First I want to address how to identify healthy conflict. If conflict is mislabeled it will be costly to everyone. So what makes for healthy conflict? Here it is in a nutshell. Healthy team conflict is when two or more members disagree about a relevant element of their assigned project. And it does not digress into a diatribe; nor, does it result in one or more members concentrating on stonewalling other members with objection after objection. If you ever been through one of the foregoing you know how easy it is to stir the pot by using one of these ploys. Typically this is done when a person or small group of people have an agenda (something they want to guard or something they want to acquire). This is not saying emotional appeals or wrong - not at all. What I am getting at is when a slant is taken to manipulate the process by the drive to dominate reasoning then the conflict is unhealthy.
If you find the conflict is unhealthy in that it reeks of bias, private agendas, or it is being cloaked (suspected but difficult to identify) here are further steps you can take in addition to the ones I gave in an earlier post. Our goal is to make to make it hard for anything to fly below the radar.
Two rules that help keep things on the table where everyone can see what is going on is:
1. Subgroups (or individuals) can only take action when they check with the whole group.
2. Subgroups (or individuals) must report research findings, test results, etc. to the whole group.
Note: As a last ditch strategy restructure the team with different members.
The idea here is to prevent people from obligating the group in a manner that from which they cannot easily wiggle out or to blindside other members by dumping a lot of finding and results out and pushing for a decision based on time.
Of course the best prevention is early defense. Some of the ideas I presented before, but they are worth repeating. Signs of a secret hostility to a public agenda are:
One or more aspects of contributions are askew. Only evidence in favor is being presented without due diligence being given to contrary evidence.
Noting a given individual (or subgroup) consistently seems to be highly critical of another person’s or group’s input.
An individual (or subgroup) seems to only support a certain individual or a select set of individuals’ proposals.
Any combination of the above.
I want to back track a little and give a few more ideas about selecting team members in order to minimize the probability of private agendas interfering with group process. The ideas are:
Note whether or not:
The team came together as a result of a merger or take over.
There are potential conflicts of interests between members or subgroups?
Cultural differences (this can be between departments or even in the case of international corporations nationally cultural differences).
There is a perceived or real difference in power among the participants.
Certain members are feeling underprivileged in the organization.
It is important to pay heed to the statement I am about to make so my position about conflict is not misunderstood. It is completely within game rules of a team to careful prepare a presentation by framing arguments, presenting vivid supporting evidence, and trying to fire up the group. There is nothing wrong with using emotional appeals to influence a group. However guileless appeals speak to the values of the team, division, and organization at large. What makes an emotional appeal wrong is when it is done underhanded manner meant to subvert the agenda of the organization or the team (providing the team’s organization is in line with the organization’s). Of course there are cases where the team and organization is wrong, but then the burden of proof lies on the dissenters to give real evidence that the larger community is wrong.
As a last bit, I will very briefly address a tactic to take with a team stuck in group think. It is likely that they can be shaken out of it by being challenged to find flaws in the idea they formed and further challenged to propose alternatives. You can even put a number on the amount of flaws or proposals they are to find. Doing this can prevent the next step which is to determine what members need to be rotated out, and identifying potential candidates to replace them. The reason you want to prevent this step is simply because it is time consuming.
Stay tuned for more bits and pieces tomorrow.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Team Work: The Art of Selecting Team Members
In life we do not always get to select the team we will oversee or be working on. However, when the chance presents itself we ought to. Of course one only needs to look at the world of sports to see that even careful selection does not guarantee a great team. Or look at the institution of marriage and its divorce rates to see how difficult it is to pick a person who will work well with you. In both choosing a mate and choosing a teammate usually a lot of introspection goes on. Part of the problem is in both pools it is very competitive, and in business it is the same story. Another part of the problem is people do not always end up being what is promised by past performance or recommendations. There is a reason for all the jokes about dating one person and waking up married to another. And who has not heard of a pro team drafting a player or trading to get a player another only to have that player fall way short of expectations.
As I read articles on this subject they ranged from what is completely crazy, but well meaning, to good sense. One of the key factors of creating a great deal of corporate senior executive and upper level management teams is diversity. Just like in baseball we don’t want everyone to have the same specialty we want team members to bring different strengths. Often with the different strengths come diverse views. Ask a pitcher how he thinks the game will be won and compare that to one of the fielders. It is likely you will get different answers, and the coach will still have a different answer. Moreover it is likely they are all correct. Most likely you will be getting a view of what they need to bring to the game and what kind of support they need to get the job done. Based on the reasoning just presented, my studies and experience say get the people on the team who possess the best available talent and experience.
