Thanks to all respondents for their help - I will give some further
feedback later on during the project.
Responses to LO13819 - Launching a new team
Malcolm Burson:
At the risk of sounding old-fashioned, I would offer a few thoughts:
1. Most of your team members will come in well-prepared with the
task/content aspects of their project. Your job may be to help them see
the importance of the simple acronym:
M Maintenance
I Individual needs
T Task
S System
..in performing effectively as a team. That is, in any group there is a
shared responsibility for attending to the group as an entity
(maintenance); the individual needs of members; the task; and the wider
system within which the team operates. Thus, were I in your situation, I
would plan that at least part of the day be spent on simple group process
skills and awareness, so that people don't get deflected into the task too
soon.
2. In my experience doing team building, I've found the whole section in
The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook on mental models and team learning
invaluable. Again, if a team can start its life having done some work on
suspending assumptions, and learning skilful discussion protocols, I
really find they will be more productive in the long run. Certainly
discussion of individual, as well as corporate, values and vision is part
of this.
Well, you can probably see where I'm coming from here. Be grateful that
you have a whole day (and rather wish it might be 2 or 3) to help a team
come together. Let me know if I can offer more thoughts along these lines.
Andrew Wong:
There are several assumptions made by Geoff Cook in his post on the above
subject. IMHO these assumptions need verification and / or strategy to
make them known or open:
1. The multifunctional team members have common Shared Vision.
2. The team members have generally good relationship with each other, have
"constancy of methodology in approach, language" etc.
3. The compartmentalized departmental barriers are broken, or not a real
problem.
4. The team believes in collective leadership.
True or False or Partial? Whichever case, different meeting design /
approach are required.
Leemon, Corp:
"Common topics" in my experience will achieve less than if you could bring
around the team straight on to their diversities. I make it from your mail
that this team belongs to the same organisation, maybe multi-national,
multi-lingual. if one were to scratch a little bit on the diversities, one
would find a very strong common emotional bonding that drives us as a
breed.
John H Dicus:
I would conduct a one-day Open Space event for the team and include as
much of the whole system in which the team works as possible. I believe
that there are many systemic forces and influences already in place in
organisations to prevent teams of people from working together in a
natural and fluid state. In a sense, the deck is already stacked against
them, and they are being asked to influence/alter basic system structure
to accomplish their ends.
Whole system events soften barriers and produce a deepened interdependence
in a very short time. They begin to alter the deep structure of the
human/business system in "whole being / whole body" way. They do so very
effectively in a reasonably short time since they are experiential as well
as "in the head." They depend on free choice, passion, and responsibility.
Learning is immense since each person builds upon what they deeply care
about. Since the whole system is working together, everyone can
concentrate on their strengths and on growth - rather than trying to be
all things to all people. The issues of clear communication, perceptions,
assumptions, differing mental models, buy-in, implementation and so on are
addressed through whole system techniques.
We use tailored forms of Open Space that allow the introduction of needed
learning as it is being called for - such as dialogue skills, leadership
concepts (stewardship), and systems thinking. Since Open Space provides
the format for participants to surface the issues and topics that they
believe are the most relevant and important for the job at hand, the right
things will by definition be brought out with complete ownership. The
chances of misunderstanding the challenges before them will be minimised.
The usual problems of lack of true empowerment, insufficient resources,
and lack of acceptance will also be minimised.
We have incorporated whole system concepts into nearly all of our teaching
and facilitation. We regularly use Open Space for new initiatives,
restructuring activities, conflict resolution, mergers, ideation, and so
on.
Last Fall, we conducted an Open Space event in Paris for a company
beginning a major change being implemented by a number of self-directed
teams. Major physical shifts and cultural shifts were deemed necessary. It
consisted of participants form Germany, UK, France, and the US.
Forgive me if I sound over exuberant. After many years of trying to
understand why teams seem to be unnatural instead of natural, the whole
system work has finally brought wonderful results. We regularly offer Open
Space, "Experiences in Stewardship," and Emergent Space. We also have a
program of learning to support the shifts in understanding, thinking, and
behaviour that people experience during these sessions that includes
"Awareness of Systems," "Creating Connection Through Communication,"
"Leadership and Design," Building The Learning Environment," and
"Rehearsing The Future."
Please let me know if I can help in any way. Bet of luck to your efforts.
Ed Brenegar:
Geoff, Not knowing more about the group, I would suggest that you start by
clarifying what it is that your team is to suppose to do. I think they
will "learn" by doing, and having to work at it as a team. By this, I
mean, what are their various assumptions or mental models, what is their
vision for achievement, and then integrate that into what exactly you are
suppose to do. Then I would break the responsibilities up into tasks, then
assign to individuals and sub-teams, and conclude that by lunch.
