Forming and Leading Powerful Teams12

Ivan M. Rosenberg Frontier Associates, Inc.

4804 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Suite 804 Valley Village, CA 91607

818-505-9915 irosenberg@frontier-assoc.com

1 0-7803-7231-X/01/$10.00// 2002 IEEE 2 IEEEAC paper #280, Updated December 9, 2001

Abstract Definitions and guidelines for forming and leading teams and for structuring larger projects that require creativity and breakthroughs are suggested, based on the seminal work of Katzenbach and Smith, and on the authors consulting experience with aerospace and other types of organizations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE VALUE OF TEAMS 3. TYPICAL QUESTIONS 4. A DEFINITION OF TEAM 5. THE TYPES OF GROUPS 6. THE OVERHEAD OF TEAMS 7. WHEN TO USE TEAMS 8. GUIDELINES FOR CREATING TEAMS 9. PARTNERING VS. SUBCONTRACTING 10. ORGANIZING LARGE TEAMS 11. USING THESE CONCEPTS 12. SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION The aerospace industry, like most industries, is facing extraordinary pressures to improve efficiency, speed, and quality. While some progress may be made using incremental improvement methodologies, such as additional reviews, after a certain point these approaches have a rapidly decreasing marginal value. We suggest that a possible source of the needed breakthroughs is in better use of people resources, such as a more effective use of teams. Teams are of particular interest because they often produce results far beyond those predicted, especially when there are significant resource limitations or hostile environmental conditions. However, a detriment to effective use of teams has been a lack of understanding as to what distinguishes a true team from a group of people with a common interest. Using the consulting experience of the author with numerous projects in and out of aerospace, the purpose of this paper is to build on the seminal work of Kazenbach and Smith [1] to provide a practical guide for management and group leaders in the formation and leading of teams.

2. THE VALUE OF TEAMS As the demands for exceptional organizational performance have increased, there has been a growing interest in teams. Some of the reasons organizations are interested in teams include: Teams typically outperform individuals or groups

acting independently. Teams are particularly good in situations in which the

result requires a breakthrough and creativity, in which the method for producing the result is not clear, and/or in which it is not clear how to divide the work into independent units.

Team members report a greater sense of satisfaction, often with an experience of making a significant difference. This is of major importance, since the authors experience is that a fundamental driver for human behavior is the desire to make a difference with my life.

Team members report having more fun. There is a feeling of mutual support, that each person

is not alone. As a result, teams and team members are reluctant to give up because they do not want to let the team down.

Because of the feeling of mutual support, teams are generally willing to take bigger risks and therefore make bigger commitments. Making bigger commitments increases the chances of producing needed breakthroughs.

There is often direct communication between team members, rather that having to communicate indirectly through a manager.

Teams are typically able to respond faster and more flexibly to changing circumstances. Teams are able to adjust their approach to new information and challenges with greater speed, accuracy, and effectiveness than can individuals caught in the web of larger organizational connections.

Needed behavioral changes tend to occur more rapidly and readily. There is increased feeling of individual safety when most or all group members change behavior simultaneously, even when those changes challenge norms of the environment.

Teams have resilience, are more able and willing to resolve problems and obstacles and are not so vulnerable to one persons ability or presence, so that they can more easily respond to changes in personnel.

Teams are natural learning organizations. They tend to get what they need as they need it, and do not necessarily have to figure it all out at the beginning. Teams are particularly good when the entire plan of how to produce the result cannot be laid out in advance.

Independent groups and individuals tend to optimize locally; a team can optimize globally.

Teams are beneficial when local coordinated action is needed and global communication may be unreliable. A local group will operate in concert with the overall team goals without anyone telling them. An example is a customer service group where a single policy manual is often not sufficient to cover all situations.

During the design and build stages of a project the group intended result is typically divided into independent subsystems. These subsystems are then integrated at one time near the end of the project (in a phase often called Integration and Test) when connection and interface problems are discovered for the first time. With a team, integration of the subparts of the team result tends to occur naturally over the entire project duration, lessening last minute assembly and interface problems.

3. TYPICAL QUESTIONS Typical questions concerning forming and leading teams include: Many teams perform at an extraordinary level. Yet

the result produced by other teams is worse than if the work was just parceled out to independent individuals. What is the reason for this inconsistency in team results?

Forming and maintaining a team requires significant overhead costs. When is a team called for? When is a different group structure more appropriate?

How can team members and leaders evaluate what is missing for a group to be a team? How can they provide what is missing?

What are the best ways to form a team with a large number of people, where the difficulties of communication often seem to get in the way?

What are the best ways to form a team when it is composed of people from different organizations or organizational units?