Now I will quickly address a couple of other ways to select team members that do not make any sense. One remedy suggested was to assess individuals on how they defined their identity; than assigning people to teams based on their perceived identity. This is basically like a bunch of weekend athletes getting together to play baseball and everyone asking so what position do you think you are good at? Yet another group of “experts” suggested using an assessment to sort out members who were external motivated (works to please others and believes the environment to a large extent influences success) or internally motivated (works to meet personal standards and believes that the major influence of success is personal skill and effort) and mixing the people based on motivation. Here is the problem with both types one a person is assuming a person will volunteer for the correct position. Hey this is a competitive world there will be people jockeying for the most visible job if they are motivated to succeed, and others may be motivated to take menial positions so they won’t be asked to contribute as much, so they can attend to other priorities. Looking for external and internally motivated people suggests of drawing from a decent pool of people. Motivation is great for understanding how to craft goals for a group, but it simply does not make sense to use that and not skill as a primary consideration.
Prudence suggests appointing or asking for volunteers based on skills and talents, as I pointed out earlier. This can ten be bolstered by assessing candidates values, assets and getting their opinion as what positive things will result from their being a part of the team, and very importantly looking at their work and other public history to spot experience and behaviors that will be assets or liabilities to the team. These can often be determined by looking at employment records; speaking with supervisors, along with coworkers; and interviewing the potential member. In essence two things are being looked at:
Does the person have the competency?
Is the person able to maintain healthy relationships with others?
Beyond the two primary factors thought should also go into considering what factors may be influencing an individual’s decision (e.g., will the person be strongly influenced to favor a department over the organization? Stated differently will the person have a preset bias?), will candidates have extremely similar views or backgrounds, goals, procedures, and so on? If so it is more likely they would engage in groupthink (a fancy way of saying there will be little to no diversity of thought). The just presented considerations will help form a strong team if heeded.
As I read articles on this subject they ranged from what is completely crazy, but well meaning, to good sense. One of the key factors of creating a great deal of corporate senior executive and upper level management teams is diversity. Just like in baseball we don’t want everyone to have the same specialty we want team members to bring different strengths. Often with the different strengths come diverse views. Ask a pitcher how he thinks the game will be won and compare that to one of the fielders. It is likely you will get different answers, and the coach will still have a different answer. Moreover it is likely they are all correct. Most likely you will be getting a view of what they need to bring to the game and what kind of support they need to get the job done. Based on the reasoning just presented, my studies and experience say get the people on the team who possess the best available talent and experience.
Now I will quickly address a couple of other ways to select team members that do not make any sense. One remedy suggested was to assess individuals on how they defined their identity; than assigning people to teams based on their perceived identity. This is basically like a bunch of weekend athletes getting together to play baseball and everyone asking so what position do you think you are good at? Yet another group of “experts” suggested using an assessment to sort out members who were external motivated (works to please others and believes the environment to a large extent influences success) or internally motivated (works to meet personal standards and believes that the major influence of success is personal skill and effort) and mixing the people based on motivation. Here is the problem with both types one a person is assuming a person will volunteer for the correct position. Hey this is a competitive world there will be people jockeying for the most visible job if they are motivated to succeed, and others may be motivated to take menial positions so they won’t be asked to contribute as much, so they can attend to other priorities. Looking for external and internally motivated people suggests of drawing from a decent pool of people. Motivation is great for understanding how to craft goals for a group, but it simply does not make sense to use that and not skill as a primary consideration.
Prudence suggests appointing or asking for volunteers based on skills and talents, as I pointed out earlier. This can ten be bolstered by assessing candidates values, assets and getting their opinion as what positive things will result from their being a part of the team, and very importantly looking at their work and other public history to spot experience and behaviors that will be assets or liabilities to the team. These can often be determined by looking at employment records; speaking with supervisors, along with coworkers; and interviewing the potential member. In essence two things are being looked at:
Does the person have the competency?
Is the person able to maintain healthy relationships with others?
Beyond the two primary factors thought should also go into considering what factors may be influencing an individual’s decision (e.g., will the person be strongly influenced to favor a department over the organization? Stated differently will the person have a preset bias?), will candidates have extremely similar views or backgrounds, goals, procedures, and so on? If so it is more likely they would engage in groupthink (a fancy way of saying there will be little to no diversity of thought). The just presented considerations will help form a strong team if heeded.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Team Work: Getting a Team Out of the Ditch
Over the last series of articles I put out ideas gleaned from psychology that identify things that help a team become high performing. The last article gave ideas of what to do when a great team starts to stumble. Today’s article is centering in on a systematic process to bring a team out of a ditch. I learned years ago that if a ditch collapse around a worker even if it is only knee deep those digging the person out have to be systematic and careful. One wrong move and the worker dies. What happens is, when the ditch collapse it restricts blood flow to the part of the body that is buried. If you restore the blood flow too quickly the person goes into shock and dies. Nothing that drastic will happen to the members of a team that gets stuck. However metaphorically you can snuff a team by being to hasty in moving to a remedy so below is a process that has proven successful.
