Here's a fun video that we produced to introduce readers to the new edition of my book, Why Great Leaders Don't Take Yes for an Answer. Enjoy!
Showing posts with label team dynamics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label team dynamics. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Often, when I'm working with emerging leaders or high potentials in an organization, I hear them say something like the following: "I get what you are saying about encouraging subordinates to speak up and express dissent. However, I can't change the culture/climate on my own. My boss isn't here. He or she needs to change too. What do I do to influence their behavior?" It's a great question! Let me offer a few thoughts:
1. First, focus on what you can control, rather than worry about what is beyond your control. Change the way you lead your team. If all of you in this program begin to do that, you will begin to shift the organizational climate. You will serve as exemplars for those that work for you.
2. Use questions as your tool for opening up more dialogue in meetings led by your boss. Rather than confronting your boss about the fact that he or she may not be encouraging people to speak up, try asking some non-threatening questions in team meetings that encourage others to share information or views that have not been disclosed previously.
3. Use one-on-one meetings to convey to your boss that he or she may not have heard all views in a key team meeting. Let them know, with specifics, how certain concerns are not being surfaced (without naming names!).
4. Invite your boss to sit in on a meeting you are leading with your team, and showcase some techniques that you and your team use to cultivate productive debate and candid dialogue.
5. When you read about a company that stumbled because senior executives were unaware of bad news until it was far too late, share it with your boss. Send the article to him or her by email. A compelling story of another organization's failure might trigger an attempt to change behavior at your firm.
1. First, focus on what you can control, rather than worry about what is beyond your control. Change the way you lead your team. If all of you in this program begin to do that, you will begin to shift the organizational climate. You will serve as exemplars for those that work for you.
2. Use questions as your tool for opening up more dialogue in meetings led by your boss. Rather than confronting your boss about the fact that he or she may not be encouraging people to speak up, try asking some non-threatening questions in team meetings that encourage others to share information or views that have not been disclosed previously.
3. Use one-on-one meetings to convey to your boss that he or she may not have heard all views in a key team meeting. Let them know, with specifics, how certain concerns are not being surfaced (without naming names!).
4. Invite your boss to sit in on a meeting you are leading with your team, and showcase some techniques that you and your team use to cultivate productive debate and candid dialogue.
5. When you read about a company that stumbled because senior executives were unaware of bad news until it was far too late, share it with your boss. Send the article to him or her by email. A compelling story of another organization's failure might trigger an attempt to change behavior at your firm.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
 |
| Source: Forbes.com |
David: How does being an entrepreneur at the helm of a very large enterprise differ from entrepreneurial leadership of a small startup or growth company?
Brad: Regardless of whether you are leading a large enterprise or a small team, you need to remove barriers to innovation and get out of the way. At Intuit, we operate like a company of startups. We create and foster a culture where our nearly 8,000 employees worldwide have the courage to take risks and grow by learning from success and failure. Idea Jams and unstructured time give passionate employees opportunities to collaborate on new ideas to solve customer problems. To keep ideas moving and teams nimble, we embrace the “Two-Pizza rule,” making sure product development teams are no larger than two pizzas can feed.
I absolutely LOVE the two-pizza rule. If everyone eats 2 slices of pizza, then we are talking about an eight-person team. That sounds just about right for me. I constantly find organizations building teams that are far too large to be effective at accomplishing a creative task. The two-pizza rule provides a simple heuristic for helping leaders keep their teams small and nimble. Every organization should consider embracing this powerful rule of thumb.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Ken Segall wrote a good column for Fast Company about his experiences working with Steve Jobs. Segall argues for bringing together "small groups of smart people" - avoid having a huge group of people attend key meetings. He tells an anecdote about Steve Jobs:
One particular day, there appeared in our midst a woman from Apple with whom I was unfamiliar. I don’t recall her name, as she never appeared in our world again, so for the purposes of this tale, I’ll call her Lorrie. She took her seat with the rest of us as Steve breezed into the boardroom, right on time. Steve was in a sociable mood, so we chatted it up for a few minutes, and then the meeting began. “Before we start, let me just update you on a few things,” said Steve, his eyes surveying the room. “First off, let’s talk about iMac--" He stopped cold. His eyes locked on to the one thing in the room that didn’t look right. Pointing to Lorrie, he said, “Who are you?”
