- Whether to mention a pregnancy in a job interview
- A possible meeting protocol
- What are an end-user's responsibilities?
- Another take on opening PCs, or not
- Getting some process going
- Selling a more open environment to management
- Running an effective meeting
- Licensing rules for virtual machines
- The ROI of metrics
- Legal challenges to virtual machines
May 15, 2007 | Comments: (0)
Building smart teams
Dear Bob ...
I am enjoying your "Six Stupid" articles ("The Six Stupid methodology," Keep the Joint Running, 4/23/2007 and "Six Stupid process controls," Keep the Joint Running, 4/30/2007). I intend to share with my staff over the next few company staff meetings. I think I DO understand the ability of a team to be dumber than its dumbest member. However, I also have observed and participated in team efforts where the whole was greater than the sum of the parts...synergy.
How does one identify the team "personality" (stupid or brilliant) early and either abandon the first (stupid), or find ways to change it for the better?
Is this an identifiable problem that has no known solution, or is there hope I may learn more? I would like to be able to discern "team stupidity" early and hope that I could help change the direction a little.
- Prefers to lead a smart team
Dear Preferential ...
Thanks for the question. The answer is really quite clear - first articulated by a researcher named B.S. Tuckman in 1965.
It's like this: The difference between a group - where the aggregate is dumber than its members - and a team, where it is smarter, depends on trust and alignment. It depends, that is, on whether the relationships among the people who have to work together are strong, and on whether they have committed to a shared purpose.
Neither by itself is sufficient. When relationships are strong but alignment is weak you have a legislature. Everyone gets along just fine, but they have a hard time reaching agreement except through compromise - the weakest form of design.
When alignment is strong but relationships are weak - a very rare situation, by the way, because the only real way to achieve alignment is through a process that almost has to build trust - you end up with an inability on the part of each participant to accept what any other participant says at face value.
So ... trust and alignment. Especially alignment. Focus on building it and the team will generally figure out the trust part on its own.
That will make the team smart.
- Bob
Powered by ScribeFire.
Posted by Bob Lewis on May 15, 2007 06:29 AM
RATE THIS ARTICLE:
-
- COMMENTS
Thank you, Bob. Well said, and a good argument for the inclusion of team-building at the beginning of a project. I wrote because I thought of an example of when alignment is strong but trust is weak: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend..."
Posted by: Greg at May 16, 2007 11:37 AMThe problem I have with the words "team" and "manage", is that both have their roots in the use of draught animals. Too often, organizations view teams in this way - animals to pull weight - instead of human beings solving problems.
The fact is, some of us work best alone, or at best in collaboration with others. I don't think corporate cultures know how to deal with such individuals, yet the breakthrough ideas tend to come from the fringes.
Posted by: rpaw at May 17, 2007 11:06 AMYes, on the "trust" thing. When even a small number of the team members are more concerned with protecting themselves, this infects everyone. And almost immediately, everyone has good reason to start doing it.
The leader has to be mostly concerned with fostering an environment which encourages communication and this means correcting or removing the problem elements.
Posted by: John at May 17, 2007 08:34 PM>>When alignment is strong but relationships are weak - a very rare situation, by the way...
Examples of this situation are when a high level of danger exists. Examples are criminal activity (such as escaping from jail) or strangers cooperating during natural disasters. In both cases you have people motivated to work together because they can't do something alone, but who still may not trust each other. Warzones are another example and the reason why boot camp trains recruits to work together.
Posted by: Mark at May 18, 2007 06:48 PM|
Three books. Three ways to change the world, your life, or at least Bob Lewis' bank account. Leading IT: The Toughest Job in the World distills the world of IT leadership into eight learnable skills and gives you concrete, practical techniques for each one of them. Bare Bones Project Management: What you can't not do makes project management manageable, even for first-time project managers with no formal training in the discipline. ManagementSpeak: What managers say/What they mean … well, it won't help your career, and won't make you a better manager. Mostly, it will make you chuckle, guffaw, and maybe even chortle. Make friends - it's the perfect gift for anyone who has ever suffered through one of those meetings. Order your copies today! |
TOP STORIES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
- Remote Access: Maintain Security and Decrease the Burden on IT
- Beyond AntiVirus: Symantec Endpoint Protection
- What Every Enterprise Needs to Know About VDI
- Disaster Recovery in Minutes
- Protecting Microsoft(R) Applications
- Reduce Recovery Times and Tape Costs
