I read an article in the New York Times the other day with some pretty strong statements about teamwork and groupthink (two of my favorite topics). What struck me most about it was that there was no clear definition of why these teams were formed. The author made a lot of statements about how some people are more effective as lone contributors (i.e. Steve Wozniak from Apple as the quintessential example) and the comments section was full of testimonials from people who clearly felt uncomfortable working in the group settings they'd been exposed to.
My take on all this is that whomever was forming these groups and group-oriented environments wasn't paying enough attention to the style of work at hand, individual strengths and the type of situations where groups can be effective.
Below is my personal list of group-manager-oriented pet peeves. If I were to touch upon each of these topics in this blog post, it would get longer than either of us has the patience for. However, I think there are quite a lot of interesting things to say on each of these topics, so I'll be using this as a general guideline to dig deeper into each of these in upcoming posts.
- Not being clear on meeting purpose and objective. Oh how I've seen this...let me count the ways... (this one's gonna be hard to write without turning into a rant)
- Including too many people in meetings. So often I hear invalid "valid reasons" for this. To keep someone in the loop. Just in case xyz question/topic comes up. And many others. I call shenanigans...
- Not specifying clear group-project roles. Even on the best of teams, if it's not clear to everyone who's leading, if someone is responsible for note-taking, if someone has the role of "devil's advocate", if someone is supposed to represent a specific interest, if someone has a particular subject matter expertise, etc. things will not go as well as they might otherwise...
- Not allowing various roles to participate differently. If the meeting objective is clearly defined, then it should help guide what roles are needed, and equally importantly, not needed. As a corollary to this, not everyone may need to be there for the whole meeting, or contribute in the same manner.
- Not acting strategically regarding the social dynamics best suited to achieving the purpose. This speaks volumes directly about the issues mentioned in the groupthink article. There are so many dynamic and interesting ways to manage this, that have nothing to do with "is teamwork inherently good or bad".
- Confusing "team building" with "rapport building." How often have you seen a corporate retreat style exercise that's meant to build some sort of "working together as a team" skill? How often does this actually get applied in a focused manner to people who really need to coordinate their input/output efforts that closely? I say call a spade a spade, and focus on a different set of social dynamics that are often sorely needed - "rapport building."
- Not effectively moderating, focusing and setting rules/guidelines for meeting dynamics. Brainstorming and creative thinking does not equal no boundaries and chaos. In fact, it's been proven by my friend, Science, that a clearly defined problem space and compelling boundaries fosters creative problem solving efforts.
- Not providing free pizza. I should never be expected to think on an empty stomach! Mozzarella = excellence.
What other ineffective dynamics have you seen?
Toxic Negativity. I've witnessed a manager not recognizing a team member who poisoned collaborative meetings with negativity to the point making them counter-productive and frustrating for the team. A manager guiding the meeting by redirecting negative energy or contributions in a productive manner is crucial on projects that are deadline-sensitive.
ReplyDeleteI understand completely...I'm curious what motivated the manager to ignore the situation. I'd imagine they weren't oblivious to it. What was the fear that prevented them from addressing it?
ReplyDeleteThis particular manager was not a strong leader. He seemed to be fearful of upper management and he rarely took a stand on anything unless his hand was forced. He essentially flew below the radar and kept his mouth shut.
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating to try to tease out which behaviors appear to be a product of the environment (i.e. reactions to fear of upper management) vs. which are more a product of that person's strengths (or lack thereof). Sometimes it can be very hard to tell at a glance, but usually over time it becomes more clear. Environment can be such a powerful behavioral influence, often even more so than individual personality and strengths. So often companies seem to primarily focus on individual reviews and skill building, when really, it might behoove them to do an evaluation of the cultural norms and practices dictating what's "acceptable" in that environment.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you may have had the perfect storm of a poor environment, plus an individual who was miscast in a role not suited to their strengths. That's a tough position to be in, and sometimes all you can do is leave! I hope you've found greener pastures since then. Thanks for sharing your input and insights, I really appreciate it!