The article of Helen Volska, EBS Director and Managing Partner, was published in business magazine “Companion” (16-22.06.2006): “Two Heads are Better than One”
A classic definition confirms that a team is a group of individuals united for the purpose of achieving a definite goal and the completion of a defined task. In order that a team meets these criteria, it also requires a high degree of participant interdependency, a common reality and effective team work. One cannot exist without the other. Furthermore, there is no good team without a leader as there is no leader without a team.Teams existed from time memorial when our ancestors hunted mammoths together: they had a common goal; everyone understood what they had to do and that it would be a worthless exercise without the participation of the whole tribe. If an individual member of the tribe decided to hunt a mammoth on their own, they would simply perish. Team work achieved its theoretical foundation only in the post industrial era when its main criteria of work distribution became personalized, namely the role of each member of the team and the orientation of their personality.
Mistakes in team building are more a rule than an exception
As work demands grew, so did the need for team work. As a result of these new requirements, it became necessary to better prepare all members including improving the intellectual capacity of most professions. It was in this post industrial era when many barriers between specializations were removed. There appeared a need for individuals of different professions, personal qualities and various levels of preparation to work together.
Team work has numerous benefits as compared to the efforts of individuals: savings in terms of financial and other resources (including non-material); increasing productivity, improving the effectiveness of communications, gaining the benefits of synergy and effective decision-making. Some types of activity and forms of organization (for example, the widely known matrix and project structures) cannot exist without real team collaboration. In its turn, team work produces a more generalist oriented member of the team.
However, to develop a well-organized and effective team out of a group of people is formidable task. Many people desire this or dream about it, but due to circumstances it does not always work that way. First of all, one should focus on the key success factors without which team building is impossible.
Therefore for a team to exist and work effectively, it must have:
• A goal which is shared and in which each participant believes;
• Rules and procedures;
• Distributed roles;
• A Leader.
A leader fulfills their function when they can establish team goals and lead the team forward, distribute roles and resources, manage the administrative process, maintain order and discipline within the team, control the quality of work and results, constantly motivate and empowering members of a team, ensuring effective communication.
It is not always necessary, but nothing impossible
It should be stated that this desired team work is not always necessary and possible.
Realistically, how can an effective team be created if personal goals of its members dominate the common or team goal (remember the story about the swan, pike and crawfish)? It is even more dangerous when information about this gap is hidden. As such, the participants can’t reach true consensus in key issues in absence of definite reasons leading to the collapse of the team. It results in the loss of something we all value – time and resources.
Difficulties in team building will appear in the case when the level of cooperation between team members is too low for them to achieve the goals of the team. After all to meet my personal goals, I only require my knowledge, skills and time so why should I involve myself in the work of others? This attitude introduces additional risk in the process of achieving a desired result. Moreover, it means additional work which will not address my personal goals.
The main reason preventing the creation of an effective team may be the goals themselves. Unrealistic goals are to be avoided as one cannot force the team members to believe in them as you need their “buy in”. Secondly, it is also difficult to motivate them during this continuous work for which they are unlikely to be compensated. On the other hand for simple and non ambitious goals, there is no need for gaining the beneficial effects of synergy as there is very little challenge or stress.
Difficulties in team building also come up in the case; a leader manipulates the situation by using their position to force the team to work on the Leader’s personal goals.
In the process of team building, there is one guiding principle that ensures the success and effectiveness of the team. It should be followed each and every time. In business, everything is in constant, dynamic state: people and their attitude, motivation of the leader and team, external environment and internal circumstances, the makeup of the team and competence of its members. For a team to always be cohesive team, it requires much needed vitality, constantly reminding them of their goals and perspectives, providing training on team building, taking necessary measures to unite people, celebrating achievements, overcoming failures, developing trust and developing sincere relationships.
Unfortunately, mistakes in team building are more a rule than an exception.
To understand the typical causes of ineffective team work, we will examine specific examples from the life of various teams with which we have come in contact during the course of practicing business in Ukraine.
First Scenario: A swan, a pike, and a crawfish
There are teams which can be hardly called ‘a team’. This occurs when several individual teams are selected on an ad hoc basis from various companies. They basically exist on their own and do not take the necessary steps to collaborate. As such, they cannot achieve any common goals. In general, for them this is not important as each individual team is satisfied with their current situation. Each person and individual thinks first and foremost about their own goals. Nobody thinks of a common goal or building a team for its achievement. In all honesty, there are two people who try to be constructive; however they ask themselves who thought up this scheme and will they discover something at this meeting that will be in common and that brings them together. After all, it is in their self-interest. Particularly when there is at the top, the head of the supervisory board that is not on the team, but they still have their own agenda and the possibility to influence the individual teams. As a result, even if they are formal leaders, these two ‘constructive’ people cannot unite others. Others have stopped considering them as leaders, mere upstarts who for some reason have decided to save the world.
