1 comment on “Forget about AGILE! Reduce Overbearance in Management first”

Forget about AGILE! Reduce Overbearance in Management first

This is part 5 of a series exploring what makes an effective team. Read this if you are interested in great teamwork and like to explore different types of teams.

COE4.png

Condition 4: Clear Boundaries

Effective teams are groups of people that act towards a particular direction. Although everyone is different, people inside a team align actions with one another. A crude but essential way of achieving alignment is setting clear boundaries.

By setting boundaries, two things are achieved: First, the freedom to act is clearly defined. The team can do everything that is within the limits of the team.  Second, everything that is set out of bounds is simplifying the mission: It is one less thing to take care of – which is very welcome as long as the boundary does not overly restrict the team’s ability to deliver. Cleary stated limits create certainty for the team. They are giving the team something to work with. They lessen the risk of the team running into major, unyielding, yet unstated boundaries later.

Boundary conditions are everything that is framing the team’s mission: Resources, scope, and deadlines are the three classical boundary conditions given to a team. However, it is although its decision-making power and the very definition who is on the team and who is not, and what is means to be on the team.

Who is on the team?

To merely assign team members is not enough. There are two things to consider. First, what does it mean to be on the team? Which rights and obligations come with team membership? A decision on team membership is a decision to include a person – but it is a decision to exclude a person, too. There should be no in between, and there should be no half-baked assignments, no “extended teams”- just universal clarity. Extended teams are a backdoor to increase team size and dilute responsibility, often for the sake of political convenience. There are always persons outside the team who need to contribute, but usually, that contribution can be limited to consulting with the team, delivering some tasks, contributing to workshops, reviewing and testing.

Second, in high-performance teams being on the team does mean to spend a lot of the time on it, the more, the merrier: Everything being equal, a full-time dedicated team will always outperform the part-time team in efficiency, speed, quality, and any other target dimension. This is not to say that the team needs to be together all the time. It may be necessary to split up the work or explore different paths, while all the time working on the team’s task.

These two demands, clearness who is on the team and who is not, and full-time dedication are so immensely essential and easy to understand yet appear so often utterly unrealistic in most companies. All the right people are already over-assigned.  Restricting the number of assignments is often hard to do, as there is always some constituency to please by demonstrating action. This is all too understandable. Well then, go ahead and over-commit your team to multiple endeavors simultaneously. Just do not expect high performance.

Again, this sounds a bit passive-aggressive. I do not mean to. The fact that people are overcommitted again illustrates the underlying theme in this series of posts: Organizations do not care about individual or team effectiveness too much. They are willing to sacrifice performance for other priorities, like stability and predictability.  Sometimes, they even choose to sacrifice performance to uphold the appearance of busyness. Where results are hard to link to individuals, hierarchies tend to reward people who appear to be busy. It takes much discipline for a company not to overload its co-workers with work. More on that in part III.

What is the authority level of the team?

What is the team allowed to decide on its own? What is the team’s freedom to act? Hackman describes four levels of authority:

  • Level 1: Authority to execute the task
  • Level 2: Authority to monitor and manage work processes and progress
  • Level 3: Authority to design the team and its organizational context
  • Level 3: Authority to set overall directions

Based on these authorization level 4 types of team’s can be identified.

ToT

Type I: The Workgroup that is executing the team task

At the first, fundamental level, the team needs to be authorized to execute the team task. That may sound very basic, but in more political companies even this authorization level is sometimes not given to a team.

One of my very first projects, as a young consultant, was of this kind. Our team was supposed to fix the multi-billion investment management process in the Volkswagen Group across all its brands, VW, Audi, Skoda, Seat. For this, we were supposed to be using a brand new shiny new software package from a south German company called SAP, which offered work-flow functionality to fully digitalize the very communication intensive review and approval process of investment projects. Albeit the very same corporate grandees that initiated this project didn’t want any change in the way work is done to not upset the powerful brands. To implement standard software without changing historically grown processes is a blatant contradiction. Still, our mission was: Implement but do not change anything. While informing a senior partner in our company on our straits, he just smiled thinly and said: “Oh well, they are playing their old game: Go wash me, but do not get me wet.”

Every boundary set on the way the team task is to be executed closes down an avenue to a solution – possibly up to the point that the job is no longer feasible – or becomes bereft of economic sense. An example for this is the demand often faced by teams to keep within just one silo of the organization: You can do everything here, but do not change process X or System Y, that is a given. It is the nature of really important changes to have an impact on multiple organizational silos. Most modifications done to just one part of an organization quite often result in a local optimum – and global dysfunction. They might make sense for a unit, but not for the company a whole.[1]Such boundaries can turn an otherwise pretty sensible team mission to one might make limited or no sense at all.

