A Point Of View

Barrie Richardson, D. R. A., is dean of the Forest School of Busimss at Cmtena? College of Louisiana in Shreveport. He is also the author of The + 10% Principle: How To Gct Extraordinary Results From Ordinary People (Pfei$ei; 1993).

Why Work Teams Flop- and What Can Be Done about It

Barrie Richardson

uman beings have a special ability. ?'hey can sit around a rabk and envision a situation that does not exist. This is amazing if you think H about it. N o computer can do this. People can dream in the

daylight, and their d r e a m can energize them to make things happen. A group of people can initiate, plan, organize, and monitor programs and projects. 'They can redesign work stations and introduce new procedures. They can rework curricula to make it more meaningful to students. They can remodel a church kitchen to feed hungry people. In each of these examples, the quality of the decisions made hy the group might be superior to those made individually by its menihers. Hilrnan minds stimulate one another, generating novel and effective solutions. Furthermore, the process of working together as a voluntary group can increase the probability that tasks will get done. With an increase in ownership conies an increase in concern for results, which increases the probability of success.

Work groups, which can appear in iixmy forms -task groups, problem solving teams, quality circles, committees, etc.- can significantly improve the effectiveness of an organization. Indeed, high-performing improve- ment teams are the driving forcc of total quality management programs in all types of organizations.The issue is not whether people ought to work cooperatively in groups. Rather, the question is, How can organizations make these teams more productive? Why is it that so many of us participate in team meetings that we consider a waste o f time? Why does so much energy often yield so little? Apparently, good people who come together with good intentions do not autoiliatically produce significant results. What can be done to improve the effectiveness of a n organization's teams? The first step is to examine the three main reasons why work teams flop.

Reason 1: The team operates in a hostile or demotivating envirement All groups operate in an organizational culture. Every school, church,

CCC 0277-8556/94/140109-05 0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

National Productivity Review/Winter- 1994/9J 9

High- performing teams are not status- conscious groups.

and business over time has developed its own way of doing things. Hernian Miller has a culture much different from Steelcase, and General Motors’ culture is different from that of Volvo.

An organization’s culture is difficult to change. ’Think about it. How easy would it be to adopt the values, morals, and communication style of a contemporary of yours who lives in another country, say France? But we do not have to look at another country to make the point. Doesn’t the family across the street from you have a different culture than yours? If it’s hard to change a family’s culture, think how difficult it is to change a larger organization. Imagine an organization that:

Operates in a stalAe environment with few outside threats so that management feels secure. Has an environment where people are extremely conscious of status and power. Considers people who challenge other people’s assumptions or positions, particularly the bosses’, as radical or as trouble- makers.

Is your organization like this? If so, it will be extremely difficult for both individuals and teams to initiate change. In the past, public utilities, commercial banks, universities, and government agencies have had cultures with these clyaracterstics and were, therefore, highly resistant to change.

Reason 2: The participants on the team luck the skills needed for success.

It’s easy to blame the company or lmss for the low performance of a team. Bur often it is the ineffectiveness of the tcam memhers themselves that causes the team to flop.

We as indivicluals iiny not only lack the analytical and creative thinking skills needed to develop better group decisions; we also have the bad habit of looking to an authority figure for solutions. Good students please teachers, and good children please their parents. We want to be liked by the boss, and we are relucrant to question or challenge him or her. We also want our peers to like us, so we do not question their assumptions, facts, or conclusions.

When working on a team, we often make quick decisions, rather than following the technique used by judges of suspending judgment until they are sure they have the facts. We also tend to have a selective vision problem -that is, we tend to see what we believe is true, and this prob1em is further compounded when team members all see the situation the same way. “Group think” creates social pressure for conformance and inhibits hard- headed and passionate debate.

Furthermore, most of us worry that people will either laugh at us or give us a funny look if we ask a duml-> question or challenge what everyone else

10 Notional Prorlzrctivity Review/Winter I994/95

A Point Of View

The values that the team agrees on ought to be made explicit to everyone.

thinks is obvious. We have been programmed at home, church, school, and work for low levels of confrontation and challenge. One reason teams flop is because we have not learned how to think and behave the way team members on high-performing teams do. High-performing teams are not status-conscious groups. People openly delxite and challenge one another. Consensus comes out of the lively exchanges of competing ideas. This is a foreign way of thinking and behaving for most of us.

Reason 3: The team has poor leadership.

you observe: Let's assume that you are sitting in on :i team's meeting and this is what

1. 2. 3. 4. 5 . 6. 7. 8. 9.

The tasks and objectives of the meeting are not clear. People d o not listen to one another. A few people dominate the meeting. People talk to the boss and look for approval froni the lmss. There seems to be little sense of priority. Novel ideas are frowned upon. There is little open disagreement. Decisions are made without challenge or confrontation. Team members demonstrate little passion or enthusiasm. They seem to have no sense of being involved in something that is both important and worthy.