Lorrie was a bit stunned to be called out like that, but she calmly explained that she’d been asked to attend because she was involved with some of the marketing projects we’d be discussing. Steve heard it. Processed it. Then he hit her with the Simple Stick. “I don’t think we need you in this meeting, Lorrie. Thanks,” he said. Then, as if that diversion had never occurred--and as if Lorrie never existed--he continued with his update. So, just as the meeting started, in front of eight or so people whom Steve did want to see at the table, poor Lorrie had to pack up her belongings, rise from her chair, and take the long walk across the room toward the door. Her crime: She had nothing to add.
Ok, so the anecdote is powerful, but probably should not be emulated. We don't want to run around throwing people out of meetings in this fashion. However, the principle deserves our attention. Keep those meetings streamlined. We get much more done if we keep our teams small and focused. As Segall writes, "Most people know from experience that the fastest way to lose focus, squander valuable time, and water down great ideas is to entrust them to a larger group."
I can hear the pushback already. "But shouldn't we strive to be inclusive? Isn't that required to build buy-in?" Sure... we have to worry about including people so as to build buy-in. However, that doesn't mean that everyone needs to be at all these meetings. We can solicit input and advice in many ways, and still have a small group focusing on the key collaborative problem-solving task in a meeting.
One particular day, there appeared in our midst a woman from Apple with whom I was unfamiliar. I don’t recall her name, as she never appeared in our world again, so for the purposes of this tale, I’ll call her Lorrie. She took her seat with the rest of us as Steve breezed into the boardroom, right on time. Steve was in a sociable mood, so we chatted it up for a few minutes, and then the meeting began. “Before we start, let me just update you on a few things,” said Steve, his eyes surveying the room. “First off, let’s talk about iMac--" He stopped cold. His eyes locked on to the one thing in the room that didn’t look right. Pointing to Lorrie, he said, “Who are you?”
Lorrie was a bit stunned to be called out like that, but she calmly explained that she’d been asked to attend because she was involved with some of the marketing projects we’d be discussing. Steve heard it. Processed it. Then he hit her with the Simple Stick. “I don’t think we need you in this meeting, Lorrie. Thanks,” he said. Then, as if that diversion had never occurred--and as if Lorrie never existed--he continued with his update. So, just as the meeting started, in front of eight or so people whom Steve did want to see at the table, poor Lorrie had to pack up her belongings, rise from her chair, and take the long walk across the room toward the door. Her crime: She had nothing to add.
Ok, so the anecdote is powerful, but probably should not be emulated. We don't want to run around throwing people out of meetings in this fashion. However, the principle deserves our attention. Keep those meetings streamlined. We get much more done if we keep our teams small and focused. As Segall writes, "Most people know from experience that the fastest way to lose focus, squander valuable time, and water down great ideas is to entrust them to a larger group."