4. A DEFINITION OF TEAM

The term team is often freely used to apply to any group of people with a common purpose. However, there is great danger in applying the label team to a group that has no commitment to be a real

team, a situation we will call a pseudo-team. In most peoples minds, a team has some important characteristics, including shared decision making, all for one attitudes, open communication, etc. Because of these expectations concerning how a team should operate, a pseudo-team often goes through the motions of being a team, e.g., frequent group meetings and the appearance of group decision-making, thus incurring the high operational overhead associated with teams. However, because pseudo-teams are not really operating as a team, they do not realize the increased payoffs, e.g., breakthroughs, of real team operation. Thus the results produced by pseudo-teams are usually significantly worse than had the label team never been applied. The failed expectations of pseudo-team members also causes undesirable consequences, such as interpersonal conflict and decreased morale. We have found the following definition to have operational usefulness in creating and maintaining teams:

A team is a well-defined group of people with a common commitment and common promises for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.

Thus, there are four important requirements to be a real team:

Well-Defined Group A well-defined group has characteristics, policies and procedures that are clear, agreed on, and support operation as a team. For example: The number of members in the group is appropriate

for a team. The minimum team size is 2 people (the minimum needed for a group and the diversity of viewpoints that constitutes a primary value of a team). Because of the logistic and communication overhead of mutual accountability, team decision-making, etc, the maximum size of a real team appears to be 10-20 members. In those cases where the project requires a larger number of people and the benefits of team group structures, a Team of Teams organizational structure can be used (see Section 10).

Team members perceive themselves as a well-defined group. For example, team members need to know who they can count on and who has not made the team agreements. Thus clarity regarding who is on and not on the team is required.

Clarity is required concerning the set of skills possessed by team members, and how that set relates to the needs of the team in accomplishing its task.

Teams need clarity and agreement concerning how the team works together, e.g., meetings, decision-making, problem-solving, conflict resolution,

allocation of accountabilities, planning, socialization, coaching, etc.

A Common Commitment

The common commitment is the why of the groups existence, the ultimate value that drives group behavior. A commitment is a broad statement of the groups purposes, e.g., To produce a breakthrough in the cost and production time of widget A, To discover life elsewhere. It is the broader context for why the team is producing its work-product. A commitment is different than a goal or a promise. For example, I have a goal (or expectation) that my children will go to college. I also have a promise to them (in service to that goal) that the money for their tuition will be available when needed. However, both that goal and that promise are in service of and subordinate to the commitment that My children have a great life. Characteristics of powerful team commitments include: Each and every member of the team freely subscribes

to and owns the commitment (the meaning of common).

The common commitment is explicit, clear, and well understood by all team members.

The team believes that the commitment has value, that is, it is important to the success of the larger organization.

Common commitments are of great value when things dont go as planned, or there is a major disagreement. The common commitment gives the team members a shared viewpoint from which they can resolve the issue. Groups with only a common promise have too small a context for powerful problem-solving.

Common Promises (Work-Product)

Team promises are statements that the team will produce specific measurable results by a specified time. Common promises define the specific work-product of the team, including specifications such as performance requirements, delivery time, cost, etc. For example, a common promise might be To acquire and return an uncontaminated sample from a comet by 2007 at a cost of $X million. Characteristics of powerful team promises include: Each and every member of the team freely subscribes

to and individually owns all the team promises (the meaning of common). Owning the team promises does not mean there is agreement on how those promises will be produced, which may require team decision-making.

The work product of a team must be more than the sum of individual efforts. It must be a team product,

where the team either succeeds or fails, and individual success is not sufficient.

The common promises (work-product) need to be explicit, clear, and well understood by all team members.

Teams and performance are inextricably connected. You cant have a team without specific promised results. Thus, there is no such thing as an advisory team. Likewise, team-building may have limited value until common promises have been established.

A team can have multiple promises, some of which might relate to benefits experienced by team members, e.g., The average work week shall not exceed 40 hours. and All team members shall report being on the team was a fun and satisfying experience.

Mutual Accountability

Mutual accountability refers to the degree to which the team members hold themselves personally accountable, as a member of the team, for the teams promises. The interpersonal knowledge required for mutual accountability is a primary reason for limiting team size to 10-20 people. Characteristics which support mutual accountability in a group include: All team members hold themselves equally

accountable for the team fulfilling its promises. Either the team wins or nobody wins.

Collectively team members keep each other honest in assessing their actual results relative to individual and team promises.

Mutual accountability requires trust. Unfortunately, trust is a word with many and varied understandings as to its meaning. We have found it useful to use the definition trust is ones confidence in being able to predict the behavior of another in a particular area. For a team, the required trust is a confidence that others behavior is derived from a desire to fulfill the team commitment and promises, and not coming from personal hidden agendas. This results in team members being open to the viewpoints of others, being willing to be coached by other team members, and having a general respect for other team members.

