For several decades we have had a love affair with “teams”. We’ve done our best to differentiate “teams” from “groups” and other half-useful labeling maneuvers meant to help us all focus on the one ultimate work structure. Teams trump individuals, that’s the joke we’ve been sold, and it’s wrong. Understanding “teams” vs. “groups” isn’t as helpful to your organization as understanding “high performing” teams from “not so high performing” teams. Although we see some variation in terms of the defining characteristics of any high performing team, research has uncovered a list of common characteristics. High performance teams:
Share challenging goals
This is the backbone of the “group” vs. “team” crap. The terms are complete. The point is the same no matter which label you choose. Is there a clear and compelling shared goal (or goals) pursued? It should be crystal clear in detailed language, consistently understood among members, and meaningful enough to supersede individual goals.
Know that size matters
Most groups are too big. There are too many people on the team due to politics, an exaggerated belief in the potential need for a particular type of expertise, etc. Listen carefully. It is much easier to add members to a team than it is to remove members from a team. Start small and build as needed, never make the mistake of starting with twenty people on the team when five could handle the job effectively.
Build bridges effectively
If you take my advice on team size, bridge building becomes important. Just because we put five people on the team instead of twenty doesn’t mean we won’t need help from the fifteen people not chosen. The ability to reach people and groups not directly involved in your work is a terribly important skill, and proof that high-performing teams are not just experts on the task side, but experts on the performance side as well. interpersonal skills.
Take advantage of individual time
Although a well built team can be an amazing thing, you still need to leverage the individuals first and the team second. Translated: a vast majority of project time is spent with individuals (or at least subgroups) working alone on their well-defined tasks, not sitting in lengthy bureaucratic meetings with each team member. Virtual meetings and tools are becoming higher quality and lower cost every day. There’s no reason even the best of teams should have “hands on” meetings more than twice a month.
Fill roles flexibly
Many team discussions will revolve around knowing the key roles that need to be filled to achieve high performance. That’s not the most interesting prospect. The papers are well known. You need a leader, a process analyzer, a referee, etc. A few books or articles and a bit of Googling and you’ll find a short list of useful team roles. It’s not about fulfilling those roles per se. It is about how many roles each member fills. Average teams are lucky to have each role filled by just one person. High performing team members typically fill 2-3 key roles. No member is a one trick pony.
Exhibit prompt, honest and constructive communication.
Great teams don’t run from conflict, but they don’t really have much conflict, how? The reason is that they are, by personality and consensual by work rules, genuinely open to debate and energetic questioning and discussion. Ideas are not “shot down”, they are debated positively. Motivation is rarely personal, it is objective. They communicate in real time when something needs to be said, they don’t mince words and they don’t just destroy ideas or plans, they offer tangible new possibilities. In these circumstances, conflict can occur, but it is much less likely, and when it does arise, it usually dissipates very quickly.
They are empowered to act
The greatest team ever assembled will fail, or at least be closer to failure than necessary, if they are not given the authority to act. One of the fundamental beauties of high-performance teams is that they reduce or eliminate the need for someone to play the traditional leadership role over the group. When half or more of the members are willing and able to share leadership with others on the team, the traditional “boss” is not needed to guide the team. As a result, the team can be empowered to do what only the “boss” used to do, including hiring, budgeting, evaluations, etc.
show mutual responsibility
Most organizations rely on what I call a “performance management system” to maximize productivity (by the way, most performance management systems are weak and only moderately effective, but that’s another article). High-performing teams don’t need traditional employee appraisals and similar devices intended to successfully move people toward achieving goals. High-performing team members tend to be achievement-oriented and well aware of the interdependent nature of their work. As a result, they do not hesitate to point out deficiencies, seek to help others with performance problems, or seek help when they themselves encounter difficult obstacles.
Pay attention to process and content.
Work is not just about the tasks that need to be completed to achieve our goals. In fact, the tasks are really only half of what you should consider. The other half is process. Many common team processes include: team member support and feedback practices, management of the critical path of tasks and associated schedules, the knowledge management process, the process of communicating progress up the chain of command, etc. Just to make the point, consider the classic case of troubleshooting. Without a great observer of the “process,” it is often the case that teams spend too much of their finite time expanding the possibilities rather than narrowing down their alternatives, selecting one, and planning implementation.
take calculated risks
Simply put, great teams don’t get great by following safe, incremental paths. However, abnormally high returns are not the result of reckless risk-taking. Great teams do their homework, collect the data, consult with the relevant experts, and then take a leap – a highly educated and well-informed leap in the name of innovation and improvement. Please don’t get me wrong, not all risks are worth it. The point is that high performing teams are more likely to take the necessary risks and to execute effectively. Good auction: the better you execute, the lower the real risk.
Take a long look at that list and ask yourself how many of them really remind you of your team or most of the teams in your organization. If you can only relate to half or fewer of these characteristics, you need an intervention to build successful team skills. If you think you’re consistently achieving seven or more of these, congratulations, you’re among the few who deserve the title of “high-performance team.”