"A masterpiece of explanatory journalism!" - New Orleans Picayune "Fast, funny, and highly stimulating!" -Business Book Review Get your signed copy of The NEW Why Teams Don't Work by Mike & Harvey Robbins from Berrett-Koehler Publishers Just click on the book cover!

Chapter 14
Toxic Teaming Atmosphere

You can't grow gardenias in ammonia, and you can't grow healthy teams in carbon monoxide.

Team can't thrive in an environment hostile to teamwork. This chapter discusses ways team environment can go awry, and how to make the air breathable again.

The most egregious toxins in team atmosphere are:

ό too much competition

ό the surprising corollary, too much collaboration

ό team tyranny

ό mob behavior.

All of these dangerous gases swirl around every team at one time or another.

So here are guidelines for remixing the team atmosphere to find the right blend for performance.

 

     Team Tyranny

The worst, most expensive, and most failure-prone decision organizations make is to establish a team system, when all they are really after is an atmosphere of greater collaboration.

Collaboration is a misunderstood commodity. There are managers out there who still associate it mentally with Nazi collaborators – people who cooperated with the bad guys in World War II. So they are against it. Other folks blanche at the mention of collaboration because it sounds tutti-frutti and unmasculine. "What do you mean, share?"

Sigh.

Among people with plural brain cells, however, collaboration is a powerful component of the high-performing mindset. The whole idea of organizations is rooted in the notion of people working together – collaborating -- with a common goal.

Teams do not absolutely require a collaborative atmosphere. There are successful teams operating in overwhelmingly competitive environments.

But leaders of these teams should consider boosting the amount of collaboration in the air. While teams can function in a primarily competitive atmosphere, they will do better when they are encouraged to share information and experiences – including failures, something forbidden in most competitive regimes.

Now we come to an important point. While teams can get by without collaboration, organizations can enjoy widespread collaborative efforts without teams. There are ways to get the collaborative spirit short of adopting the teams structure.

What companies should consider, before resorting to teams, is whether they can alter their culture directly, making it a better place to share and think together.

To throw the team switch when all that is needed is an infusion of collaborative spirit is to invoke the dread specter of team tyranny.

Team tyranny is the heavy hand of the organization at large, forcing everyone to do everything on a team basis. The logic is underwhelming: "Teams are great, so -- let's insist everything be done that way."

As an example, let's pick on one of our favorite companies, Honeywell, now a division of Allied Signal. On the plus side, Honeywell has long a tradition of idea leadership. On the minus side, this appetite for new ideas has occasionally meant getting carried away with organizational fads. A new word gains currency (quality, reengineering, etc.) and people lose their minds.

In the late 1970s and early '80s, when quality circles were just catching on in American corporations, Honeywell plunged deeper into the idea than most. Honeywell's Corporate Human Resources people began modestly with six well-trained circles. Soon, every executive and manager wanted circles to call their own, and they formed them, without coordinating or training them in any noticeable way. Within six months, the company had 625 down-and-dirty quality circles.

Now, we know what happened to quality circles nationwide -- they failed, because they had no power and no one listened to them. The chaos, confusion, disenchantment, anger, etc. at Honeywell was enormous. Within 18 months, 620 of these teams died miserable deaths with QC residue left on everyone's hands.

Given that experience, it is no wonder companies like Honeywell are fighting uphill battles implementing total quality management and other team-oriented programs today. All they have to do is look at their hands and remember: Quality did this to us.

Well, it's still happening. The only thing that has changed is the word. This time it's teaming. Be on a team or lose steam. What sort of person could object to such a good idea as teaming?

Well, any kind of person could, if it makes no sense. Most people, when asked, would say teamwork is good and they probably are on a team or two. The problems arise when teamwork is made mandatory and people feel pressured to form teams for everything.

Team tyranny ("You must be democratic, you must be open, you must share!") sounds ironic and unlikely. But it happens all the time. If you see it happening, make it stop.

