THREE TEAM TRAPS

Abstract: Many organizations use teams as vehicles for organizing work, accomplishing tasks, and completing projects. However, few of these organizations are reaping the full benefit of the time and resources invested in their teams because of three common traps that affect the performance of teams. These three traps are:

? Failure to establish and communicate a clear purpose for teams;

? Lack of leadership in setting direction and providing guidance for team activities; and

? Insufficient provision of structure, boundaries, and guidelines to teams.

This article discusses each of these traps, including the negative outcomes of each and how each impacts team success (using three cases from real organizations and what they did to refocus and redirect team efforts). It also contains ways in which organizations can eliminate these barriers to team success, including methods for avoiding the traps and advice on how to redirect team efforts that have already gone astray.

Trap #1: “Who’s on First?” or the failure to establish and communicate a clear purpose for teams.

Trap #2: “Who’s in Charge Here, Anyway?” or the lack of leadership in setting direction and providing guidance for team activities.

Trap #3: “The Myth of Self-Direction” or the insufficient provision of structure, boundaries, and guidelines to teams.

Most organizations institute the use of teams to improve business. There are numerous stories about organizational turnarounds and improvements that have been accomplished through employee involvement and teams. Managers and decision makers read these success stories and become excited about the possibilities for improvements in their own organizations. They often jump on the team bandwagon without clearly understanding or communicating the reasons for using teams. The result may be compared to the “Who’s on First” story made famous by Abbott and Costello, in which both Mr. Abbott and Mr. Costello are using the same word, but with very different meanings. The skit shows comedic genius. However, when that same kind of miscommunication and frustration occurs in the workplace, there is nothing funny about it. The “who” in this case is teams versus teamwork.

Confusion Between Teams and Teamwork

When organizations make broad announcements introducing the “team concept” and herald it as the organization’s new approach to work, employees may have different ideas about what it really means. Both managers and employees often confuse the concept of teams with teamwork. This is not surprising, as executives and managers often make broad statements about everyone pulling together as a team to make the organization successful. A distinction needs to be made between teamwork and team work.
“Teamwork,” as it applies to the entire organization, implies values and behavioral norms that encourage respectful, cooperative behaviors. These values are critical to any organization, no matter how it is organized. An organization can promote and reward teamwork without any intention of organizing into teams. Teamwork is a very positive, commendable practice for the workplace. As a matter of fact, teams cannot operate without the principles of teamwork in place. However, simply promoting a sense of esprit de corps is not going to give an organization the kind of payoff that can be derived from a true team-based workforce, and teamwork alone is not enough to make the investment in teams pay off.
A true team is a small group of people with complementary skills who, by working together and pooling their skills, can operate more efficiently or effectively. The true team has a shared, performance-driven purpose, and members hold one another and themselves mutually accountable for meeting that purpose. Team members rely on one another for elements of their work and the realization of their objective. Teams that are performance driven, with mutual accountability, can be a smart investment. Effective teams can and will help organizations to meet the challenges of today’s competitive, constantly changing environment.

Case of the Customer-Service Teams

The sales department for a major manufacturing company in the U.S. had a customer-service department that handled customer orders, shipments, and delivery. There were four regional offices; within each office the customer-service representatives carried out a number of different functions. Each employee was responsible for completing his or her tasks alone, and customers were often shuffled from one employee to another when there was a problem or issue.
After reading an article on the power of teamwork, the division manager decreed that these employees had to work as a team in order to provide better customer service. Regional managers organized employees into several teams within each office, and each team was assigned specific accounts. Employees cross-trained in all activities involved in fulfilling and following up on customer orders.
Once the cross-training was complete, the initial reports were positive. Customer satisfaction increased as customers were able to resolve a problem or receive an answer from any team member who answered the phone. However, there were few improvements in processes; issues that had always plagued the organization continued to cause problems. The managers were surprised and disappointed by the results. They felt that the investment in cross-training had not yielded the significant improvements they had expected.
The managers decided that it was time to invest in outside intervention to see what was missing. Interviews with employees revealed that most were satisfied with the results. When asked about significant achievements, most pointed to the successful cross-training, along with improved working relationships. In other words, the employees had no idea that more was expected of them. They believed that they were successful teams: they helped one another with tasks, they listened to one another, and they were all carrying their share of the load. They were practicing the values of teamwork, and it had a positive impact. However, these improvements could easily have been accomplished without the expense of cross-training and reorganizing the work. For this company to see the full benefit of the investment, the teams needed to find ways to improve processes, implement continuous-improvement practices, and solve some of the long-term issues that kept them from delivering exceptional customer service.
As soon as the managers recognized the problem, they became determined to fix it. Teams were given clear assignments and goals. Measures were set in place, and teams began having weekly meetings to focus on solving some of the long-term issues and problems. Within six months, managers began to see measurable, concrete performance results. There were substantial reductions in billing and shipping errors, along with improvements in the computerized reporting systems. The company began to see a bottom-line impact from the teams, in addition to the improvements in customer confidence and trust.

