Should individuals operate alone?
Modern business challenges are too complicated for individuals to operate alone. Teams benefit an organization by creating a mastermind of talent that can bring diverse perspectives, ideas and experiences in solving difficult problems.
However, transitioning an organization to a formal team environment is more than telling a group of individuals they are a team and providing them a one-time training experience or program launch. A group that makes up a team consists of individuals who have worked through stages of team development to become interdependent, inspired by the possibilities of working together, and share a commitment to succeed.
According to Peter Senge, director of the Center for Organizational Learning at the MIT Sloan School of Management, teams provide organizations an “incubator” that affords the opportunity to take ideas from “concept to capability.” Teams have been used in myriad organizations to create leaner work processes, improve quality and efficiency, and to flatten company hierarchy to improve decision-making capacity.
Not all groups are teams, though. A group rises to the level of a team when leadership is shared by all individuals, accountability is shared by individuals and the team, there are clear and measurable objectives in support of the team’s mission, a charter is well-documented with planned solutions for resolving conflict, and results are achieved collectively as well as individually.
Organizations that successfully promote teams are typically led by a top executive who serves as a passionate champion of teaming and drives a corporate culture of support and encouragement. More traditional leadership styles of top-down command authority do not work well in fostering teams that can function as an independent, self-directed unit. Leaders in organizations with teams need to be confident in allowing team members to make decisions, take risks and make mistakes.
Managers and other leaders who prefer to keep information close to the vest, while making all the decisions, will likely frustrate themselves and others in the organization trying to capitalize on formal teams. On the other hand, leaders who openly share information have the opportunity to thrive in a team environment where open communication and information sharing will be essential to the team’s ability to make effective decisions.
A strong commitment to training is required to equip members with the skills they need to succeed in a team environment. This can be especially challenging in a company that did not formerly embrace training as a core organizational competency. Team members will need structured training by skilled teachers in a variety of disciplines, including interpersonal relationships, stages of team development, conflict resolution and team decision-making. Teams will need to learn the unique skills and challenges associated with solving problems, brainstorming solutions and establishing consensus in a group.
Before developing such skills, teams will need to learn the basics of team development. Psychologist Bruce Tuckman’s Stages of Team Development (forming, storming, norming and performing) serves as a clear and widely accepted model for the process teams work through as they form as a group, storm through the initial awkward stages, level off and start working under established norms, and then reach the desired state of performing together.
Initial team training sets the tone for the path a team will take in the stages of development and will directly affect the team’s potential for success. Although there is a higher cost associated with training a group of employees compared with training individuals, the value of training a team together far exceeds the expense.
It can be challenging to take a team out of the workplace for training that may initially last a week or more. However, training done properly will result in a much greater likelihood of success and will propel a team to the performing stage at an accelerated pace. Additionally, the relationship team members foster during training will be invaluable and will pay off when the team begins working together after initial training.
In considering resources for training, it is wise to hire trainers from outside the organization during implementation. Internal trainers can conduct ongoing training once the team has progressed to the norming stages. An outside trainer, however, has the advantage of sharing his or her expertise from other organizations and will be respected as an expert who brings unique perspectives and ideas.
In addition to possessing a background in team training, a professional trainer should be skilled in project management training. The trainer should be prepared to teach the team to identify a project (Hint: not all “to do” items are projects), how to identify and communicate with stakeholders, how to assign roles and responsibilities, and how to overcome obstacles while managing and mitigating risks.
Managing time as an individual and as a team is an important skill on which the trainer should focus. Effectively managing time while juggling multiple and often conflicting priorities will be essential to the team’s success.
In addition to hiring an outside trainer who is considered an expert in team development, a popular resource internal trainers can use is the prepackaged program by Patrick Lencioni, “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team.” Lencioni is the best-selling author of a series of business books with lessons in the form of fables. In “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team,” Lencioni uses a case study of a fictional team of executives trying to work together in a formerly dysfunctional environment. In the process, the team develops the skills needed to deliver results, foster accountability, commit to the team’s objectives, effectively resolve conflict and build high levels of trust.
Although assigning individuals to read the book is an affordable way to conduct team training, it is worth the investment to purchase the complete program, which includes a facilitator’s guide for your internal trainer and workbooks for team members. The books and program materials can be purchased at www.tablegroup.com/dysfunctions.
