 |
Industry
Articles
|
|
Team
Analysis - What Makes a Team Our study involves a team within London's Peabody Trust. The Trust is a mature organisation, set up in 1862 by the American banker, philanthropist and founder of Morgan Grenfell Bank, George Peabody. Today its original mission of 'Fighting poverty in London' is under the stewardship of forward thinking CEO, Richard McCarthy. The Trust, well known and well thought of in the
voluntary sector and in government circles, is principally a housing
association which works across 26 London boroughs, providing around
17,000 homes. There are many good teams within the 750 staff working
for the Trust, but the Community Regeneration team is relatively
new, at just over four years old. We believed it would be easier,
with a new team, to capture the mechanics of how it was set up and
what makes it tick. It also has the reputation of being a 'great
team'. A key problem is that all of us have a slightly different concept of what is meant by 'better team'. We usually have an unarticulated, purely subjective image or feeling of what 'a better team' will be like, and particularly what it will do for each one of us. In the quality drive of the 1980s, the Japanese team culture (the role model for quality initiatives) was studied by many of the era's quality gurus. A life of service dedicated to the company, fierce loyalty, a subsidised company flat, compulsory company social events - and exuberant singing of the company song every morning before work - were a 'team' package that horrified most of our clients at the time, despite their wish for improved quality and better teams. So even though we all believe we know what's meant
by 'team', it is essential to define the concept at the outset.
In fact there were three things we believed we needed to pay attention
to, if we were to get an accurate idea of what makes this team a
great team.
and a host of other tacit implications such as 'camaraderie', 'sense of belonging' and so on. But these qualities are only implied and the image you get when the word team is used will depend on your past experience of teams. You can equally apply the word 'team' to twelve people crewing a schooner in a force eight gale as to one hundred and twelve people manning a call-centre that sells double glazing. The two 'teams' will be dramatically different with dramatically different qualities. So we need to define 'team' so that we all carry
the same image in our minds as we discuss the subject. 2. You just do it. Most people who are good at anything display 'unconscious competence'. When you ask them how they do what they do, their first response is 'I just do it.' Complex dance steps, playing a musical instrument, athletic activities, driving a car, - the patterns of competence will tend to temporarily 'fall apart' when you ask the person to slow it down so you can see in detail what's being done. When you keep asking 'how' questions you move the person back into 'conscious competence' which is a much slower process. It also usually irritates the person being asked, as they've spent a long time practicing whatever they do to deliberately make it a subconscious, instant response - a 'do it without having to think about it' state. If you're a good driver, you're usually not remotely aware of how you steer or how often you change gear in a journey. Building or running a team is more complex than driving a car, and if we want to replicate a complex task, we need very detailed instruction, beyond 'you just do it'. 3. Mindset If we consider that your 'mindset' precedes your actions and behaviours, it would be important to understand the mindset (beliefs, values etc.) as part of the overall recipe. What and how you think will obviously determine what you do. If you're a believer in, say, Theory X style of management (people basically dislike work and need to be firmly directed), you will act very differently than someone who is a firm believer in Theory Y (people actively want to work and should be allowed more self direction). And the people being managed will respond very differently to each set of behaviours. As an example, Ogilvy & Mather has become, over the last forty years, the world's third largest advertising agency. David Ogilvy founded the company on the concept of a company of 'gentlemen with brains'. (Theory Y). The British Army, a model of command and control, has also acquitted itself well over the centuries. (Theory X). So, we try not to judge the thinking in these processes.
If you choose to replicate a result the task is to understand the
entire 'recipe', including the mind-set. As part of our work with the Trust we interviewed the Community Regeneration department's director, Maura Santos, and four of her key executives in open forum. We wanted their own perceptions of how the Regeneration team was built and what they thought made it such a 'good team'. As background, we looked at what the team was set up to do. Team Purpose
hey have exciting and innovative approaches to the purposes. For instance the team put together a mobile 'computer gym'. Just like a travelling library bus, the gym would visit selected Peabody estates and offer adults a range of courses from desktop publishing to word processing. It captivated future Londoners too, the children of the estates, with an after school 'learning is fun' facility. They bring a 'virtual college' to residents from inner city estates through an intranet. They use video conferencing and cutting edge technology to link facilitators from small established centres and colleges and their residents, their Digital Learning Ring. They set up a New Deal pilot offering vocational training (environment, construction, landscaping) to 18-24 year olds living in Lambeth. A European funded Refugee Skills-net, single parent 'think tanks' on Welfare to Work initiatives, the list goes on. Three Phases First Phase 'What would be the key ingredients of a
team
'What are the behaviours they would expect
to see present in a good team?' Second Phase What do they do exactly - that they might not
realise they do - to get the results? Firstly, they answered
that they made great use of empowerment, which they defined as 'And what are the ingredients that make up empowerment'? 'Just how do you use those ingredients to "give 'How has the degree of empowerment and quality
of team affected the service you provide in Regeneration?' 'As a team member, what is your most How do you know how well you're doing as a team