Who’s in Charge Here, Anyway?

In a traditional organization, the manager’s role is to establish and communicate clear, meaningful goals and to ensure that employees have the means and resources to meet those goals. In a team-based organization, the manager’s role is to establish clear, meaningful goals and to ensure that the teams have the means and resources to meet those goals. In other words, the need for strong leadership committed to tangible results is just as important in a team-based organization as it is in any type of organization. When teams do not know where to look for guidance and leadership, they can, at best, give lackluster performance. At worst, they can be disruptive and wasteful. In any organization, no matter what structure is in place, employees look to the leaders for direction and governance.
Unfortunately, in many cases, managers have taken the stance that teams should be left alone. Many managers and supervisors are confused about their roles with teams. Supervisors have actually said in interviews, “I can’t intervene; the team is working on it.” This “hands-off” approach may set up the teams to fail. Teams may work on the wrong issues, set priorities in direct opposition to organizational priorities, or simply waste time with little or no meaningful contribution.
Where teams have been successful, managers have been willing to play critical leadership roles. This does not mean that the manager becomes a member of the team or becomes the team leader; rather, he or she sponsors the team by committing to the team’s success, providing direction, removing roadblocks, and becoming the team’s champion. Webster’s Dictionary defines “sponsor” as: “one who assumes responsibility for some other person or thing, a person or organization that pays for or plans and carries out a project or activity.” Synonyms include advocate, backer, champion, patron, and supporter.
Essentially, the sponsor is the person who is willing to assume accountability for devoting resources to a particular team or team activity. This sponsor is committed to the success of this team because his or her name is associated with it. It is the sponsor’s job to communicate clear expectations to the team members, garner the resources the team needs to be successful, and provide guidance if the team is not accomplishing its goal. When sponsors understand this role and take it seriously, team activities are selected carefully and thoughtfully. There may actually be fewer teams but they are working on high-priority problems or issues. Most importantly, they are more likely to achieve results.

Case of the Leaderless Textile Teams

A textile-manufacturing business formed teams throughout the plant. The company used a design team to examine every process in the plant and form teams around the process. Every person in the plant had to be on a team. The company did a good job of defining measures for each process team and supplied the teams with the training and know-how to track their own measures. The teams got off to a good start; team members had excellent ideas on improving their processes and meeting their performance goals.
However, some of the teams’ ideas required engineering or maintenance support. Team members tried talking to these support groups about the issues but were ignored, as these groups had their own teams and their own issues. When talking did not help, the teams tried putting the issues in their meeting minutes. But no specific managers were assigned to be the teams’ sponsors, so the teams’ minutes were not seen by people who could remedy the situation. The teams simply assumed that someone was taking the time to look at their logbooks. In the meantime, the plant manager was unaware of the teams’ struggles. He thought that all of the teams knew that they could go to any member of the management team with their issues. Eventually many of the teams’ members became frustrated and gave up. Team meetings turned into “gripe sessions” rather than problem-solving sessions, and the team members felt that the entire redesign was a waste of time.
It did not take long for the company to begin questioning the value of the investment in the teams. It had invested in a cross-functional design team over a ten-month period, reorganization of the work, and team training for the entire workforce, but was not seeing any payoff. Deciding that they needed help, the managers brought in an outside firm to conduct a team audit. Interviews, surveys, and diagnosis showed that the teams had no idea who was able or willing to make a decision, intervene, or make things happen for them. Team members were uncertain about what they were empowered to act on; therefore, they were waiting for someone else to step in and give permission or take action. Since they had no idea who that someone was, they simply continued to wait, which resulted in frustration, anger, and a sense of helplessness.
The official appointment and training of team sponsors or “champions” had an immediate impact. The teams already had unnamed sponsors: their department managers. Unfortunately, these department managers did not truly understand their roles or how to carry them out. All of the team-training efforts had been focused on the team members, with little focus on the managers and leaders of the teams. Finally, the sponsors received training on the critical aspects of team leadership, including:

? Different types of teams and how to use each effectively.

? Constructing an effective team charter.

? Evaluating team measurements and team progress.

? Coordinating the efforts of multiple teams.

? Recognizing when and how to intervene.

This training clarified the managers’ roles and gave them hands-on skills for supporting the teams and their activities. Each of the sponsors met with the teams and explained the sponsor role to the teams so they would know what they could and should expect from their managers. Team members responded positively; they now knew who they could turn to when they needed resources, help, or guidance.
Although there were some immediate improvements in team activities, it did take some time to rebuild trust throughout the organization. Employees had developed an extremely negative perception of the entire concept of teams because of what they perceived as lack of responsiveness. Managers had also developed negative attitudes about the teams because they felt that teams had added little value to the organization while consuming a lot of time and resources. It was not until both groups began to see some results that the teams really were back on the right track.

