Just as described in the "Separate Issues from People" Rule of Engagement, I presented ideas to the executive board without becoming too attached to the proposals. We had great discussions and came up with a solid plan.
Our breakdown, however, was in the area of communication with the class committee, which would be undergoing the most changes under the proposed plan. When we went public with our ideas, the class committee got very defensive, immediately viewing the plan as being against it and its purpose, rather than being aimed at trying to break down silos and have groups work together better. We made a mistake by not bringing those folks into the discussion early in the process, and the situation got antagonistic, to say the least.
Eventually, we got everyone into the room at the same time, and tempers were pretty high (we didn't need specific approval, but we needed their buy-in to truly implement our ideas). We talked about the process we employed to go through our analysis, our plan, and the need for improvement of the existing structure. When talking about the process, I let all the people involved get their emotions out and vent a little bit, and then we focused on the content (and less on the emotions). It was truly amazing. People weren't set in their ways at all, and they really just came with blank slates. The tone only improved, and we pushed through to come up with a plan that we all approved.
As we were going to roll out our new plan, we ran into the same problem with student clusters and groups (a lot of pushing back, people not being receptive to change). However, we had learned from experience and were more adequately prepared to communicate our plan to other constituents and to secure their support. I certainly have learned some lessons that I plan to implement going forward that relate to communication, active listening, separating issues from people, and the necessity for buy-in during change processes.
CASE STUDY
Hi, it's Tim again. As I mentioned in the introduction, at the end of each chapter, I will be sharing my experiences from a real-life MBA consulting project to show you some examples of the TEAM FOCUS model in action. Here, I have detailed my team's key talk-related practices as well as my own takeaways.
WHAT WE DID
The first things we did to establish a firm foundation of communication within the group were to create a team charter and to work with Dr. Friga to write an engagement memo (see deliverables at the end of the chapter). While the contact information in our team charter was certainly invaluable, the real value-adding contribution of these documents was making sure that everybody was on the same page with regard to expectations, potential issues, goals, and scope.
As far as our communication frequency was concerned, we met weekly to update one another and to work out the project's direction and details, while e-mailing one another occasionally between meetings when it was necessary or helpful. This was a way in which our communication patterns strayed from the strict interpretation of the TEAM FOCUS model—namely, we did not "communicate constantly."
However, it is important to note that our relatively low level of communication was decided upon deliberately and was the result of another unique characteristic of this project: that every-body's parts were mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE—see Chapter 5 for more information about the MECE concept), so there was minimal overlap in our work streams. To put it more colloquially, we divided and conquered. Each of us had his or her own (eventually) well-defined subject areas, and our research was relatively independent of other project components. We simply did not need to be in constant contact for most of the project, and daily updates and tedious e-mail strings would have been excessive. However, toward the end of our project, as we were piecing all our research together to create one cohesive story and focusing on collective deliverables as opposed to individual work streams, we met much more frequently as a group.
Regarding our group communication style, we all consciously strove to separate ideas from people; this is one of Dr. Friga's most important tenets of teamwork, and it had been drilled into us already through his classes. This separation of issues from people was contingent upon two abilities. First, we all tried to be somewhat relaxed about our own ideas; not taking ourselves too seriously allowed us to venture our thoughts without becoming too personally invested in them. Second, we made sure to respect other teammates and their suggestions, focusing our discussion and criticism on the merits of the ideas, rather than on people. This free, issue-based discussion style enabled us to debate the issues without being overly worried about offending a team member.
WHAT I LEARNED
It is important to tailor one's communication style and frequency to the project—one standard communication style will not necessarily be appropriate for every project. For example, because our assignments were relatively autonomous, there was not much interdependence between our "bucket" issues. Therefore, we communicated regularly, but spent most of the week working independently. In other projects I've participated in, there has generally been more overlapping of tasks, and therefore more frequent communication is necessary.
This seems like common sense, but in this project, it became apparent that when the project sponsor or partner (in our case, Dr. Friga) is in attendance, team members are generally better prepared and more on task. We found that we gave ourselves much more leeway and were more easily sidetracked when it was just the five of us meeting.
The second point is similar: I learned that when the sponsor or partner is actively engaged with creating the team charter and establishing guidelines, it is easier for team members to focus on the issues instead of attacking personalities. Because Dr. Friga is so adamant about separating ideas from people and had a clear vision of how he wanted the project to be run, it was easy for us to fall in line and internalize his project values as our own.