Mutual accountability is supported with transparency the ability to easily see how other team members and the team as a whole are performing so a member can tell when intervention is needed. The efficiency of the communication required for transparency can be greatly enhanced by information systems and displays. It is remarkable to us how few projects have visible and effective displays of project and team member status.

We suggest that missing any of these four aspects would cause a group to not be a team.

As will be seen below, for a high performance team a fifth characteristic is: Personal Mutual Commitment

On a real team, coaching and intervention beyond aspects that relate to team output could be considered inappropriate. In a high performance team, members interest in each other goes beyond the immediate project, and includes a commitment to the personal well-being and growth of other team members.

5. THE TYPES OF GROUPS Katzenbach and Smith, in their pioneering work The Wisdom of Teams, identified five types of groups. Using the four criteria (a well-defined group, a common commitment, common promises, and mutual accountability) of our similar team definition above, these five types are: Pseudo-Teams

A pseudo-team is a group calling itself a team but with no intention of being or operating as one. This group is the weakest of all groups in terms of

performance impact. They incur significant overhead by going through the motions of being a team, e.g., joint meetings. However, because they are not actually operating as a team, they lack the payoff of extraordinary results. Because there is pretense, there is a lack of integrity which has an additional negative impact 3.

Sum of the whole is less than the potential of the individual parts.

There could be a team work-product, but they are not trying to achieve it.

Working Groups

A working group may have a common commitment, but there are no common promises for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Characteristics of this type of group include: Relies on the sum of individual bests for their

performance There is typically no common team work-product.

The group result is the sum of the individual products.

Members take responsibility only for their own results.

Takes fewer risks than teams Meetings are typically to share information, best

practices, and to make decisions. Typical of senior management groups

3 See The Danger of Pseudo-Teams in the section Case Studies: Stories from the Playing Field on the Frontier Associates website www.frontier-assoc.com.

Potential Teams

A potential team is a group calling itself a team, where it has not yet accomplished, but is working on, achieving all four criteria for a real team. Real Teams

A real team is a group that meets all four of the criteria for being a real team, i.e., being a well-defined group and having a common commitment and common promises (work-product), and possessing mutual accountability. High-Performance Teams

There have been groups whose performance dramatically exceeded even that of the real teams. Such a group meets all the conditions of real teams, and additionally has members who are also committed to the personal growth and success or each member. Characteristics include: An attitude of If one fails, we all fail Mutual concern for each others personal growth More sharing of leadership

6. THE OVERHEAD OF TEAMS Teams should be used with caution because of their significant overhead. Paying this high overhead without producing the extraordinary results associated with teams is likely to be a major loss situation. In a team, relative to a working group, there is a lot more communication, a lot more interaction, and a lot more whole team involvement in decisions. With working groups individuals tend to operate inside fairly stable boundary specifications of interaction with others, e.g., each individual typically operates as a black box to others within their area of accountability. A team typically goes through a number of developmental stages. Most authors identify four stages, although they may use different words and be organized slightly differently. The most commonly used is the Tuckman Model [2], consisting of stages named forming, storming, norming, and performing. These stages are briefly described as follows: Forming Stage: the group explores the boundaries of

acceptable behavior, begins to establish norms and roles, etc.

Storming Stage: the group addresses and resolves issues of power, leadership and decision-making as the conflict between individual and team needs is resolved.

Norming Stage: the group discovers what they have in common and builds group cohesiveness.

Performing Stage: the group operates as a team to produce the common work-product.

A team experiences significant additional overhead (as compared to that of a working group) during all four developmental stages. For the purposes of the following discussion, the first three stages will be combined together into the forming stage and only the performing stage will be considered separately. The forming overhead costs of a team include: Well-Defined Group Forming Costs

Establishing the rules of the group, including membership, decision-making, information-sharing, infrastructure needed, etc.

Establishing the relationship needed for trust and coaching

Common Commitment Forming Costs

Creating, having a common understanding of, and enrolling5 all team members in a common commitment. The common commitment must valued by each team member.

As new members are added to the team, enrolling them in owning the common commitment

Common Promises (Work-product) Forming Costs

Creating, having a common understanding of, and enrolling all team members in making a set of one or more common promises (work-product).

As new members are added to the team, assuring that they make and own the common promises.

Determining how the common work-product will be produced.

Mutual Accountability Forming Costs

Establishing a relationship of mutual accountability. The high degree of trust required is based on each team member knowing other members well enough to feel confident of predicting their behavior in circumstances relevant to fulfilling the team commitment and promises. Time and effort is needed to build sufficiently powerful personal relationships, and thus the total number with whom one can have such relationships is limited. This is one of the reasons why mutual accountability is one of the factors limiting the size of teams.

