All for One and One for All:

Transcription

1 white paper All for One and One for All: Getting all of your work team on the same bus by Jay Gordon Cone SAN FRANCISCO Phone Fax Kearny, 16th floor San Francisco, CA BOSTON Phone Fax Fargo Street, Suite 908 Boston, MA 02210

2 A GROUP OR A TEAM? Individuals riding the same bus have something in common, but they re not a team. Suppose the bus breaks down and the individuals collaborate to repair the bus. They share food and drink and generally pull together to make sure they all get to their destination with a minimum of discomfort and delay. The people riding the bus have become a team. If, under one set of circumstances we have a group of individuals, and in another set of circumstances, the same people become a team; what changed? A closer look at the progression from group to team turns out to be highly instructive. For one thing, it explains a lot more about why we re often frustrated by our own teams. What exactly does the team of bus riders repairing the bus have that the group of bus riders travelling in the bus lacks? WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? Whatever else we mean by team, members of a team share a purpose and goals. Purpose answers the question, why? As in, Why are we working together? and Why was this team formed? Goals answer the question, what? As in, What are we trying to accomplish? and What are the goals of this team? The riders on the bus may share a goal or two: arrive at our destination safely and be on time. We don t think of them as a team because each has a different and unrelated purpose for arriving at his or her destination. When members of the collaborative work team begin to seamlessly deliver on collective work products, they re on their way to When the bus breaks down, they suddenly have a becoming a High new set of goals and they have a shared purpose to which the goals contribute; they have a reason to work Performing Team. together toward their goals instead of simply paying someone else to help them achieve their goals. Here s where things get interesting and relevant; in addition to suddenly having a shared purpose, another more subtle difference between the bus riders before and after the break-down emerges. To some extent, the riders working together to repair the bus depend on each other; like the Three Musketeers, one can t be successful unless all are successful. 2 ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL

3 TEAM STRUCTURES MATTER Work groups can be configured in a variety of ways. The degree of structural interdependence is a good way to differentiate one configuration from another (see figure). Individual contributors may or may not have anything in common, but they definitely don t need one another in order to be successful. A work group within a function has a lot in common and may occasionally collaborate on a work product. Structurally, members of a work group focus almost exclusively on priorities set by the leader. A collaborative work group has been intentionally structured to support one another; each member handles a part of a process and members are accountable to each other for clear communication and smooth handoffs. When members of the collaborative work team begin to seamlessly deliver on collective work products, they re on their way to becoming a High Performing Team. Requirement for Collaborative Behaviors Collaborative Work Team High Performing Team Work Group Figure I. Individual Contributors Structural Interdependence As the degree of structural interdependence increases, so too does the requirement for team members to demonstrate collaborative behaviors. Let s look at a couple of examples of teams I work with where the degree of structural interdependence does not match the requirement for the collaborative behavior of the team members. A TALE OF TWO TEAMS A team of division Human Resources (HR) vice presidents in a decentralized retail company come together periodically to exchange information and problem-solve. Each team member reports to both his or her local operations lead and to the Senior Vice President of Human Resources. One of the team members felt that the periodic broken 3 ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL

4 commitments and general lack of accountability on the team warranted some time and attention. Like teams in many matrixed organizations, these team members are expected to share information, learn each others best practices and use consistent systems and processes across business units. The team soon discovered that a desire for collaboration doesn t trump the exigencies of a structure designed to focus behavior on meeting individual goals rather than team goals. When time and resources became scarce, the HR VP s loyalty to his or her division president took precedence over team meetings and team projects with HR peers. In short, assuming that peers with a lot in common will act like a team does not make it so. You can t assume interdependence. Interdependence flows from a shared purpose and shared goals. At the other extreme are the executives of two business units within one manufacturing company that serves the oil and gas industry. The business units sell and manufacture a highly specialized product for one stage in the oil refining process. One of the units leads the sales process; the other leads the manufacturing process. By virtue of the corporate structure, the two business units are highly interdependent. They succeed or fail together. Unfortunately, the two business units - one recently acquired by the parent company - have very different approaches to their internal processes; they have different operating principles, priorities, project management protocols, and organizational norms. The only thing holding the two business units together is a high demand for a unique solution that require one business unit s access goals. and relationship with the customer and the other business unit s innovative and proprietary product design. You can t assume interdependence. Interdependence flows from a shared purpose and shared The HR executives willingly collaborate because they share norms and values that are consistent with teamwork. On the other hand, they occasionally fail to meet commitments to each other because they don t share a purpose or a set of goals that create interdependence. The two business units of the manufacturing company are victims of a shotgun marriage. They share a purpose and a set of goals, but they don t share norms and values; there s no basis for collaborative behavior. They too fail to meet commitments to each other. High performing teams have both: Team members meet their responsibilities to each other and team members benefit from collaborating with each other. When the degree of structural interdependence matches the demonstration of collaborative behavior, teams are set up for success. When the requirement for collaboration doesn t match the degree of structural interdependence, team success is at risk. 4 ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL

