How do I create a good team?

Hi David,

I have had individuals not working together, yet they will band together against another department when it suited! True. I begin the process by having weekly “Team” meetings with all my direct reports (I usually have less than 12). The first thing I do is to set the rules – everyone can and should speak, there are to be NO personal attacks or bullying. Plus people losing control is not an option. We all discuss and if there is dissention then my diplomacy skills are critical, But whatever happens, the final decision is mine.

We address each issue, form a plan, decide who does what and by when and then report back progress at the next meeting (or a specific meeting if so directed). The rule about personalities: if anyone has a complaint or whinge - they address it with me with facts, otherwise I may take up the issue as a disciplinary matter.

This is a simple and basic start to the process – and usually works. I have a blog where I have explained the meeting process in “Team Meetings 101” at http://newpaddockenterprises.com/

Cheers - all the best
Mark

OK, nice little battle brewing here. I'd love to get involved and try to stir it up a bit more, but that is not going to help David, so I'll try to just answer his question rather than debate the pro's and con's of different approaches. Here is what I have experienced and seen fail or work.

I've been in the HRD field for almost 30 years and have lost most of my hair as a result. It has nothing to do with my age but to do with people.

Firstly, in my experience most "Teams" are not picked to function as a team. They are usually just a group of disparate individuals with a range of skills relevant to the issue to be dealt with, who are thrown together to come up with a solution. These accidental teams have to go through a process of becoming a team, which is difficult and does not happen overnight. So such a team is typically not suited to crisis handling.

Nik made a very good point about whether you need to get into team working or not. You have a group of experts or specialists and tapping into them individually for their input may be the best strategy. However, analysing the resulting information and coming up with a workable solution may be a challenge.

In my neighbourhood here in Ireland, where we have been hard hit by the recession, there are many examples of groups of owner managers of small businesses coming together to support each other as a kind of "Board of Directors". Such a group of likeminded people will often help you sift through the information and help you make a decision.

Alternatively, you might try a structured approach such as Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats approach, you can buy the book or you can get trained in how to use the technique. (PS. I do have to own up to having a business connection with said guru, but you may be able to find others in the creativity field who can provide a more focused solution)

The Six Thinking Hats and similar approaches to structuring your problem solving creatively (which I believe may be at the core of PR) can be used on your own, or as a method for running a meeting. I believe that much of the difficulty you are experiencing is in your people bringing their pride, ego and emotions to the meeting.

By rigorously structuring the thinking process and eliminating the room for conflict you can usually get a more effective result from a non-team as you have in your situation.

So two possible solutions, approach your people individually for input and decide yourself, or use a structured thinking process to streamline the meeting.

The third option of sacking the incompatible people and hiring more suitable replacements is not always a realistic solution. But if you want advide on that option, feel free to ask me.

Best of luck in your dilemma and let us know how you got on. I think you can contact me directly through my profile, or you can google me, I'm the only "Cormac McGrane" on the web if you use the inverted commas. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have on this topic.

David
This is a universal dilemma for leaders. Over the years, what I have learned as a manager and a consultant that does team building with face-to-face and virtual teams is that it is important to focus time on building trusting relationships. Having people learn about one another's strengths and how they can optimally contribute to the team and developing respect and appreciation for those strengths will help a you retain talent and build a high performing team. One of the tools I use to help in this effort is called the 5 Dynamics Assessment. It is not a personality test. Instead it is based on identifying people's natural preferences. I hold monthly webinars to introduce the tool. I'd be delighted to have you join one. Send me an email at BMiller@ArtemisManagement.com and I'll put you on the mailing list. You can read about the tool on our web site at www.ArtemisManagement.com

Barb

Good questions, David & Nik.

It sounds like David wants more than just peaceful interaction on his team, so understanding each other's preferences and team training like the 'hold hands and sing Kumbaya' approach is unlikely to have any positive effect. When it is human synergy you are after, you need to ensure that you first have people who are Coherent, in the right Role, and who have the kind of Teaming Characteristics you need for the mission of the particular team.

There is a set of indicators that measure the value of a given team. The original research papers were published by SHRM, and I will upload them next. If you can't find them, feel free to contact me at DrJanice@thegabrielinstitute.com

I think there are some interesting pieces of information in the prior exchange, and I believe that I will opt out of joining in the banter.