Then have the subteams meet, plot a beginning set of goals and time, and
reconvene to conclude the day with specific actions steps that are clear
to everyone.
I'm making some assumptions here about how well the team members know one
another, etc. I work with lots of governing boards which are in essence
voluntary mulitdisciplinary teams. And I find that it is usually [?lack
of?] clarity about purpose, task, actions steps and accountability which
inhibit the team functioning well. And once they have clarify those areas,
they are able to learn what it takes to succeed.
Are you the facilitator for this group? It sounds like they will need one
if you are not it. If so, then you have to ask yourself, what is it that I
want to say has been accomplished at the end of the day. Then plan to
achieve it. I know it sounds simple, and it can be if you want it to be.
Best of luck, I look forward to hearing what happens.
Rol Fessenden:
Len's research matches my experience. Teams are best in more complex
situations, individuals best in simpler situations. In fact, it is quite
clear that teams are counter- productive in situations that are
well-defined. In a product development environment, for example, where the
product is merely a refinement of an existing product, then a
cross-functional team does not add value to the process. On the other
hand, when the product is very new and different. then the
cross-functional team adds a great deal of value.
Scott Simmerman:
Len Tischler wrote about teams learning more complex tasks better and
individuals doing simpler ones more effectively. I've not seen any
research on this, but I did get to read Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey Stamps
brand new book, Virtual Teams, last night.
One thing seems clear, we are definately taking more and more advantage of
electronic communications technologies and techniques to work together and
that teams are more and more important as so many organizational issues
become more and more difficult.
Most of my experience with Len's question comes from the play of our team
building simulation, The Search for The Lost Dutchman's Gold Mine. I'll
use yesterday's game of 300 people for a high technology company (data
switching virtual teams, mostly engineers).
In the game, we form teams of 6 people and share suggested roles to get
organized. There were 50 tables, each with resources and information.
Before we get started and after the introduction and explanation, I am
asked questions that can be answered by another member of the group. It
seems like assigning tasks helps individuals sort information more
effectively.
If I am the Supply Expert, I tend to pay more (selective?) attention to
information about the resources such as cost, number and use.
If I am the Analyst and have a job aid that tracks Weather, I would pay
more attention to information about weather patterns and consumption of
resources influenced by the weather.
It is always the case that no one has all the information but they all do.
At the same time, one may "reinvent" information, become an expert at the
table, and get something wrong. In the game yesterday, and for the first
time I recall it happening, one of the teams changed the rules regarding
TurboChargers and even influenced one of the assisting / support people to
change the rules. Interesting. And there is NO WAY that any group much
larger than 6 could operate efficiently and effectively. A Big Group or
committee finds the decision-making too difficult. And we see the same
team-based effectiveness with Square Wheels. One individual may come up
with a few responses to the cartoon (and it's sometimes a struggle for a
few). But, put together a small group (5 or 6) and allow them to discuss
the illustration and you can get dozens of ideas and themes. And they have
more fun in the process.
My guess is that Len is right. Individuals can understand simple things
better and make decisions on those things more effectively. But groups,
with their diverse knowledge, information and experience, are more
effective in creative situations as well as complex ones - IF they are
allowed the time to talk, listen and plan.
But typically, it seems organizations form teams and then pressure them to
"Get On With It!" This is a Ready - Fire - Aim approach that contrasts
with my belief:
"Don't Just Do It! Stand There."
We need to provide information, time and support to allow teams to get
perspective and have a bit of objectivity so that they can develop and
implement better solutions, for the FUN of It!
Jon C. Jenkins:
Several other posts arround this issue raise several interesting
questions. I think that if developing a learning organization or learning
teams requires that people are interested in learning and in being in
teams there is not much development required. In fact I would wonder why
they don't already exist independent of any intervention. I believe that
learning teams require two conditions; a meaningful purpose for the team
to exist and a question that challenges their knowledge, skills or
attitudes.
A story about a meaningful purpose - Davey, a teenager, working in a seat
belt factory began coming home later and later. He began missing dinner.
His mother began to worry about what was happening so she, one evening
made up some sandwiches and took them to the factory. There was Davey
putting together seat belts, rather boring work. Davey's mother ask why he
was working. The work was boring. He said he was saving 20,000 lives a
year. He needed to meet a quota and he exceeded it by a lot.
Davey had a meaningful purpose as well as a concret set of goals. Someone
had elicited, (I don't think he was simply told) passion about his work by
connecting it to a larger purpose.
