Effective teamwork is critical for success at home, in education and at work. It is also essential for creating our collective futures beyond the current challenges of global conflict and climate change. So how can we apply the science – and art – of teams to create a better future for us all?
On the recent 50th anniversary of the moon landing, we had a chance to contemplate with awe an extraordinary achievement by a tight-knit team. Conversely, three decades after that event, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster revealed the problems that occur when a team does not feel safe enough to speak up in a culture of “Bring me solutions, not problems”. Complex engineering problems were not raised and the safe return of the shuttle was compromised – a team failure on a global stage.
So what makes one team fly high and another crash (metaphorically or literally)? Ensuring teams have the right conditions to do their best work is key, and the discipline of psychology offers decades of robust research and practice to draw upon. Psychologists weave together their insights into human behaviour and social interactions, organisational systems and culture, and change-management approaches to provide evidence-based advice, methodologies and interventions that effectively and efficiently help teams excel. The authors of this article are organisational psychologists who bring their expertise to support teamwork in a wide range of industries and contexts.
This article, which focuses on teams in organisations, was inspired by the Terrific Teams session conducted at the recent APS Industrial and Organisational Psychology Conference (IOP). We explore the whys and wherefores of great teams, their attributes, the signs and symptoms of teams not travelling well, and the critical conditions for team success.
If given the choice, most people would want to play for a premiership team over a ‘wooden-spoon’ team. Low individual and collective outputs, duplication or wasted effort, rework of substandard work or lack of communication because of friction and avoidance routines all compromise outcomes. Good performers within mediocre teams can feel burdened or resentful when others, through action or inaction, let the team down. In turn, this can create division within the team and even lack of respect for team leaders for failing to address either performance or behaviour. For organisations in the business of making money, it is worth noting that Gallup has consistently found highly engaged workforces have higher earnings per share and even recovered more quickly from the recession. Engagement is a reflection of team climate, and climate is certainly influenced by team dynamics.
What are the conditions for success?
Good and great teams have a clear purpose. Everyone knows their role yet is able to adapt to the context around them. While their major functions and tasks are clear, they recognise there are times when someone just needs to do the job that needs doing. Rigid adherence to cultural norms of “That’s not in my job description” or a having a bare minimum mentality don’t apply. It is important to distinguish here between adaptability or learning agility, and encroaching on other’s work or excessive distraction with low impact busyness in order to avoid doing those parts of the job we do not like to do.
And while good team leaders are not arrogant and overly controlling, it is often unhelpful if they spend too much time and energy on low-level tasks; failing to take opportunities to coach and build bench-strength in junior members or where roles are so tightly set that anyone away from work for a lengthy period cannot easily be covered.
Inspired by the evidence-based work of Harvard scholars Ruth Wageman and Richard Hackman, together with our own experience with teams, we showcased the ‘Six Conditions for Team Effectiveness’ framework in our IOP conference session. Based on decades of research, this framework below outlines the specific conditions necessary and has a matching validated measurement tool, the Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS). The research also underpins the 60-30-10 rule for preparing, launching and sustaining effective teams which is also useful for team leaders as well as someone playing the role of consultant, coach or team advisor to frame a team intervention.
Focusing on the conditions for success first – before mapping additional information such as interpersonal dynamics, or personality traits or types – provides a pragmatic approach for identifying the situation of the team. This allows for diagnosis of the issues and informs where additional diagnostics or interventions are useful, or allows for the evaluation of interventions at any point in time.
Nine myths about teamwork
Myth 1 – Get the structure right and the team will excel
Individuals need to know what is expected of them (role clarity and standards) and know how to perform their role (methods and requisite skills). A functional team structure is an enabler but it won’t automatically produce great team results unless other factors are in place.
Myth 2 – We all commit to being part of a team, yet we might rely on one or more ‘star’ players
Different personalities and life experiences lead to different schema about what it is like to be an effective member of a team. Some will want to go about their work quietly. They may not want a fuss, lots of social contact or accolades but it is important they see themselves as part of something bigger. It is interesting that over the past few years, and most obviously in team sport, ‘score assists’, not just goals scored, feature in how players are measured and affirmed. Roles are not always glamorous and significant contributions can fly under the radar while others get the limelight. Having a genuinely shared view of accountability can be the start to making the team feel and be united.
Myth 3 – ‘Nice’ people automatically make for good teams
It can be argued that considerate and empathic people may foster engagement more readily than those who are abrasive or dictatorial. Nevertheless, we have seen teams fall apart because a cultural team norm is ‘constrained politeness’ or ‘artificial harmony’ whereby real issues are never raised due to fear of potential tension, and a lack of skill to argue matters productively and safely. A robust feedback culture is necessary if teams are actually to achieve their potential. Growth mindset is also about constructive feedback which may not always be easy to hear, not just lots of books read and attendance at seminars/webinars.
Myth 4 – Highly trained or qualified professionals do not behave badly
Can we assume that everyone in society will always be emotionally intelligent, generous, self-aware and well-behaved? Whether or not you subscribe to a theory of the impact of vicarious trauma for those whose jobs involve high degrees of emotional labour, we are all human irrespective of our qualifications and expertise. We can all lose our way or succumb to excessive work demands which result in stress. The recognition of this is critical, even if any associated shame is optional and even destructive. What is important is a desire to restore team relationships by being honest about what we are experiencing and taking courageous, well-executed action.
Myth 5 – Diversity in team membership will guarantee great results
Team diversity is valuable, but difference alone will not make for better service, richer collaboration and innovation if respect for difference is not enacted. While there is still much work to be done to ensure diversity in the traditional sense in relation to equal opportunity and protected attributes like gender and disability under anti-discrimination law, it is diversity of thought and safety in team dynamics for debate and discussion that are likely to facilitate the best decisions and actions.
