Emergence of a New Team Template, Part I

By Richard Russey

First, let’s be clear about what a “team” is in this post industrial, knowledge management-based public and private sector environment. A team is a collection of individuals cooperatively functioning around a specific purpose or task at a specific point in time. A team can no longer be considered an enduring, long-term tight-knit exclusive group. The early years of the 21st Century aren’t conducive to a climate of exclusivity in either the public or private sector. Our business landscapes are changing far too rapidly to expect that any given team is just the exactly right prescription for any given initiative or challenge. Rather, in order to survive and thrive in these challenging times, teams must be considered by leaders as fluid, ever evolving, reshaping, reforming, and constantly becoming something new and different in order to brave any particular business environment with pin-point specificity and clarity.

There are a number of archetypes for “team” that exist that may have been perfectly suited to addressing a given initiative, program, or challenge at a specific time in the past (and by that I mean yesterday and any time prior to yesterday). The problem with those teams, created around a standard exemplar or model, is that within a very short time they become concretized and rigid. That happens precisely because they were doing their job as a team. The problem is with leaders who then believe their job is finished after they’ve created a team and set them loose to fulfill the goals related to a project. That is all well and good up to the point when that particular project is finished. But, then upon accomplishment of a specific goal, project, or initiative the error many leaders make is to leave that very same team in place to address different goals, projects, or initiatives that do not have the same characteristics, needs, and outcome goals of initial project around which the team was originally created.

So, there’s the rub. Some team members will be able to adapt to a new set of goals or a new project. Some other team members will have the needed experience, knowledge and/or skills to apply to a new project. But, still others may not be appropriate to staff Project “B” even if they were a perfect fit for Project “A”. Specifically, the rub is that many leaders leave the same team in place, without change, to tackle a wide variety of projects or initiatives over the course of months or years that may seem similar on the surface but might, in fact, have important broad or even nuanced differences.

Why does this happen? The most obvious answer is that the status quo is an extremely powerful force, encouraging that which is established and institutionalized and resisting change. Living organisms (and a team can be described as such) fight mightily for survival – resisting any threats to their existence. There is also the comfort factor. It cannot be ignored. For, it is simply a great deal easier to leave an established team in place that has taken a great deal of time and energy to create. But, leaving a team in place because it has become institutionalized and because it is a comfortable group of folks to work with is, rather bluntly, lazy leadership.

The charge for the leader of today and tomorrow is to carefully analyze their teams, assess their skill sets, experience levels, and knowledge base. This analytical approach should be undertaken against a backdrop of a specific current and anticipated new project in mind. What are the specific staffing needs that will lead to a successful outcome of a given Project “C”, or “D”, or “E”, or “F”? The likelihood is that staffing needs for new projects will need to be tweaked even if only slightly. But the “tweak” factor is critical and must be considered for any new enterprise. It is in the tweaks that success may be supported and successful outcomes may be realized, or alternatively time and resources and people skills may essentially be misspent.

The Prescription for a New Team Template
So what does a leader do? Hire and fire new staff each time a new project lurks on the horizon? Of course that is not the answer because the human resource activity (hiring, training) of any organization is one of its most expensive, time consuming, and demanding elements that a leader has the responsibility to execute. However, the staff collective should be seen as having been hired because of their skills, knowledge, and experience that can be applied where appropriate and best suited. Additionally, it is short-sighted to consider full-time or part-time staff as the only resources available to an organization’s talent pool. These difficult economic times, but also new technologies, have led to a huge pool of talent that exists outside of your identified organizational staff. These outside resources include technological applications, consultants, vendors, and even volunteers that comprise a ready pool of unique and specialized abilities that may flow into and out of an organization based on specific need.

Herewith are some of the most essential factors of positive leadership considerations around the issue of establishing work teams:

Hire Smartly
It is the leader’s responsibility to hire people into the organization and onto the team that are smarter the leader him/herself. Hiring a group of people who don’t know as much as you do about your enterprise just doesn’t make sense in the highly competitive environments of today and tomorrow. A leader should be confident in his or her abilities to lead (see previous postings), and from that place of confidence hire onto the team those individuals who represent the best and the brightest, including skills and experience in specific areas that trump the leader by a mile. These challenging times (and they will remain challenging for as far as any of us can see into the future) demand ego-less leadership, with each new hire representing the very best and highest functioning employee that can reasonably be found.

Hire Broadly
In addition to hiring smartly, a good leader will hire broadly. That is, to approach team composition by embracing an expansive and far-reaching perspective that allows the most open and all-encompassing search for team members that will lend the appropriate skills, knowledge, experience, attitude, energy, wisdom, and distinction to the specific goals any specific team will be charged with accomplishing. It is with this approach and mind-set that “yes men/women” as potential team members are to be regarded warily. Certainly hiring team members that are excellent collaborators, willing participants in something greater than themselves (read: ego-less), and are energetic cheerleaders for the team’s greater mission is important. However, and this is a big “however,” it is a disservice to the organization any leader serves to hire narrowly, based on factors that are the antithesis of the qualities listed above. Having good soldiers on the team is a worthwhile goal; but developing a team of soldiers acting without independent thinking, serving only to please, afraid to ask tough questions of their fellow team members and their leader, and wishing for the security of anonymity is a danger to the potential for success of any given project, and to the very existence of the organization as well.

So the thing to do is to hire with the broadest sense of what is required to achieve success around a mission, goal, initiative, project, or task. While specific abilities and skills are contributors to potential success, so too are those less tangible factors such as an individual’s depth of thinking, ability to not be limited by traditional constraints, the courage to speak up even if their voice seems to go against the grain, and those with skills and experiences that may not appear to be directly relevant but which may add nuance and resonance to a team.

Lead with Precision
Far too often leaders present themselves to their teams with vagueness, lack of specificity, ego-centered personalities, fear of failure, and carelessness. The result of such leadership is often a state of confusion within the team, disagreements around the end goal, competition that is destructive rather than energizing, and ultimately inadequate goal fulfillment.

What is required of leaders always, but certainly in these very challenging times is precision. Essentially, that translates to leadership characterized by caring, truthfulness, meticulousness, diligence, and thoroughness. Once again, it is the difference between a highly engaged, visionary, positive, smart leader and those who can only be described as lazy leaders.

The more precise the leadership of a “person in charge,” the greater are the team’s chances for meeting stated goals within an established timeline, budget, and other available resources. Simply put, those who lead with great care are leader whose teams are supported best. Leading with precision, more frequently than not, results in missions accomplished with success and distinction.

In Part II look for the other essential components of the new team template – one that is appropriate to the challenging times in which we lead our organizations and work with our teams. The principles to be covered in this Part II include: assigning teams flexibly; expanding the resource pool (that is, expanding the idea of “team”); the very deliberate act of composing a team of people and resources; the art of leading teams towards change; providing ample opportunities for staff and team development; and the critical role of the leader as a hands-on team champion.