DELIVERABLES
Figure 1-2 Talk: Team Charter
Figure 1-3 Talk: Engagement Letter
2
EVALUATE
Figure 2-1 TEAM FOCUS Model—Evaluate
CONCEPT
Once a team has been formed and the rules for communication are established (see Chapter 1), the interpersonal dynamics begin. For this chapter, let's make a general assumption that anyone reading this book has a desire to grow personally and professionally. The bottom line is that we cannot grow very much on our own, and team interactions afford us a tremendous opportunity to achieve that growth.
A crucial element of successful growth in teams is the evaluation element. Just as we may all want to grow, we also recognize that it can be difficult at times ("no pain, no gain"). I have worked on approximately 250 teams over the past 20 years, and the growth was not equal in each team experience. One of the key ingredients of growth is the evaluation of progress toward defined goals, on both a team and an individual basis. When those goals are not specifically enumerated, it can be difficult to measure progress.
The content that must be covered in evaluations is fairly straightforward. In fact, the following key questions drive the guidelines provided in this chapter:
What are the team members' individual working styles?
How will we get along?
Who is responsible for what?
How is everyone doing?
Sound familiar? I thought so. One value-added area during training at McKinsey and other top consulting firms is the approach to performing the evaluation. To say that you get "adequate" evaluation and feedback is an understatement—if feedback is a "gift" (a common expression at many consulting firms, especially Deloitte), then at consulting firms, it's always your birthday. However, too much evaluation can take a toll on individuals, even if they have a strong growth agenda. Thus, the process of giving constructive feedback that continues to motivate and drive others, as opposed to confidence-breaking criticism, is truly an art.
There are three critical success factors for a good evaluation system within a team (note that we are not discussing overall firm evaluation systems here, although there are certainly similarities):
Openness. All of the team members must have an interest in receiving feedback on their performance.
Explicitness. While evaluative processes are often helpful, there must be explicit conversations about the intent and process of evaluation to make it most effective.
Agreement. Before an evaluation takes place (before any feedback, actually), there should be agreement between the sender and the recipient as to the objectives of the evaluation and the measures for it.
RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
There are three key recommendations for action to facilitate a good evaluation process on any team, and thereby lead to growth of all the team members.
RULE 1: DISCUSS TEAM DYNAMICS
The starting point for a good team evaluation culture is to have an open and casual discussion about the team's use of evaluation tools. At McKinsey, this is a strongly suggested step (in fact it was mandatory) during the team project. It is usually manifested in the form of a kickoff conversation, a midpoint check, and an "after-action" review (although the last phase is sometimes captured in the individual evaluations).
The topics that should be covered are fundamental: the default and preferred working profile and personality of each team member, how to handle disagreements (which will always occur), and how to communicate individual and team progress. The challenge is to convince the entire team that these topics are worthy of discussion. There is often a tendency to avoid these types of conversations, as we all have substantial experience working in teams. The truth of the matter, though, is that the team will enjoy a much more positive working environment just by having the conversation.
In my classes, this lesson is taught by having new teams work on a survival exercise immediately after forming (e.g., if you were stranded in a subarctic locale, how would you prioritize a given set of items?). We then spend a few minutes explaining how critical it is for teams to have an open culture and to discuss the individual styles of the team players, guiding principles, and group objectives. We then take the same pool of students and group them into new teams, reminding them to cover these details quickly (this is a 15-minute exercise) before working on the problem. Without fail, the second teams operate more effectively and efficiently, and the team members usually have a better time working together.
Remember that these conversations should not be overly formal or intense; they just need to happen. This type of explicit conversation controls for individuals' variance in perception, and misperception is one of the most common types of miscommunication. Often, as described in the first "Story from the Field" later in this chapter, the best conversations take place in a casual setting, such as during dinner or over a drink.
RULE 2: SET EXPECTATIONS AND MONITOR RESULTS
The second Rule of Engagement relating to Evaluate involves the more formal steps of setting and documenting expectations and tracking results. Why is this necessary? Because you get what you measure. This is true in business and in team processes. In this case, however, it is less about quantitative measures of effectiveness and more about task completion.