Knowing the individual promises of other team members and how they fit into producing the common work-product.

Ensuring all team members know how their and other team members individual promises help fulfill the

5 In our definition, enroll is the process that results in someone freely owning a commitment and/or taking an action (including making a promise) as their own free choice.

team promises. This is required for a team member to know how others are doing relative to their individual accountability.

Establishing the manner in which mutual accountability will be implemented.

The operating overhead costs of a team include: Well-Defined Group Operating Costs

Revising the rules of the group as needed. Handling enforcement of the group rules Handling interpersonal conflicts. Common Commitment Operating Costs

Maintaining ownership of the common commitment. Using the commitment as a context in which to

resolve obstacles Recommitting to the common commitment when

obstacles occur Common Promises Operating Costs

Maintaining enrollment in the common promises. Revising common promises as needed Making decisions and working out issues together. Making changes in the method of producing the

common work-product as needed. Finding ways to keep the teams promises (versus de-

scoping the promises) Mutual Accountability Operating Costs

Maintaining team relationships sufficient for mutual accountability

Maintaining visible and objective production status of the common work-product.

Knowing the status of other team members promises (transparency). This and trust are major factors limiting the size of real teams.

Knowing when and how to intervene with other team members

Providing feedback to and coaching other team members.

Receiving feedback from and being coached by other team members.

Providing information to other team members

7. WHEN TO USE TEAMS As we see from the preceding section, to form and operate teams requires considerable overhead. Teams can also produce extraordinary results and breakthroughs. However, if the results to be produced do not require breakthroughs and creativity, then it is probably not worth paying the additional overhead of teams and a working group form would be more appropriate. The results to be produced and what will be needed to

produce those results determine the most appropriate type of group to be employed. Using the appropriate group type minimizes the wasted overhead of unneeded group processes, and makes it more clear what needs to be done to establish the group. Thus, the leader should decide on the appropriate group type, working group or team, bearing in mind the following guidelines: When to Use Working Groups: Working Groups are most appropriate when one or more of the following conditions are present. The groups work-product is simply an integration or

summation of individual efforts. How to produce the result is very predictable and

well-tested. The work can be divided up into relatively

independent pieces, with only relatively minimal coordination required.

Successful production of a portion of the result still has value, even if the whole does not work.

The cost for establishing the close personal relationship and communication required for a team is much higher than the anticipated increase in benefits over a working group.

When to Use Teams:

Teams may be appropriate when one or more of the following conditions are present. The work-product characteristics indicating using a

working group are not present. There is a common work-product and the nature of

the result is such that there is only a team result, e.g., sports teams.

The group result is either acceptable or not: there is no middle ground. For example, the fire departments job is to put out the whole fire, wherever it is burning. Putting out just part of a fire, in a certain area, is not an acceptable result.

There is a considerable degree of risk. There is a high degree of interdependence among

different parts of the project. A high degree of buy-in and commitment is

needed, e.g., when there are significant oppositional forces.

The result requires one or more breakthroughs, e.g., in the technology, time, or cost. This often occurs when the result is radically different than anything that has been produced before, and/or where others say producing the result appears impossible.

A high degree of group creativity will be required. New perspectives and new paradigms are needed.

Many divergent6 problems need to be resolved. One cannot plan how the result will be achieved.

Any fixed assignment of work accountabilities could get in the way of producing the result. The project is very complex and a formal organization may not be appropriate until you learn more about the project since you then may want to radically change the design and the organization.

The project duration outlasts the period of tenure of any single participant, and thus the commitment must be maintained (by a team) despite changing team membership.

The project will take a long time and there is danger that peoples interest, commitment to, and priority of the project might decrease over time. This is often the characteristic of a project formed in response to a specific incident, such as a product failure. If fashioning a solution takes a long time, its importance tends to decrease as other events call for attention.

Vulnerability to the loss of a single person is an issue (teams tend to almost automatically cross-train to minimize such vulnerability).

A high urgency, tight time frame in which to produce the results. There is no time for excessive formality, dealing with rigid chains of command, formal reports, or resolving turf authority issues. The time urgency demands rapid informal communication and rapid decision-making made possible by wide-spread ad-hoc interactions and the mutual respect and accountability of a team. (While autocratic individual command and control decision making might be faster than that of a team, we are assuming that the work-product requires the creativity and shared thinking characteristic of a team) In urgent circumstances, given the higher overhead of teams when compared to working groups, it is even more critical that team members be knowledgeable and experienced in quickly forming and operating teams. Some organizations train people in these areas and build relationships of mutual trust in advance so that a team can be quickly formed when needed.