A psychologist and researcher Kurt Lewin developed a three process model. Terms were given to each part of the process. The first is called unfreezing, the second moving and the third refreezing. Sounds like Lewin grew up in the North in coming up with those metaphors.
When “unfreezing” the members identify according to their impressions what forces are impeding or facilitating progress (i.e., what is really going on is getting them to see what is causing the stink). Then like good learners they simultaneously put their impressions to the test to see if their perceptions match what can be observed from historical qualitative and quantitative evidence. As a part of the “unfreezing” the team reexamines its vision and redefining it if necessary in order to clarify the vision. Lastly, goals and objectives are reviewed and perhaps made easier so the team can experience success and be motivated to continue on to other. In real daily life we do this constantly. We start something get into the project see that our vision is fine, but our goals a bit to ambitious so we break the goals down into smaller chunks. Where we have difficulty managing this is in the work place or academia. The push into these areas is for immediacy. Currently corporations owned by stock holders are pushed to improve quarterly returns; schools now are allowing politicians and talking heads push them into similar straights. More privately owned business think if the big boys are doing it then we ought to do it to. They do this without looking at whether the results justify it or not. Happily we are more sensible at home where doing it right is better than doing faster and more profitably than the last four months. I will bet you can guess my feelings about focusing on better investor results rather than on creating a better services and products. Or even better on aligning the mission, goals, and objectives so they express the visions and values of the business. This is more than my personal bias. Many of the businesses known for their longevity and profitability are family owned and focus first on their visions and values.
After “unfreezing” team leaders are to turn their attention to motivating the team to change, this is termed by Lewin as “moving.” Moving is accomplished primarily by the group seeing that the current behavior is not leading them to their goal. Like Dr. Phil asking them, “How is it working for you?” A catalyst he uses and others use to awake people up to considering a new way of acting will bring them to their desired end. Like Dr. Phil’s program prior to the question being posed there is a review of the poor results that have been common place and presenting of new behaviors that have a track record of lead to better results.
Step one and step two hopefully lead to “refreezing” where people are given evidence that indeed the new behavior are working. Having evidence increases the likelihood of the team then agreeing via consensus to adopt the new behaviors as their norms and values. As a recap the team is shown where the stink is, then they are shown means to neutralize the stink, they are then given evidence the stink is replaced with the sweet smell of success which leads to a culture that is no longer supportive of the behaviors that create stink. Once a team is “smelling like a rose” and liking the behaviors that got them there they are well on the way to high performance, if they are not already there, and so as before the leader should fade into a supportive role acting as a consultant or facilitator.
A psychologist and researcher Kurt Lewin developed a three process model. Terms were given to each part of the process. The first is called unfreezing, the second moving and the third refreezing. Sounds like Lewin grew up in the North in coming up with those metaphors.
When “unfreezing” the members identify according to their impressions what forces are impeding or facilitating progress (i.e., what is really going on is getting them to see what is causing the stink). Then like good learners they simultaneously put their impressions to the test to see if their perceptions match what can be observed from historical qualitative and quantitative evidence. As a part of the “unfreezing” the team reexamines its vision and redefining it if necessary in order to clarify the vision. Lastly, goals and objectives are reviewed and perhaps made easier so the team can experience success and be motivated to continue on to other. In real daily life we do this constantly. We start something get into the project see that our vision is fine, but our goals a bit to ambitious so we break the goals down into smaller chunks. Where we have difficulty managing this is in the work place or academia. The push into these areas is for immediacy. Currently corporations owned by stock holders are pushed to improve quarterly returns; schools now are allowing politicians and talking heads push them into similar straights. More privately owned business think if the big boys are doing it then we ought to do it to. They do this without looking at whether the results justify it or not. Happily we are more sensible at home where doing it right is better than doing faster and more profitably than the last four months. I will bet you can guess my feelings about focusing on better investor results rather than on creating a better services and products. Or even better on aligning the mission, goals, and objectives so they express the visions and values of the business. This is more than my personal bias. Many of the businesses known for their longevity and profitability are family owned and focus first on their visions and values.
After “unfreezing” team leaders are to turn their attention to motivating the team to change, this is termed by Lewin as “moving.” Moving is accomplished primarily by the group seeing that the current behavior is not leading them to their goal. Like Dr. Phil asking them, “How is it working for you?” A catalyst he uses and others use to awake people up to considering a new way of acting will bring them to their desired end. Like Dr. Phil’s program prior to the question being posed there is a review of the poor results that have been common place and presenting of new behaviors that have a track record of lead to better results.
Step one and step two hopefully lead to “refreezing” where people are given evidence that indeed the new behavior are working. Having evidence increases the likelihood of the team then agreeing via consensus to adopt the new behaviors as their norms and values. As a recap the team is shown where the stink is, then they are shown means to neutralize the stink, they are then given evidence the stink is replaced with the sweet smell of success which leads to a culture that is no longer supportive of the behaviors that create stink. Once a team is “smelling like a rose” and liking the behaviors that got them there they are well on the way to high performance, if they are not already there, and so as before the leader should fade into a supportive role acting as a consultant or facilitator.
