It is said true teams are made when you put aside individual wants for collective good.
Team is also considered an acronym for
"Together Everyone Achieves More." Are these Utopian ideals?
What does it take to build this so-called ideal of effective teamwork, which is
less me and more we?
Let us begin with a short illustration.
From his 360 degree assessment exercise, a team leader had learned
that he was seen as dynamic, inspiring and confident;
but he was also perceived as overbearing, insensitive and hasty.
The team leader reflected on this feedback
and decided to consciously refine his leadership style.
In team meetings,
his earlier approach was to strongly state his position very early in meetings.
He realized that members did not express their views after his strong pitch.
They may not have fully accepted his viewpoints,
but chose not to express any disagreement.
He decided that he would make a determined effort to listen more carefully
to his team members.
In team meetings, he'd curtail his tendency to jump in quickly with his viewpoints.
He consciously let people articulate their positions.
All he did was to sit and absorb.
Not only the team made a good decision, it was also more acceptable to the team members.
As technical or subject experts, we usually pay a lot of attention
to the quality of team decision.
For instance, we keep track of the business context, customer insights,
product value proposition or user pain points.
These aspects deal with rational or logical aspects of the problem
and they determine the quality of decision.
But a high-performing team not only has to make the right decision,
but also execute it effectively.
Strong execution requires that there is wholehearted acceptance of the team decision.
This requires attention to interpersonal and social processes.
For example, there should be a climate of patient listening,
support and openness to differing viewpoints.
You have to create energy and enthusiasm,
otherwise you don't get the best from your team members.
Effectiveness of a decision is conceptualized, therefore, as a product of two factors:
one, quality of decisions; two is acceptance by team members who must implement it.
For example, in this formula, if quality of decision is 100 percent,
but its acceptance or buy-in is only 40 percent,
the effectiveness of team decision is only 40 percent.
On the other hand, even if the quality of decision is 80 percent,
but its acceptance or buy-in is 80 percent,
the effectiveness of team decision is higher at 64 percent.
Thus, for team functioning, logic and rationality are important, but not enough.
We also have to learn to attend to emotions and relationships.
Let's move on.
We'll take a look at a few well-documented stories
of teams from NASA to draw some key lessons.
Apollo 13 manned moon landing mission faced a major crisis when an explosion
deprived the spacecraft of most of its oxygen supply
and electrical power.
A tiger team of diversified group of experts
was entrusted the task of bringing the astronauts back home safely.
Three astronauts had to survive in the lunar module lifeboat for four days
'til their return to Earth.
The problem was highly complex.
There were huge uncertainties, enormous time pressure and extreme duress.
Against all odds, the team succeeded in its mission.
The team thought creatively, generated multiple options,
performed rapid analysis of alternatives and finally, came up with the right answers.
The story even became a successful Hollywood movie.
In the same organization, NASA,
there's also been a debris assessment team of the Columbia mission.
In this team, members with key information and insights did not speak up
and voice their opinions because there was no psychological safety in the team.
The team climate was such, that such honest expression of viewpoint
carried the risk of making the person look ignorant, incompetent and negative.
So problems were not surfaced and dealt with.
As a result, all seven members of the Columbia shuttle perished in the Columbia disaster.
As the NASA stories show, team is not merely a sum of its parts.
Both the NASA teams had bright members, but Apollo 13 tiger team was outstanding.
The debris assessment team was dull, despite its bright members.
This idea is conveyed as a simple formula.
Actual team productivity is equal to potential productivity
plus synergy minus process loss.
In a team, they may be bright individuals,
but if they don't get along well and don't trust each other,
then such a team won't just take off.
In the formula, we have the element of synergy.
Where does synergy flow from?
In the Apollo 13 tiger team, for example,
there were diverse viewpoints and perspectives around the task.
Without the diversity of perspectives, there can be no new ideas and no synergy.
In the debris assessment team,
without psychological safety, people did not freely express their views,
and so the diversity of perspectives was low and the performance suffered.
At the same time, too high a level of differences is not necessarily a good thing.
When there are relationship problems and people cannot even agree on minor points,
it leads to infructuous and unproductive arguments.
And so there will be no synergy.
The right level of differences, properly handled, contributes to synergy.
As we learned from the case of debris assessment team,
a good team leader has to create psychological safety,
so that members feel free to voice issues openly and honestly.
This is critical for synergy.
A positive team climate also enhances buy-in of decisions and greater motivation.
Now let's move on to briefly examine another item in our equation - process losses.
Research shows that process losses happen
when there is ambiguity on goals, roles or expectations.
In the Apollo 13 tiger team,
with a compelling direction and clear purpose, there were no process losses.
In that team, a group composition and norms enable team work.
The team members had been trained together on simulated crisis
long before the Apollo 13 situation,
enabling them to make quick and accurate decisions.
There was effective leadership.
Not surprisingly, the cross-functional team, working in a complex and uncertain context,
debated multiple viewpoints
and a wide range of ideas, but ensured that the decisions were not delayed.
Absence of trust is another key factor leading to process losses.
Patrick Lencioni has written an extremely important book titled
"The Five Dysfunctions of a Team."
As we see in his model, trust is the essential foundation of an effective team.
The unfortunate processes in debris assessment team
clearly illustrate the Lencioni model.
Lencioni model states that absence of trust is the first dysfunction.
Trust requires comfort amongst team members and willingness to admit their mistakes,
weaknesses or need for help.
When there is no trust, there is fear of conflict - which is the next dysfunction.
Without trust, people don't engage in productive debates.
They don't openly air their opinions, so issues remain unresolved.
People feel that they are not involved in decision-making,
or that there are hidden personal agendas.
This leads to lack of commitment, which is the third dysfunction.
Without involvement and participation,
it is difficult for team members to commit to decisions.
When there is ambiguity of direction
and commitment, employees become disgruntled, leading to the next dysfunction.
When there is no buy-in of decisions, there is avoidance of accountability,
which is dysfunction number four.
In such a context, team members don't hold their teammates accountable to high standard.
This leads to mediocrity
or inattention to results, which is the fifth and final dysfunction.
Ultimately, team members tend to put their needs ahead
of the collective goals of the team.
Goals are not met and results are not achieved.
As we can see from the Lencioni model, it all begins with trust.
The absence of trust is the root cause of all other dysfunctions.
Trust requires that you approach situations with sincerity, kindness and openness.
It has been observed that outstanding team leaders begin
by giving people the benefit of doubt.
They begin by assuming that people will make the right choice.
If you want people to trust you,
you must begin the process by assuming that people are trustworthy.
To summarize, you have to pay attention to certain key issues as a team leader.
You're managing not merely a technical system, but also a social system.
As a team leader, you have to attend
to a number of key factors; shared understanding of goals, positive work climate,
right processes, effective conflict management,
constructive voicing of concerns and issues and relations of trust.
In our next meeting with you, we'll elaborate these items
and develop a specific checklist for being effective
as team leaders.
Ramnarayan SubramaniamClinical Professor