I can hear the pushback already. "But shouldn't we strive to be inclusive? Isn't that required to build buy-in?" Sure... we have to worry about including people so as to build buy-in. However, that doesn't mean that everyone needs to be at all these meetings. We can solicit input and advice in many ways, and still have a small group focusing on the key collaborative problem-solving task in a meeting.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Richard Ronay, Katherine Greenway, Eric Anicich, and Adam Galinsky have produced a new study titled, "The Path to Glory Is Paved With Hierarchy: When Hierarchical Differentiation Increases Group Effectiveness." Chris Shea writes about it in this weekend's Wall Street Journal. The scholars primed some people to think of a time when they had high power, while others were primed to think of an occasion when they wielded low power. Still others were not primed at all. In a cooperative task, the mixed groups outperformed those with folks only from one of the three conditions. The results suggest that a power hierarchy seems to improve productivity. Interestingly though, the results do not hold for other kinds of tasks. These results are consistent with another study by Galinsky, in which he found that NBA teams with larger salary disparities outperform those with more equal pay. Again, those results suggest a power hierarchy improves team effectiveness. We have to take these results with a grain of salt though. First, the type of task does matter. Second, this study examines "informal" hierarchies within teams. It does not examine formal hierarchies within larger, more complex organizations. Most importantly, we should not interpret the results to mean that efforts to flatten organizations are ill-advised. While some hierarchy may have benefits (it helps to have some who are clearly in charge), many organizations have such rigid hierarchies that many negative effects ensue.
Friday, April 27, 2012
My friend and frequent co-author Amy Edmondson has a terrific new book out titled, "Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy." I strongly recommend the book. Amy is one of the world's leading scholars in the area of team learning. Here's a short excerpt from a HBS Working Knowledge feature on the book; it captures the essence of her argument:
In these prior treatments, team is a noun. A team is an established, fixed group of people cooperating in pursuit of a common goal. But what if a team disbands almost as quickly as it was assembled? For example, what if you work in an emergency services facility where the staffing changes every shift, and the team changes completely for every case or client? What if you're a member of a temporary project team formed to solve a unique production problem? Or you're part of a group of managers with a mix of individual and shared responsibilities? How do you create synergy when you lack the advantages offered by the frequent drilling and practice sessions of static performance teams like those in sports and music?
Teaming is a verb. It is a dynamic activity, not a bounded, static entity. It is largely determined by the mindset and practices of teamwork, not by the design and structures of effective teams. Teaming is teamwork on the fly. It involves coordinating and collaborating without the benefit of stable team structures, because many operations like hospitals, power plants, and military installations require a level of staffing flexibility that makes stable team composition rare. In a growing number of organizations, the constantly shifting nature of work means that many teams disband almost as soon as they've formed. You could be working on one team right now, but in a few days, or even a few minutes, you may be on another team.
I find her argument about teaming very compelling. Consider your own organizational context. How many temporary, fluid team structures exist in your workplace? To what extent is teaming a verb, rather than a noun, in your firm? If you want to learn how to lead in that type of dynamic environment, then I recommend taking a look at Amy's book.
In these prior treatments, team is a noun. A team is an established, fixed group of people cooperating in pursuit of a common goal. But what if a team disbands almost as quickly as it was assembled? For example, what if you work in an emergency services facility where the staffing changes every shift, and the team changes completely for every case or client? What if you're a member of a temporary project team formed to solve a unique production problem? Or you're part of a group of managers with a mix of individual and shared responsibilities? How do you create synergy when you lack the advantages offered by the frequent drilling and practice sessions of static performance teams like those in sports and music?
Teaming is a verb. It is a dynamic activity, not a bounded, static entity. It is largely determined by the mindset and practices of teamwork, not by the design and structures of effective teams. Teaming is teamwork on the fly. It involves coordinating and collaborating without the benefit of stable team structures, because many operations like hospitals, power plants, and military installations require a level of staffing flexibility that makes stable team composition rare. In a growing number of organizations, the constantly shifting nature of work means that many teams disband almost as soon as they've formed. You could be working on one team right now, but in a few days, or even a few minutes, you may be on another team.
I find her argument about teaming very compelling. Consider your own organizational context. How many temporary, fluid team structures exist in your workplace? To what extent is teaming a verb, rather than a noun, in your firm? If you want to learn how to lead in that type of dynamic environment, then I recommend taking a look at Amy's book.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
I've finished reading Bill Vlasic's most recent book on the auto industry, and I highly recommend it. As a journalist, Vlasic has covered the industry for decades, and he really understands the key players and the firms. Some of you may remember his terrific book about the Daimler Chrysler merger (Taken for a Ride: How Daimler Drove Off with Chrysler).