Type II: The Self-Managing Team that is Monitoring and managing its work process and progress

Once that first, existential hurdle is cleared, and the team is all set to execute the task the next question is: Who is to monitor and manage the work process and progress, i.e., to lead the team? Usually, a manager (or project manager) is assigned to do this, no questions asked. The alternative that a team can monitor and manage its own work is not even considered. Yet this amount of freedom to organize in a way it deems best is precisely what a high-performance team needs. Mr. Hackman and all the researchers specialized in the science of high-performance teams have delivered an abundance of evidence about that.

Managers are not irrelevant in ta Self-Managing team. They still set the overall direction, convene the team and provide the working environment, including setting the boundary conditions. However, they refrain from intervening in the way the team does the work. If managers intervene, for example by coming up with meticulously detailed work break down structures, teams just won’t perform on a high level. Such manager-led teams are workgroups: Collections of individuals to whom work is assigned by a manager. A workgroup might be good enough to do a job, but it is unlikely to achieve high-performance levels. If the work process is managed by a single person, the team cannot build its emergent properties, not integrate in a way to deliver results that are more than the sum of its parts. In such a one-sided power structure, the openness and integration needed for a genuine team effort are unlikely to occur.

Beware about the overbearing manager (especially in projects)

Wait a minute! I just said that the manager led teams are a killer to a team’s performance. I even said that those are workgroups and not teams at all!

This is true. Workgroups are the way most company units or departments are organized. A loosely bound collection of individuals coordinated by a manager. Their performance will never be as high as a team, but their results are predictable and controllable. Work-groups are the norm, and Self-managed teams are exotic. Performance aspirations of line units might not justify a team effort, but within more significant projects, performance aspirations are usually higher. A good case for a high-performing, self-managed team. So how often are project teams self-managed?

Conventional project teams are headed by a project manager. Although Agile Methods like SCRUM discourage the use of project managers, most companies hold on to the notion of project managers. A manager leads a business unit. A project manager leads a project. Someone needs to be in control. It just makes so much sense to them.

Here comes the snag: Effective teams are NEVER manager-led workgroups. They are at least Self-Managing teams, where every team member can engage more wholly. Science has proven that classical, manager-led teams that come with micromanaging, intrusive, administrative procedures, overbearing interventions into the team space do not lead to exceptional performance.

The trouble is that most project managers approach projects with the same mindset as line managers. To be in control is their core concern. The question of control is at the heart of the world’s leading project management methods like PRINCE2 or PMBOK. To reliably come up with projects that deliver on time, in quality and to budget. Control is what is expected by them by the line organization. Get out there, take charge of a project and deliver according to the plan.

The problem with big project management frameworks is not that they do not solicit good advice. The problem is rather that they give too many methods, tools, and advice. If you learn the whole curriculum, you are likely to end up with a zoo of intrusive management interventions that patronize team members and undermine their initiative. There is a commercial incentive to blow up what it takes to manage projects successfully. Project managers tend to think they need to apply all those methods. I am not saying that learning about project management is a bad idea. However, I am saying that a core condition of effective teams, the freedom to determine its path on its own, is often threatened by overbearing project managers. Those types are keen to show what they have learned and are eager to display to the rest of the organization that they are in control.

That sounds like a fundamental attack on the time-treasured ancient art of project management. Old style project management may lead to great charts, great reporting and the illusion of control, but seldom to a great performance.

What’s the alternative to run successful projects? The standard answer nowadays is Agile and Scrum. The trouble is, Agile and Scrum can just be as overbearingly intrusive to teams as classic project management methods can be. The underlying solution lies, according to a host of research on high-performance teams, in managers not intervening too much: Hands-off – Eyes on. The actual project method, waterfall style or SCRUM, is of secondary importance.

Great team performance needs managers who enable teams to do their best. For that, they need to devolve control to the team and give people the freedom to act. According to Hackman and other researchers, a manager should design the team and its organizational context, but not interfere and intrude into the group dynamics of a team. A useful manager is an environment builder and coach, not an overbearing patron or a dictator. Alas, the sheer size of world-leading project manager standards leads people to believe that the more interventions, the merrier. The contrary is true.