Of course, the natural desire of people work together won out even in this situation. However, people banded together against other people. The team fell apart before it was fully operational leaving the constructive leaders as well as others who did not concur with the personal plans of other members. There is no good team without leader and there is no leader without a team.
This type of scenario can best be characterized as open sabotage (encouraged by top management). Due to the presence of this dominant pretext of sabotage a team can never be formed – those who have not participated in this will be demotivated while those who believe in team spirit will look for it in other places. In fact, in this latter case, none of the requirements for building an effective team were met.
Second scenario: Flight of fancy
With this team everything seemed to be fine: there was a team, there were goals, some successes in the past and currently good results. However, the leader wanted more and more. Then, a most an ambitious goal was set that materially changed the essence of the business that they were in as well as the scope of work of each member; their attitude towards work, the world around them and themselves. Collectively, they could not voice their disapproval. Based on previous experiences, there was no reason to distrust the leader and as a group they agreed. However, internally they were all displeased. To believe or not, wanting to believe or not, agree or change something, those were the issues.
So, the leader, confident and believing in the virtue of the goal attempts to pull the” train” ahead, however the train stands still and the reasons for it are unclear. It seems everyone has a desire to move forward towards a bright future, but nothing moved.
In essence, what happened is that there was a hidden sabotage that led to considerable loss of time and energy. As a result, there was a gradual, deliberate and substantial turnover (close to 80%) of team personnel. The leader’s goal was achieved for after all it was the one set by the leader and shared by the new team. Those members, who didn’t “buy into” with the new goal or simply didn’t believe in it, were simply fired.
Third scenario: Mean Manipulator
An anecdote: five cars lead a sixth one driven by a beginner through a pass. They had decided to drive home together to ensure safe passage for everyone. When they left the pass and were coming to a gas station, they noticed that the beginner had disappeared. Everyone waited for him, looked for him, called him and was concerned about him. 14 hours later they found out that he was at home. Trying to justify his actions, the beginner said that he didn’t need to fill his gas tank.
Actually, manipulation took place inside the team In this case; either an individual joins the team effort (assuming it is beneficial) or moves the team in the direction of achieving those goals that are personally beneficial. However, once the individual has reached their personal goals, this person leaves the team independent to consider if the partners truly need their participation. In such teams, there are almost always problems maintaining rules and procedures. They either don’t exist or are not formalized (at least in the form of an oral agreement). On the other hand, the presence of a manipulator from the beginning implies that their participation in the team will be brief and there’s inherent danger to the team future existence.
Fourth scenario: A Philosopher
A team set its goals. It was an excellent goal which the team and the leader liked. However, the team forgot that the goal had to be achievable. When the time came to act, they realized that the strain on them would be unbearable, it was risky, it required a lot of effort and as such, some of them gave up including the leader. Being a good philosopher, he convinced the others that not reaching a goal is a phenomenon that is normal in life as he also headed a movement called “mass failure”. It was only through the efforts of an empowered individual who was able to inspire and motivate all team members including the leader that the team was able to achieve its goal.
When the leader turns out to be a philosopher, they cannot motivate. In this situation, a team needs an empowered person who could from time to time motivate the leader and the whole team. If there is no one who can fill this role, then the company will find itself on the “razor’s edge”, on one side being able to achieve set goals while on the other, an abyss and failure.
Fifth scenario: Super performers
The type of team is simply well organized – the members are already used to each other and work in splendid harmony. Their values system, principles and rules of cooperation are formed by the team and adhered to by its members. Process administration is the envy of others. This team can readily achieve any goal. In fact, no one is worried about resources that are spent to achieve those goals. However, even here there are issues since the team cannot set a goal for itself and as such, it completes any and all directed tasks regardless of their importance and their impact on the goal of the team. In this case, there needs to be someone at the senior level who could act as a generator of ideas and set a realistic goal for this team.
Sixth scenario: A Pretender
A team with a great potential is just itching to get into action, moving forward towards its set goals. It is prepared for resolving issues along the way and will not take a step backwards. It is ready and awaits its instructions from its leader. However, the leader is indecisive and cannot make up their mind. They are not certain of the future, do not generally participate in team work or distance them from it and as such, are not considered members of the team. However, the team will not move forward without their participation. Unfortunately, a similar situation will not last long because while they procrastinate the team will become disillusioned either with the goal or the leader.
Seventh scenario: Director? What director?
This type of team can also be regarded as well organized. It works as a team, achieves team goals that are dominant over those of the leader. In this case, the team will not fall apart and will work together for a long time. Even if the leader’s goals do not coincide with those of the team, the team will find a new leader.
www.ebskiev.com © 2007