6 minute read
Champions Play as one
Modern businesses are driven through teams. Readers would recall that there was an era when businesses revolved around talented individuals. Thanks to factors such as the rise of knowledge economy, globalisation, free availability of information, and high-velocity of information flow, the yesteryear philosophy of businesses revolving around heroic, talented individuals is slowly diminishing. The VUCA nature of the world, for which the ongoing COVID19 pandemic is a very appropriate example, has further accentuated this. VUCA, for those who are unfamiliar, is anacronym that stands for Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity, and alludes to the character of the current day business environment.
‘Why teams?’ is an obvious question that merits discussion. Modern knowledge-driven businesses are intensely specialised. The vast knowledge spread across multiple domains, high information volumes, as well as high velocity and cadence of actions, is all beyond the grasp of a single individual. Add to this, the crucial factor of environmental complexity, which presents itself in the form of continuously shape-shifting ambiguous pictures. Both these aspects leave little time for business decisions and actions to be thoroughly analysed, de-risked and centrally driven. The solution to drive business under such circumstances lies in creating high performance teams. If teams were to become the fundamental entities through which work is undertaken, then the knowledge and wisdom of the collective can be fruitfully utilised to negotiate a VUCA environment.
Since this piece deals with teams, a clear definition of a ‘team’ merits recording. Scholars traditionally define a team as a bounded and stable set of individuals, who are interdependent and work for a common purpose. Thus, teams have two required elements —membership and a collaborative task. Notwithstanding the fact that teams are becoming ‘virtual’, ‘distributed’, ‘dispersed’, and ‘global’, the definition still remains relevant.
Assuming the above were true, what should be the character of these teams that drive successful enterprises? Teams would have to be autonomous, agile and flexible. Autonomy would ensure that decisions would be quick and appropriate to the scenario presented. Agility would mean actions are swift, timely, calibrated and effects local with minimal collateral damage. Flexibility would allow for the team to function without being restricted by excessively rigid boundaries and constraining SOPs.
Another aspect of such teams would be the high levels of collaboration and synergy, a prerequisite for high performance. A lot has been said about collaboration in teams. A quick Amazon books search reveals the existence of over 8000 titles dealing with collaboration. That said, the statistics for collaboration in the workplace does not really inspire confidence. Surveys by Salesforce reveal that “86% of employees and executives cite lack of collaboration or ineffective communication for workplace failures”. Additionally, a survey by The Economist indicates that “33% of employees say the ability to collaborate makes them more loyal”. Clearly, a high level of collaboration is positively correlated with the two fundamental dimensions of every good workplace, viz. productivity and engagement.
Fundamental to the understanding of collaboration, is the principle of goal setting. When goals are set for employees in an organisation, the exercise can be done in two different ways, viz. individually for each employee, or collectively for a team. If goals are set individually for employees, when an interdependent task is required to be executed, then an employee, say employee A, would need the cooperation of another employee, say B, for execution of the task. This cooperation is dependent on the volition of the employee B, whose help is being sought. Further, employee B’s decision to cooperate is dependent on whether the act of extending support will assist him/ her in meeting their goal. Such is the nature of cooperation.
Collaboration, on the other hand, is predicated upon objectives being shared by the entire team. When goals are being set, if those goals are shared goals, every team member strives to contribute to the achievement of the goals. This is in contrast to the scenario of cooperation, where the overarching goal is lost due to its decomposition into smaller individual goals. The concept of shared goals turns every collaborator into an equal stakeholder, and engages them strongly since they see themselves contributing to something larger than themselves. Shared goals are the juice that drives high-performance teams.
Setting shared objectives is just the first part of creating highly collaborative teams. As discussed earlier, knowledge-based businesses require multi-dimensional knowledge, tremendous ability to absorb and process information, creative strategy, and innovative execution at every juncture. Consequently, no single individual is capable of meeting this wide swath of requirements. The expertise across domains is typically shared among the different members of the team. This also means every member of the team would need to contribute their expertise and ideas, to meet the shared goal. Consequently, team decisions need to emerge through discussions and consensus, rather than through the traditional paradigm of decisions being handed down to team-members.
If decisions are required to be arrived at through consensus, the team ecology should be open and accepting of the plethora of views and ideas from members, often diverse and probably contradictory to popular thought. Ideas, contrarian views and open discussions are best aired when members feel a sense of psychological safety.
Psychological safety was first discussed by Edward Schein as early as 1965. The concept describes the ability of team-members being able to present themselves to their teammates without fear of negative consequences of self-image, status or career. Psychological safety helps members function without fear of ridicule, failure and loss of self-esteem. Research indicates that when members in teams feel psychologically safe, there is greater engagement, higher productivity and improved adherence to quality. Team-members feel a deep sense of belonging and inclusion, a willingness to learn, contribute and challenge the status quo. The last factor ensures that members speak their mind, fosters creativity since failure does not trigger ridicule or retribution, and helps keep decisions aligned with the overall purpose and values of the enterprise.
In an environment where safety is ensured, team processes such as periodic reviews, lay the foundation for teamlearning. This happens because the review processes are crafted with the perspective of learning and improvement by dissecting actions with no attribution to people.
Safety also ensures teams bond better, politics are minimised, engagement is improved, overall attrition is reduced and employee’s health improves.
In sum, any enterprise strives to achieve success through driving two connected employee related parameters, viz., employee performance and employee engagement. Both the parameters are most likely to be high if highperforming teams form the basis for work. Converting a heterogeneously skilled group into highperforming team involves defining shared purpose and shared mission, providing a safe and trustfilled space for members to collaborate and exchange ideas and views.
End result, skyrocketing engagement levels, plummeting stress levels, both leading to increased productivity, reduced attrition and overall good health.