Monday, August 9, 2010
Team Work:Keeping the Ball Rolling
Today’s blog is a short overview of the high stage teams can reach to according to studies done in psychology. If you find my articles interesting and know people who may seek the knowledge that I present please recommend them to my website rightmovesnow.com. Or my blog, Remember you can comment on the articles at my blog. If you have ways to improve my web page, my articles, topics to suggest, or whatever then please email me at alexdail@rightmovesnow.com. Now off to the article I promised about high performing teams.
The last stage for groups is when teams become synergistic. This is called high performing teams. Just like in athletics or competitive games that rely on skill this stage is difficult to maintain. There are so many things that can “throw a team, or person, off their game.” High performance on a team is best described as flow (a state where concentration and progress seem effortless). In sports reach high performance is so rare perfection for a season has only been accomplished in the NFL by one team the Miami Dolphins. In the AFC the Browns according to a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_season) hit a perfect season in 1948. In the same article the Calgary Stampeders had a perfect season in 1948. Other sports have too long a season or too many games to have a realistic chance (possible not probable in our life span) of attaining a perfect season. In business I propose it is even harder for a upper level management or senior executive team to develop a long streak of wins. There are simply too many factors. Human memory can retain on average seven discrete items. My guess is the limit of what we can attend to at a time is somewhere near there. Conversely there are many more things that can occur during a team project. Information can get stalled due to anything from office politics to technological issues. Heck a team can even be derailed out rightly by a person providing false information. Add to this sickness, natural disasters, misunderstandings, changes in leadership, and changes in team members - well you get the picture.
When the group is functioning optimally those who started in leadership and facilitation roles will move to assuming a role more equal to the other members. Tony Dungy a winning super bowl coach said it right. A paraphrase of it is, when a team is well prepared the coach does not need to be very directive. As I mentioned before the person consulting or facilitating will need to keep an eye on the team. It is easy for a team to drift into behavior normal for the earlier stages, especially when new members come in and/or veteran members leave. Dangers of faltering are at the highest after a team has been in the high performance range for 18-24 months. This is another time when consultants or team leaders will want to show increased vigilance to team performance.
When a change seems to be the cause of a break down in performance this is the time for the person overseeing the team to review the importance of deflecting criticism away from individuals. Along with this the overseer needs get the team centered on resolving conflict by means of members reaching consensus about the issue in question. Other important things for a leader or facilitator to ask at the review times are: is the group on task; on schedule; do all feel like they are being heard; is there a need for clarification; is there actions that need to be taken to improve the team process or progress, are the goals too challenging or not challenging enough (Wheelan, 2005)?
Additional ways to revitalize high performing teams is holding a retreat (to refocus the team), have members switch to other roles they can fulfill competently (or with cross training), rotate in new members while exiting members in need of a rest, change the meeting structure, go to a new meeting time or place, and anything else that injects a little creative into the process (Wheelan, 2005).
Hopefully this gives you good information about how to manage teams at home, in organizations, or corporations. Remember your comments are appreciated. These articles are for you and need to be delivered in a format
The last stage for groups is when teams become synergistic. This is called high performing teams. Just like in athletics or competitive games that rely on skill this stage is difficult to maintain. There are so many things that can “throw a team, or person, off their game.” High performance on a team is best described as flow (a state where concentration and progress seem effortless). In sports reach high performance is so rare perfection for a season has only been accomplished in the NFL by one team the Miami Dolphins. In the AFC the Browns according to a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_season) hit a perfect season in 1948. In the same article the Calgary Stampeders had a perfect season in 1948. Other sports have too long a season or too many games to have a realistic chance (possible not probable in our life span) of attaining a perfect season. In business I propose it is even harder for a upper level management or senior executive team to develop a long streak of wins. There are simply too many factors. Human memory can retain on average seven discrete items. My guess is the limit of what we can attend to at a time is somewhere near there. Conversely there are many more things that can occur during a team project. Information can get stalled due to anything from office politics to technological issues. Heck a team can even be derailed out rightly by a person providing false information. Add to this sickness, natural disasters, misunderstandings, changes in leadership, and changes in team members - well you get the picture.
When the group is functioning optimally those who started in leadership and facilitation roles will move to assuming a role more equal to the other members. Tony Dungy a winning super bowl coach said it right. A paraphrase of it is, when a team is well prepared the coach does not need to be very directive. As I mentioned before the person consulting or facilitating will need to keep an eye on the team. It is easy for a team to drift into behavior normal for the earlier stages, especially when new members come in and/or veteran members leave. Dangers of faltering are at the highest after a team has been in the high performance range for 18-24 months. This is another time when consultants or team leaders will want to show increased vigilance to team performance.