5 A TEAM ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET To assess whether your own team s structure is aligned with the behaviors of the team members, complete the survey below and then transfer your answers to the score sheet. Think about a team you re on. Circle the number that corresponds with the degree to which you would agree with the statement: strongly disagree disagree neither agree / nor disagree agree strongly agree 1. I meet regularly with my teammates. 2. I cannot be successful unless each of my teammates is successful. 3. I m deeply committed to the personal growth and success of my teammates. 4. A formal process requires Team members to provide each other with candid feedback and coaching. 5. Team members regularly share best practices with each other. 6. We have team deliverables, not just individual deliverables. 7. I ask my teammates for help. 8. I cannot fulfill the obligations of my role on the team unless every other team member fulfills his or her obligation. 9. We have even participation and engagement from everyone during team meetings. 10. I regularly need information and resources from my teammates. 11. I m expected to share my own priorities and challenges with my teammates. 12. Each team member understands how every other team member contributes to the overall success of the team. 13. Team members provide each other with candid feedback and coaching. 14. If a team member were to get pulled away for an extended period, we would get a replacement or we would redistribute responsibilities and appropriately adjust team deliverables. 15. I don t withhold information from my teammates. 16. We have an unambiguous executive sponsor being held accountable by the organization for team deliverables. 17. I m expected to understand my teammates priorities and challenges. 18. We have overlapping skills and experience to ensure that we re not overly dependent on one team member. 5 ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL

6 Transfer the number you circled for each of the 18 statements to the corresponding line and then total each column. Requirement for Collaborative Behavior Degree of Structural Interdependence Table I. TOTAL WHAT THE SCORES MEAN TOTAL The scores corresponding to the odd numbered statements quantify the degree to which the team currently demonstrates collaborative behaviors. The scores corresponding to the even numbered statements quantify the degree to which the team has been structured for interdependence. Every score falls into an appropriate range depending on what the team has been configured to accomplish. For example, low requirement for collaborative behaviors scores (9-18) and low degree of structural interdependence scores are entirely appropriate to individual contributors or work groups in the same department. Middle scores (19 27) make sense for groups who regularly spend time together and support one another in getting work done while being held accountable primarily for their individual contributions. High scores (28 45) would be expected for groups who have been set up to produce a joint work product and whose success will be evaluated collectively (like a learning group in school receiving one grade for a team report). If your team s total scores don t match the configuration of your team (e.g. we re supposed to be a collaborative work team, but both our scores fall below 19) you have bigger issues than a misalignment between behaviors and structure. For the purposes of this article, the relevant cases are those where the collaborative behaviors score and the interdependence score vary by more than 10 points. 6 ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL

7 THE REQUIREMENT FOR COLLABORATION SCORE IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE DEGREE OF INTERDEPENDENCE SCORE. When people on a team act in a collaborative way without structures and organizational processes that require interdependence, you have something to celebrate and something to worry about. The good news is that people want to help each other; they regularly share information with one another and understand each others priorities. The downside of a gap with low interdependence scores is that team members won t place a high priority on accomplishing team deliverables when organizational priorities shift. In the case of the retail company s HR leaders, the team members enjoy being together and support one another with shared information and collaborative problem-solving. On the other hand, when a team member s division president assigns a high priority task, that HR leader starts missing team meetings and team deadlines. When the When the team realized that their individual accountabilities would always take priority over their requirement for team accountabilities, they had a decision to make. collaboration After a couple of days together, the HR leaders noticed that while they didn t have any collective deliverables, doesn t match the they did have a common problem. Each HR leader was bombarded by requests from corporate for field degree of structural resources to help test, pilot and cascade initiatives. The interdependence, team realized that if they presented a unified approach to handling requests for their resources, each team team success is at member would benefit. By the end of the meeting, the risk. retail team of HR leaders had created a shared purpose and set of goals which would align and prioritize resource requests from corporate shared services functions. The team began focusing their team meetings on their shared purpose, rather than on exchanging information and updates. As a result, they ve increased the degree of shared responsibility for success. THE DEGREE OF INTERDEPENDENCE SCORE IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE REQUIREMENT FOR COLLABORATION SCORE. When different individuals each own critical pieces of a process, and they don t behave in a collaborative way, you have the makings of a politically charged environment. In extreme cases individual team members may find ways to make each other look bad instead of finding ways to support one another. When a shared purpose and goals aren t enough to build teamwork, what else do you need? The individual members of the manufacturing company business units spent a lot of time and energy complaining about the behavior and performance of the other team members. 7 ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL

8 When the business unit leaders came together to sort out their differences, they soon recognized the need for a common approach. Ultimately the parent company put one respected leader in charge of the sales and manufacturing process creating a separate division devoted exclusively to the product line. The newly formed division has started to pull its sales and manufacturing leaders into training sessions to build shared language and tools for their work. Increasing team members desire for collaboration requires shared values and shared approaches. IN CONCLUSION The two questions each team member must ultimately answer are: 1) To what extent do I want my teammates to be successful? 2) To what extent do I need my teammates to be successful? Increasing team members desire for collaboration requires shared values and shared approaches. Increasing team members accountability to each other requires a shared purpose and shared goals. Together, a common approach and a shared mission increase the odds that all will be for one and one will be for all. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Jay Cone has spent the past 25 years helping leaders and teams collaborate productively. His current consulting practice focuses on senior team facilitation, strategic thinking, leadership development, and innovation. Jay serves on the faculty of the Executive MBA program at The University of Texas at Dallas, where he teaches innovation and collaboration. His articles on leadership development have appeared in Training Magazine, The Training & Development Journal and The American Society for Training and Development s Best of Customer Service Training. Jay received a BA in Philosophy from U.C.L.A. and an MBA from the University of Texas at Dallas. He is certified in Management Research Group s Strategic Leadership Development Process, The Center for Creative Learning s VIEW TM assessment of creative problem solving styles and is CAPT qualified to administer Myers-Briggs assessments. is a 40-year innovator helping global organizations build collaborative cultures and achieve excellence in a new measure of ROI Return on Involvement where employees go beyond engagement to share responsibility for business results. We develop leaders at all levels and focus on building proficiency in collaboration, strategic thinking, and self awareness. With offices in Boston and San Francisco, our services include organization-wide consulting, learning solutions, and coaching. For more info: 8 ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL