‘Design team work carefully’ – but how?

April 20, 2013 cdv 1 Comment

By Cindy Vallance @cdvallance

Simon Black’s latest blog highlighted key principles for how groups might work better. His first principle – ‘design team work carefully’ will provide a strong foundation for success in maintaining and improving team effectiveness. But how? There are a range of techniques that can be used to assist in designing team work.

A useful starting point is role analysis. Role analysis? Isn’t this the job of Human Resources? Yes, often job descriptions are created as part of a central HR function. But work, and especially work with others, is never as simple as following a printed job description that more often than not is created at a single point of time and then simply filed away.

It is all too often the case that mutual demands, expectations and obligations of interdependent team members are never openly discussed. Each individual may wonder why others do not seem to be doing what they are ‘supposed’ to be doing even though all individuals are performing as they think they should.

The technique of role analysis can be effectively used to help teams and groups work together. How does it work? Individuals first each analyse their own role in the group. A few questions to ask:

What is the rationale for the role – why does it exist?
What is the role there to achieve?
What are the specific duties of the role?
What are the expected behaviours of the role?
How does the role contribute to the achievement of the group’s goals?
How is the role related to other roles in the group?

The next step is for individuals to explain their understanding of their role within the group. Other group members can then share their expectations of the role. Expectations and obligations can be modified and agreed through discussion so that all reach a common understanding.

At the conclusion of this process, the individual holding the role assumes responsibility for preparing a brief written summary (a role profile) consisting of the activities of the role, the obligations of the role to the other roles and the expectations of the role from the other roles. Sharing this summary back with the group is the final step.

Each individual then ends up with a better understanding of what their own role is, what the perceptions and expectations of others are, and how all roles fit together. Role profiles are not static but can be modified as needs change over time.

Effective use of the technique of role analysis can reduce role ambiguity (am I supposed to be doing that or is it your job?), role conflicts and misunderstandings. The technique can also help ensure commitment to the individual roles that have been collectively and collaboratively defined.

Next time, another technique for group working…

Myths

Teamwork is best – or IS IT?

April 2, 2013 Simon Black 1 Comment

Group working is one of those topics that is awkwardly both straightforward and complex depending upon how you look at it.

Conventional wisdom sets us to assume that more heads are better than one and this maxim is often used as a justification for working in teams. But is it always a helpful perspective? In the spirit of Change Academy, we need to consider alternative views in order to get a more complete picture.

Cindy Vallance recently posted the question “When are many heads better than one?” This is a sensible question to ask when considering group working. As Cindy points out, sometimes teams are created to simply fulfill a structural need; to fill an office space or to organise a number of individuals under the supervision of a manager. These, as Cindy implies, are not good reasons for organising group working.

Tug of war — A set of clones with the same job is not a recipe for a successful team

What do we really know about team performance? And, if we are honest with ourselves, do groups always work better than individuals?

The answer, surely , is no. Have you ever sat on a committee and wondered ‘why are we all here?’?

Let’s take a sporting analogy. Put five excellent runners into a relay team. How well do they perform? In many cases, really well.

However if I think of the British men’s sprint relay team, in four of the last five Olympics they have been disqualified (1996, 2000, 2008, 2012). In 2004 they won the gold. In each Olympic competition the job is the same and, for the British team over this period, several individuals participated in the team more than once . So why is there such a wide difference between good and poor performances? It is sometimes easy to put it down to a mistake; incompetence or lack of attention, but sometimes the truth lies deeper.

The Ringlemann effect suggests that something different can happen in teams. If people’s personal roles are similar they can be disinclined to put everything into their work (this is a subconscious effect causing ‘free-riding’ rather than deliberate loafing). This effect has been shown in cases where a single worker has been put in a team with ‘non workers’ (i.e. people deliberately faking effort, but not actually doing real work). Even in these instances, the ‘real’ worker is often measured as putting in LESS effort than if they were doing the task on their own. In the classic experiment, assuming that men pulling a rope individually perform at 100% of their ability, apparently two-man groups perform at 93% of the average member’s pull, three-man groups at 85%, with eight-man groups pulling with only 49% of the average individual member’s ability.

So what is the solution? Never work in teams? No this would be a bit foolish, there are better questions…

1. Design team work carefully? Yes

2. Ensure a clear sense of purpose? Yes

3. Establish some reasonable measure of performance or achievement? Yes

4. Agree ways of working together, along with a readiness and willingness to improve ? Of course

5. Encourage trust and mutual respect amongst team members? Yes, but make sure that at its foundation is an understanding of 1-4 above.

So, reverting to my previous blog on teamwork, we must focus on our purpose, our goals, understand our differing roles, agree how we work together at a practical level and look to build positive working relationships based on mutuality and trust.

Like anything in life, if we have a team of people, we need to regularly re-consider the purpose of the team. Do we have a team because it adds to achieving the purpose, or is it just because we have always had a team?

Next time you are in a turgid committee meeting, or your project team has ground to a halt, – have a think about how the group could work better…

Categorising Group Roles

March 7, 2013 cdv Leave a comment

By Cindy Vallance @cdvallance

I have previously written about principles that can benefit groups when they want to think together. I have also written a series of blogs with practical tips for the chair and for participants in working to ensure that meetings are successful.

But what I haven’t yet done is share thoughts on the roles of group members. Role differentiation and clarity is important to any group. There are many many ways to categorise group roles and I do not profess any particular theoretical expertise on group dynamics. Do take a look at the work of The Centre for the Study of Group Processes at the University of Kent (also Twitter @Group_Lab) that researches social psychological processes affecting group & intergroup relations.

To keep things simple, as a starting point I will reference a single model used by one of my own University professors (Professor A.R. “Elango” Elangovan), which is a distillation of Kenneth Benne and Paul Sheats’ work on group behaviour that originated as far back as the 1940s. Benne and Sheats defined three categories of group roles: task-oriented roles, relations-oriented roles, and self-oriented roles.

Task-oriented roles include initiators, information seekers, information givers, coordinators and evaluators. These roles are important in actually getting the work done.

Relationship-oriented roles serve a different purpose. These roles help the group function in a positive way. They include encouragers, harmonisers, gatekeepers, standard setters, and group observers.

Finally, Self-oriented individualistic roles generally weaken and disrupt the group. These roles include blockers, recognition seekers, dominators and avoiders.

If you have freedom of choice in forming your group, be careful in choosing your members. A diverse range of people who balance task and relationship-oriented roles will take the group forward in a positive way.

But what do you do about the dysfunctional self-oriented roles? Perhaps you don’t have complete control over group membership. If this is the case, then the goal should be to minimise or eliminate these behaviours through increased awareness and full group acknowledgment that all of these roles exist within groups. This is of course easier said than done but a start can be made by simply naming these roles and agreeing from the outset of the group creation that disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated. Coaching and feedback can also help to greatly reduce or eliminate these behaviours.

You have an idea of the range of roles you want. What is next?

Change Principles, Updates

When are many heads better than one?

March 2, 2013 cdv 1 Comment

By Cindy Vallance @cdvallance

As a follow on to my last blog, why do we bother with groups at all?

Firstly, it is important to note that sometimes groups are formed as a conscious structural choice of an organisation. At the University of Kent, for example, staff members who were previously dispersed throughout colleges were collected into subject-based academic schools in the mid 1990’s. Professional services are similarly identified as functional units and sometimes co-located to provide support to the core business of the University’s Faculties / Schools. For example, Information Services, Human Resources, Finance and Research Services (among many others) each serve a functional purpose. While much could also be written about these groups, what follows is not focused on groups that are created as part of an organisational structure.

Rather, what about those groups or teams that are created for a reason beyond the formal structure? Research groups, project teams, working parties – these are groups that come together – usually over a finite amount of time – to accomplish a specific goal.

Why do we create these groups? What is the potential value that we gain? While in reality we do not always accrue significant benefits for a host of reasons we will consider, group decision making can be superior to individual decision-making in a number of different situations. Many heads can be better than one, for instance, when:

Tasks require judgments about uncertain events and information available is either incomplete or uncertain
Concern for quality outcomes are high and potential benefits are substantial
Costs of errors is also high and it may be difficult to reverse or salvage a poor decision
Many feasible alternative solutions exist
Identifying the optimal alternative is difficult
Feedback about results will not be immediately available

This is not meant to be an exhaustive list and there are undoubtedly many more reasons that could be added. Perhaps two key factors that are common, however, are uncertainty and complexity.

So, if groups can sometimes be effective but aren’t in all cases; where do we go wrong? What are the characteristics of successful groups? More on this next time.

Change Principles, Updates

Building and Maintaining Resilience

February 24, 2013 cdv Leave a comment

By @cdvallance

The past few weeks since my last blog have been a struggle. Like many others around the University I have been battling what a colleague referred to as ‘the ubiquitous Kent bug.’ While I very much doubt that Kent is alone as an organisation that has had many of its members fall victim to a range of winter colds and flus, it has certainly been difficult for me to identify anyone absolutely brimming with energy and enthusiasm of late. Add to this a bout of cold, wet, grey weather, short days, dark nights and many work challenges. So what can be done?

For me, the only way to regain and then maintain my personal and professional resilience in relation to work is to reflect on the question ‘why do I bother?’ What do I believe about why I get up every morning and go to work? Of course I need and want a pay cheque. That is a given. But this isn’t enough for me and I believe it isn’t enough for others either. I believe we all (or at least the great majority of us) want to feel that we are making a positive difference in what we do and that we also want to share these feelings of pursuing a common purpose with others.

How do we do this? In my last blog, I shared six keys to successful change coined by leading thinker Rosabeth Moss Kanter. To recap, these were:

Show up, speak up, team up, look up, don’t give up, lift others up.

In my next few blogs I will discuss why I believe groups and teams are key to organisational success. This is partly selfish. My hope is that sharing my thinking about something I care about – team work and collaboration – will also help me rebuild my own resilience and restore my own energy in trying to make a positive difference at the University of Kent.

Change Principles, Updates

Leadership in Action

February 5, 2013 cdv Leave a comment

By Cindy Vallance

@cdvallance

I was very pleased to be asked to present our University of Kent leadership and management programme participation certificates at the annual Learning and Development Awards Ceremony in late January.

However, before I presented the certificates I was given the opportunity to share a few thoughts with the 120 staff members in attendance. A few people asked me afterwards for my references so I thought it might be useful to repeat the words I shared with that group again here:

Everyone in this room today that is receiving an award has demonstrated leadership. This type of leadership is self-leadership and is the foundation for all other types of leadership. An American professor by the name of Charles Manz provides an explanation of the concept of self-leadership in relation to self-management. He stated that while self-management is largely concerned with a set of behavioural and cognitive strategies that reflect a rational view of what people ought to be doing…self-leadership goes beyond this to place significant emphasis on the intrinsic value of tasks.” (Manz, Charles C. “Self-Leadership: Toward an Expanded Theory of Self-Influence Processes in Organizations,” Academy of Management Review, Volume 11, No. 3, 1986, 585-600.)

The individual who exercises self-leadership does not simply respond to a leader’s vision; the individual helps to create the vision. Your achievements reflect your individual part in helping to embody a wider organisational vision for the University of Kent.

I have also noticed a number of common themes recurring increasingly in discussions across our leadership and management programmes – behaviours that appear to resonate to participants, managers, and sponsors alike – qualities that I am happy to see not just being spoken about but also demonstrated.

These themes include: collaboration, community, respect, fostering diversity, transparency, trust, breaking down silos, appreciation, balancing creativity with consistency and focusing on a purpose that is larger than ourselves to inspire and motivate others.

Everyone can help to demonstrate their self-leadership and belief in the themes that are resonating across the University by practicing six keys to leading positive change. These keys were coined by one of my favourite thinkers, Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter and are really very simple:

“Show up, speak up, look up, team up, don’t give up, and lift others up.”

Change Principles, Excellence

Features of a high performing team

January 28, 2013 Simon Black 1 Comment

In the past I have made a several links (some more oblique than others) to celebrated efforts and achievements of sportspeople over the past year including Bradley Wiggins, Usain Bolt, and the British Cycling team and the London 2012 Olympics.

Bradford City ‘picked up the ball and ran with it’ by working together, playing to their strengths, committing effort, taking responsibility, keeping discipline, and always believing the dream!

After a pulsating year of sporting moments in 2012 and having previously prodded at the excesses of football management, I simply cannot miss the chance to celebrate the achievements earlier this month by a humble, honest lower league football club. Bradford City FC are close to my heart, having spent many occasions at their Valley Parade home in years gone by and since then, despite a move down south, I have been able to follow their tortuous progress through financial misfortune and near-collapse with nevertheless genuinely joyful moments amongst a few hundred Bradford faithful as a regular ‘away’ fan down south) …

In the early weeks of 2013 lowly Bradford City, a club that have been in the doldrums of lower-league football for over 10 years, set the media alight with successive victories against Premier League opposition in a winning run that has taken them to a major Cup Final for the first time in 101 years. This gives the team a further chance to shine in front of 90,000 fans at Wembley, the national stadium. At the time of their only previous success, winning the FA Cup in 1911 (a week-and-a half after the Titanic had sunk in the North Atlantic), the site at Wembley was still a rural landscape of fields and woodland copses. Bradford are the first 4th tier (lowest division) team to reach any final in England for 51 years. The story is well documented elsewhere, but it is worth noting that Bradford’s entire squad of players was assembled for a total of £7500 of transfer fees – in a world where opposition players in the Premier League teams which were defeated to reach the final cost millions (often tens of millions) – EACH.

How is this possible? Surely it is a matter of assembling a team of the best, to achieve success? Bradford illustrates that there is an alternative model – to build the best team you can with what you have. And how? To get the team members to prepare and focus on the things that matter. For Bradford this was all about playing to strengths, taking responsibility, keeping discipline, committing effort, working together, and of course always believing that they could achieve the dream! As the team’s winning run extended from August 2012 against lower league opposition through to a thrilling December night against the big-guns of Arsenal and later Aston Villa in the January semi-final, all of the team’s values and actions were validated and rewarded through the results that they achieved together. This builds both self-belief and belonging which enables performance; a difficult blend to achieve purely through big-money signings. In Premier League teams this process usually takes years to achieve – with a lot of waste and at great expense! It is not just a matter of ‘chemistry’, but rather a matter of focus and action.

So in our teams let’s focus on our goals, our various roles, how we work together at a practical level and how we build positive working relationships based on mutuality and trust.

Networking: talk, then work (and see the benefits).

January 21, 2013 Simon Black Leave a comment

It is easy to be busy and to forget the value of building positive working relationships with people. After all, working relationships are often the source of ideas, innovation, encouragement and better use of resources.

Finding time to make proper contact with people can be tricky, especially in roles where “meetings,meetings, meetings” rule, or if you are stuck behind a computer screen. Nevertheless, if we have the right mindset and a clear sense of purpose, we can make the most of personal networking, even if the opportunities are fleeting.

I recall an occasion when a colleague from an operational department picked up an idea with me for developing a training programme. She had previously drafted out a proposal which had been discussed with a couple of colleagues, but had not yet discussed the idea at senior levels. We both worked up the idea and, with a minimum of scheduled meetings (I can recall three1/2 hour discussions), by simply keeping our bosses in the loop, within 2 months we had the programme up and running, briefed to managers, marketed to 150+ people (many of whom voluntarily applied for a place with management approval) and the selected cohort had attended the first event. The normal turnaround for this type of activity – about 6-9 months.

How did things work so effectively on this occasion? Well, for one thing the personal enthusiasm of the people involved, secondly, the trust that each person had in delegating the work (and the trust shown by senior stakeholders in allowing us to get on with it) – and thirdly the purposeful use of time when we briefly met or had a conversation on the ‘phone. These behaviours set the tone when engaging other colleagues for support and encouraged a collaborative atmosphere in the project team. The work needed no significant new resources and the administration was hooked into existing procedures and workflow. The advantage was a 60 – 80% improvement in turnaround time.

Of course networking may involve a host of other things; ideas, innovation, opening up opportunities in new markets, new career pathways, business partnerships, research collaboration, cost saving opportunities, learning. There is no magic networking chemistry – ALL effective networking behaviours can be learned. If networking fails it is probably because one or both people choose for it to fail either consciously or sub-consciously…or they let the potential impact of the contact to ‘wither on the vine’ through lack of effort.

Networking is not just a social process – it needs to be far more than that in order to work properly. Good work involves the use of knowledge, understanding the psychology of people, understanding how systems work, and responding to the comings and goings of events in an appropriate manner. Networking that just involves chat delivers what it deserves…

Incidentally on a separate note – during the same two-month period described above, I had a contrasting experience. I was involved in various discussions (I lost count of the meetings, but it must have been at least six or seven) with essentially the same types of positive people (so the same positive chemistry SHOULD have been working), to resolve some minor concerns in a half-day training workshop. Now on this occasion maybe I was the problem, but progress in this instance was simply not very productive. Avenues were examined which did not require consideration and assumptions were taken which only served to delay decisions (until the real facts were extracted). This experience reminded me of some observations made in a recent blog which included some interesting ideas (attributed to the likes of Deming) but which were summarised as equations. A few choice ones are shown below:

Opinions+opinions+opinions = opinions
Meetings = opinions x people + documents

And the moral of these equations? – None of these activities is real value-adding work.

We need to be diligent in how we use our time. When networking, be purposeful – look to bring something to offer to a discussion as well as have in mind something that you want to get out of it for yourself. Remember that talking together is fine, but working together can be much more rewarding.

Tips for Meeting Participants

December 11, 2012 cdv Leave a comment

By Cindy Vallance @cdvallance

Even if you’re not ‘in the Chair,’ all participants still have responsibilities when it comes to ensuring that all receive the full benefit from effective meetings.

Prior to the Meeting

Submit agenda items if and when asked to do so

Come to the meeting prepared to discuss the agenda at hand

Read and be familiar with any information that is distributed in advance

At the Meeting

Attend all meetings and if for any reason you can’t, send apologies in advance along with your legitimate reason for being absent

Arrive at meetings on time

Stay until the end of the meeting

Actively participate – that is why you are attending in the first place isn’t it?

