions made in that meeting;

•leading the meeting authoritatively, without being autocratic. If you can, get easy items out of the way first. For complicated or difficult issues, set specific time limits for discussion, put these on the agenda and stick to them (I once knew a head of department who used to bring an alarm clock along to departmental meetings for this purpose);

•maintaining ‘agenda integrity’, by keeping the focus of attendees on the tasks and topics at hand. Steer people back from ‘railway

LEADING AND MANAGING TEAMS 219

sidings’, if they go off on irrelevant tangents or start wind-bagging or rambling on about irrelevant topics;

•using flow charts and/or visual aids during brainstorming sessions or when discussing complex ideas or innovations (covered further in Chapter 9);

•using the active listening, questioning, emotional diffusion and ‘winning an audience’ skills reviewed in Chapter 3 (see below). Conflict and disagreement will inevitably occur in meetings but, if handled well, these can lead to positive outcomes and the generation of new ideas;

•summarizing participants’ contributions regularly and keeping accurate minutes, particularly where specific tasks have been delegated to named individuals;

•ending the meeting on time. At the close, briefly recap agreed courses of action, look forward to the next meeting, remind people of the date(s) of the next meeting(s) and end on a positive upbeat note and/or a ‘thank you’ for the team’s contributions.

Many of the communication techniques described in detail in Chapter 3 can also be applied in team-meetings. In this context, the following are most applicable. First, ask questions of the entire team and individually, particularly the quieter members. If a team member responds, acknowledge or paraphrase the comment and explore this further if needed. If no one responds to your questions, consider rewording the question or ask if it needs clarification.

Second, if you disagree with an idea or viewpoint, ask questions, and try to avoid contradicting people directly. For example, instead of saying, ‘Phil, that idea makes no sense at all to me, it’s unworkable’, try, ‘I don’t really understand this idea – can you please explain it to us again?’, and then ask other team members to comment on the response.

Third, avoid biased questions (for example, use ‘What’s causing this problem?’ rather than ‘Who’s causing this problem?’ or ‘Why are defect levels on the increase; what can we do about this?’ instead of ‘Jim, the level of defects in your team are on the rise. What are you going to do about it?’). If you want information, avoid questions that will only elicit ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ responses.

Fourth, be careful about how you praise questions or responses in team discussions. For example, try using ‘Thanks for your input Fiona. Would anyone like to comment on this proposal?’ instead of ‘Great idea Fiona, that’s the best idea I’ve heard this morning’. Such comments may put those who have already made contributions offside. Be neutral in your responses to contributions in team meetings in public; however, it is a