Type III: The Self-Designing Team that is designing itself and its environment

Time to go even further. A team can also be trusted with designing itself and its work environment. For example, and contrary to popular belief, it is not a law of nature that managers need to “staff” teams. People can assign themselves to teams and teams can decide on shedding team members themselves. They can produce their own boundary conditions, setting targeted costs, marshaling resources, and to determine the scope of the project without managerial oversight.

Teams can be “self-designing.” In such a context, a manager points a team at a direction and let the team figure out everything on their own.

Wait a minute! That sounds like a free for all. A chaotic commune. Anarchy. Sure, if you make a team Self-Designing, without doing anything about the other 11 conditions for effective teams, you are bound to get into trouble. Those things only work if one takes a holistic approach to work design. What’s more, this holistic approach needs to extend not only to the management of teams but to the management of the company as a whole. Precisely what this blog is about.

Type IV: The Self-Governing teams that set its own directions

The fourth level is to authorize the team to set its overall direction. Such a “Self-governing,” free-ranging team is subject to the same team dynamics described in this part of the post but needs an entirely different organizational context to operate in than a traditional hierarchical organization provides. Such a team is found in Self-managed organizations that replace hierarchies of authorities with hierarchies of purpose – a  phenomenon that is explored in this blog, e.g. Holacracy, Liberation and Management 3.0.

How common are these four types of teams?

What is the empirical frequency of the four different team authorization levels in today’s companies? I have found no studies about this, but here is my hunch:

  • The overwhelming majority of teams are managerial led, co-working groups, let’s say 85% in a line organization and 70% in a project context
  • Self-Managing teams are about 13% in a line organization and 25% in a project context. These are those teams, where a manager is shrewd enough to take on an enabling role to the team and keeps his interventions to a minimum. Such a team might call itself “Self-managed,” but it is.
  • Self-Designing Teams make up the larger share of the remaining 2% in line and 5 % in project contexts. Using such a high authorization level on teams would seriously undermine the appearance of being in control and decisive that a manager needs to uphold, so this is seldom done. It is most common in informal groups, like for example communities of interest.
  • Very few teams are Self-governing. Self-governing teams are only possible in a self-managing organization, and those are very few. They are in the vanguard of today’s organizational thinking.

Managers relinquishing control is a rare phenomenon. Yet it is what is required for great team performance. However, without a manager being in full control, how can a team stay on track? How can low performance be sanctioned? Please hold on to these questions until we make through all 12 conditions of effective teams, as all of those deliver important pieces to the answer.

That’s it for today. In the next post, in two weeks, I will show why diverse teams are sometimes a good idea, but not always.

___

Audible…no: I hope you enjoyed this post. Let me know what you think!

Key points

  • There is just one team. Not an extended Team, too.
  • Full time dedication of people to a team is king. Period
  • Authorize the team to organize on its own. There simply is no other way to high performing teams.
  • Good Managers refrain from intervening in the way the team does the work. People call that Self Management.
  • Effective teams are NEVER manager-led workgroups.
  • Agile and Scrum can just be as overbearingly intrusive to teams as classic project management methods can be

Previous posts in this series on effective teams:

  1. Performance in general and what makes individual performance: You call yourself a Great Manager? Let Me Hear Your Theory of Performance!
  2. Why Most Companies Should Not Seek to Work in Teams
  3. The twelve conditions for effective teams, including condition one, a compelling direction

Sources and Footnotes

[1]For more on local optima and how to find out the things that really need to be changed in businesses check out Goldratt, Eliyahu (1994) ‘The Theory of Constraints‘

0 comments on “One Hell of a Task Needs Two Pizzas”

One Hell of a Task Needs Two Pizzas

This is part 4 of a series exploring what makes an effective team. If you want to know how to shape the task given to a team and the optimal size of a team, this post is for you.

CoE23

Condition 2: A True Team Task

A true team task is one that cannot be reached by working individually. A task that needs the close cooperation of every person in a team if it is to be successfully mastered. Creating a new system for customer service, expanding to vastly different geographies, coming up with new products and services are all things that surpass the abilities of what workgroups can successfully deliver. It is not that work-groups can’t deliver those things, but results will likely be less than optimal. The typical rate of project failure in today’s businesses is often portrayed to be as high as 70%.

A true team task is often not defined by its nature, but by the performance aspiration.