Collaboration without Teams

Organizations seeking the collaborative spirit of teams without the structural upheavals should consider attacking their existing non-collaborative culture hammer and tongs.

The way to create a collaborative atmosphere or "teaming environment" is neither mysterious nor expensive. You begin by sending a simple but unmistakable signal through the organization: you stop rewarding destructive competitive one-up behaviors, and you start rewarding group-minded behaviors.

Then you examine, as honestly as possible, exactly how your organization actually works. Examine behavior, not executive memos. Do people hoard information, keep it from one another? Do they allow one another to fail, without stepping in to provide assistance or encouragement? Is it an organization in which not just functions are enclosed silos, shut off from others by expertise, but one in which every person is an enclosed silo, shut off from others by fear?

If so, you could benefit from a dose of collaboration. Or failing that, napalm.

Take a little thing, like e-mail. In a highly competitive environment, e-mail tends to be infrequent, disclosure of negatives tends to be rare, crucial information is typically withheld, and interested parties are conspicuously excluded.

In an environment striving to become more collaborative, e-mail is a common way for people to share news of their progress, or lack of progress. If someone is having a problem or is unable to get over the hump on a project, he or she calls attention to it, and others rally to his or her side with suggestions. E-mail provides a wonderful little collaborative tool – the cc list, a quick way to include others in the message. Everyone who is affected by your work should be cc'd with relevant messages.

Obviously, you can go overboard with the cc command. You can bring an organization to its knees by including everyone in it in every message. But you get the idea.

Another way is joint staff meetings. Get people outside your function but whose work yours affects involved in your planning and reporting.

A third way is to create leadership "bridge teams." If your organization doesn’t have formal teams, the leaders of work groups can still get together to touch base and alert one another to upcoming problems, and put an end to inevitable turf wars before they flare out of control.

A fourth way is to fiddle with reporting relationships. Just because you work in a silo does not mean you always have to report within that silo. IT and finance types benefit immeasurably by having direct-line relationships outside IT and finance, with the production or sales or engineering or whatever. It's like fresh breath of air, in fact – a blast of real life.

In the broadest sense of teams, it is not possible to have an organization without them. Every time two people talk with a common goal in mind, a team springs into existence, however briefly,

But it is perfectly possible to have a healthy organization without teams in the narrower, structured, "self-directed" sense. Instead of teams, you foster a teaming environment. Which is just as good, and lots easier to manage.

Teams vs. Mobs

In the rush to bestow the manifold blessings of teams upon our organizations, lots of things get called teams that probably shouldn't be. The resulting groups are too big, too lumpy, quite mismatched, and more than a little confused.

We call these assemblages mobs. There are ways to differentiate real teams from fake teams or mobs:

Teams		Mobs
Members recognize their interdependence and understand both personal and team goals are best accomplished with mutual support. Time is not wasted struggling over "turf" or attempting personal gain at the expense of others.		Members think they are grouped together for administrative purposes only. Individuals work independently; sometimes at cross purposes with others.
Members feel a sense of ownership for their jobs and unit because they are committed to goals they helped establish.		Members tend to focus on themselves because they are not sufficiently involved in planning the unit's objectives. They approach their job simply as a hired hand.
Members contribute to the organization's success by applying their unique talent and knowledge to team objectives.		Members are told what to do rather than being asked what the best approach would be. Suggestions are not encouraged.
Members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to openly express ideas, opinions, disagreements and feelings. Questions are welcomed.		Members distrust the motives of colleagues because they do not understand the role of others members. Expressions of opinion or disagreement are considered divisive or non-supportive.
Members practice open and honest communication. They make an effort to understand each other's point of view.		Members are so cautious about what they say that real understanding is not possible. Game playing may occur and communications traps be set to catch the unwary.
Members are encouraged to develop skills and apply what they learn on the job. They receive the support of the team.		Members may receive good training but are limited in applying it to the job by the supervisor or other group members.
Members recognize conflict as a normal aspect of human interaction but they view such situations as an opportunity for new ideas and creativity. They work to confront and resolve conflict quickly and constructively.		Members find themselves in conflict situations which they do not know how to resolve. They do not differentiate confrontation and conflict. Their supervisor or "team leader" may put off intervention until serious damage is done.
Members participate in decisions affecting the team but understand their leader must make a final ruling whenever the team cannot decide, or an emergency exists. Positive results, not conformity is the goal.		Members may or may not participate in decisions affecting the team. Conformity often appears more important than positive results.