A question that challenges knowledge, skills or attitudes.
People, I mean adults here, seem to be driven to learn when faced with a
question, a demand that is beyond their capacity to respond effectively.
It cannot be so far beyond their capacity that it is impossible but it
needs to stretch.
If an organization is really interested in creating learning teams it
seems to me that these two areas need work.
I know that there are many other issues that prevent learning but these
two are necessary requirements.
Richard C. "Doc" Holloway:
I would only add that learning teams are comprised of learning people.
One of the first things that learning people need to learn, when they're
beginning to develop a learning team, is about personal and interpersonal
skills. Among the personal mastery skills that Senge's Fieldbook considers
necessary to working productively on a learning team are vision and
reality awareness; working with matters of the heart; self-development;
self-motivation and then development of skills in inquiry and advocacy,
mental models, differentiation and conflict resolution.
My point, simply, is that one way to determine a learning from a
non-learning team is in the level of personal and interpersonal skills of
the people on the team. My experience is that those teams, that are
blessed with members who demonstrate these skills, seem to exhibit many of
the traits of the learning team (flexibility, adaptation, self-directing,
autonomous, systems-conscious) even without formal mentoring or coaching
(though they can benefit from external coaching).
Claire McCarty Kilian, Ph.D:
I thought I would jump in and add to the comments on when a group is
better than an individual in decision-making. It is true that the research
generally supports the fact the groups are superior to even the best
individual with a complex problem if certain conditions prevail.
These conditions include heterogeneous group members, members have
complementary skills, they can and do freely share ideas, and good ideas
are accepted. An important "if." Perhaps we need to include consideration
of these conditions in our discussions.
Interestingly, research has also shown that on poorly-structured, creative
tasks, individuals perform better than groups. Studies have looked at the
effectiveness of individuals and brainstorming groups and find that
individuals are far more productive than groups in the quantity and
quality of solutions. The main explanation for this is that many
individuals feel inhibited by the presence of others, don't want to appear
foolish, people quickly accept one solution, social loafing, etc....
The way I always try to get the best of both is to provide some structure
for team interaction (or allow the team to learn and practice that for
themselves using reflection, advocacy and inquiry skills, etc) and/or
allow time for individuals to be "creative" before they start to work as a
team.
Just some thoughts...
Claire McCarty Kilian, Ph.D:
Module 1: Understanding Mental Models... focuses participants on
understanding their "mental models," and learning how to create open,
honest, and meaningful conversations through tools such as Left-Hand
Column, Ladder of Inference, and Advocacy and Inquiry Protocols.
Module 2: Applying Systems Thinking... with Systems Mapping and
archetypes, people can now describe situations, have meaningful dialogue
about them and begin creative problem-solving.
Module 3: Creating Shared Vision... learn how a shared vision can help get
us off the problem-solving treadmill, how vision relates mental models and
systems thinking.
Module 4:.. Using the Tools.... integrates all the tools previously
learned to create an Alignment Matrix. This Alignment Matrix identifies
specific outcomes and daily tasks needed to be accomplished to achieve
results, and helps to align the work people do with their shared vision.
Inhibitors and enablers of these goals are addressed. Leverage points are
identified (by focusing on systemic structures). In this way, the
Alignment Matix becomes the Roadmap for Success.
I love working with this program. We have seen it be wildly successful
from the board room to (most importantly to me) the shop floor.
If any of you are attending the BEST OF TEAMS conference in Chicago in
June....look me up.
Steve O'Keefe:
Why do so many distributed team projects fail? "It is harder for virtual
teams to be successful than for traditional face-to-face teams.
Misunderstandings are more likely to arise and more things are likely to
go wrong." These words of warning come from Jessica Lipnack and Jeffrey
Stamps, two people who dedicated their lives to making teams work better.
Lipnack and Stamps are co-founders of The Networking Institute, co-authors
of five books on team work, and consultants to numerous Fortune-500 firms
and The United Nations. Through their research into how teams work, they
discovered something called "the 50-foot barrier" - people that work more
than 50 feet apart are unlikely to work together in teams. That inspired
Lipnack and Stamps to write "Breaking the 50-Foot Barrier," an article
loaded with examples of how companies such as Sun Microsystems and NCR
created team environments that defeated the 50-foot barrier. If you would
like a copy of the article, simply send e-mail to IPS@olympus.net with the
subject line, Send Teams.