Let’s take the practical example of implementing a big, enterprise-wide IT application. To implement such a complex system is entirely feasible by working in a workgroup fashion. An experienced project manager is dividing up the work into chunks assigned to team leads, as team leads divide up the work further. While there is some level of cooperation required between team members, this can be organized, for example through the approval of blueprints and in integration tests. Cooperation is limited. Work is parceled out to individuals by managers. Managers rely on project plans that break down all the things to do into detailed tasks and who should do them by when. This proven way of working that will produce results if competent professionals drive it.

So, is implementing a big, enterprise-wide IT application not “a true team task”? There are two answers to it.

  • No, it’s not. It does not really require close cooperation between its members. Instead, such a project is relying on a proven, scripted way of working that allows all individual efforts to be summed up into the final product, the IT system.
  • Yes, it is, if the performance aspiration is high enough. For example, if the ambition is to do that in say two years, a manager led workgroup can do that in the mode described above. However, if the team is supposed to do that within one year, a genuine team effort is what it takes. To cut a year in throughput times needs people to rise above their competent selves and come up with something together that is collectively greater than themselves.  Most of us tend to agree with this instinctively. We know that if we want to achieve something extraordinary, we need some team magic. Moreover, our intuitive understanding is supported by scientific evidence, like the one from Mr. Hackman: A true team can achieve magic.

But unfounded ambitions, won’t do any good, too

The problem is that companies often set extraordinary high-performance targets, because ambitions at the start are high, or they need to overcome the hurdles of budget approval and low bids are what is asked for.  However, usually, the way a project is executed reveals a lack of understanding of the art of building high-performance teams. I have seen this dynamic playing out multiple times in my career in business. While I know that a project could be done in a fraction of time and costs, I did not advise some customer to put in the low numbers. I knew that some clients we not ready for a high-performance approach. Sometimes, most often really, companies as a whole are not prepared to embrace a genuine team approach, as described in the twelve conditions of effective teams. Organizations which embraced my advice may have ended up with long, tedious, but ultimately successful projects. Organizations which rejected that advice and went for ambitious performance targets while relying on traditional workgroup ways of working ended up with significant time and quality problems, budget fiascos, vastly increased employee and management turn-over.

Companies got to lay the groundworks for their ambitions. I have described that point in general terms in a 2016 post Execute crisply with sharp tools.

c11

Besides the occasional major project, true team tasks are essential for day to day operations of teams too. If the performance aspiration of maintenance, customer service, or sales teams is extraordinarily high, the chances are that a high-performance approach is called for and one should have a look at the 12 conditions. If the sum of all individual contributions is not enough to reach the overall target, a true team approach is called for.

Teams are needed if it gets real complex

All this might be understood as a call for overly ambitious targets. Indeed, there is a blurred line here: It is tough to judge whether the combination of skills and minds in a team will make the goal possible or the target is just wishful thinking. Even for those well-meaning, competent managers who know and do everything in their power to provide the 12 conditions of effective teams, an over aspiring, unrealistic or outright silly target might doom the exercise right from the start. As a rule of thumb, it is useful to understand the level of collaboration between team members that is really needed. The less the need to discuss with one another, the less the need for a high-performance team, the less critical the twelve conditions are.

It takes much collaboration between individuals to deliver good results in complex environments or systems. Complex systems are those where cause and effect can neither be predicted with certainty nor is the relationship between a cause and an effect stable. A machine, for example, is not a complex system. It is just a complicated system, but not a complex one, as its parts are known and behave predictably. All social systems involve humans, and therefore are rather complex than complicated systems, as humans act inconsistently from time to time. Therefore, all teams are complex, and companies tend to be very complex.

Groups of individuals can reliably master less complex tasks without much need of collaboration between them. Take for example service teams in call centers. The core of the work is done by individual agents on the phone, during the conversation on the phone. Co-workers can be useful to reflect with before and after the customer call, but all work is centered on the individual without the need for much collaboration.

The thing is: The more complex the task, the more it becomes a “true team task,” the more collaboration is needed and, in turn, the more critical it is to consider the 12 conditions in the work design of a team.

Most companies have configured themselves to be less complex

Indeed, in most organizations, most performance contexts may not lend themselves well for a true team task. Only if the performance ambition is high enough and the nature of the task requires intense communication between team members, a team effort is called for. Many businesses use the term “team” in an inflationary member and think of all groups of people as teams. So, they invest in nice team building events sponsored by HR budgets and helped by a host of business trainers. This is as inefficient as it can get: To spend money or time on team building while the need for collaboration is really not that important at all is to create waste.  It usually suffices to give such a work-group a good understanding of expected behaviors, control the application of those behaviors and let them do their work.

