What are the Characteristics of High Performance Teams? Part 2
CEQ - Collaborative Equity LLP
Promoting corporate cultures and sustainable business models of shared ownership, shared responsibility & shared reward
I believe in the fundamental truths of how human beings are wired to behave, whether through genetics or environment. So theoretical models are of profound value, in which case we may as well access the healthiest and most aspirational of those models. But I also believe in practical application; in tools and techniques and processes that actually work in the day to day realities of the modern corporation...
Last week our Newsletter covered the need for 'Common purpose, inspiring vision, shared values, ambitious goals, great strategy'
The next step might in reality have been decided in advance...
2. Clear structure of roles and responsibilities
How do we really decide who is going to be on the team unless we’ve been through a process of reviewing what roles are required; what skills or attributes the task demands? In a corporation, the team may well pick itself according to hierarchical levels as much as functional expertise or responsibility. But this does not mean we can take anything for granted as we assemble our players. We still need to go through the process of understanding and then collectively agreeing the roles each person will take, and the responsibilities that go with that role. Partly this is an exercise in breaking down the bigger team goals and strategies into departmental or role specific smaller chunks, but mostly it’s an exercise in each individual team member gaining an understanding and appreciation of not just their colleagues’ roles, but more importantly their challenges and the risks they run in not meeting their commitments.
Nothing kills team unity and effectiveness so fast as a team member unconsciously colluding with criticism of one of their colleagues.
And we are bound to hear criticisms – we are putting the organisation through change, which means putting people through discomfort, and people often defend themselves by blaming others, in a sort of ‘you’ll never guess what Department X have done now’ manner. When we hear criticisms of one of our colleagues we must respond like adults and be very careful not to collude with the criticisms, even if we may have some sympathy with them. And we avoid this by first of all being able to refer the complainer to the strategy being implemented by the person or department they are complaining of, forcing them to engage with the fact that they are in fact only experiencing the predictable fall out from the agreed strategy being implemented, and secondly by coaching the complainer to take personal responsibility and to challenge the correct person, rather than taking the lazy route of whingeing. It’s the same issue as dealing with a ‘them and us’ energy or behaviour. To be stamped out.
And this brings me to the subject of a team dynamic that’s come to be known as ‘Fortress Mentality’ whereby teams can become strong and arguably highly effective units by creating a culture of an ‘enemy without’. The philosophy is that if we demonise other people or teams we give ourselves a huge advantage by harnessing and focussing our energy on protecting our own and attacking those who stand in our way. I’ve seen a lot of this in corporations, in fact I’ve seen it feted and promoted as a legitimate technique. Where it is aimed at a competitor, I’m not going to argue too strongly against it. I would still not advocate it as a positive strategy, since it will only serve to elicit a like response, and we will end up in a war which will destroy margins for the whole industry. We should be in a more collaborative mindset even where our competition is concerned – our legitimate position in the supply chain is not always strengthened when a competitor is weakened. Oft times we are better served when our competition are strong and successful, assuming there is a legitimate place for all. Who wants 100% market share? It wouldn’t last anyway, and a monopoly position only guarantees strong profits in the very short term. But I’m not overly critical of a company that chooses to focus energy on fighting the competition. I would just not advocate it positively.
The real problem, and I’ve seen this dynamic many times, is where the aggressive energy created by a fortress mentality is aimed at another department within the same company! And you would think that this would not be tolerated, but never underestimate the power of machismo and testosterone within a business. Where looking and sounding tough is celebrated and rewarded, and where conversely, sounding weak and naïve is criticised and even belittled. So beware of this false God.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Perhaps my favourite line in the Nestle values is “Nestle people base relations on trust, expecting mutual integrity and rejecting intrigue” – the establishment and common knowledge and ownership of the roles and responsibilities will really serve to make the ‘rejection of intrigue’ both possible and more obvious.
Next week's Newsletter will cover:
3. Utter respect for each other as expert specialist professionals
Article excerpted from “And The Leader Is… Transforming Cultures with CEQ” - by Gareth Chick for the CEQ Newsletter: Coaching, Leadership, Change
Exclusive to our Newsletter subscribers, we are offering free 30 minute Coaching Sessions with one of our coaches. Simply fill out the short form below and we will do the rest:
PEO Advisor/ SMB Account Executive | Key Account Management
10moFascinating read on the dynamics of high-performance teams. It's intriguing how the sequencing of leadership decisions can impact team effectiveness. Looking forward to implementing some of these insights within our team!