One of the most common errors related to setting and monitoring expectations involves "telling" vs. "asking." I learned this distinction early in my career at PricewaterhouseCoopers when dealing with administrative support staff. Under the pressures of a project, certain people (like me) may have a default tendency to shift to a more authoritarian tone and to assign tasks quickly so that they can get back to more "important" work. The risk in a professional setting (including business schools—especially when dealing with peer teams) is that the recipient of the "order" may not understand, agree with, or eventually complete the assignment.
A better approach is to set expectations jointly. The starting point is to agree on what tasks are necessary in order to accomplish the team's objectives, and also to come to a consensus on the order in which these tasks must occur. Everyone should see how each piece contributes to the overall success of the team. Next, the team divides the tasks (based upon experience, expertise, and/or interest), and each person begins to "own" a particular piece of the project. Then, each person should offer an idea as to the specific deliverable (format and timing). The tasks and expectations should be documented and tracked; this helps to ensure transparency and to see that the loads are divided among all team members equitably based upon their respective roles. Tracking the results and revising the plans becomes much easier if this process is followed, and team members will be more motivated when they know how their contribution fits in and that others will be watching for the completion of their assignments.
RULE 3: DEVELOP AND REEVALUATE A PERSONAL PLAN
The final rule of engagement is a mandate for the explicitness of the personal growth objective that I assume each person on a team possesses (note that I am not naïve enough to think that each person on every team is motivated primarily by personal growth opportunities, but I imagine that most of us are generally trying to grow). The rule calls for each one of us to do an honest assessment of our current strengths and weaknesses as we enter a particular team project and to share the key findings with the other members of our team.
First, the assessment. Each of us has unique strengths and weaknesses, and the team environment is a wonderful opportunity to use our strengths to help others and to work with others to improve the areas where we are weak (notwithstanding the current movement to forget your weaknesses and concentrate on your strengths, which actually does have some validity). The key is to do an honest assessment, which can be difficult, as we are often overconfident. I am reminded of a landmark study done in the 1970s in which 1 million students were surveyed and 70 percent of those surveyed placed themselves above average in terms of leadership (not likely possible, is it?). Given this tendency to overconfidence, the key to an honest assessment is to rely on others whose opinions you trust and who would have a basis for reaching a valid conclusion.
Just as a company does a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis as part of its strategy development, you can compare yourself against your peers in terms of development opportunities. The key is to find an opportunity for development on this new project. Some questions to consider are:
How well do I listen?
Do I get my points across in a nonconfrontational way?
Do I separate issues from people?
Do I work independently too much and leave the team in the dark?
Do I never work independently of the team?
Do I make people comfortable discussing ideas with me?
Do I follow through on my commitments?
Is my work generally error-free?
Next, the sharing. Once you identify a key development opportunity for yourself on a given project, you should share that information with the team. Yes, many of us may prefer to keep it to ourselves (not too many of us like to have our weaknesses exposed), but this is a critical step to team harmony—a component that I refer to as the "humility factor." Have you worked with individuals who were extremely intelligent, but not good team members? What I have found is that the team members who really seem to believe that they don't have any weaknesses are the hardest to engage. Not only are they less open to negative feedback, but they make you feel as if you don't have as much to contribute.
On the other hand, have you worked with people who have a lot to offer, but are aware of their limitations (and are not afraid to mention them)? Isn't it a bit easier to work with them? In my mind, they exhibit the humility factor, which is an important ingredient for team harmony. Just the mere act of admitting something that each person is working on can dramatically affect the way the team gets along. This is why it is recommended that each person do his or her own assessment prior to beginning a project, then share something that he or she is working on improving and ask for the group's help in making progress. It is then up to each individual to track his or her progress, to seek input, and to reevaluate actions taken toward making the desired improvements.
&nb
sp; OPERATING TACTICS
The Operating Tactics for the Evaluate element of the TEAM FOCUS model are:
Tactic 6: Identify the personality types of the team members (including the client).
Tactic 7: Hold a brief, relaxed session at the outset of the project to discuss personalities and working preferences. Keep the dialogue open over the course of the project.
Tactic 8: Be aware of your default tendencies, but incorporate the flexibility to deal with different personality types as needed.
Tactic 9: Each team member should identify and document his or her one or two primary objectives in the project.
Tactic 10: The team should openly discuss and reconcile individuals' personal objectives.
Tactic 11: Establish procedures for handling disagreements and giving and receiving feedback.
The McKinsey Engagement Page 4