The point is: On a case by case basis, the work group is a better choice to organize work inside traditional organizations. But on the whole, if the whole organizational design of the company would not have been set-up to contain complexity and promote predictability, the team would be better choice. Most companies have configured themselves to be less complex, to suppress the complexity of the market. Designs that allow the complexity of the market inside the company usually involve a bit more structures that promote self-management within a company. But I am getting ahead of myself here.

Condition 3: Team Size 5

Defining a true team task is tricky. It’s time for some refreshing simplicity: The optimal team size is five people. Do not build any teams much bigger or smaller than that. The standard variation around the optimal team size of five is two. So, any team size of 5 +/- 2 is the optimal team size.  Beyond that size, split teams. Beneath that size, is just the pair. For two people working together, the laws of teams are not as relevant as the laws of psychology and good communication.

Even the science on team size is rather simple. With every member added to the group the number of relations which each individual needs to build and maintain increases linearly. In a team of three, a team member needs to develop and maintain two links to the other team members, in a team of four three links, in a team of 5 four links.

However, in order to effectively operate within a social group, it is not sufficient to build and maintain links with all other team members, it is vital to theorize about the ties that others have with one another, too. If you know that Joe and Sue do not get along well in a particular aspect, it may be better to circumvent that problem before it arises. Effective social groups do not only care for the relationships that they have individually, and they care about the links that others have between them. They care for the collective. They care for the team.

The trouble is that the total number of links in a team does not increase linearly. It grows exponentially. The total number of links between team members = N * (N-1)/2, whereby N again stands for the number of people in a team.:

  • A team of three everyone has a total of three links.
  • A team of four has six links.
  • A team of five has ten links, and in a team of seven has 21 links.

This number rises exponentially. In a team of 20 persons, every team member would have to build and maintain 190 connections. Why the jump from seven to eight team members might not seem like a big deal, the total number of links in the collective increases from twenty-one to twenty-eight. While the number of links per person is just increasing by one (from 7 to 8)- that is 14% –  the number of total links in the system is increasing by seven (from 21 to 28), 33%. Increase the team size by three from seven to ten, and this ratio goes up from a 42% increase in the number of links per person to 214% for the total number of links in the group.

This a mathematical way of saying: Size matters. The negative performance impacts of increasing group size are hard-wired into teams. With rising team size people can relate to one another less and less. To invest more in coordinating the team helps a bit but can never offset the negative impact on performance fully. Jeff Bezos is known to have coined the phrase “two-pizza teams” as a rule of thumb for determining team size at Amazon: A team that cannot be fed by two large pizza’s needs to be split.

  • If intense collaboration is what is needed, low team size is the way to go.
  • If intense collaboration is not required, don’t go for the team approach at all and organize the group as a work team instead.

It might not always be easy to cut down on team size, as this or that skill or organization needs to be represented. In this case, consider two things: Either split the team in two and manage those separately or come up with a better definition of the team boundaries, especially who is on the team and who is not.

That’s it for today. In the next post, in two weeks, I will get to discuss a very exciting subject: Do teams need a manager?

___

Audible…no: I hope you enjoyed this post. Let me know what you think!

Key points

  • Most tasks can be made a great one for a team if you just level up the performance aspiration
  • HOWEVER, do not level up the ambition, without having laid some solid groundwork inside the organization for those conditions that make teams great
  • Most companies have configured themselves to be less complex, to suppress the complexity of the market. Therefore the workgroup is often a better choice
  • Team Size 5. Team Size 5. Team Size 5. GOT  IT?
  • Two Pizzas – one Team

Previous posts in this series on effective teams:

  1. Performance in general and what makes individual performance: You call yourself a Great Manager? Let Me Hear Your Theory of Performance!
  2. Why Most Companies Should Not Seek to Work in Teams
  3. The twelve conditions for effective teams, including condition one, a compelling direction
2 comments on “Why Most Companies Should Not Seek to Work in Teams”

Why Most Companies Should Not Seek to Work in Teams

There are lots of reasons to hate teams. Teamwork diminishes authority, often involves endless and ultimately indecisive discussions, foul compromises and can be generally unrewarding.

There are lots of reasons to love teams. Working closely with another, with a near intuitive understanding, learning all the time and achieving more than one ever would have thought possible.

