The Team Coaching Toolkit. Tony Llewellyn

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ in building motivation, stability and interdependence.CommunicationSets the mechanisms for the effective interaction between team members and with those in the team’s periphery.ResilienceActivities that will support and sustain the team through periods of difficulty. Builds trust within the team and sets up the protocols needed to withstand the pressures of unplanned and adverse changes.Learning and improvementDeveloping the habit of periodically reviewing what the team has recently achieved, what has worked well, and what can be improved in the next iteration.

       Table 1 – The foundation layers of the team building process

      The construction analogy is valid insofar as these foundations are best put in place before a team begins to focus on getting things done. In the same way that one can always go back and underpin a failing structure, it is possible to carry out remedial work on a dysfunctional team. Such work, however, tends to be messy, disruptive and can often ‘annoy the neighbours’. It is therefore worth taking time to assemble the appropriate structures at the team’s inception. As illustrated in table 1, the layers represent the different phases of a team’s progression. They are, to a certain extent, sequential in that good practice involves putting the right layers in place at the right time. The tools in this book therefore are set out to align with this structure. The structure is explained in more detail in the next chapter. This does not mean you necessarily always have to start with a new team for the toolkit to be of use. As you will see when you look through the different tools, each will work as a stand-alone exercise. The point of this structure is to encourage you to recognize how the different tools will work at different stages of the team’s life cycle.

       REAL TEAMS NOT WORKGROUPS

      Without trying to complicate the discussion by going into the technical detail, it is worth recognizing the practical difference between a real team and a workgroup. We often casually use the word team to include any group of people who happen to report to the same manager. If, however, the day-to-day work of the group is not generally dependent upon the success of others in that group then, from an academic perspective, this is simply a workgroup. It is easy to get lost in the semantics of nomenclature but, for the purposes of this toolkit, the definition is important. There are many possible ways to define what constitutes a real team. My personal preference comes from Katzenbach and Smith (1993) who define a team as ‘a small number of people with complimentary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and an approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable’.

      There is a lot of content in this single sentence. The key words form a useful checklist as set out in the table below.

Key words	Implication
Small number	Between five and nine members
Complimentary skills	Distinct skills needed to complete the task
Commitment	Emotional rather than notional
Common purpose	Everyone focused on the same thing
Performance goals	An agreed outcome
An approach	One agreed system
Mutually accountable	If one of us fails, we all fail

       Table 2 – Real team checklist

      As you work your way down this table, you can start to see why genuine teams are less common than we think. Real teamwork is rarely accidental. These components are often difficult to establish and maintain. The distinction between a notional team and a real team is therefore important. The coaching and leadership needs of a collection of individuals who must achieve a challenging goal are very different to a group that simply needs to complete a series of tasks set for them by their supervisor.

      I frequently hear managers talking about creating ‘high performing teams’ with little sense as to what it really means and the effort required to get there. This is an overused phrase that has become detached from its original definition. It is almost a slogan whose meaning is frequently used to imply that all teams should somehow or other be able to deliver exceptional results or risk being dismissed as a failure. High performing teams tend to emerge, rather than be planned, and will usually disperse once the goal or objective has been reached.

      The word performance has itself become a piece of management jargon. In the context of an individual or team, the dictionary definition of the word is simply ‘an action’. In management speak it has come to imply a level of achievement. A more accurate and perhaps more meaningful word is effective which is defined as ‘successful in producing the desired or intended result’. Teams may not often be able to achieve the rarefied heights of being regarded as high performing, but it is a much more realistic aspiration in any organization that the team should be regarded as working effectively. A far better ambition is to be part of a highly effective team, in that it is both readily achievable and sustainable provided both the leader and the team are prepared to put in the work.

       WHAT KIND OF TEAM DO YOU NEED?

      This is an important question. As mentioned above, creating a genuine team is hard work. It takes time, energy and a lot of thought. The resources required are not always easily available, particularly when you are working under pressure. Building a real team may be impractical and unnecessary. Creating a collaborative, energized group is often a highly satisfying process, but it may not be essential to the delivery of your team’s objective. There are many situations where real teams are less important. Some examples include:

      • Organizations dealing with processing of goods or information, where the inputs and outputs are largely predictable and there is little variation.

      • Small organizations where the leader/manager can handle the majority of external interfaces and directs her assistants on the specific tasks needed to fulfil her objectives.

      • Organizations with fixed hierarchical structures and strong cultural norms around communication, which exist in stable environments not subject to external economic, social or political pressures.

      • Steering committees (which could include the Management Board) whose role is to find consensus amongst a group of individuals representing their own department or workgroup.

      As a general rule, if you believe you can maintain genuine control of your internal environment and external conditions are stable, then the short-term transactional arrangements of a workgroup will probably be sufficient. There are many examples of organizations where process and procedure are strongly embedded, establishing a degree of stability and consistency. The culture of conformity that has emerged in these organizations works well, up to the point that the external environment changes.

      As the world shifts, however, the foundations upon which conformity is built will start to become less stable. When organizations need to work out how to adapt to the disruptive forces of change, that is when we need real teams. So consider what kind of team you would like and then think again about the team that you are actually going to need.

      Large complex projects need to engage a range of skills and experience to design and deliver the desired outcome. Few teams have the luxury of a prolonged selection process to choose the perfect profile. Most members are chosen on their perceived ability and the extent to which it is felt they will fit. Beware of creating teams that are too homogenous, i.e. made up of people just like you. Whilst such teams have been shown to gel quickly, they usually lack the creative edge needed to overcome difficult problems. Alternatively everyone is so action-oriented that the individuals ultimately fall into conflict.

СКАЧАТЬ