Why Teams Don’t Work
““I have no question that when you have a team, the possibility exists that it will generate magic, producing something extraordinary, a collective creation of previously unimagined quality or beauty. But don’t count on it.” ”
Think for a moment about one of the best teams you’ve ever seen; one that performed amazingly, that improved markedly over time, and whose members came away from the group experience wiser and more skilled than they were before.
Now, think about a different group, one that failed to achieve its purpose, that deteriorated in performance over time, and whose members found the group experience more frustrating than satisfying.
What do you think is most responsible for the difference between these two teams?
If you’re like most people, you probably think it had something to do with the difference in leadership. A “great leader” is almost always associated with our image of a great team. And poor leadership is the most common justification for a team that has gone bad. Isn’t it almost always the coach who is celebrated when his or her team turns in winning performances game after game, season after season?
By the same token, the standard solution for a sports team that experiences a string of losses is to fire the coach.
There is a strong and pervasive tendency to assign the leader credit or blame for successes or failures of team outcomes. Not just by outside observers or bosses either.
Team members themselves—the people who actually generate the collective outcome—are also biased to this way of thinking.
It might surprise you to know that research contradicts this popular leadership bias.
Thinking Differently About Team Leadership
This focus on the team leader to explain team performance is consistent with the widely-shared view that performance outcomes are directly shaped by group dynamics which, in turn, are strongly influenced by the behavior and style of the team leader.
This is conventional “input-process-output” thinking, in which causality flows linearly from left to right, step by step. Yet, surprisingly, research on task-performing teams has failed to support this thinking.
Instead, there is evidence that, at least in some circumstances, causality flows in the opposite direction. In this unconventional alternative, how well a team is performing is viewed as one of the major influences on group dynamics. Teams that are failing, report more than their share of conflicts and other process problems; whereas those that are performing well view the going as significantly smoother.
Furthermore, the style of team leaders turns out to be shaped significantly by the behaviors of those who are led. If members are behaving cooperatively and competently, leaders tend to operate more collaboratively and democratically, but if members are uncooperative or seemingly incompetent, leaders will lean toward a more unilateral, directive style.
At the very least, causality runs in both directions, from leader to group, as in conventional thinking, and from group to leader, as in the unconventional alternative. And both have a significant influence on team performance.
With this new understanding, we need to consider that the solution to maximizing team performance is more likely rooted in fundamental and contextual conditions within the group than the causal relationship between the team and its leader.
What are the five questions you need to answer about your team?
In his book, Leading Teams, J. Richard Hackman identifies five conditions that, when present, increase the probability of team effectiveness. They can be summarized as a series of five questions. The answers to these questions provide a quick assessment of the degree to which the conditions are present for a given team.
Is the group a “real team,” with clear boundaries, interdependence among members, and at least moderate stability of membership over time? People must know who is on the team and who is not. It’s the leader’s job to make that clear.
Does the team have a compelling direction, a purpose that is clear, challenging, and consequential; and one that focuses on the ends to be achieved rather than the means the team must use in pursuing them? Members need to know, and agree on, what they’re supposed to be doing together. Unless a leader articulates a clear direction, there is a risk that different members will pursue different agendas.
Does the team’s structure—its task, composition, and core norms of conduct—enable rather than impede teamwork? Teams that have poorly designed tasks, the wrong number or mix of members, or fuzzy and unenforced norms of conduct inevitably get into trouble.
Does the team’s social system provide the resources and support that members need to carry out their collective work? The organizational context—including the reward system, the human resource system, and the information system—must facilitate teamwork.
Finally, is competent coaching available to help members get over rough spots and take advantage of emerging opportunities? Most executive coaches focus on individual performance, which does not significantly improve teamwork. Teams need coaching as a group in team processes, especially at the beginning, midpoint, and end of a team project.
What Makes a Team Effective, and How Can a Team’s Leader Make It Perform Better?
A great team will consistently achieve its purpose or objectives, become stronger as a unit as time passes, and foster the learning and growth of its individual members.
However, even the best leader can’t make a team do well.
All anyone can do is increase the likelihood that a team will be great by putting into place the five conditions mentioned above to encourage greatness to flourish.