Do these observations sound a lot like the nicetings you attend? Each team needs a strong leader to help its memtxrs stay on track while encouraging lively participation, so that the team can generate the inforination it needs to meet its goals.

Teams that flop are found in organizations that do not support innovation. Team inembers on ineffective teams do not know how to openly disagree or ask for facts or challenge their superior's ideas. Finally, low-performing t a n i s are both poorly led and poorly managed.

N o one wants to be part of an ineffective team. Who wants to waste time, be bored, or feel impotent? But low-performing teams, even those operating in conservative cultures, can I>e more effective if they take the following steps:

Step I : Establish a set of values and a code of conduct. Team leaders must establish a more productive environment in which everyone on the team feels that his or her ideas are valued by others. 'I'his is an ongoing task in which mutual trust is developed and everyone on the team believes that they are working on something significant.

Team leaders and team memhers need to be clear almut what kinds of behaviors are periiiissilAe and what behaviors are not acceptable. If it is a newly formed team or committee, the leader should invest in the time it takes for the team to develop Imth a value st;ltenient and rules of conduct.

National Productivity ReviedWintei- 1994/95 I 1

Teams also need short-term objectives.

This may take several hours to accomplish. It is worth it. If this step is bypassed, there will he trouble.

The values that the team agrees o n ought to be inacle explicit to everyone. They should be printed and distributed. Everyone on the team ought to know, for example, that the team respects moral courage, individuality, questioning, and the honest search for the truth, and that meetings should build members’ self-confidence and self-esteem, not destroy them. These are the values listed by AT&T for it t e a m :

Respect for individuals Dedication to helping customers Highest standards of integrity Innovation Teamwork Accountability Excellence

After a value statement is produced, the team should develop some rules of conduct. Here is an example of the team rules used b y a Boston

Respect each person. Share responsibility. Criticize only ideas, not people. Keep an open mind Question and participate. Attend all meetings. Listen constructively. Make decisions b y consensus. Start o n time, end on time. Remember that what’s said here stays here. Leave your stripes at the door. Encourage laughter.

Step 2: The team needs to spell out, preferably in writing, the responsibilities of team members and the team leader. This will help define what it means to be part of a high-performing team. For example, team members are expected to show up on time and be fully prepared to participate; they are expected to listen to others and not interrupt; they are expected to actively participate, serve on subcommittees, and so on. Team leaders may have the responsibility of encouraging participation, develop- ing the agenda, and acting as both coach and cop at the meetings and Ixing the team’s representative at council meetings.

Step 3: Clearly define the team’s purpose and objectives. Every- one needs to know the purpose of the group. This seenis obvious, but when you observe how much time and energy most teams spend on

12 Nationnl Productivity Revim/Winter 1994/95

A Point OfView

Bar charts and graphs displayed in the work area are a good way to make success visible to everyone.

irrelevant or trivkal concerns, it’s not so obvious. The overall mission could be one that seems large and difficult to achieve.

Teams also need short-term objectives. How else can they feel successful? Ideally, these objectives should to be specific, attainable, and challenging. Team members also need to find ways to monitor and measure their progress. Bar charts and graphs displayed in the work area are a good way to make success visible to everyone.

Step 4: Makeprovisions to have a rotatinggadfly. The role of the gadfly (or devil’s advocate) is to challenge anyone who makes statements without sufficient facts, evidence, or dara. Assertions such as, “The absentee rate is rising,” “Our products are selling better than last year,” “Women are better than men on this type of job,” should I x challenged by the gadfly.

When someone proposes a solution, the gadfly will ask “Why?” The gadfly may even ask this more that once, which will make those mdking a recommendation rethink their proposal o r l-n-oaden their perspective. This tactic slows clown the problem-solving process, Ix i t it can also improve the quality of the recommendations. How many decisions have you been involved in the last year that might have been made differently if you or your team had asked “Why?” at least three times?

Finally, the gadfly can help the leader of the team. If team members are talking to the boss and not to the group, the gadfly will stop the discussion and ask this person why he or she is addressing the boss. If someone is personally attacking another person rather than the issue, the gadfly will stop the process and get the ctisciission hack o n track. In this w a y the gadfly is also an umpire. The gadfly’s position should he a rotating one. Everyone should have this responsibility over the course of the year.

Step 5: Celebrate victories. Effective teams always celebrate their victories. Celebration is a way to stop and acknowledge a job well done, and the celebration itself will pull the team closer together. Success lxeeds success.

Even though they operate in a cautious, bureaucratic organization, strong team leaders can develop a high-performing work team. ‘1‘0 do so, they must be fearless, determined, and passionate about their own vision and have the capacity to develop an environment in which the other team members feel they are respected and needed. 0

National Productivity Review/Winter 1994/9J 13