The truth about teams

Words: 447
Reading Time: 1 min. 29 sec.s

There is a lot of confused thinking about getting the best from teams. A good case in point is Duncan Brodie (http://goalsandachievements.com) who says:

“To get the best from a team you clearly have to bring out the best in each individual and get them all playing to their strengths.”

Only to say, just a few lines further on:

“The truth is that team success is largely down to a group of people who are committed to a common purpose and are willing to work collectively and support each other to get the result they desire.”

Setting aside whether you agree with either of these points, both cannot be true at the same time.

Bringing out the best in each individual is just a likely to give you a group of individuals, each pulling in a different direction, rather than a team.

Having a group of people committed to a common purpose and willing to work collectively to get the result they desire will give you a team, but will not necessarily bring out the best in each individual; that may need to be sacrificed to the common good.

Superior teams are most likely when the members share a common aspiration for the team rather than themselves and the team makes use of each individual’s strengths. That does not mean having the best individuals, since they may not place the team above themselves. It does involve each team member identifying moment to moment how the team as a whole can best deliver.

Sport is often chosen as an analogy for business, but business is rarely like that. Business is not about delivering at your peak for 48 minutes, 90 minutes, 20 overs or 5 days. It is about effective, appropriate effort delivered under all circumstances for months and years.

Business suggestions:
1) Be clear about the outcomes;
2) Be clear about how you will know if and when you have them;
3) Get buy-in from all members of the team;
4) No stigma should attach to not buying-in and being properly excluded;
5) No-one fails in a team, everyone takes responsibility;
6) Teams do not work automatically, they need work themselves;
7) Changing team members changes the whole team, earlier phases will need revisiting;
8) Ball-carriers and supporters change over time; make sure everyone knows who is who;
9) You need both ball-carriers and supports to succeed;
10) You cannot lead a team; either you are part of it, or you are not. Who leads at any one time will change with where the team has got to;
11) When the job is done celebrate the success and disband the team;
12) Different jobs need different teams.

Ability before age

Words: 418
Reading Time: 1 min. 24 sec.s

The whole idea of retirement is a recent by-product of the factory-led economy.

In societies before the industrial age there was no set age at which folk ceased to seen as productive. Only illness and infirmity might mean someone was supported by the community. Even then, their experience and wisdom was valued, so most individuals continued to contribute to the community in some way.

With the dawn of the factory age came the debilitating demand that everyone work at the same relentless pace. It was man as part of the machine. Anybody not able to match that pace was inevitably seen in the same way as a component that could no longer meet the burden place on it. At that point the component person was scrapped.

The idea of retirement has been largely sold and accepted as the just reward for years of toil at a thankless task. Of course, it is no such thing. To industry retirement is simply preventive maintenance – get rid of the component as it approaches its MTBF (Mean Time Before Failure).

The fact that ageism persists in the workplace, even when the task is not physically demanding and would benefit from long experience, just shows how deeply engrained this paradigm has become. Few even think about it anymore; it's received wisdom.

65 years old? Finished - get an apprentice in for a fraction of the cost.

Fortunately, for those of us running our own businesses, there is no fixed point at which we absolutely must stop enjoying ourselves and go sit in an armchair. This is one of the many points where small business will always triumph over big business. We can favour ourselves and our customers, rather than favouring the insentient corporation.

If business in general could learn to recognize ability instead of age, ability instead of favouritism, ability instead of appearance, ability combined with attitude, it would gain immeasurably. And that applies at both ends of a working life; but I’m not holding my breath.

For those who are listening, there are a number of things you could do.

Business suggestions:
1) Scrap any fixed age for retirement;
2) Reward contribution rather than length of service;
3) Recognize the value experience has;
4) Make sure experience does not hinder innovation;
5) Reconnect with the talent you’ve scrapped;
6) Check that people enjoy, rather than endure, what you ask them to do;
7) A business is only as good as the people who are part of it;8) There is no functioning business without people.

Imitate the animals

Words: 172
Reading Time: 0 minute 35 seconds

Combining boundless joy, unconfined enthusiasm and sheer joie de vivre seems to be a full time occupation for my two Labradors as I watch them race away on their morning run. If some of my clients could only harness a fraction of that energy and go-for-it mentality in their businesses they would be a lot further ahead than they are now.

That’s true not only of my select clients, but of business in general.

And such cheerful exuberance about life in general and business in particular is infectious.

What if you greeted each day in this way?

What if you greeted each client this way?

And if you think your particular business, or your particular situation, is too serious to be viewed in this way – what are you saying? That your heart is not in it? That it no longer fires you up each morning? That prospects no longer engage you and clients are no longer like respected friends?

Then what are you doing here?

Live a lot – live like a Labrador.

It Takes Two to Tango

Employee engagement, in various guises, is among the new buzzwords of recent years. To be more accurate, it’s a repackaging of old ideas by the consulting industry. Under a shiny “NEW” label the consultants have found yet another way of exploiting corporate insecurity and thereby picking its pockets.

There appears to be only circular definitions of what constitutes an engaged employee. The CIPD defines employee engagement as “a combination of commitment to the organisation and its values plus a willingness to help out colleagues (organisational citizenship). It goes beyond job satisfaction and is not simply motivation. Engagement is something the employee has to offer: it cannot be ‘required’ as part of the employment contract.”

In short, an engaged employee is any employee who is engaged. It’s a matter of attitude.

Today’s employers are encouraged to recruit for attitude; train for skill when searching for new employees. That approach saves the job of instilling an attitude seen as ‘right’ by the employer in question, but it only goes so far. Whatever attitude is exhibited during the recruitment process it will only be retain if the employee’s circumstances are conducive.

To a large extent that depends on the employer, but it can equally be affected either by changes in the employee’s private life, or by shifts in their personal beliefs and values. Over the employee’s private life and over beliefs and values the employer has little or no control. And rightly so. An employment contract is an exchange of time and skills for money and associated benefits. It is not entry into a closed religious order.

Most of the literature on this subject talks about measuring employee attitudes and conducting regular employee attitude surveys. Any organisation that needs to do that has to raise an immediate red flag in its own mind. If concern for the attitude and mindset of employees is not part of the daily interaction in the company, if senior management has actually lost touch with how employees think and feel, then there is an immediate problem.

Organisations that have a high proportion of employees who are unengaged or disengaged are offered various approaches to reverse that situation. These include:
• giving the opportunity to feed views and opinions upwards
• keeping employees informed about what is going on
• seeing that managers are committed
• having fair and just management processes for dealing with problems.

Perhaps more telling – and rarely mentioned – is the sobering process of the organisation examining its own value as expressed in its formal and informal manner of doing things. What message is the organisation really giving to its employees (and its customers)? Can people be reasonably expected to sign up enthusiastically to such a message?

This search for paragons of virtue among employees has an interesting parallel in the education sector. In England, when a pupil truants from school, we ask what is wrong with the child. In France, they ask what is wrong with the school. If you are an employer looking for greater engagement then be prepared. If it is absent then the cause may lay uncomfortably close to home.