Today the hymn of the great team performance is sung all over the realm of business. Agile, Lean and nearly all progressive organizations rely on the team as the primary unit of work. In business, many people haven’t had that many great team experiences. Why is that?

I think there are two reasons. First, a group of people is not necessarily a team. Teams are a bunch of persons working together closely to achieve a goal that would have been out of reach for anyone acting individually. The dividing line between a group and a team is the amount of interrelatedness of team members. It alienates people if a manager say’s “you are a team,” while you know that one of the last things you want is to be associated with those slackers, psychopath, suckers, pretenders.[1]In day to day conversations, little difference is being made between a team and a group. If you and your co-workers are just a bunch of ladies and guys toiling on their daily tasks without too much need to communicate at all, the chances are that you are in a workgroup but not a team. In this setting, managers tend to appeal to the spirit of the team if she has no clue whom to make responsible for something.

Second, teams can make you feel powerless. In the quest to achieve something, it’s just much more complicated if you need to get along with other people instead of being able to deliver this thing on your own.

Now, in this post, I will not research what makes a great team experience.  I am a North German. As such, I am culturally primed to be too serious to write about such trivial matters as pleasurable experiences.  I will instead spell out what makes a team perform at a high level. I walk you through the conditions, and I think the chances are, that you will feel that a team where these are given, would be a good one to work in.

However, before that, I would like to get the basics of the economics of the team straight, because teams are not universally good. Sometimes, the better choice is to do work in a workgroup, than in a more tightly interconnected team.

The Benefits and Costs of Teams

If you want something done, you got to do it yourself. That might be the credo of an incompetent manager – but it is often true, too. A look at the empirical evidence of individual vs. team performance confirms this: Teams are often worse performers than individuals.

Here is an example. A study at Yale University looked at the time “A” grade students invested in their studies.[2]All the students were top, “A” grade, performers, but some managed to get to an “A” Grade by investing less time. The most efficient students spent just 10% of the time that the worst performing student did. A 1:10 performance ratio between lowest and highest performance student.

Now have a look at the performance of teams. In studies that looked at thousands of projects, the ratio of performance between the best and the worst performing teams was as high as 200: 1.[3]Imagine that: There are project teams so bad, that they accomplish what another team does in a week in 200 weeks! Apparently, there are factors at work that complicates teamwork a lot, compared to work that is done individually. Lousy team experiences can get people to back off from teams for good – and it is hard to blame them. How frustrating it must be to see all this waste if one works in a tedious, four yearlong project: 199 weeks sacrificed to entropy for could have been achieved in just one week.

Then again, the top teams are outperforming other teams by a factor of 200. What a bliss it must be to work in such a team! Effective teams manage to outperform less-effective teams by 1:200 – effective individuals manage to outperform others by 1:10. Apparently, there are many things to get right – and many things to get wrong – in teams. A team is a sensitive thing indeed. The following graphic illustrates the difference in performance spread.[4]

ivt

If the conditions for successful teamwork are given, a team is likely to outperform a group of individual actors.[5]Not by small increments, but by order of magnitude. Furthermore, the chances are that in complex and innovative situations, only a team-based organization will be able to deliver the intended outcome at all. The unique way a team is able to utilize the skills and minds of people, allowing each to exploit personal strength and grow in the process, can bring many superior results.

Still, a poorly organized team might be a nightmare. The point is: Companies that are not able to provide a suitable environment conducive to teams should stay away from the team. Instead, they should organize work groups, where managers define, assign and follow-up work tasks. That can be a much safer and efficient alternative.

Team Debt

Let’s take a look at the reasons for a team’s underperformance first. A way to understand the looming underperformance of teams is to think of a team’s potential performance in an equation:

Team Performance = Potential Performance – Coordination Loss – Motivation Loss[6]

The potential performance of a team is its theoretical peak performance. It might vary from team to team, from mission to mission, from the composition of the team with various team members, but there is always a theoretical maximum performance level. We might not know it, but it is there and likely to be reached if the 12 conditions are fully satisfied.

However, potential performance doesn’t translate into real team performance. Every team is automatically incurring two hits to its effectiveness. These hits are incurred right at the start of the project, and they are universal and unavoidable.

First, there is the cost of coordination that is needed to align people again and again on a target and ensure that work is done in a coordinated manner. Team meetings, Team processes, Reports – you know the drill. This alignment is meta-work, it takes time, that is not spent on working directly on the task at hand.