There are frequent changes. Teams will develop a communication network that is typically faster than formal communication paths. Teams can, in general, react faster to changing circumstances than do more formal organizations.

There is no central authority.

8. GUIDELINES FOR CREATING TEAMS In this section guidelines are proposed for creating a team.

6 Convergent problems are those for which the solution space gets smaller as greater understanding is achieved. Divergent problems are those that get more complicated as you study them. Most people problems, such as political and interpersonal problems, fall into the divergent category.

Creating a Common Commitment

Creating a common commitment is typically best done at the first group meeting. While a common promise (work-product) might already be specified, it is important for group cohesiveness and for resolving obstacles (particularly divergent issues7) to identify the broader context of why the team is producing its work-product (as described in Section 4 above). A process for a group to create a common commitment is: 1. Brainstorm possible commitments. 2. Analyze the suggestions for powerful phrases, words,

and ideas. Methods include seeing what is common among the suggestions, identifying the words and phrases that particularly speak to individuals, and identifying the why of a particular statement, e.g., Why do you want to do that?

3. Keep working until a single commitment emerges that energizes the group.

The commitment has permeated the group when every team member can say it in their own words and can express why fulfilling the commitment is important both to themselves and to the organization. Creating a Common Promise

The common promise is often established before the team is formed. However, it is a good practice to review with the team the precise meaning of the common promise to ensure that everyone understands it the same way. Everyone on the team should know, understand, and agree on the promise, including due date, requirements for fulfillment, who decides that the promise has been kept, etc. Creating a Well-Defined Group

Creating a well-defined group is typically started during the second or subsequent team meetings. It is a step too often skipped, endangering the ability to actually form a team. While all the topics that could be addressed are too many for this paper, some important topics that should be addressed include: Listing the topics the group feels need to be

addressed to establish a common approach. Role definitions: team leader role (e.g., how assigned,

fixed or rotating among members), relationship of leader to the rest of the team (e.g., facilitator or decision-maker), other team roles, accountabilities, and authority (e.g., for documentation, technical

7 Our experience is that having the work-product as the biggest context more often leads to de-scoping rather than producing breakthroughs. A team commitment gives members a common place to stand when resolving problems, resulting in less defending of positions and more creative thought. A problem-solving process using this approach has been developed by the author.

expertise in various areas, public and review presenting, writing and editing, conflict resolution, and facilitating of problem-solving and decision-making).

Meetings: What meetings need to be held, who attends, when are the meetings to be held, what are the conditions of attendance (required, optional, send surrogate, etc.), who prepares the agenda, who leads the meeting, what is recorded, made public, etc.

Decision-making: How decisions are made (process, participants), how decisions can be re-examined, who needs to participate, be consulted, and be informed relative to specific types of decisions.

Problem-solving: What processes will be used to resolve different types of problems.

Group membership: Who is currently on the team, the guidelines for how membership is gained and lost.

Social activities: An important part of teams is the interpersonal relationship, and thus specific activities should be planned to foster the needed connections.

Skills: What will be needed to produce the working product, which skills the team currently has and which need to be acquired, and how they will be acquired.

Successfully working through the issues needed to create a well-defined group gives the team a number of small wins early in its formation. This experience is highly beneficial to the team in building mutual trust and respect, a history of successful problem-solving, and a we-can-do feeling that will serve the team well when later addressing the (typically) more difficult project problems. Creating Mutual Accountability

Of all the characteristics of a team, mutual accountability may be the most difficult to achieve. It is our experience that, often, team leaders pay little or no attention to establishing this characteristic, thus diminishing the likelihood that they will actually form a real team. Mutual accountability includes the following: Trust: A big part of trust is establishing open

communication (i.e., no gossip, no relevant secrets, keeping everyone informed appropriately) and integrity (people doing what they said they would do, and responsibly handling and resolving the consequences, e.g., upsets, when they dont keep their promises).

Transparency: Being able to easily see the accountabilities of other team members, understand how those accountabilities fit into team success, seeing the current status of the other team members accountabilities, quickly being able to decide who will intervene in the case of danger, and knowing what types of intervention may be most useful.

Coaching: Understanding what coaching is and how to supply it. A willingness to be coached and to provide coaching.

Communication: Providing numerous and low cost paths for team members to communicate, both formally and informally.

An attitude that the team is bigger than the individual: This comes primarily from an ownership of the team commitment and the team work-product, and the realization that this can only be accomplished if every team member contributes.

Clarity concerning how ones own role fits into producing the team work-product.

Each team member personally owning the team commitment and the team work-product.

