| Are We On A Team Or In A Group? |
So you receive an email similar to that of six of your colleagues announcing a new project. You've been asked to show up in the meeting room at 4:30 on Friday. When you arrive, Mary, the PM, announces your company has just won a high six-figure contract for a product to be delivered in four months.
Mary presents the scope of the project, the deadlines and milestones and then asks each of you to introduce yourselves, and "say something" about yourself. You've never met three of the other individuals. So, one by one the seven of you say something you hope is both intelligent and impressive and Mary then announces that come 9:00 Monday morning "the team" will meet to discuss action plans, tasks, responsibilities, and next steps.
What's wrong with this picture?
Terms like "team" teamwork" and "team-based organization" are popular buzz words in business today, but it's often difficult for a leader to create, manage and motivate an actual team (which, according to the Center for Creative Leadership, is "a small group of interdependent individuals who, together, have the expertise, knowledge and skills needed to complete an assigned task or ongoing work.").
Simply labeling a group of folks "a team" unfortunately does not make it so. Volumes have been written about teams, team development, and team motivation, and on and on. One of these volumes is Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith's book "The Wisdom of Teams." in which they suggest five types of teams (as follows):
1. The Working Group
This is a group for which there is no significant incremental performance need or opportunity that would require it to become a team. The members interact primarily to share information, best practices, or perspectives and to make decisions to help each individual perform within his or her area of responsibility. There are few, if any, shared values that permeate the actions or views of this "group."
2. Pseudo-Team
This is a group for which there could be a significant, incremental performance need or opportunity, but it has not focused on collective performance and is not really trying to achieve it. It has no interest in shaping a common purpose or set of performance goals, even though it may call itself a team. Pseudo teams are the weakest of all groups in terms of performance impact and seldom if ever remain intact due to the loose nature of the relationships.
3. Potential Team
This is a group for which there's a significant, incremental performance need, and that really is trying to improve its performance impact.
Typically, however, it requires more clarity about purpose, goals or work-products and more discipline in hammering out a common working approach. It has not yet established collective accountability.
4. Real Team
This is a small number of people with complementary skills who are equally committed to a common purpose, goals, and working approach for which the hold themselves mutually accountable. They share common values and a common team vision and mission.
5. High Performance Team
This is a group that meets all the conditions of real teams, and has members who are also deeply committed to each other's personal growth and success. That commitment usually transcends the team. The high performance team significantly outperforms all other like teams, and outperforms all reasonable expectations given its membership.
Time for an Inventory?
If your reality is such that collegiality, productivity, performance and outcomes in your "team" or "group" are suffering, not up to par, or do not exceed standard expectations, it's quite likely the basic foundational qualities supporting effective team coherence and performance are lacking.
Perhaps it's worthwhile for you to explore the nature of your "group" and/or "team" with which you're aligned and ask yourself a few questions, the responses to which will tell you much about the nature of your "team." If your responses are on the higher end of a 1-10 scale, you're most likely engaged with a real or high performing team. However, if your responses are on the lower end, you might be more engaged in "wishful thinking" than actual team involvement.
So, some food for thought questions are:
|
- How committed, passionate and aligned are team members toward the team's vision, mission and goals?
- How do individuals treat one another when it comes to honesty, truth and trust?
- How well do team members support one another in areas where some team members might be a bit weak?
- How open are team members to new ideas and information?
- How open are team members to taking risks for the good of the organization?
- How open are team members to giving others credit where it's due?
- How open are team members to putting others' interests ahead of their own?
|
In the interest of developing your organization…and the people who work there.
Peter G. Vajda, Ph.D., C.P.C is a personal and executive coach, speaker and facilitator who works with individuals who are re-careering and transitioning into the entrepreneurial arena of life. His business is SpiritHeart at Work, the Experts in Well-BE-ing and you can contact him by email.
Return to Newsletter
|
Subscribe To The Training News (Enter Email)
|
|
|
|