Well-trained teams on the front lines working with customers have a n opportunity to provide service from an empowered platform. A state of empowerment affords the team authority to make decisions on the spot and to resolve complaints and increase customer satisfaction.
It is obvious when a customer experiences a business where a company’s representatives are not empowered as they will likely hear phrases such as “that’s our policy,” “I’m not authorized to approve your request” or “there’s nothing I can do.” A company that empowers a customer service representative to make decisions, especially in a team that is performing well together, will take risks and make decisions that are most likely to make the customer happy and will benefit the team and its organization.
Few companies have so successfully implemented teams as a core business model as Zappos and attending a free tour at its facility in Henderson provides an excellent demonstration of teams in action.
At Zappos, teams are empowered to serve customers in nearly any way possible that will result in making the customer happy, while nurturing a loyal and lifelong relationship. But Tony Hsieh, Zappos’ CEO, doesn’t attribute his company’s success to customer service training so much as the organizational culture that drives the service customers receive.
In his book, “Delivering Happiness,” Hsieh points out that if you get the culture right in an organization, then customer service will take care of itself. And the culture Hsieh and his colleagues developed at Zappos is one of providing customers “happiness” each and every time they come in contact with the company’s Customer Loyalty Team.
The classic example Hsieh often articulates regarding Zappos’ legendary customer service is the case where he and some friends anonymously called a Zappos customer service team to seek help ordering a pizza from a hotel late at night. Hsieh only reluctantly shares this story because he doesn’t want countless people calling Zappos to order pizzas. However, he proudly points out that not only did the team member gladly locate pizza that was available for delivery in the area of the hotel, he demonstrated that the Zappos culture of delivering happiness is real and inspiring.
It’s important to consider, though, that teams need essential training in the early stages and time to develop skills and knowledge before being given autonomy to make advanced decisions. No company can afford to regularly seek out pizza delivery options for customers who actually possess the courage to ask for such services. Zappos is proof though that empowering teams of employees to act in such circumstances led the company to a billion dollars in sales and legendary customer service.
Another well-known organization that succeeds with teams is General Electric. GE is known for using teams throughout the organization at the management and employee levels. In recent years, in particular, the massively diverse conglomerate developed individuals throughout the company’s leadership ranks by forming management teams as part of its Leadership, Innovation and Growth program.
In his Harvard Business Review article “How GE Teaches Teams to Lead Change,” Steven Prokesch wrote that GE CEO Jeffrey R. Immelt introduced the Leadership, Innovation and Growth program with the objective of fostering team training and innovation to expand existing businesses while developing strategies to generate new revenue.
Prokesch further indicates that essential to GE’s management teaming efforts is the training in which teams participated. A common obstacle to effective change includes resistance by individuals who have not bought into the need to change or the vision for the company’s future state. A lack of understanding and a lack of common purpose is often the driver when individuals resist change. GE uses management teams to ensure all managers are indoctrinated in the vision for the company’s future, the direction in which they will lead innovation and business development, and consistent training so that all leaders lock arms in common purpose and clear objectives.
GE executives made a deliberate decision to train management in teams as opposed to individual training that can lack the advantage of coalescing diverse perspectives and leadership styles to develop innovative outcomes. Management teams did not work together long term as formal teams. Instead, teams were challenged to develop strategies that would continue the innovation and development process throughout the company’s ranks of more than 300,000 employees.
That’s a tall order indeed. But it’s one in which GE executives confidently claim success. Although most companies will never know the scale on which a company the size of GE operates, the success GE realized by forming management teams is indicative of a sound principle in the teaming process — start training with your company’s leaders and they will set the tone for working together as a team.
Not all organizations that embark on teaming will produce outcomes worth the time and effort put into the program. Companies lacking high levels of trust and openness will experience challenges that may be insurmountable.
However, as Hsieh did in the early stages of the Zappos’ success story, focus first on the culture that will support the company’s transition to a formal team structure and you’re much more likely to succeed. Train leaders at the top first, invest in team training by outside experts, and empower teams to act in the best interest of the customer and the organization.
Finally, be prepared to invest time. Time is an important consideration when deciding whether to initiate well-developed official teams. Successful implementation of a team work environment can take substantial time before benefits are fully realized, but when done well, the benefits are significant and long lasting.
