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.
No comments:
Post a Comment