When a change seems to be the cause of a break down in performance this is the time for the person overseeing the team to review the importance of deflecting criticism away from individuals. Along with this the overseer needs get the team centered on resolving conflict by means of members reaching consensus about the issue in question. Other important things for a leader or facilitator to ask at the review times are: is the group on task; on schedule; do all feel like they are being heard; is there a need for clarification; is there actions that need to be taken to improve the team process or progress, are the goals too challenging or not challenging enough (Wheelan, 2005)?
Additional ways to revitalize high performing teams is holding a retreat (to refocus the team), have members switch to other roles they can fulfill competently (or with cross training), rotate in new members while exiting members in need of a rest, change the meeting structure, go to a new meeting time or place, and anything else that injects a little creative into the process (Wheelan, 2005).
Hopefully this gives you good information about how to manage teams at home, in organizations, or corporations. Remember your comments are appreciated. These articles are for you and need to be delivered in a format
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Team Work: Reaching for the Stars
The teams that made it to the norming stage (where things are going along fine) and the teams that are at the high performing stage will for the most part be self-governing. When there are problems there will be specific things to address. Sometimes it may be taking the team backward a step to review what they learned in the newbie and rebellion stage. It is important to keep in mind team maturity is not a ladder like progression. Teams can be strong or weak at certain times or on certain tasks.
Team Maturity is Not a Ladder like Progression.
Teams will be up and down the ladder. Teams are a lot like character. There are people who are known as honest, others known for being hardworking etc. However they are not always that way. Everyone has lazy moments; even liars take a break and tell the truth now and then. It is the same on teams. A high performing team is a designation of how they generally perform.
What the rest of my blogs will more or less be about is handling special situations that may come up with teams that have been around for awhile. Typically these are teams that are generally at the functional or high performing level. Even so an old team can become new again. Think how the Supreme Court swings when let say two Chief Justices have been replaced. What was a court with a liberal bent becomes conservative or the other way around. I will bet you dollars to boat straps that how well they are functioning as a team varies with the induction of a new member, especially when a couple of new members come on about the same time.
Things change even on high performing teams for one reason or another they may be doing less.
Teams in business like sport teams need a “coach” to look in on them now and then see how they are doing. One of the most difficult things to do in a sport is be an athlete without a coach. Not because the athlete is not intelligent, not because the athlete would make a great coach. It is just extremely difficult to see how things are shaping up if you are the only one observing. You cannot see yourself slipping. I hear it is the same with musicians. Most people need someone to look at them show them something new or point out something that changed that is better or worse and so on. These are reasons why people like me, consultants, have a job. Outsiders can come in and see what a team does not (like everyone starts thinking the same); or say what needs to be said but no one wants to say it (the teams purpose is outlived).
A related subject to the aforementioned is motivation. It is important not to just be motivated, but to be motivated about the right things. Most motivation is around goal setting and the value to simply do your best because it is right. Not everyone or every group is great at goal setting. Ideally the goal is one that is challenging, but not brutal. The ideal person to gage what is a decent goal is an individual experienced with the project; this may need to be done piece meal. That is, one person will understand how long phase “A” should take, but not how long phase “B” will take. Another person will understand how long “B” will take. At other times a person will have a good idea for the entire project because they have it done enough times. Even so, they will want to listen to the specialists as a double check because things do change. What psychological research as shown is the most powerful motivators do seem to be letting the team have control over their work that includes determining the measurable quality of it based on quantitative and qualitative information. What they may be measuring besides overall progress towards the goal is:
· How well conflicts are being resolved
o Are they resolved by intimidation (No one is going to listen anyhow)?
o Are they resolved by laziness (This is getting to be too much let’s just make a decision)?
o Are they resolved by rebellion (We don’t want to be here so let’s just pick)?
· Is input spread around or are one or two people dominating the conversation.
o If one or more people who are contributing less is it because they are burned out, rebellious, don’t understand, or simply at the time have no expertise to offer.
o In short, determine what the cause of the low input by some and high input of others?
· Identifying issues that may be thwarting success
o Not having sufficient resources
o Key people missing too often or at important times
o Outside people are being uncooperative
o Technology issues
· How well is the group communicating
o Is it accessible”
o Is it attended to by those receiving it?
o What can make communication more efficient and effective?
Once groups are at the functional stage or high performing stage it is good for them to have a consultant periodically look at the group. This can be someone from the inside or a outside consultant. They like the beginning team still need to conduct periodic reviews. However unlike the beginning team will look at not only relation issues, values and goal setting but they will spend more time looking at functional concerns that are holding back team success.
Team Maturity is Not a Ladder like Progression.
Teams will be up and down the ladder. Teams are a lot like character. There are people who are known as honest, others known for being hardworking etc. However they are not always that way. Everyone has lazy moments; even liars take a break and tell the truth now and then. It is the same on teams. A high performing team is a designation of how they generally perform.
