Teams are complex and a starting point to evaluate them is to understand their make-up and ‘definition.’ There are many ways to define and describe a team and we look at it from a number of different perspectives. This creates a picture of a team that is multi-dimensional and gives more clarity to the team management, function, purpose, people make-up and ultimately how to work on improving their performance.
The first example is to look at the team from a work flow standpoint. Richard Ratliff defines teams in the following way, based on the flow of work:
Simple team – a simple team consists of a number of people carrying out basically the same task over and over to achieve a large volume of output.
Relay team – a relay team is one where the tasks need to be completed in a specific order, with one team member working on the project at one time, then handing it off to the next person.
Integrative work team – this is a team where the members work simultaneously and collaboratively in order to create a product or a service.
Problem-solving team – this team uses a variety of skills and knowledge to tackle complex problems whose structure, boundaries and even definition may not be clear.
Teams are complex and a starting point to evaluate them is to understand their make-up and ‘definition’
There are other factors that are important for understanding the definition of a team:
Is the team for a single function (like one project) or is it cross-functional or multi- functional
Is it time limited or is it ongoing
Is it manager-led or self-led
Taking a step back, we also want to know whether the set of people involved would actually classify as a team. Sometimes you’ll find a loose affiliation of people working within an organisation that don’t really make the ‘cut’ in terms of how a team is defined.
Here are some basic team parameters from Leigh Thompson:
Teams exist to achieve a shared goal
Members depend on each other to achieve the goal
They have boundaries (it’s clear who is and who is not on the team)
They are stable over time, meaning they have some continuity in their desired outcomes
They have the authority to manage their own work or at least parts of it
They are part of a larger organisation and they are contributing to the goals of that organisation
There can also be a question of how much of a team is needed from a functional standpoint and how much do the members believe in its importance. David Clutterbuck uses a list of 15 questions that help determine the need for a team and the intensity that the members feel. Keep in mind that teams are put together, in many cases, to achieve a goal where collaboration is more effective than working independently.
1. We have a clear and shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve together
2. We have a clear and shared understanding of the priorities
3. We frequently put collective priorities ahead of individual priorities
4. We have confidence in each other’s competence in their role
5. We have a strong sense of goodwill towards each other
6. We have a genuinely open dialogue about difficult topics
7. We have well-understood norms of behaviour to manage conflict
8. We challenge our assumptions regularly
9. We have a high degree of interdependency
10. We are mutually accountable for the team’s performance
11. We are clear about who is in the team and who is not
12. We derive a sense of value from our collective achievements
13. We allow leadership to shift in line with individual expertise
14. We measure progress against collective goals
15. We take responsibility for both our own and each other’s continuous development
In reading this list it becomes pretty clear that you answer all of these with a strong ‘yes’ you probably have a pretty intense and highly functioning team, but not necessarily a high performing team (we’ll cover performance in a subsequent article).
Another important aspect in defining a team are the individual personality profiles of each member. The profile will reveal how that person relates to others and the extent to which they will drive to get things done. We use a profiling tool called REACH. Through a series of questions the tool rates people on two scales: 1) whether the person is people-focused or task-focused and 2) whether the person is thinking-oriented or acting-oriented. In the REACH system you would then be categorised into one of four quadrants, which are defined below. Keep in mind that other systems can be utilised for personality profiles like DISC or Myers Briggs.
Counselor
Counselors are recognised for being Thinking-oriented and People-focused. The ‘markers’ of behaviour that are typically associated with the Counselor profile are:
Communicating with a warm and comforting style
Conflict-handling by accommodating others’ views
Delegating by asking others for participation
Planning through a careful, flexible approach
Learning with careful, step-by-step reflection
Coach
Coaches are recognised for being Acting-oriented and People-focused. The ‘markers’ of behaviour that are typically associated with the Coach profile are:
Communicating with a charismatic, dynamic style
Conflict-handling by collaborating on solutions
Delegating by ‘selling’ others on participation
Planning through a fluid, interactive approach
Learning with an active, ‘big picture’ understanding
Advisor
Advisors are recognised for being Thinking-oriented and Task-focused. The ‘markers’ of behaviour that are typically associated with the Advisor profile are:
Communicating with a reserved, formal style
Conflict-handling by identifying compromises
Delegating by ‘teaching’ the suggested approach
Planning through methodical, detailed preparation
Learning with careful, step-by-step reflection
Driver
Drivers are recognised for being Acting-oriented and Task-focused. The ‘markers’ of behaviour that are typically associated with the Driver profile are:
Communicating with a focused, intense style
Conflict-handling by directly confronting the issue
Delegating by directing the course of action
Planning through an urgent, adaptive approach
Learning with active, ‘big picture’ understanding
Personality profiles don’t fit into each definition perfectly. Each person’s profile will show up somewhere in the quadrant, signifying their place on a continuum of these personality types. As each team members’ profile is logged into the 4-quadrant graph you can get a sense for the mix of profiles and how that might impact how the team functions (see below).
It also can show how some improvements in training and interpersonal approaches can increase the performance of a team. As an example we’ll look briefly at a sales team and how different personality profiles can be leveraged.
One of the sales team members’ profile indicates that they will good at and enjoy Building Rapport, Discovering Needs, Servicing the Client, and is probably least comfortable in Presenting Solutions, Negotiating/Closing the Sale, or Prospecting. Another sales team members’ profile indicates they will be effective at and enjoy Negotiating/Closing the Sale, Prospecting, Discovering Needs, and is probably least comfortable in Building Rapport, Servicing the Client, Overcoming Objections. In addressing this diversity on the team we might ask a few questions of ourselves in regard to existing roles, training, compensation, coaching and whether a person is a fit for the team at all. We will address this in more detail when we cover improving team performance.
Defining a team is an important initial step in formulating how to improve its performance. The type of team, its management, the length of its tenure, its purpose, its intensity and the individual personality profiles of its members all play an important role in understanding the definition of the team.
Comments