continuing to work with teams

The consultant was in touch by phone with the group over the next 30 days. The group seemed to be energized by the meeting and their action plan. They reported that they had had a couple of meetings to discuss job roles and responsibilities and that they felt things were moving along well. They had a meeting each week for the next three weeks.

When the group next met with the consultant, they were not as energized as during the month before. They said they were trying to have the group meeting every week, but the last two times, something had come up with one or another of the advisors and the leader had cancelled it. With regard to the roles and responsibilities task, the group wasn’t moving as quickly as they would have liked. They were becoming bored with the details and wanted to have it finished, but they couldn’t seem to agree on what each person should do.

Over the next two months, the same things happened again and again. The group would be energized by the meeting, agree to accomplish certain things by the next meeting and then not get them done. When asked if they felt they were committed to the process, everyone answered that they were. But, clearly, there was something else working here. The inability of the group to move forward, even with an outside person “riding herd” and very detailed steps to be taken, alerted the consultant to other, unspoken issues that needed to be addressed.

Finally, three months after the initial meeting, the consultant spoke to the group and said that she thought the group had some unresolved, hidden and uncomfortable issues to address and how did they want to do that? Or the first question was, did they even want to look at them? Not much was said, so the consultant asked everyone to spend some time thinking over the next several weeks about what issues they might have with the group, or the members in it, and how they might want to have them discussed.

Ways of working with Resistances

Helping diagnose why groups don’t accomplish their goals.

1. Are you finding that groups can set goals, but not get them accomplished?
2. People say they want to meet their goals, but then don’t meet them.
3. What are the bottom-line issues that keep people from meeting their goals?

Just setting goals and want to reach them does not always guarantee success. Sometimes even motivation does not ensure making the goal.

A recent consulting engagement with a medium-sized group is a good example of this kind of issue.

The group was part of a financial services company branch office. It consisted of seven members, four advisors – one of whom was the designated “team leader” – and three administrative assistants. By all accounts, the group was successful. The advisors consistently did enough business to be recognized by their firm as some of the top producers in the organization.

The administrative staff had relatively low turnover, with two of the assistants having been with the group for more than four years and the third, for almost a year. In their initial interviews with the consultant, the assistants all said about the same things: they weren’t unhappy with the group, and they thought they were being paid well enough.

The consultant initially interviewed all members of the team, asking them all the same questions:

What works on your team?

1. What doesn’t work on your team?
2. What is really working?
3. Is there anything you would like to see changed?

The answers from all the participants were not discussed on an individual basis by the group, but were summarized and presented to the group by the consultant at their first meeting. These seemed unthreatening enough, but clearly important:

•  The group wasn’t meeting often enough and when it did, it seldom included the assistants.
• The advisors weren’t sure how to measure what each of them did.
• All partners were clear about not knowing how to assign roles and responsibilities to each other and to their assistants.
• Compensation was an issue that had been alluded to by all members in their individual meetings with the consultant, but there were no specifics that could be isolated.

Facilitated by the consultant, discussion followed in which the group discussed each of these issues in detail. They all seemed to be engaged in the conversation and no one was holding back on participation. After some time discussing these issues, the following action plan was decided upon, with the help of the consultant.

1.  Develop roles and responsibilities for each person, with each person first working on the list, then the whole group contributing to each person’s list before finalizing it.
2. Set a specific time and date for a group meeting every week that included all assistants, with other assistants in the office covering their phones for that period. Develop a specific agenda to follow so that all members could participate and the meeting would not drag out.
3. After developing roles and responsibilities for each member of the group, the next task would be to figure out how to measure each person’s performance, based on those roles and responsibilities.

The group then decided, with the help of the consultant, that they would work on the first two items to begin with, get some success, then move to the third item after they felt comfortable with the first two. Time frames for accomplishing each stage of the role and responsibility development were set, with specific individuals volunteering to be accountable for getting those stages completed. These were to be worked on over the next 30 days, until the next meeting with the consultant.

With these initial agreements, even the most skeptical in the group could believe that something would change.

A time and date for the group meeting was set and one of the partners volunteered to be accountable for developing an agenda for the group that could be used in each meeting. At their first meeting the following week, they planned to finalize the agenda and use it at that meeting for the first time.

Next week: did the group meet its goals?

Working with teams

Most teams don’t take the time to properly plan for their business. They seem to think that it will take too much time for them to stop and plan. However, those teams that do take the time to plan and to have open communication find that they are consistently performing better than others.

A New Paradigm

Let’s get rid of the old way of thinking about teams, work groups and organizations: that of the Task-Oriented Organization™ , which says that there is only one channel of work, that of doing things that produce products/services and delivering them to customers. When problems arise in these types of organizations or groups, the members of that group look to management to fix the problems. Management usually uses a People-Oriented Fix, one that looks to find which person is responsible for the problem and fixing that person (or getting rid of that person). This means that the “team leader” is always being responsible for making sure the team or group functions properly. This can take a lot of time, as problems will have to be dealt with separately and people will have to be found who are responsible.

The new paradigm of the Self-Correcting Organization™  suggests that people in a group can and will take responsibility for correcting problems when and where they occur. This organization has two channels at every level: first, that of doing things that produce and deliver products/services, and second, that of finding and processing critical and uncomfortable information. This organization deals with problems as they arise and where they arise. The people in the organization are empowered to analyze how the problem arose, decide on a solution, and then redesign their systems and processes so the problem does not occur again. This group has less and less problems over time and more time to devote to their business issues. This group is efficient, lean, and empowered. And the members clearly and openly communicate with each other, especially uncomfortable and potentially threatening or embarrassing information, so it can help them make their group work better.

Leadership Catalysts

For more information, check out http://www.leadership-catalysts.com

What is the difference between leading and managing?

Most people think that leading and managing are the same thing. They are not. Leaders are visionaries, thinking about what should happen in the future; managers are the implementers, making sure the organization’s goal are met on a daily basis. There is one thing that leaders and managers have in common, however, and that is working with people. People are the most important asset of the organization and both leaders and managers need to know what motivates the people they work with and how to help them meet their own goals as well as those of the organization. Do you know what your employees and direct reports care about, what causes them stress and how to help them work in a more efficient way?

Leadership Catalysts: Transforming your Future

What is Leadership Catalysts?
Leadership Catalysts is a full service management, consulting and education firm. Marilynn is a master consultant with the ability to help her clients reach their goals.

Marilynn helps individuals, groups, teams and organizations reach their highest potential by integrating past experience with practical application to reach future goals.