Myth 6 – A good leader is enough
A good leader can do a lot to model positive behavioural norms, improve role clarity, provide empathic support and connection with a bigger purpose but will not be able to do the job solo if team members aren’t committed to being a team, or the environment is not supportive.
Myth 7 – Leadership is something that only one member of the team can demonstrate
Leadership is often assumed to be the characteristic of an individual person rather than the collective effort to put the conditions for success into place and maintain them. Anyone who is taking the right action to keep the conditions for success in place is demonstrating leadership in the team. This type of leadership can be developed in all team members and not just a designated leader. As self-managing teams working in agile environments are on the rise, so shared leadership becomes even more important.
Myth 8 – Good teams are the norm and therefore we should not need help to convene, maintain or remediate teams
Occasionally we have observed teams where the magic or team chemistry has just been there almost effortlessly from the get-go, but our experience has shown this is far more often the result of purposeful work, not luck. Too many teams prioritise work to be done in the team and overlook spending time working on the team. Superb teams are the exception, not the rule, which is why we need to invest in creating, sustaining and sometimes redesigning dysfunctional teams. Even run-of-the-mill teams can benefit from a targeted boost.
Myth 9 – To improve a team you need to start by improving relationships
The underlying causes of team problems are more likely to be in the team’s design, than in the interpersonal relationships within the team. This is an especially bitter pill for many providers of team solutions to swallow, because many team services focus primarily on personality dynamics and relationships. In line with the fundamental attributional error which leads to the false belief it is the person rather than the system that is the cause of a problem, this phenomenon works at the team level as well. Of course, serious conflict and dysfunction need to be addressed as a priority, but in our experience interpersonal issues are likely to re-emerge unless the design issues are also addressed.
Signs and symptoms of teams doing well (or not)
Common ways of assessing team functioning within the wider team development and coaching industry includes many individual-focused tools, such as personality profiling tools like the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, DiSC, Saville Wave, Occupational Personality Questionnaire (OPQ) and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Some practitioners have a preference for administering instruments that focus less on individual attributes and more on work roles. For example, the Belbin Team Management Index and the Saville Work Roles Assessment developmental models and stage approaches are often used as a reference point by many teams to uncover where they are getting stuck. Tuckman’s model has historically also been popular.
The tools available in the commercial market vary significantly in reliability, validity and utility so it is important to bear in mind that toolkits are usually commercial products and some are underpinned by more robust original and ongoing research than others. A psychologist will select fit-for-purpose tools and ensure that clients appreciate the limitations of tools the client might be using already.
Designing useful metrics to assess the impact of a team intervention at the organisational level is an emerging trend, with aggregation of team level data into a performance dashboard. This approach enables organisations to map all of their teams and to provide support or redesign for teams when it is needed, not just for the obvious toxic teams. Organisations often have under or unused metrics that will inform team performance assessment that can be accessed or drawn into a dashboard. Examples include metrics such as engagement survey results, staff turnover, unscheduled leave, WorkCover and grievance activity and qualitative assessments like culture audits, organisational reviews and exit interviews. All of these data sources offer key information that is too often overlooked.
The science and art of this tells us that an integrative systemic approach involves interweaving of different types of information to provide an accurate assessment of the situation of the team. While many of the tools developed by psychologists have now been designed to be used by professionals in related fields, the additional levels of expertise brought by a registered psychologist can make a substantial difference to the intervention. Our cases presented at the IOP 2019 Conference showed how the use of multiple assessments informed design and how the triangulation of data from multiple sources was a useful and robust approach.
Options to intervene
Typical and effective interventions with teams that are struggling or even those which are good and want or need to be great (think a hospital emergency department) involve an acceptance of the current state of play, an explicit commitment to do the work, followed quickly by intentional building of skills at the individual and team level. The work doesn’t necessarily have to be framed in the negative as ‘deficits’ or development needs. Indeed, some of the research points to the efficacy of using existing strengths as a leverage.
Where that falls short is when staff, as already noted, have inadequate interpersonal skills and either avoid important conversations or handle them poorly, thus weakening team connection or contributing to psychologically unsafe workplaces. Upper level or external support may be needed to strengthen or repair certain relationships.
It may be that more procedural skills such as meeting skills, delegation and problem-solving abilities are needed to produce better results. In the workplace, the team may make gains by embracing technologies like Yammer and Slack which facilitate efficient team communication and shared workload management, particularly as more staff work remotely or flexibly. These new ways of working can improve both productivity, and team morale and cohesion.
Team development takes time. There is no doubt that team events, even fun team activities can accelerate the process of acclimatisation and getting to know who is on the team. But exceptional teams understand they need to go well beyond bowling or walking the Kokoda Trail to really function at their peak. More important than getting there quickly is to ensure the team makes improvements over time, in a sustainable way.
When bumpy moments arise, rather than become disheartened, it is important to continue to assume good intent on the part of team members, reconnect with the higher purpose, check in on role clarity, team mindset, skill-building and agreed norms.
Improve your team today
No team is perfect. Take the time to review where your team is working well and where it is not so great. How do individual team members rate the effectiveness of the team out of 10 – and what ideas do they have for improving the team’s collective score out of 10, if only by one notch? What would they like to do about it? What strengths can the team leverage? What areas of concern or opportunity should be prioritised first to work on together? Wherever you decide to start, know that it is definitely worth doing something. If you’d like expert support to boost your team at work, get in touch with an organisational psychologist offering team services to make it happen.
The first author can be contacted at [email protected]