In the book, Vlasic writes a fair amount about Alan Mulally's turnaround process at Ford. I found several stories particularly compelling. For instance, Vlasic describes how Mulally changed the culture of the senior management team at Ford. Prior to his arrival, the top team experienced a great deal of infighting and dysfunctional group dynamics. Mulally instituted a new business plan review process centered on a crucial Thursday morning meeting that took place weekly. The new Ford CEO quickly established some new ground rules for how executives would behave during these meetings. He called these shared norms and ground rules the "working together behaviors" of the senior team.
According to Vlasic, these ground rules included no smart phones, no encyclopedic briefing books, no aides, no jokes about colleagues, no side conversations, and most importantly... facts, not opinions, would rule the day. Mulally announced to the team that this code of conduct would be strictly enforced. If someone couldn't comply, Mulally told them bluntly, "You'll just have to work somewhere else." He went on to explain, "The important thing is that we are all accountable to each other. You are accountable to the team, and the rest of the team is here to help you."
What a fantastic leadership moment! Too many teams suffer because leaders don't outline the ground rules and expectations EXPLICITLY. Leaders need to be clear about the shared norms and ground rules which will govern behavior. If leaders are explicit and clear about these "working together behaviors," they will find it much easier to encourage candid dialogue and to keep conflict constructive. Moreover, they will find that explicit ground rules will enhance their odds of achieving alignment and shared commitment among the team members.
According to Vlasic, these ground rules included no smart phones, no encyclopedic briefing books, no aides, no jokes about colleagues, no side conversations, and most importantly... facts, not opinions, would rule the day. Mulally announced to the team that this code of conduct would be strictly enforced. If someone couldn't comply, Mulally told them bluntly, "You'll just have to work somewhere else." He went on to explain, "The important thing is that we are all accountable to each other. You are accountable to the team, and the rest of the team is here to help you."
What a fantastic leadership moment! Too many teams suffer because leaders don't outline the ground rules and expectations EXPLICITLY. Leaders need to be clear about the shared norms and ground rules which will govern behavior. If leaders are explicit and clear about these "working together behaviors," they will find it much easier to encourage candid dialogue and to keep conflict constructive. Moreover, they will find that explicit ground rules will enhance their odds of achieving alignment and shared commitment among the team members.
Monday, August 29, 2011
The University of Pennsylvania's Jennifer Mueller has published an interesting new study regarding team effectiveness. She examines why individuals in larger teams tend to perform worse than individuals in smaller teams. For many years, scholars have argued that motivation and coordination problems tend to worsen performance in larger teams. Mueller does not dispute that these effects exist. However, she demonstrates another factor that may play an important role. Mueller's work shows that intra-group relationships may not be as strong in larger groups, and that may decrease individual performance. She writes:
"Specifically, there may be process losses due to relational losses- individuals in larger teams perceive that support is less available in the team. Hence, the current paper expands the theory of group size and performance by identifying that individuals in larger teams also experience relational loss, and this additional source of process loss contributes uniquely to poor individual performance."
What's the implication for team leaders? Based on this research, leaders ought to spend more time with larger groups focused on making sure that helping and supporting relationships exist among team members. They need to identify key team members who may play a role in facilitating support for their fellow team members. Moreover, they need to encourage team members to reach out if they need support from peers.
"Specifically, there may be process losses due to relational losses- individuals in larger teams perceive that support is less available in the team. Hence, the current paper expands the theory of group size and performance by identifying that individuals in larger teams also experience relational loss, and this additional source of process loss contributes uniquely to poor individual performance."
What's the implication for team leaders? Based on this research, leaders ought to spend more time with larger groups focused on making sure that helping and supporting relationships exist among team members. They need to identify key team members who may play a role in facilitating support for their fellow team members. Moreover, they need to encourage team members to reach out if they need support from peers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