What the rest of my blogs will more or less be about is handling special situations that may come up with teams that have been around for awhile. Typically these are teams that are generally at the functional or high performing level. Even so an old team can become new again. Think how the Supreme Court swings when let say two Chief Justices have been replaced. What was a court with a liberal bent becomes conservative or the other way around. I will bet you dollars to boat straps that how well they are functioning as a team varies with the induction of a new member, especially when a couple of new members come on about the same time.
Things change even on high performing teams for one reason or another they may be doing less.
Teams in business like sport teams need a “coach” to look in on them now and then see how they are doing. One of the most difficult things to do in a sport is be an athlete without a coach. Not because the athlete is not intelligent, not because the athlete would make a great coach. It is just extremely difficult to see how things are shaping up if you are the only one observing. You cannot see yourself slipping. I hear it is the same with musicians. Most people need someone to look at them show them something new or point out something that changed that is better or worse and so on. These are reasons why people like me, consultants, have a job. Outsiders can come in and see what a team does not (like everyone starts thinking the same); or say what needs to be said but no one wants to say it (the teams purpose is outlived).
A related subject to the aforementioned is motivation. It is important not to just be motivated, but to be motivated about the right things. Most motivation is around goal setting and the value to simply do your best because it is right. Not everyone or every group is great at goal setting. Ideally the goal is one that is challenging, but not brutal. The ideal person to gage what is a decent goal is an individual experienced with the project; this may need to be done piece meal. That is, one person will understand how long phase “A” should take, but not how long phase “B” will take. Another person will understand how long “B” will take. At other times a person will have a good idea for the entire project because they have it done enough times. Even so, they will want to listen to the specialists as a double check because things do change. What psychological research as shown is the most powerful motivators do seem to be letting the team have control over their work that includes determining the measurable quality of it based on quantitative and qualitative information. What they may be measuring besides overall progress towards the goal is:
· How well conflicts are being resolved
o Are they resolved by intimidation (No one is going to listen anyhow)?
o Are they resolved by laziness (This is getting to be too much let’s just make a decision)?
o Are they resolved by rebellion (We don’t want to be here so let’s just pick)?
· Is input spread around or are one or two people dominating the conversation.
o If one or more people who are contributing less is it because they are burned out, rebellious, don’t understand, or simply at the time have no expertise to offer.
o In short, determine what the cause of the low input by some and high input of others?
· Identifying issues that may be thwarting success
o Not having sufficient resources
o Key people missing too often or at important times
o Outside people are being uncooperative
o Technology issues
· How well is the group communicating
o Is it accessible”
o Is it attended to by those receiving it?
o What can make communication more efficient and effective?
Once groups are at the functional stage or high performing stage it is good for them to have a consultant periodically look at the group. This can be someone from the inside or a outside consultant. They like the beginning team still need to conduct periodic reviews. However unlike the beginning team will look at not only relation issues, values and goal setting but they will spend more time looking at functional concerns that are holding back team success.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Team Work: Changing from Smurfs to Gremlins
So the smurf stage is behind us. The team is now comfortable saying what is on their mind. This is a time where the leader (facilitator) must solidify trust. People trust enough to open up now. This is what is wanted, but it must be done in a manner that does not step on the rest of the members. Here is where the facilitator really earns the money. Take an incident where John says, “If Elijah was here in 1984 he would have known that we tried something similar and it didn’t work.” Or something along the line of, “If Elijah bothered to read up he would have known we tried that in “84” and it didn’t work.” Variations of these types of comments can shut members in a group down. This is especially true if the person making them has influence, whether it is formal or informal power (informal meaning John may not be a director or senior executive but he has a lot of support within the company or union). When person like John brings out a verbal hammer the best way to handle it is to say something akin to:
· I am glad John brought that up. Let’s pause though for a minute and make sure that the idea and not Elijah is being questioned. What is a way that John may have phrased his statement to minimize the chance Elijah will not feel attacked?
o John could have said, Elijah that is a good idea we tried it in “84” and it didn’t work.
§ This will help people to see what is expected and what they can expect from the person facilitating the meeting. What should be communicated is security. A person should feel safe on two fronts. One putting an idea out there and two making critical comments about an idea.
· Let’s consider Elijah’s proposal from the perspective of what has been tried before.
o What are the reasons it did not work?
o Is there something about that did work?
o Have things changed so that what did not work in 1984 can work today?
§ This protects Elijah’s dignity.
The outline I gave is not to be followed in a canned fashion. It is just tossed out to give a rough idea of how to handle an objection that was stated on a personal level. This gets people thinking about the feelings of others. Additionally it gets people thinking more exactly about the task at hand.
As a side note: It is always important during a brainstorming session to point out that censoring of ideas will be done later, after the brainstorming finishes. Important too is kicking off the round of censoring with a reminder and an example of how to disagree with an idea so the person offering the idea dignity is left in tact.