Lipnack and Stamps are distributing the article to call attention to their
new web site and book. The book is called "Virtual Teams: Reaching Across
Space, Time and Organizations With Technology." Like the article, it is
packed with case histories of how companies have succeeded in making
distributed teams work. The book was published by John Wiley & Sons in
May, 1997.
The web site is called NetAge - home of The Networking Institute - a
repository of resources to help people build better networks. You'll find
more information about "Virtual Teams" and Lipnack and Stamps' other
efforts at: http://www.netage.com.
David E. Birren:
I'm responding to Geoff Cook's request for team help on the LO list
instead of privately because the information might be of some use to
others.
I don't have any direct advice for Geoff (rather, I have a similar
question), but the Center for the Study of Work Teams at the University of
North Texas might. They have a website and a listserv.
Good luck,
[Host's Note: Thanks, Dave, for the pointer... That web site is:
Linkname: Center for the Study of Work Teams,
URL: http://www.workteams.unt.edu/
and they have a mailing list as well (info about which is on the web
site). ...Rick]
Ian Saunders:
Hi Geoff,
An interesting situation.
I think the most important thing to include is 'time' for the team members
to talk about what they want to talk about.
You clearly cannot have a completely unstructured day so have to provide
some framework and boundaries.
I would want to include something on "what is this team for?"
"Why it is important it works and learns well together?"
"What can individuals do to improve things, work well together?"
Give them time to talk about 'how they learn', what they want from each
other', what are unacceptable things and behaviours'. Help them get high
expectations, big targets (the best team ever) Try and get them to agree
to continue to meet to develop the team. 'Rome was not built in a day'
Just having a session at the beginning is not enough. SO how can they
continue development?
Just having time together is vital. SO maybe having some 'games' or
exercises that give them the chance to work together and review
performance would help.
Tom Neil:
I have been involved, it seems like forever, with this question. Assuming
everyone knows and understands the parameters of the team, goal, process,
my goal has been to facilitate their designing what and how things will
happen, a productive interactive learning team (human system).
If the team members have been chosen because they are good at what they
do, than they can develop their own system.
What do I provide? An understanding of what a system is and how it
functions; composed of the five sub-systems.
How to step outside of the ego. Learning to visualize thoughts, beliefs,
concepts. If the individual has difficulty in visually presenting others
have difficulty in translating. Understanding process. Facilitate
interaction through listening, synthesizing, extrapolating.
I have found teambuilding exercises to be less than productive. Team
exercise usually focus on non-relevant problems. However, once the team
engages a relevant problem they revert to learned patterns of behavior.
They learn more effectively when engaged with actual issues.
Establish on the first day the principle of learning everyday, how to do
it, and how to share it. Then facilitate continuously.
Carol Johnson (Replying to LO13870):
Cesar wrote:
"For example, What are the real benefits of technologies like e-mail,
Lotus Notes or Network introduction? How do you express those benefits
that we perceive but are difficult to manage? Could you provide me some
examples in these areas (notes, e- mail, networks)? For me, these are the
primary tools that the people from a learning org could use to start."
The question highlighted from your post hit close to home. This is the
type of challenge those of us in the Org. Development areas of any
corporation struggle with daily. "There's nothing to put their hands on,
so how can I get them to see the value?" Let me tell you what I found to
be very successful and I 'm confident you will hear from many others as
well.
First, and most important... get them to switch sides with you! Rather
than presenting new technology or skills development ideas etc. As
something you want or think is necessary to do, get them to ask for it.
This is not as hard as it may sound. Enlist the assistance of managers and
directors in the company. Give them an opportunity to fill out a "wish
list". Ask them also to supply you with a list of their biggest hurdles.
What is standing in the way of allowing them to do or be the best in the
industry? The answers to these types of questions are usually very
similar. COMMUNICATION, skills, tools, COMMUNICATION, time, COMMUNICATION,
etc. See where I'm going yet?
Once you have THEIR opinions about what they need and what they want, -
fulfill their list! Detail out how Lotus Notes, or E-mail, or whatever
else you have in mind, will improve communication, save time, open access
to information, increase customer satisfaction, etc. When you are able to
do this, present the information as follow-up to the data gathered from
your managers and directors. You've given them what they want and moved
your projects ahead. (If you're not able to answer their needs or fill the
wish list, your idea wasn't the best approach in the first place - Whew,
dodged a bullet!)
The downside to this approach is you give up the "Glory". You may not be
given full credit for the ideas or solutions. There's where you have to
ask the $50,000 question. What's more important? Getting the project moved
ahead, improving the products or the glory?
-- Geoff Cook <geofcook@coaching.demon.co.uk> The Training Partnership - Training solutions for performance developmentLearning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>