One thing that I will suggest is reading the book "Fierce Leadership" by Susan Scott. A major component in there is the "Smart + Heart". I simply adore this ideology. Hopefully you have set a certain culture within your organization, and you and the others within your organization foster, build, and grow it daily. Once that component is there, Susan suggests bringing in some of your other employees (from all levels and disciplines) in a panel style interview that will allow multiple inputs to assist in deciding if the potential candidate fits in with the culture you have built. I won't go through all of the different suggestions and steps, but I will say that reading that book may help shed a little light on the situation and help you in securing committed employees that "fit" with you and your team.

Best of luck, and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions!

Hello, David:

I am a strong proponent of using functional and cross-functional teams in order to develop strong integrated solutions. Often it takes the leader to step up and call the foul when individuals say they just can't work with other individuals. Rarely have I found that to be true. It's determining why one or more team members are saying that and using good team building practices to get the team through the four phases: forming, storming, norming and performing.

I'd recommend the well known resource, "The Wisdom of Teams" by Katzenbach and Smith, to you.

Best of luck!

Great question David and one that happens in a lot of workplaces. I've found it helpful to teach employees how to listening without interrupting or reacting. It's also useful to structure meetings so they have a good chance of succeeding by giving everyone a voice, encouraging everyone to participate and sticking to time limits. You may want to check online for effective meeting tips or bring in a neutral professional who can help you run effective meetings and help you all get on the same page and practicing the same communication skills.

Hi David,
Good question! To make your team gel for action when required you just don’t need a “star” hire to replace a team member, you may have to start with the basics. I strongly recommend you first find out how to put in place a coherent team. To do this, I recommend you read Dr. Presser’s article (Put Your Money Where Your TEAM Is! @ http://url4.eu/2Yq55) that speak volumes about putting in place coherent teams through a close examination of your team’s coherent human infrastructure. Hope this helps.

Mmm... or you could ask the more important question, "do I need these people to work together?"

Because you value someone's input does not mean that they need to give you input at exactly the same moment as any other. In fact, it is almost certain that when you group people together you do not get the best decision but rather a decision that lies at one extreme or the other of the possible decisions to be made. (See: The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowieki for the reasons as to why - good scientific data here)

So why not collect the inputs separately and then make the final decision based on an aggregate of opinion? While it sounds like more work, it's not. Without the fighting, tantrums, drama etc. you can hold a series of very short meetings, aggregate the content and make a decision in a much shorter time frame.

I have written numerous pieces for HR and Training magazines regarding the non-existence of real teams, and am still waiting for a convincing response from someone who advocates "team work" or "team training" as to why they should matter so much.

OK, this is starting to feel like a paid advert for the gabrielinstitute and the material feels more and more like gibberish, from said institute.

And here comes more pseudo-intellectual nonsense posing as useful stuff, "published in SHRM", turns out to be a non-scientific paper written by Dr. Janice who has good interest in promoting her own company. "The measurement and valuation of human infrastructure: An Introduction to the New Way to Know" is the paper and it contains nothing of use.

"Proving" what you believe, by demonstrating that a case study fits that belief is confirmation bias. And to be fair, these cases were mighty light on detail of value anyway, no references as to the value of using their product - just nice generic conclusions.

It is also interesting to see that Dr. Janice feels that the term "human resources" is one of natural evolution, rather than a term coined in Nazi Germany that has been rather distastefully adapted by business. (see Architects of Annihilation: Auschwitz and the Logic of Destruction - G Aly & S Heim).

Furthermore, it's nice to see that Dr. Jack Gerber the other Phd there, is a firm believer in Rorschach analysis, another discredited piece of psychobabble. (See, What's wrong with Rorschach - J. Wood, M T Nezworski, S O Lilienfield and H Garb for full details).

This is more of the same from supposed HR professionals, create some "buzzwords", tell people what they want to hear as long as it relates to those buzzwords, if you can throw in an unscientific "psychological" measure so much the better.

Rather than taking a practical approach and asking the important questions like; "Is there really any such thing as teamwork?" and "What value does teamwork really demonstrate that you cannot replicate more succesfully without it?"

I'd love to know where Dr. Presser's PhD comes from too, as there's no reference sited for what paper it was for, where it was published or what university it comes from.