 

So how do you keep from creating mobs instead of teams?

First of all, sort team membership into two categories: core team members and resource team members. Core team members are on a project from start to finish with close to 100 percent of their time and priorities dedicated to the project's outcomes.

Resource team members, by contrast, are members of project teams on an as-needed basis. They are just as valuable as core team members, but are only involved with the team as their expertise and input are required.

A resource team member is more likely, therefore, to be on several teams at any one time. Resource team members may sometimes be asked to participate from the beginning of a project to minimize their learning curve once they become more active in the team's discussions.

Wise teams use these resource team members, who are always just a phone call away, not just as "seagulls" who swoop in as needed to drop their load and take off again, but as valued team members who, over the life of a project, can contribute much more than just an allotment of expertise.

 

   When to team

If you are absolutely sure that a team is what you need, then you must map the team out. This means deciding who the right core and resource team members are, actually forming the team, and following the pathway outlined in Chapter 22.

Even at this stage it's still not too late to give up on the team approach. You don't need teams when:

ƒ      decisions are best made by one person

ƒ      decisions are pre-determined

ƒ      the outcome is not critical to company, division, department success (like what color toilet paper to buy)

ƒ      time is of the essence (a decision by tomorrow)

ƒ      the project is either "back burner" or a low priority

Teams are best used when they are formed to address short-term, high priority, perhaps cross-functional, single-focused, action-oriented outcomes. You need teams when:

ƒ      the wider the input the better the output

ƒ      the issue is cross-functional or multi-directional in nature

ƒ      the outcome/decision has potential high-impact for department, division, or company

Don't feel pressured to form a team because it's the thing to do now. If it doesn't feel right, the heck with it. Form teams only when they make sense, and the team output will be greater than the sum of the individual members inputs.

     the team biosphere

How do you create a great team atmosphere? First ask, whose job is it to do this?

It is everyone's responsibility to create the teaming atmosphere, by fulfilling their roles within the team. We use the phrase organizational karma to describe this shared responsibility for climate control. Karma being the wheel of consequences, with good deeds and bad deeds alike coming back to us continually. We could as easily use an expression from software development: GIGO -- "Garbage in, garbage out." Or as they say in the submarines, when you are all breathing the same air, forego that second helping of beans.

The life of a team is full of negatives and positives. The negatives are differences in perception between team members (we talked about this in Chapter 14) and differences in behavioral styles (Chapter 8). The positives are an understanding of the characteristics differentiating good team members from bad. All team members need to incorporate positive teaming behaviors into their daily worklife.

Here they are, the characteristics of effective team members:

ƒ      A commitment to goals. It is difficult to work enthusiastically towards some outcome if you don't know what that outcome is. The first thing good team members do is clarify what they're after -- what their team goals and objectives are. With this clarified, good team members commit themselves to the outcome; whatever it takes (within ethical boundaries), they are willing to do.

ƒ      A genuine interest in other team members. People don't have to like each other to work together. That may be true, in the short term. But good team members develop a genuine interest in the well-being of other team members. Not as a team survival mechanism, but as a human bond. It may sound like small talk, but it's more caring: "How was your weekend?" "Is your boy still sick?" "Is there anything I can do?"