The rules decide on in the “smurf “stage is often first on the plate of critique. A prudent leader knows to really cover all that was agreed on during the time when the group was more smurfy. Other things to go over are how often feedback should occur (regarding group functioning), how ought conflicts be resolved, how resources will be obtained, who will negotiate for the group, identifying a spokesperson, determining what groups outside the team will receive communication and how often, settling on who will bring communication from outside the team to the team (this person ought to know how to buffer feedback if it is especially harsh.).
Other things to look at when dealing with the group at what has been termed the storming stage (I call them gremlins with water added) is when people do vary from the norm (behavior wise) point out how they are making positive contributions and show support for those whose participation or behavior may strike the group as odd.
Lastly, this is the time where increasing responsibility is going to the group. As a result it is important for the leader (facilitator) to praise and compliment the group for its efforts at self-management. The goal for the person that began leading the group is to pull back so the group is entirely self-managing with its own chosen leader(s). This, at the latest, ought to be accomplished by the end of the gremlin stage.
· I am glad John brought that up. Let’s pause though for a minute and make sure that the idea and not Elijah is being questioned. What is a way that John may have phrased his statement to minimize the chance Elijah will not feel attacked?
o John could have said, Elijah that is a good idea we tried it in “84” and it didn’t work.
§ This will help people to see what is expected and what they can expect from the person facilitating the meeting. What should be communicated is security. A person should feel safe on two fronts. One putting an idea out there and two making critical comments about an idea.
· Let’s consider Elijah’s proposal from the perspective of what has been tried before.
o What are the reasons it did not work?
o Is there something about that did work?
o Have things changed so that what did not work in 1984 can work today?
§ This protects Elijah’s dignity.
The outline I gave is not to be followed in a canned fashion. It is just tossed out to give a rough idea of how to handle an objection that was stated on a personal level. This gets people thinking about the feelings of others. Additionally it gets people thinking more exactly about the task at hand.
As a side note: It is always important during a brainstorming session to point out that censoring of ideas will be done later, after the brainstorming finishes. Important too is kicking off the round of censoring with a reminder and an example of how to disagree with an idea so the person offering the idea dignity is left in tact.
The rules decide on in the “smurf “stage is often first on the plate of critique. A prudent leader knows to really cover all that was agreed on during the time when the group was more smurfy. Other things to go over are how often feedback should occur (regarding group functioning), how ought conflicts be resolved, how resources will be obtained, who will negotiate for the group, identifying a spokesperson, determining what groups outside the team will receive communication and how often, settling on who will bring communication from outside the team to the team (this person ought to know how to buffer feedback if it is especially harsh.).
Other things to look at when dealing with the group at what has been termed the storming stage (I call them gremlins with water added) is when people do vary from the norm (behavior wise) point out how they are making positive contributions and show support for those whose participation or behavior may strike the group as odd.
Lastly, this is the time where increasing responsibility is going to the group. As a result it is important for the leader (facilitator) to praise and compliment the group for its efforts at self-management. The goal for the person that began leading the group is to pull back so the group is entirely self-managing with its own chosen leader(s). This, at the latest, ought to be accomplished by the end of the gremlin stage.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Team Work: Managing the First Weeks
Well the pedestrian stuff is out of the way, and now the group is getting down to the nitty gritty of the team work. They will be entering the initial stage of function as a team. This can be a complex stage. Generally, they are on their best manners. To explain this stage by way of analogy I will tell you a little about myself. I am a foster parent. One of the things they teach new foster parents is when a new child comes to your home that child will initially behave like an angel. After the child feels safe and is willing to risk then you will start seeing challenging behaviors. Opinions start being expressed. Emotions are not always positive. At the present you have a room full of angels. Later in the next stage you will see the more challenging behaviors.
One of the problems with the polite stage is people will agree to practically anything as long as it does not involve blood or losing body parts. You get the picture. However in the next stage they more or less come to their senses. Look at their values and say, “This has to change. What Did I agree to?” One reason they are initially so agreeable is due to they do not want to offend. Yet another is they cannot see around the bend. Here is another story about me. Just this week my plan was to get a house pressure washed and painted. Then down the street came reality knocking on my door. The idea looked good on paper, but life showed up and kicked over my apple cart and my plans were rearranged. The wife figured she needed the only vehicle capable of hauling the stuff I needed – all week. This week the kitchen faucet went “south” So here I am again readjusting my schedule. Also no one, I do mean no one, thinks your plans are as important as you do. Everyone’s priorities are more important than yours – to them. Your plan is to get the proposal to a committee by Wednesday; the boss comes in and dumps something new in your lap; and the person you need to do whatever decides he needs a wellness break takes off on Tuesday and won’t be back until Friday. In the mean time you still have your deadline. Life is messy at stage one no matter how many times we have been there we tend to forget that fact. It is a lot like when a woman gives birth. Nearly none say, “Wow that was fabulous I cannot wait to do this again.” Most swear off giving birth. Then a form of amnesia sets in and 12 or 14 months later having another baby sounds like a good idea. Still another factor that makes us so agreeable in the beginning is we stop thinking about the fact that meaning of words is different from person to person. We fail to remember that “On time,” “late” “right away,” “staying on budget” are invariable going to mean something different to the other members. A married couple I know both claim money is unimportant. What one means is money is no obstacle, if it takes the last dime than that’s okay. Who needs money if we are happy, and I have what I want? The other half is somewhat frugal; her tastes are simple and she generally does not buy anything unless it is replacing something that is broke. Think there is some tension between them? You are right. They both see money and handle it very differently. In fact, they both do value money. One values what it can buy, while the other values saving it. Alas another story to nail the point home. So there you are happily working away on your part of the project. The agreement is the members would share their part of the project on Friday. To most members it means in its completed form. However, two people show up and while they have all the essentials it is not put together in a meaningful way. All of these troubles have their inception in the happy stage. Again they are going to come up as misunderstandings and unhappiness later.