member?' 'What is the purpose of the Regeneration management
team as opposed to the purpose of Community Development itself?' What was the sequence of actions that built the
team in the first place? The first item in the sequence of building the
team was having a fair person at the helm. So, 'What is the role
of the team leader?' 'What would you all say the team leader focuses
on?' 'How do you know?' Third Phase What are the mindsets that form the foundation for these actions? 'What are your current team values in their order
of importance?' 'As a team member, what one thing would you never
do?' 'As a team member what one thing would you always
do?' 'In your working life, how important is it to
you to work in a team? 'Why?' Another underlying personal value has appeared. It
matters to these team members that they each 'make 'How does this team compare to other teams you've
been in?' It was pointed out that the 'good' teams they had
been in shared some or several of these qualities. The bad teams
had less or very few. This team had a greater consistency of all
of the above. • People have to be like - minded The only way there could be active encouragement for divergent thinking would be if there was a foundation of safety to express views openly, without retribution. Sure enough, the number one 'key ingredient' of the team shows up as 'a no blame' culture. Openness and open communication are frequently mentioned. Implications The process for managing 'Diversity of thinking'
In addition to this process, the group behaviours include 'creating rapport' and 'respect for each other' which would have manifested from the values 'clear purpose, achievement, sense of belonging, enthusiasm'. The process simply evolved over time, out of these values. Accountability but no blame There was a great deal of talk of being supported, giving support, receiving support. It was even felt that it was a part of the leader's role to 'supply confidence and support' to team members. There was a great sense of belonging amongst the team. Respect for each other and 'trusting' featured in several places too. Again, it would be forgivable to assume that the concept of 'one big happy family' - these words were used several times to describe the team - implied that you might not be held to account, and that you might experience an 'undemanding' or 'soft' environment. 'No hierarchy' and 'informality' were used frequently as well. Accountability, however, is unequivocally high within the team. Whilst the team gave the idea that the leader's role is to 'keep the team together, be supportive' (the first answer to 'leader's role?' question) when asked what the leader focuses on, one and all gave 'results' as the first answer. It is a performance environment. Did they also have a process for balancing How do they do it? From the empowerment questions we also had, 'keep
them to the task, suggest and coach' which is congruent with strong
'outcome focus' yet is also 'supportive' through coaching. It was agreed that without results and achievement, no-one would feel good about being in the team. If the team under performed and didn't deliver, nobody would be happy to belong to it for any length of time. Their astute observation was that on both a personal and on a team basis, the demonstration of competence, productivity and achievement are what give an individual a sense of pride and this forms the basis of good morale. On that foundation, a 'sense of belonging' is sustainable. The last value, 'enthusiasm' linked to the second step of building the team 'select the right people'. Unless people demonstrate enthusiasm, they do not get recruited into the team. The description 'like minded' but 'divergent thinking' formed the basis of the first three values unearthed in the definition of team and appeared slightly at odds at first. We believe the 'like minded' also carries the implication of 'similarly disposed' (enthusiastic) and was referred to within the selection of the right people - 'their personalities must complement each other'. A bunch of enthusiastic individuals will also focus
on what can be done, not what can't. (Outcome oriented). It was
also interesting to note that the list of values was short, (4)
and swiftly agreed upon. We have noted a tendency for some teams
to give a Living the values The first new individual that the leader, Maura Santos, recruited into the team demonstrates all of the values and behavioural qualities described in the team's answers. He then recruited 'like minded' individuals and trained and coached them. The like minded individuals repeated the procedure. And so it continues to the present. (There are some seventy five people now in Community regeneration). People were not asked or persuaded to a set of values. If they didn't already have them, they didn't join. Summary 2. These are values and behaviours such as: 'Informal, with open communication and always available to her staff, results oriented, a clear concept of direction, enthusiastic, actively supportive of her staff with a clear purpose to build and keep the team together'. And that includes dispensing with those who threaten to disrupt the workability and cohesiveness of the team. 3. She then recruited a 'like minded' person as her primary lieutenant, possessing very similar qualities and having very similar values. 4. More like minded (particularly 'enthusiastic') people were recruited. 5. The common goals were well communicated through the informality and open door policy to create a shared vision of the directorate. 6. Because the values and objectives were 'cascaded' throughout the organisation - there was excellent contact and communication (weekly one-on-ones) - everybody is familiar with people's strengths and weaknesses and their performance. The air of transparency of interaction (open communication) creates a platform for 'promoting from within'. 7. The system therefore replicates itself. Everyone has a voice. Different people are selected to head different projects (rotational, matrix management) and new 'leaders' have a chance to demonstrate their competence. Everyone feels they have a hand in the successes. And there is a 'sense of belonging'. 8. The team can grow and be innovative because 'a diversity of thinking' is encouraged, creating a richer source of ideas and stimulation. No doubt further studies could be done on several
aspects of the key ingredients of this team. But you probably have
enough of the recipe - - to make a team somewhat like it, if you choose
to. |