Creating mutual accountability is a longer term accomplishment than just a few meetings. Creating and maintaining mutual accountability needs to be included throughout the project duration. Supportive activities include training, frequent reminders by the leaders, experiential activities, and ensuring everyone is walking the talk and not just talking about being a team. Forming Meetings Where the members have little or no prior experience with each other, we suggest that the first two team meetings focus primarily on forming the team. The two day framework shown below can also be used for a workshop to turn an established working group into a team. A suggested framework for the meetings is: 1st Meeting: Establish Team Purpose

- Review four criteria for being a team. - Create Common Commitment - Create clarity on Team Work-Product - Resolve interpersonal conflicts and issues.

Although these are typically based in pre-project events, they must be resolved for this team to form.

2nd Meeting: Establish Well-Defined Group - Review a list of topics (such as that above)

needed to be resolved to be a well-defined group - Group selects top priority issues. - Starting with the top priority, group resolves

each issue. 3rd Meeting: Start Planning the Project Leadership The subject of team leadership is one that could occupy many books. Some important tips are: Importance of Initial Impression: It is important that

the team leader create the appropriate impression from the very beginning, i.e., following these guidelines at the very first meeting.

Speak Commitments: Teams typically depend on the leader to be committed to the team commitment and work-product, independent of circumstances or of anyone elses doubts. Find opportunities to reference the team commitment.

Minimize using I: It is important that the members perceive the leader be operating only out of team concerns, not a personal agenda.

Do not make anything, anyone, or anytime wrong: If you invalidate people, the team members will believe that someday they might be in the same boat.

Be brief: One can easily oversell a point. A light touch is usually best.

Importance of actions: People will put more importance on whether they perceive the leader acting consistent with team norms than anything the leader says.

Never ignore any breaking of a team rule: Any ignored violation will call into question the validity of all team rules, and whether members can count on each other, a relationship critical to operating as a team.

Spend time building relationships: Many leaders focus exclusively on the project plan and activities. Since relationships between team members is crucial to operating as a team, it is important that the leader make sure that sufficient time is spent to build the needed interpersonal relationships, e.g., the well-known Silicon Valley Friday afternoon beer blasts, celebrations, informal parties.

9. PARTNERING VS. SUBCONTRACTING

Some of the above team concepts for groups of individuals can also be applied to groups of organizations. For example, to increase efficiency, lower costs, and increase the services offered to their clients, many organizations have attempted to partner with other organizations. Often their suppliers are primary targets of this intention, although customers, others in related industries, and even competitors could also be included. However, these partnerships often fail, sometimes leaving the relationship between the organizations worse off than before the partnering was attempted. At the very least, the time and money that was spent having tried to establish the failed partnering relationship is wasted. We suggest that a major cause for such failures is a misunderstanding of what partnering really is. To illustrate we are going to use two extremes of a supplier-customer relationship, which we will call Subcontracting and Partnering. In both cases each organization has a list of things about which it is concerned, i.e., its goals in forming the relationship. Typically the customer is interested in the quality of the delivered product/service, timing, cost, and in the product meeting the specifications laid out in the contract. The vendor is typically interested in such goals as making a

profit, making a subsequent sale, expanding market share, market image, and competitive advantage. In Subcontracting, each party is primarily interested in its own welfare, its own issues, and its own goals. There is little or no interest in the other organization beyond the terms of the contract or what might impact the ability of the organization to deliver what is wanted. The intention is that the relationship be completely defined by the terms of a negotiated contract, in which each party gives and receives value. When difficulties arise, the first question people ask is What does the contract say about this? In Partnering, each party is interested in the cumulative list of individual concerns. That is, each party is as committed that the other party achieves its desired results as it is in achieving its own results. For example, the customer is as interested in the vendor making a profit as it is in having the delivered product meet the specifications. The vendor is as interested in the customer representative not looking bad to his/her peers as it is in making profit. When difficulties arise, the first question people ask is How can we resolve this so it works for both of us? There is little referring to the contract since it likely does not even mention the typical determinants of a successful relationship, e.g., minimizing unpleasant surprises, competitive advantage, expectations, the vendors image. Partnering is useful when a relationship cannot be specified clearly, such as when two organizations are inventing something together. However, it requires a new way of thinking to be successful. Merely calling a relationship partnering does not make it so.