Second, a team task is very often less critical to a person than a task directly assigned to a person individually. A team task is somewhat out of the control of a person. Others need to collaborate. This is somewhat frustrating, as it prevents motivated persons from charging headlong into solving the task. On the other side of the motivational scale, a team opens up the opportunity to relax and take it easy. If the task is out of reach of what I can accomplish by myself, I might as well wait for the others to do something. This phenomenon is called “free-riding” in economics and “social loafing” in social psychology.

So, there is a universal and unavoidable penalty for each team effort. This penalty is in effect a debt that each team starts with. The good news is that this team debt can be repaid. Over the lifecycle of the team, the team may learn how to coordinate effectively, even intuitively.

Allow me a personal story about coordination debt, here. As I was 18 years old, I once had the opportunity to play a game of soccer against a German premier league team.[7]Being young and full of self-confidence, I respected this team much but still thought that in a one on one situation I can hold my own. It happened to be that I was playing against the at this time striker of the Polish National Team, Jan Furtok. I was right: I never lost a one on one situation against Jan Furtok in 90 Minutes – because there were none. He just didn’t need to go into these situations, as he knew exactly where to be at what point in time. Before I could do anything, he already passed the ball and moved on.  He and his co-players had an instinct understanding where the other would be and where he would play the ball. Their coordination was so brilliant; they did not have to use much of their abundant personal skill. Not against us village boys.  My team had so much of a coordination debt that all skill didn’t even play a role.

To repay coordination debt takes practice and reflection. The same is true for motivational debt. It can be repaid over time by opening up the new sources of motivation that the team offers: Relatedness to other persons. To not let down the team, to be loyal to it, to care for one another becomes a natural motivator the more people can bond with one another over time. With increased bonds, comes visibility and social control, which in makes coordinating the team easier: Coordination debt is repaid until coordination between people happens seemingly intuitively.

Coordination and motivation debt can be recouped over time. As the team gains in maturity, coordination efforts decrease, and the motivation dynamics of groups take over. This ripening of the team is accelerated by orchestrating the process of team building. Every team needs to go through a sequence of 4 phases that Bruce Tuckman, a scholar of organizational psychology has described as storming, forming, norming, and performing.[8]The better this process is managed, the sooner the team debt can be repaid. The team debt acts like a negative up-front investment that can be recouped in a classical “hockey stick” curve like manner.[9]

tuck

 

Does Team performance matter?

Excellent performance is not always what a company needs. What is needed in most situations is a team performance that is good enough to reach a certain level and do so consistently. A job well done by a team might not require a high level of performance. Often teams can get away with less.

This may sound unconventional and dispiriting, but this mode of operation is actually the norm. Most units or departments exist to do a particular, usually well-defined job, consistently every day. More is not required. Beside human laziness and ineptitude, there is an excellent rationale for this lack of performance aspiration for a team. First, as shown above, high-performance teams start with significant debt. The organization might be inept to provide an environment where a team can ever exceed the performance level that a much less risky workgroup can deliver. Second,  teams are pretty sensitive things. They might produce great outcomes but tend to do so inconsistently. High-performance teams are much harder to manage than teams or workgroups that aim at lower, but still useful enough levels of performance. Going for high performance is risky – good enough performance can be bought for less.

 

The Reasons why Teams may outperform Work-groups

However, what are the reasons why a team can perform better than a working group? After all, individuals are what teams are made off – why is a team allowing individuals to surpass themselves if only they act in unison? Here are the main reasons:

  • Growth and Learning are enhanced in teams. We learn by social interchange and feedback. The much tighter social collective context of a team enhances growth and learning for everyone in it, compared to the looser coupled workgroup. This is not to say that individuals do not learn in work-groups. In good teams, they just have more opportunities, nudges, motivation and need to learn – and grow as a person.
  • Social bonds increase motivation. People are social animals. Tight social bonds are one of the primary things that motivate us. Some studies show that the quality of relationships to others is the deciding factor regarding one’s quality of life and happiness. In the world longest running research on happiness, which has been running since 1938 and is still ongoing, the most significant decisive influence factor for the overwhelming majority of persons is the quality of relationships – by far.[10]  The fact is, humans are hard-wired to care for others.
  • Coordination is achieved much more smoothly the closer people bond with one another. If people look out for one another, with the team task in mind, the mind and senses of everyone in the collective, the team, are coordinating their work implicitly. Until there is no need for a single mastermind, the manager of a group, to be the one sole, principal caretaker for the whole group. Coordination in a team happens more and more in a distributed and implicit manner, instead of being centralized and outsourced to a manager.
  • The human mind is very susceptible to biases. The team can be a corrective. If the team engages in active discussion, allows for people to speak their mind, integrating a multidate of perspectives, the tricks our mind plays on us can be mitigated. By discussing with others and receiving feedback, we can be pushed out of intuitive thinking – i.e., rushing to conclusions- into, rational thought.[11] This mitigation is empirically much more effective by interpersonal interchange, then by staying within the limitations of one’s mind.

