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.

Are we receiving you?

Words: 300
Reading Time: 1 minute 00 seconds

What message is conveyed by your advertising?

It sounds almost a banal question. Obviously we just read the text, look at the images and voilà we all understand exactly what you mean and we all relate to what you are saying.

If only it were that simple.

There is a large Wells and Young’s warehouse on the A421 that I pass quite often. I noticed yesterday morning that it had several large banners on the outside of the building proclaiming that it was “Pubco of the Year!”

I thought Wells and Young’s were a brewing company. If you go to their website you will find them described as the largest private brewing company in the UK with some of the UK's most loved cask beers and specialty lager brands.

Pubco.s are organizations that are really only interested in the property side of things, are widely condemned for their thoughtlessness and ruthless attitude to their exploited tenants and who have closed down more pubs in recent years in pursuit of a quick buck than anything attributed to the smoking ban.

So why would a brewer want to be associated with such an image – even in passing?

Are Wells and Young’s a respected brewer of fine beers, or just a landlord with their main focus on redevelopment?

Clearly, I’m confused. It's the usual error - thinking others know what we know and therefore what we mean. Unfortunately, the implication is that ALL their marketing spend has gone to waste where I am concerned. How many more are there like me?

Suggestions for all marketeers:
1) Decide on the message;
2) Keep it consistent across all platforms and media;
3) Walk the talk;
4) Check that the message you think you are sending is the one being heard by your audience;
5) Be ready to change what isn’t working.

Acting from a single purpose

Words: 277 Reading Time: 0 minutes 55 seconds

Recently I was surprised to see an experienced NLP Trainer remark on a lady that spent her time at a dancing class actually talking instead of listening to the music and practising.

He was struck by the fact that even though this lady had been told repeatedly that she should not talk during practice the first thing she did was talk about the not talking instruction!

And when he thought about how this lady behaved in class, he realised she seemed to be talking most of the time.

Well, of course!

The evident mistake is to assume that two people doing the same thing, at the same time, in the same place will have the same motive. That doesn’t follow at all. In fact it is highly improbable given the diversity among people.

Those running businesses often fall into the same mode of thinking.

Owners are puzzled that their waged employees do not share their dedication and whole-hearted commitment to the enterprise.

Directors are astonished that the carefully designed, highly remunerative, shiny new incentive package has not had the motivational effect they expected.

And managers are surprised that the disciplinary code ensuring that clerical staff put everything in writing has not cut the error rate one iota.

Blanket policies and uniform procedures are the bluntest of tools. To improve the probability of connecting with an individual we need to know why they are here and what interests them. Only with that information can we hope to tap into their motivationally wellsprings.

I don’t know the talkative lady at the dancing class, but there’s a good chance she was there mainly for the company, not the La Caida.

Being SMART - S is for...

Words: 1,000 Reading time: 3 minutes 20 seconds

The SMART acronym is past its sell-by date and highly ineffective, but still heavily in use by unthinking project managers, unimaginative trainers and uninspiring coaches.

Acronyms and abbreviations are supposed to add colour and texture to the written and spoken word and to life in general. Their purpose is to assist in memory retention and learning.

They lose all of that whenever they become trite, confusing or uncertain. SMART has managed all three.

Those that are still trotting out this tired old carthorse claim that the goal, task or project must meet these criteria to be effective. But just what are the criteria?

There is zero agreement on what SMART is supposed to stand for. That’s why it’s such a useless tool. Just take the ‘S’ of SMART. A very quick search on the internet yields us the following alternatives for use in formulating our objectives:

Self-controlled; self-managed; self-owned; sensible; significant; simple; specific; strategic; stretching; straightforward; succinct; synergistic; systematic

This list is by no means exhaustive, but how helpful are even these few candidates as possible progenitors of ‘S’?

Self-controlled and self-managed are very close in meaning. Neither adds very much to the process of formulating the goal. If the path to the objective is not in our control, then it’s likely to be someone else’s objective rather than ours. It’s the same with self-owned. As possible roots for our ‘S’ they are little better than tautological.

Sensible? Some of the most awesome and inspiring goals were and are anything but sensible: climbing Everest; deep-sea exploration; curing AIDS; world peace.

Significant or strategic might seem acceptable after that last list, but many goals we set ourselves are neither of these in the great scheme of things. Will every single one of our goals be really significant or strategic – even to us? They may well be worthy, useful and desirable; but hugely significant and / or strategically imperative? I think not.

To be effective our goal must be simple or straightforward. Really? So a goal that is not simple or straightforward is not effective? Well, that’s it for mankind, isn’t it?

Actually, no. Many of the goals we set ourselves are complex, yet we follow them and achieve them despite the doomsayers of SMART. The Large Hadron Collider was built under the Swiss countryside. I have no idea what it does, how it does it or why anyone who does know might want to, but that highly complex objective was achieved.

Specific is a favourite candidate for the ‘S’. The case is that the goal needs to be concrete, detailed, precise, explicit, focused and action-oriented with a well-defined result.

Lovely, but I can think of many huge goals, all achieved, that had none of those characteristics. Churchill’s stated objective in 1940 was to win the war. It was as vague as that. He had no idea exactly how that could be done, when it would be achieved, or what form the victory might take. The rest is history.

When John Kennedy committed the USA to putting a man on the moon and bringing him safely back again there were neither vehicles to do it, nor the guidance systems to get them there. Less than 10 years later I watched it all on TV and cheered with relief.

So much for being specific.

Stretching goals are those that promote some form of discernable personal growth. Yet there are serious, important goals that do not necessarily deliver on that front at all.

Getting our frail and ageing parent into a good social care environment might occupy all our efforts for a considerable period, although it is unlikely that we will feel we are better people at the end of it. Often, we will feel worse because of lingering guilt. Nevertheless it is clearly identifiable as a goal.

Succinct: if we are going to tick all those boxes – being concrete, detailed, precise, explicit, focused and action-oriented with a well-defined result – is succinct even possible?

If it is, then is it necessary? Sometimes a longer, fuller description paints a more colourful, seductive picture making it easier for us to visualize the outcome, to commit ourselves to its pursuit and helps us keep the whole project vibrant and alive.

If all our goals had to be synergistic (2+2=5) then there would far fewer goals. Of course, single-point goals will usually have spin-offs, but those are by-products or unintended consequences. Imposing genuine intended synergy as the prerequisite of good goal-setting sounds like severely over-egging all puddings. Nice if we can do it, but hardly necessary.

Finally, finally, systematic: I suspect this one came with one foot in the project manager’s camp. Again, it’s not an absolute, indispensable requirement for our common or garden goals. Someone like Benjamin Franklin was highly systematic and got great results. But goals are often reached despite the system used to search for them, rather than because of it.

The biggest problem with penicillin was producing enough of it. Florey and another researcher travelled from Britain to the U.S. to talk to chemical manufacturers. Corn (maize) was tried as the nutrient base and it yielded almost 500 times as much as it had before. That helped, but more vigorous and productive strains of the mould were also needed, and one of the best came from a rotting cantaloupe in the market at Peoria, Illinois.

Systematic (the maize) helped, but serendipity (the cantaloupe) was also necessary.

Serendipity helps more often than SMART protagonists care to admit. The amazing story of post-it notes are another case in point.

There are other, possibly undiscovered, ‘S’s:

How about saleable – so that we can get others on board?

How about seaworthy – so we know that the goal will float?

How about sanguineous – so that we’re always full-bloodied about our objectives?

With so many stars to steer our ship by, how on earth is the ‘S’ from SMART going to help us?

SMART and its ‘S’ are touted as necessary and sufficient for all goals. Clearly, they are not.