10. ORGANIZING LARGE TEAMS Since real teams are limited in size to 10-20 people, how should one organize projects where a relatively large number of people are involved, and yet the creative aspects of a team are needed? Team of Teams

Experiences with many major projects indicate that the traditional hierarchical structure may not be optimal. For example, as the design changes, the hierarchical structure must often be changed to adapt. For example, if an interface unit is discovered to be needed, a potential conflict could arise if the new product does not fit nicely within the responsibility of any existing group. Any existing group may be reluctant to take it on without a commensurate increase in their budget. By extending the team/working group concepts to a multi-group situation, an effective structure built on a combination of Partnering (equivalent to the team concept) and Subcontracting (equivalent to a working group) relationships between groups can be developed. This structure is often called a Team of Teams,

although the groups may be a mixture of team and working groups, and the relationships between the groups may be characterized as a mixture of Partnering (teams) and Subcontracting (working groups). Our experience indicates that a Team of Teams should always have a Core Group. The Core Group is almost always a team, and is often a high performance team. It has the following characteristics: Relates to the other groups of the project as a team

leader relates to the members of a team. As an organization lasts the life of the project Its membership might change, but probably not

drastically at any one time (since that would make it harder to reconstitute the team, which would need to be done to some degree each time a new person is added or leaves).

Holds itself ultimately accountable for the success of the project, i.e., is the keeper of the team commitment (believes in it even if all others drop by the wayside or the circumstances dont look good) and the team promise (holds itself ultimately accountable for the production of the work-product, i.e., is where the buck stops).

To design a Team of Teams structure, start with the final result to be produced. Working backwards from this result, create the product breakdown structure (PBS). The PBS defines the flow of products and services that are created and delivered in the process of producing the result. For example, first define the set of products and services that are produced immediately before the final result is produced. Then define the set of products and services needed to deliver this new set, and so on, back to the products and services considered inputs to the Team of Teams. The techniques of organizational design for process based organizations may be useful. A unique group entity is then specified for each work-product (services, parts and subparts) that needs to be produced in the PBS. Even though multiple group entities may actually consist of the same people, we have found it useful for the purposes of the Team of Teams structure to identify them separately with the separate products they produce. That is, if a group produces two different products, they are considered two different group entities since they might operate as different group types and might have different relationships with other groups for the different products. For example, a group might operate as a team for one product and as a working group for another product. Depending on their individual group work-product, each group is constituted as a working group, real team, or high performance team. The PBS indicates what groups are delivering what to what groups. That there is a delivery indicates a group

to group relationship. As defined above, there are two types of relationships between groups: Subcontracting (analogous to working groups) and Partnering (analogous to teams). Because of the close personal relationships required, there is not a group-group relationship analogous to high performance teams. Where one group delivers a product to another that meets pre-specified requirements, a Subcontracting relationship is usually sufficient. A Partnering relationship is probably indicated when the work-product characteristics include lack of clear definition, numerous trade-offs among customer requirements, and other situations where there is a need for creativity, breakthroughs, and a high degree of closely working together of the groups. Consistent with mutual accountability, each and every group in a Partnership holds itself 100% accountable for the delivery of the common work-product, even though one group (as vendor) may be formally accountable for delivering the product to another group in the Partnership (the customer). See Figure 1 for an illustration of a Team of Teams structure. The entire project team is represented by the big circle. Each group within the Team of Teams is represented by a smaller circle. Relationships between groups are represented by arrows. For example, Working Group B delivers Product 1 to Team D as a subcontractor.

Team B and Team C are in a partnership relationship to deliver Product 4 to the Core Group. The base of the arrow indicates that Team B is officially the deliverer to the Core Team of Product 4. Team D and Team A are in a partnership relationship for the delivery of Product 2 to Team A. Guidelines

It may be difficult to establish a partnership relationship when one or more of the member groups are working groups. If the work-product of the team of teams requires a partnership, then one might look at having all constituent groups be teams, even if not indicated by their individual group work-products. To establish a partnership, a common work-product of the two (or more) groups is required. An example from sports might be the offensive and defensive teams of a football team who jointly deliver the game score. There are a number of ways to implement these relationships, although this is where significant research is currently focused. In addition to the guidelines suggested for forming working groups and teams, some of these methods include:

Figure 1 Team of Teams

CORE TEAM

TEAM A

TEAM B

TEAM C

WORKING GROUP A

WORKING GROUP B

TEAM D

Partnership

Subcontractor

Product 1

Product 2 Product 3

Product 4

Product 5

Representatives from each group meet, serving as communication links.

Cumulative group meetings, where all members of all groups in a partnership work and/or socialize together.

Form subgroups made up of members of all partner groups. Such subgroups typically report back to the partnership for final approval (so all group members can own the result).

Group member exchange Issues

There are a number of issues associated with forming a Team of Teams. Some of the more frequently faced are: Geographic dispersion: The use of electronic media,

such as videoconferencing, can be effective [3]. Establishing common commitment over the entire

project group: This needs to be accomplished early in the formation of the organization. The commitment and the major work-product need to be kept visible. For example, one might have a model of the product in the middle of the table during a project staff meeting.

Establishing subcontractor relationships between groups: Some of the techniques used to establish a team (Section 8) may be adopted to forming subcontractor relationships between groups.