ƒ      Confronts conflict. Good team members can tell the difference between confrontation and conflict -- between directness and having a chip on one's shoulder. The only way to discover and resolve differences within the team is to open up, acknowledge the disagreement, and negotiate a solution. Avoid the plague, but own up to conflict. As a matter of fact, effective team members intercede when other team members are in conflict, to help resolve the disagreement. Bad or weak team members turn their back on conflict and either ignore it, and hope it will disappear, or let the other team members battle it out, squandering precious team time and goodwill.

ƒ      Listens empathically. Empathetic, active listening is important for anyone, whether you're on a team or not. It is particularly important for open communication between effective team members. Empathetic listening means being sensitive to not just the content of the message the other person is sending, but to the emotion behind the message. Good listening means more than shutting up and waiting for your turn -- it means getting into the other person's head and heart.

ƒ      Inclusive decision making. Good team members run their "first draft" decision by other team members before they pull the trigger. One never knows what additional inputs you may acquire that may make your tentative decision even better. Not only may you get additional information this way, but you have a communication device online that lets people know where your thoughts are headed -- thus minimizing surprises later.

ƒ      Values individual differences. Effective team members look at differences as positive. They respect the opinions of others and view other's perspectives as pluses, not minuses. They figure out how to use the natural differences to benefit the team's outcomes and not as excuses to avoid working with each other (Chapter 8).

ƒ      Contributes ideas freely. Good team members don't hold back their ideas. When they have an opinion about something, they express it; even if it's just to support someone else's opinion. If you have an idea about the topic being discussed and you keep your mouth shut (very typical for the Midwest, where we are), you're not being an effective team member.

ƒ      Provides feedback on team performance. Good teams develop a method for providing continuous feedback on how the team is working, what's going right, what's going wrong, and what to do about it. Effective team members also solicit feedback from other team members ("How'm I doing?"). No matter what formal performance feedback system their organizations provide, good teams develop methods for more frequent, real-time, relevant feedback on people, processes, team support structures, and outcomes.

ƒ      Celebrates accomplishments. One of the first questions Harvey asks when doing teaming within an organization is, "When was the last time you folks had a party?" If you haven't had a party lately, you haven't had a formal excuse to celebrate. Maybe your goals are long term ones, it's hard to break off in the middle and celebrate. So -- do it anyway. Effective teams find excuses to celebrate; usually related to the accomplishment of some shorter-term outcome. Look for ways to lift the morale through celebration; both personal and professional.

A nod to The Predatory organization

A final, friendly caveat. There are organizations for which neither teams nor a team environment will do a bit of good. These are companies whose culture is unalterably predatory, unapologetic about having a son-of-a-bitch, screw-you personality.

There are thousands of organizations, and hundreds of thousands of departments within organizations, that fit this description, and they are happy with it in their own hellish Dilbertian way.

For such a company to try to coat itself in collaborative spirit, as if it were some sort of cosmetic powder puff, is absurd. People won’t believe the company's intentions for a minute. It will simply waste time and money and fritter away whatever scattered microns of credibility such an organization still commands.

In fact, it just makes it more of a son-of-a-bitch organization, because it has added hypocrisy to its repertoire of treachery and abuse.

Hope we didn’t make that sound too attractive.

NOW AVAILABLE from from Berrett-Koehler Publishers (San Francisco) and Texere (UK)!

The New WHY TEAMS DON'T WORK
What Goes Wrong and How to Make It Right

"The American business approach to workplace teams is filled with powerful subtleties and is also quite different from the Japanese. The phrase, "How come all this quality stuff don't work," nicely sums up the challenge making teams work in America. Authors Robbins and Finley present practical solutions to the problems with and misconceptions about teams that will be valuable to any organization inclined to assign teams to work on legitimate operational issues. Pragmatic team tips covered here include team decision-making, communication skills with teams, reward and recognition ideas, the importance of effective team leadership, and the fundamental factor of organizational culture that could help or hinder team success. The authors swap narration of chapters, enlivening this useful handbook on how to make the commitment to teams a success. Serves well any manager's interest in maximizing productivity and quality improvement with teams. Recommended for all quality professionals." -- Quality World