The Myth of Self-Direction

The term “self-directed work team” has done more to contribute to the struggles that team members and managers have experienced than has any other factor. “Self-directed” connotes that teams do not need direction from outside. Both managers and team members have fallen prey to the myth that teams do not have rules. Because of this, many teams have been formed with little to no structure, allowing team members to believe that anything is fair game. When they find out that there are limits on what they can and cannot do, frustrations and disappointments arise—making it very difficult to move back on track.
When a manager or decision maker in an organization forms a team, he or she must provide that team with structure, guidelines, and a disciplined process. The initial structure is best provided through a written document called a charter. This document clarifies expectations and communicates the purpose of the team. It specifies the team’s membership and lays out the boundaries the team must operate within and the resources available. Without a charter, there is a great opportunity for misinterpretation. Team members often misunderstand their purpose or their limitations when there is no charter.

Case of Missing Direction

A company was starting up a new plant and saw it as the perfect opportunity to begin the “right way,” as a team-based operation. Potential employees went through an intensive screening process that measured team skills as well as the required technical skills. The plant manager believed that because these employees came into the workplace with good team skills and the expectation of taking responsibility for themselves and their own work, there was little need for structure. There were no charters for the teams and no clear expectations of what they were to accomplish. The plant manager became the team sponsor for all the teams, because the plant was small and the selected employees were prepared to work in teams.
Team members participated in extensive technical training and received some training in effective meeting processes. The only expectation that was communicated to them was that they work in teams and meet one hour per week. Their initial meetings were well structured; they used agendas and meeting roles quite effectively. However, less than a year into the process, the plant manager was ready to give up on the concept of teams. The plant was off to a slow start. Production was not where it should have been by that point. Very few of the start-up problems had been solved. Morale on the plant floor was low, and some of the employees who had seemed to be promising performers had resigned.
The plant manager knew that something had to be done. She began looking at meeting minutes and found that one team had spent three meetings talking about people spitting in the water fountain (a bothersome problem, but not a good investment of time). The continuing waste of team time had happened because the team members were left to founder on the wrong issues during team meetings.
Once the manager realized that the teams did not have an understanding of the issues they were charged with, she saw how important it was to clarify her expectations. With consulting help, the plant manager drew up a charter for every team in the plant, clarifying the teams’ job descriptions and outlining the performance expectations and the areas of empowerment, along with the limits or boundaries. The plant manager took care to ensure that the teams had significant areas over which they had control so that they would not become caught up in trivial matters. She appointed members of her management team as team sponsors, with the realization that each team needed a champion who had enough time to truly carry out that role effectively.
These steps began to pay off fairly quickly. The teams began to concentrate on the equipment and machinery problems that were slowing the start-up process. They also requested and received additional technical training, recognizing that some of the issues were due to limited knowledge of what was a new process for a majority of the workforce. Even with the slow start, this particular plant was able to meet production demands and become profitable in half the time of similar start-ups for the overall company.

Conclusion

Teams are a major investment of both time and resources. Organizations and their managers approach most investments with a plan and steps for carrying out that plan. However, that mind-set does not always carry over when it comes to establishing teams. Numerous experiences have proven that there are three basic truths about teams that will help avoid the traps illustrated by the case studies:

? The organizations must establish and communicate a clear purpose for each team;

? Leaders must play strong roles in setting direction, guiding team projects, and ensuring team successes;

? Teams must be given clear structures, boundaries, and guidelines within which to work.

Like any other major undertaking in the management of an organization, teams require an investment on the part of management and leadership. A successful transition to teams requires a plan of action, a strategy for carrying out the plan, and a great deal of coaching, directing, and guidance. The sponsor’s role is critical in the success of teams. The sponsor ensures that team members are working on the right things, have the necessary resources to complete their tasks, and have meaningful measures in place to gauge their success. If that seems like a tough role to fill, simply compare it to the manager in a traditional organization. Often, the traditional manager has to determine what to do, how to do it, and who should do it. The team sponsor simply has to direct the what and who; the team generates the “how to,” within its charter.
The charter is the tool that helps the sponsor carry out his or her role. The charter is a formal mechanism for providing direction and guidance. It is also an excellent vehicle for clarifying the difference between teams and teamwork. It may seem like overkill to clearly communicate the purpose of teams to the entire organization; to train and appoint sponsors for every team; to lay out exactly what is expected from the team and what its boundaries are. However, taking the time to communicate the purpose of and carefully plan teams can eliminate miscommunication, misunderstanding, and time wasted in working on the wrong issues.

THREE TEAM TRAPS