Issues of different cultures among groups from different organizations and countries: A major issue of multi-cultural organizations is the tendency by individuals to invalidate the cultural practices of others that differ from the practices of their own culture. For example, Americans often regard the British as cold and aloof because of the cultural practice of saying Sir, Maam, Please, and Thank You. The long process of building relationships prior to conducting business common in the Orient may be evaluated as wrong by cultures used to getting right down to business. One way of handling such issues is a preliminary training to sensitize group members to cultural differences, e.g., learning the specific cultural practices of the other groups and learning how to appreciate and value the differences. Exchanging members between groups for long-term residential participation also can greatly contribute to cross-cultural cooperation. For example, companies in Partnerships often exchange employees on a long-term basis, ideally making it difficult on a daily basis to tell which company actually employs any individual team member.

11. USING THESE CONCEPTS What does it take to implement these concepts? Is it something that can be done by a typical manager, or does it require the support of a consultant? The answers, as

with most things concerning human performance, are not simple. We will look at some of the issues in terms of the five fundamental types of structures: the group structures of working groups and teams, and the organizational structures of subcontracting, partnering, and Team of Teams. Implementing Work Groups

This is the easiest group structure to establish and should not require consulting assistance. It is often useful to have a common commitment of the group, and to clearly establish the purpose or work-products of the group, e.g., Provide advice to senior management concerning trends in our industry. Implementing Teams

Establishing teams is typically more difficult and complex than forming working groups. Team leaders who are experienced with team concepts and techniques, and who have a strong commitment to operating as a team can often form a team without outside aid. However, if the team has been operating for a significant period of time the team leader may not be seen as sufficiently neutral, and thus it is usually advantageous to bring in an outside facilitator for any further team-building work. For new team leaders, a coach or consultant is highly recommended as a guide through the first few team-building experiences. In our experience, a one or two-day retreat during which the teams common commitment, common work-products, and the major components of a well-defined group are established, is a good start (or mid-course correction) for most teams. The format of the retreat itself can create a strong foundation for mutual accountability. However, it is critical that team-building be an activity that lasts the life of the team. Implementing Subcontracting Relationships

Subcontracting relationships are very common in most organizations. Given todays increasing customer demands for more for less, even in subcontracting there is often value in enrolling the subcontractor into a common commitment and work-product of the larger group, even though there is no mutual accountability. Implementing Partnerships

Partnering relationships can be the most difficult types of organizational structures to form, and thus usually require a consultant for successful implementation, particularly since there appears to be relatively little experience in many industries in forming true partnerships. Sometimes organizations simply use the term partnership for a relationship that is really operating as a subcontracting relationship. This situation will not yield the benefits of partnering and, as with pseudo-teams, can cause more problems than if the proper term were used.

Implementing Teams of Teams

The issues associated with forming the individual groups for a Team of Teams is the same as that for forming working groups and teams. However, designing and implementing the overall Team of Teams structure is usually one that requires the help of an experienced consultant. For example, there is a tendency to design based on traditional hierarchies, rather than on the process and product flow that is needed. In such a structure, it is even more critical that there be clarity and enrollment regarding the common commitment and common work-product, and that the implementation of the various relationships between the groups be well established.

12. SUMMARY

Teams are a potentially fruitful source of the needed breakthroughs in efficiency, speed and quality required by the aerospace industry. An operational definition of a team was proposed: A team is a well-defined group of people with a common commitment and common promises for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. Using this definition we distinguished four types of groups, focusing on working groups and real teams. We then cautioned that the use of the term team itself causes significant operational overhead costs as a group goes through the processes of forming and operating. The decision to use a working group or team is a function of the characteristics of the group work-product. Finally, we suggested some guidelines for forming teams in general, and in two special cases of relationships between organizations and forming a Team of Teams for large projects. We concluded by addressing a few implementation issues, including when the use of an outside consultant may be indicated.

REFERENCES [1] Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith, The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization, New York, Harper Business, 1993. [2] Reddy, W., and K. Jamison, Team Building, NTL and University Associates, San Diego, CA, 1988 [3] Duarte, Deborah L., and Nancy Tennant Snyder, Mastering Virtual Teams, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1999.

Ivan Rosenberg is a consultant specializing in helping organizations produce performance breakthroughs and is currently the President and CEO of Frontier Associates. He has been a university professor, the founder of four companies, including a leading national software firm, and vice-president of an international franchisor. Client engagements have included team, partnership and strategic alliance building, organizational culture changes, helping organizations thrive through radical changes, executive coaching, and strategic planning. His client list includes internationally known government agencies and Fortune 500 companies, as well as a number of middle-market and smaller firms. He has a BEE, MEE, and MS (Computer Science) from Cornell University, and a MS (Management) and Ph.D. (Management) from the University of Rochester.