The importance of the last point is hard to overstate. Teams improve even a sociopath nerd that possess a cold, analytical outlook of the world and does not have too much interest in others. His cognitive biases, his memory biases, and latent social biases are all decreased by social interchange. This way, a team helps to surpass our biological, neuronal limitations.

That’s right: The team helps to overcome our evolutional, cognitive impediments. The better the team, the more a team is set-up to un-bias the individual. The history of group dynamics (or group processes)[2] has a consistent, underlying premise: ‘the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.’ This is a large part of what collective intelligence is all about.

However, still, the fact of the matter is: Each team starts with a sizeable debt. Unchecked, this debt will accumulate, and a team’s performance might stay below the level of a workgroup. In this case, the team as a method of organizing is not optimal.

However, if we can devise a way to rapidly pay off team debt, reliably again and again for each new or changed team, then the team might become a very superior tool to achieve organizational performance. Indeed, the team as a way organizing can get much more attractive than the department, i.e., a manager led workgroup, as the principal basic unit by which work is done. Such an organization would be one of a lot of networked teams with few central controls. However, before we get there (in Part II), let’s check out the 12 conditions of team performance in detail.

Oh, and one more thing: Individual performance matters.

Before we start looking at the 12 conditions of team performance, here is a reminder. The six internal conditions for individual effectiveness remain valid (for those check out You call yourself a Great Manager? Let Me Hear Your Theory of Performance!). To have the right skills, the right cognitive abilities, the urge to archive mastery, the autonomy to act, the deeply felt meaningful purpose and to be genuinely accountable for results still matter very much for effectiveness. The strength, weaknesses, needs, and idiosyncrasies of people don’t go away once they enter a team.

Effective teams build upon the conditions six for effective individuals. The 12 conditions of effective teams are all but tuned to provide a social environment for individual performance to prosper.

Yes, by leaving one’s confines of individuality and exposing oneself to others motivation takes a hit and coordination is tedious. Until one realizes that mastery is enhanced by collaborating, while one’s needed level of autonomy is not infringed upon and that the purpose of serving the group is one that can latch on to with one’s personal purpose.

Key Points

  • Team debt is universal and unavoidable
  • Companies that are not able to provide a suitable environment conducive to teams should stay away from organizing work in teams – they should stick to the workgroup instead

  • If a way can be found to rapidly and reliably pay off team debt, the team can be the nucleus of all work design, replacing the traditional department/workgroup

Next post will be about the first half of the 12 conditions for team effectiveness. I hope you enjoyed this post. Let me know what you think!

Sources & Footnotes

[1]The academic term is “underbounded” team. See Alderfer, Clayton (2005) “The Five Laws of Group and Intergroup Dynamics”.

[2]Sutherland, Jeff (2015) “Scrum”, p.42 based on a study by Joel Spoelsky on computer programmeUniversityle university class, see also https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2005/07/25/hitting-the-high-notes/

[3]IBM studies on project performance, cited by Sutherland, Jeff (2015) “Scrum” p.43

[4]Values are illustrative only, they can’t be generalized. Values are based on the exemplary studies cited by Sutherland, Jeff in “Scrum”, see above.

[5]Hackman, Richard (2002) “Leading Teams”

[6]Hackman, ibid. Hackman based this formula on psychologist Ivan Steiner, who described the term “process loss “ in his work.

[7]Hamburger Sport Verein (HSV), a member the German Bundesliga.

[8]Known as “Tuckman’s stages of group development”. See Tuckman, Bruce W. (1965) ‘Developmental sequence in small groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. Tuckman later added a 5th phase, “Adjourning” to highlight the importance of the way the teams work is ending.

[9]Katzenbach, ‘The Wisdom of Teams’, 2002

[10]The Harvard Grant Glueck Study, see http://www.adultdevelopmentstudy.org

[11]Described by Daniel Kahnemann and Adam Tversky as System 1 and System 2, in: Kahneman, Daniel (2011) ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’.