The calculus of teams, or is it an art?
When does 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 in terms of a team? Here the people are working against each other and the team output is less than the sum of their individual contributions. It’s dysfunctional though still producing. Getting things done is hard work and it’s not much fun; the project will get built though will be late and over budget. Some might say this is the norm.
What about 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 7? That’s when the members of the team are competent and working well, though on their own, in silos. How many times have you heard ‘silo mentality’? The atmosphere is pleasant and people get on with their jobs, communicate when they have to, usually in meetings where they are unconsciously forced to talk about things that would otherwise ‘flow’ between them if they were working for each other rather than themselves. In this setting you will hear people mumbling in the corridor – I am always in meetings, no one tells me anything round here, where are we going here, what happened to Simon, what’s the point, where’s the leadership ….. And, we are a good team. In terms of team output a 7 gets the job done, just, it’s OK though there is no passion and probably little prospect for growth and no time or energy for development. We are all too busy.
It could be worse! 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = minus 10. The leaders of a client contractor ‘team’ who had just taken each other to court resulting in a hefty settlement. The pain ran deep and right through the respective organisations and surfaced at project level as obstinacy at every turn and outright hostility at the slightest difficulty or perceived slight. At minus 10 its destructive, the job is years late and the cost is out of control – to be reconciled at a later date. “Just get it built” is what comes down from high places.
Enough of all this doom, what’s it like when 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 50. I once experienced this as a team member many years ago. We had a really big goal that we were all bought into and driving towards together. We had five values that we lived and held each other to account when we occasionally slipped. We were committed to each other’s commitments. Through regular and challenging conversations we each got clear on what we were really committed to. In my case I was travelling 90 miles to the office so had an hour and three quarters at each end of the day and most days the kids were in bed when I got home. I was committed to getting home once a week for my children’s bath time. The rest of the team committed to that commitment and at least one of them would come into my office at four on a Tuesday and send me home and insist against my “I just need to finish this” protestations. Sometimes it would take two of them. I was similarly committed to what was really important to each of my colleagues.
For the time it lasted, about a year, it was amazing and the team and business results were easy and spectacular. Looking back I don’t think we knew how to keep it going once our team coach left.
Having tasted high performance I have a sense of what it looks like and for twenty years have worked with leadership teams to help them move in that direction and deliver spectacular business results. Together we have built a track record of success.
According to Wikipedia calculus is the mathematical study of continuous change and so this is my stab at maths relating to snap shots in team time. In terms of how to get from say 3 to 50 and sustain it I’m not sure if maths can cope with the complexity of seven people leading hundreds more all in a living system – I think that’s more of an art and this is my art.