Institutionalising Team Effectiveness
The business environment is less predictable now than at any point in a generation. This has led to unprecedented problems for businesses and their people who have experienced only more certain business cycles. To quote the FD of a FTSE-100 plc when considering what to tell his people, “Well, I can tell them they don’t have to worry about losing their jobs in the next six months and that’s a hell of a lot better than what I could tell them this time last year!”
So, how does an organisation move forward when planning horizons have shortened and the list of variables beyond the company’s control seems remarkably long?
We have seen that in response to these conditions a number of businesses are now using even tighter targeting but, within clear guidelines, devolving slightly more authority to teams to alter delivery plans, rather than taking a more traditional `top down’ approach.
Whilst the days of aligning armies behind a singular, fixed, almost monolithic vision and plan are gone, focusing at the team level can secure commitment to a direction that is broadly aligned with the organisation’s. The organisation can plan more swiftly and also adapt plans to changing demands (commercial, regulatory or internal) more quickly. Perhaps most importantly, it gets people focused on moving forward despite the staggering levels of uncertainty, not receiving direction that it would be easy to be cynical about. Psychologists know that giving people control, even if over relatively small things, is an important element if you want people to not become debilitated by uncertainty.
That’s why organisations like Barclaycard and Lloyds Banking Group are working hard to ‘institutionalise’ team effectiveness. The latter as a key lever for combining its two legacy organisations, LloydsTSB and HBOS.
We know it’s possible to accelerate the forming of teams so that they become more effective more quickly. The mistake most frequently made though is to focus from the outset extensively, and often to alarmingly deep levels, on personalities and team dynamics. In our experience, this happens typically because it’s what the facilitator feels most comfortable with, not what the team necessarily needs at that point! New teams can be very successful with ‘good enough’ team dynamics. As such, we focus initially on alignment regarding the role of the team and its priorities and objectives. Then we ensure sound processes (meetings, decision-making, reviewing performance etc) are in place. Along the way we build the team’s dynamics but we do a ‘deep dive’ early on only when dynamics are interfering with the agreement or achievement of priorities.
With respect to institutionalising team effectiveness we think most businesses are missing a trick. Yes, in some situations external, specialist help like what we offer is required. But not always. We know because we’ve successfully upskilled clients to scale our approach to scores of teams (over 50 in one company alone!), Historically, though, HR has focused on developing individuals and organisations only in systematic, leveraged, industrialised ways, ie not teams. Almost all large companies have people in charge of developing leaders and in charge of developing the organisation as a whole. How many have someone whose focus is developing the effectiveness of teams? And this is despite the large number of teams in most companies, the large amount of time senior executives spend in teams and the widely perceived value of effective team-working. It’s reminiscent of the story about the man looking for his lost watch under the street light even though he knows he misplaced it someplace else. Just because it’s easy to focus development on the individual doesn’t mean we should.