Understand that within the meeting everyone has an equal right to participate

Exert peer pressure on other group members by fully supporting the Chair in managing inappropriate behaviour

Share ideas in an honest and open manner

If conflict exists, air these items in the meeting in a professional manner, not after the meeting

Retain confidentiality for any meeting items when agreed to

Once actions have been decided, support the group’s decision

Refrain from complaining about other participants or the group itself when outside the meeting

Raise concerns with the Chair directly

After the Meeting

Complete any tasks that you have responsibility for within the timeframe discussed

Share with the Chair any observations that might provide helpful learning for the future

In conclusion, the ‘how’ of the meeting is just as important as the ‘what’ since it is the collective energies, commitment and actions of the group that will help us to accomplish so much more than any of us can individually. Note that further consideration was given to the ‘how’ of creating a thinking environment for meetings in this earlier blog series.

Since this is my final blog for 2012, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been reading these pieces. While formal comments within the blogs have been minimal, I have appreciated the references that colleagues have made about the blogs along with the retweets when these have been posted to twitter. I hope that you have found these blogs to be of interest. Do check back in the New Year and in the meantime, I wish you the very best for the holiday season and for 2013.

Effective Meetings, Updates

Meetings – Chair / Group Dynamics

December 5, 2012 cdv Leave a comment

By Cindy Vallance @cdvallance

In my last blog, I discussed some of the practical considerations facing the Chair. However, even if the meeting goes like clock work on the surface operationally, it is important for the Chair to pay attention to the group dynamics that are just as important and that underpin every discussion, every meeting.

Again, it is once again the responsibility of the Chair to set the tone and take the lead with the group. If, for instance, the Chair behaves in a way that is open, honest, enthusiastic, and committed to positive outcomes, meeting participants are more likely to respond in kind.

The Chair should be open about what kinds of dissent are acceptable. Let people know that it is okay to disagree (recall the old adage “if two people agree all the time on everything, one of them is unnecessary”) but that respectful and professional behaviour is expected.

Disagreement should focus on topics and should not be personal attacks against people. While people need to be able to express themselves openly, unhealthy aggression should not be tolerated.

It is important for the Chair to try to not take sides when disagreement occurs, but rather, remain impartial, stick to the facts and ask open questions for clarification. The Chair should work to keep their temper even when provoked. It may be necessary and useful to agree to meet with the dissenter(s) at another time outside the meeting. If a decision cannot be made within the meeting due to disagreement, the Chair should advise next steps and move on.

The Chair should also watch participation levels during the meeting and work to draw out comments from those who are less vocal; those who are quiet will often have a great deal to contribute but may not be as quick to speak, allowing others who speak freely to dominate the discussion.

The Chair should manage the tendency for discussion to go off course inadvertently and should work to steer the group back to the agenda if the discussion begins to wander. Asking questions and paraphrasing conclusions to seek common understanding and bringing participants back to the topic at hand can be helpful.

Wide ranging discussion (eg for gathering information or problem solving) can be helpful and genuine consultation is critical in these types of sessions but this should be an explicit part of the meeting (back to purpose and objectives again) rather than something that happens by accident as a meeting with a different purpose goes off track.

In a consultative discussion, it is important not to jump to instant solutions, but rather to consider the pros and cons of alternatives. It can be helpful to record suggestions as they are stated and to build upon these ideas as a group.It may be that this type of discussion will not end in a decision and this is fine. Time may be needed to reflect on the discussion. The Chair should, however, indicate what will be done with the information from the session and what the plans will be to either make a decision in the future and the timeframe for doing so.

Finally, Chairs (or those who hope to be Chairs) can learn much by watching for and emulating good examples. Good Chairs will have done their homework before the meeting, solicited input in advance where appropriate, gained the confidence of others outside the meeting, work to have a variety of participants lead on topics, strike a balance between direction and consultation, involve everyone, maintain a good pace, order, and humour even in difficult circumstances, and will get the job at hand done by moving beyond differences of opinion to agreed action plans.

This blog, along with the previous one on the Challenge of the Chair and the blog on Team Briefings have primarily focused on the Chair’s responsibilities. However, meeting success is not down to only one individual. What if you are not in the Chair? What are your responsibilities as a participant?

Follow the tags at the bottom of each article or the theme bar shown at the top of each title to find linked topics to help stimulate your learning. The search facility (top right 🔍 in green) allows you to browse the site using any keywords that you wish