Some of what I talked about can be headed off in the first stage of groups coming together. Obviously the clearer people can be about things upfront the better it will be down the line. So it may not be a bad idea to talk about what it means to be on time, to have something finished, to have something presentable, to be ready, and so on. Similarly, it is good to make an honest as possible appraisal about what can be committed to as a group. Will it really work for everyone to meet at 2 pm Thursdays. Is meeting room number 2 really going to work out for everyone? Will the meeting place and time generally work and if there are times it will not where should the alternate place be? Will there need to be other accommodations (air conditioning, different furniture, windows, etc)? Taking these steps ought to eliminate a lot of trifling stuff, but it will not eliminate everything. There are too many bends in the road, life is too complex to see and account for all the problems that will come up in the next stage. Some things will just need to wait until life makes it obvious something was missed.
One of the problems with the polite stage is people will agree to practically anything as long as it does not involve blood or losing body parts. You get the picture. However in the next stage they more or less come to their senses. Look at their values and say, “This has to change. What Did I agree to?” One reason they are initially so agreeable is due to they do not want to offend. Yet another is they cannot see around the bend. Here is another story about me. Just this week my plan was to get a house pressure washed and painted. Then down the street came reality knocking on my door. The idea looked good on paper, but life showed up and kicked over my apple cart and my plans were rearranged. The wife figured she needed the only vehicle capable of hauling the stuff I needed – all week. This week the kitchen faucet went “south” So here I am again readjusting my schedule. Also no one, I do mean no one, thinks your plans are as important as you do. Everyone’s priorities are more important than yours – to them. Your plan is to get the proposal to a committee by Wednesday; the boss comes in and dumps something new in your lap; and the person you need to do whatever decides he needs a wellness break takes off on Tuesday and won’t be back until Friday. In the mean time you still have your deadline. Life is messy at stage one no matter how many times we have been there we tend to forget that fact. It is a lot like when a woman gives birth. Nearly none say, “Wow that was fabulous I cannot wait to do this again.” Most swear off giving birth. Then a form of amnesia sets in and 12 or 14 months later having another baby sounds like a good idea. Still another factor that makes us so agreeable in the beginning is we stop thinking about the fact that meaning of words is different from person to person. We fail to remember that “On time,” “late” “right away,” “staying on budget” are invariable going to mean something different to the other members. A married couple I know both claim money is unimportant. What one means is money is no obstacle, if it takes the last dime than that’s okay. Who needs money if we are happy, and I have what I want? The other half is somewhat frugal; her tastes are simple and she generally does not buy anything unless it is replacing something that is broke. Think there is some tension between them? You are right. They both see money and handle it very differently. In fact, they both do value money. One values what it can buy, while the other values saving it. Alas another story to nail the point home. So there you are happily working away on your part of the project. The agreement is the members would share their part of the project on Friday. To most members it means in its completed form. However, two people show up and while they have all the essentials it is not put together in a meaningful way. All of these troubles have their inception in the happy stage. Again they are going to come up as misunderstandings and unhappiness later.
Some of what I talked about can be headed off in the first stage of groups coming together. Obviously the clearer people can be about things upfront the better it will be down the line. So it may not be a bad idea to talk about what it means to be on time, to have something finished, to have something presentable, to be ready, and so on. Similarly, it is good to make an honest as possible appraisal about what can be committed to as a group. Will it really work for everyone to meet at 2 pm Thursdays. Is meeting room number 2 really going to work out for everyone? Will the meeting place and time generally work and if there are times it will not where should the alternate place be? Will there need to be other accommodations (air conditioning, different furniture, windows, etc)? Taking these steps ought to eliminate a lot of trifling stuff, but it will not eliminate everything. There are too many bends in the road, life is too complex to see and account for all the problems that will come up in the next stage. Some things will just need to wait until life makes it obvious something was missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)