EcoSeagate

Corporate retreats and weekend team building excursions have been a growing avenue for organizations to establish (or reestablish) trust among coworkers. Through challenging courses rooted in teamwork exercises groups of individuals learn the valuable lessons of trust, inter-dependabilty, and hard work. Seagate Technology, a multi-billion dollar computer storage company, has taken this concept and created EcoSeagate, an intense week-long team-building exercise, to foster core values within their ranks.

EcoSeagate, costing upwards of 9K per person, involves hiking, kayaking, swimming, and rappelling down cliffs... as a team. They break up participants into "tribes" and compete against other "tribes" throughout the week. There are chants, obstacles, and costumes designed to push social limits and boundaries. It is a sort of social experiment wrapped around some very challenging events, and require 100% team work to accomplish the mission. In the end, the "tribes" are fully involved with each other, develop a stronger sense of knowledge and trust, and strengthen the bonds that transfer over into the work place. Win or lose, the corporate culture benefits.

Personally, I love a good challenge. Traveling to exotic lands and participating in tough team-work based exercise is right up my alley. However, not everyone shares my sense of adventure. I see value in projects like EcoSeagate. It builds trust and pushes the limits of each person to find a new gear within themselves. It makes people better. Whenever people work in a team environment, which is occurring more often in today's organizations, there needs to be trust. Trust has to be earned, which means trust requires effort to attain. What better way to build trust than having to depend on your team to accomplish physical, mental, and spiritual challenge.

In my experiences I have found that some people create a false facade about them to hide their inequities, insecurities, or inabilities. In order to break down those facades and replace them with genuine character elements is to put "feet to the fire". When a person reaches their limits and exhaustion sets in the true colors come out. Dissolving facades can be painful and embarrassing for some, and uncovers a vulnerability within that most try real hard to protect. The tuff guy will show people he is really a wimp, the bossy lady shows she is really in need of moral support, and the fearless leader will reveal they are filled with fear and reservations once their facades are torn down. Once this happens, you are ready to build a team with a solid understanding of the people who are members.

A funny development happens when people let others into their "protected" zones. Trust forms. It takes a great deal of trust and risk to become vulnerable, and this is usually met with encouragement, understanding, and appreciation. This is the foundation for formulating trust, and trust is the backbone for a high-powered team.

I would love to take my team of employees to the mountains of New Zealand like EcoSeagate, but unfortunately I do not have 9K dollars a head to spend on team building. Instead, I look for ways to build trust in daily interactions in our office. The best approach to accomplish this... communication. Open and honest communication. I don't hide my goals for myself or the company from anyone. I share them as often as I can and encourage the team to share theirs as well. I encourage feedback, good and bad, so we all know what each other is truly thinking. If I make a mistake I own it to the group, and we find a solution together. Everyone has value in our shop, and while I would jump at the chance to brave the rugged outdoors to prove our resolve I feel we can make just as much headway through real, open, and honest communication.

JP

Eric Schmidt on Hiring and Recruiting

Everybody knows Google, and how this unique Search Engine Monster has dominated the Internet. What most people don't know is the people that work at Google make up one of the most interesting cultures in business today. "Googlers", as they call themselves are comprised of some of the smartest, most dedicated, and driven individuals in the labor market. Eric Schmidt, Google's Executive Chairman, discussed the Google culture and how they hire and recruit talent into their ranks.

Eric has been with Google for over ten years as the CEO and currently sits as the company's executive chairman. He mentioned in this speech that as you build a company you get a chance to determine the culture, the people, and the style. Google entices some of the best and brightest minds out there, but not all of these types of people are the best at working with others or within a team environment. So, how did Google blend such a variety of unique talent into a synergistic culture? Hiring the right people.

The Google hiring team looks for qualified people who show promise in a particular field. Once they bring someone onboard management's job is to assist the Googler to do best whatever it was he/she was hired for. "Let them do what they're going to do" is Schmidt's philosophy. Google hires driven professionals that are always going to be pursuing something. They may need a little direction from time to time, but Google's culture itself demands initiative. Personnel changes are constantly taking place around Google, according to Schmidt, to find the right balance of chemistry, where the compatibility balance is the greatest. They encourage 20% of work time to be devoted to adjacent and other projects not established in the "normal" working responsibilities. This lends a certain amount of freedom to dictate how a day is scheduled and what a person may work on. The end result, an amazing culture which produces some of the most amazing applications.

I employ a very similar type of structure at my work place. We all have our parameters and certain expectations that need to be handled each day, but there is also a freedom to think outside the box and work on unique ways to introduce or products to market. How we accomplish this is through open and honest communication. If my sales manager tells me she needs to run a few errands and drop off some literature at a few places I say, "Ok, let me know how it works out". There is no magnifying lens over anyone in our store, unless there is a real need to keep someone on track or provide some direction. Because I am relatively new to the organization we are still figuring out each other quirks, but for the most part we treat each other like adults and promote creative thought.

I've always been more of a hands-off type of manager. I do this by expressing my desires, sharing our goals, and actively listening to each other. Then... we just get out of each other's way and make things happen. Results can be measured in sales, but the effort that drives sales is unique to the individual. We don't want order takers at Homefield. We want problem solvers.

This type of leadership can have its draw backs, but the culture that has grown into the identity of the organization mediates most of the problems. If things aren't going well, or a policy doesn't make sense then we have a problem. This is why I have chosen problem solvers to staff our office. We kind of police each other in this sense. If it is not moving us forward it doesn't belong.

Now, Homefield is nowhere near the size and scope of Google, but the culture is based on the same beliefs. Find the best people for the job, get them plugged in and prepared to work... then let them do what it is they were hired to do. If it works for Google it can work for me. 

Build a Tower, Build a Team

Tom Wujec performed some research on team building using a technique he titled the "marshmallow problem". The concept includes a team of people, dry spaghetti, a yard of tape, and a marshmallow. The goal is to see who could build the tallest structure in a limited time. The results showed that out of groups of Graduate students, CEO's, and several other professional talent pools the best designers were architects/engineers and kindergarteners.

The most interesting observations Tom noticed was how professionals quickly vied to establish a group structure, make a plan, then build their structure, and cross their fingers in hopes it would stand. It is not surprising that a table of "corporate leaders" would spend some time figuring out who was going to take charge of the task before making plans to build. The ingredients are simple. The task is simple. However, some of these groups complicated the process with an unrehearsed power struggle. Not surprisingly, most of the structures failed.

So, why are kindergarten aged children so successful at this? Architects and engineers I can understand, but how do elementary kids out perform masters of industry or graduate students? Tom concludes that none of the children spent any time jockeying for power, or as he put it "wanted to be CEO of Spaghetti Inc.". They see a task with its unique parameters and get to work. The planning phase is probably being conducted as the structure is being built, and new ideas are shared during the process from the successes and failures along the way. The time NOT wasted on establishing a pecking order could be spent on fixing problems in design on the fly. Therefore, in the same amount of time there is more productive energy being spent on finding a solution than time wasted on structure.

Donald Brown states "the purpose of process interventions is to help the work group become more aware of the way it operates and the way its members work with one another". Efficient operation of a team, in any environment, depends on the collective problem-solving skills and abilities of the team members. Focus on an objective is more important than the direction of the components. Grad students and CEO's missed the mark with their towers because they allowed too much energy to be shifted away from using the group dynamic to produce the best results. When you spend a lifetime leading from the front it is hard to lead from within, and this is why Kindergarteners succeeded where other failed.

What can we take away from the Marshmallow problem? We should examine how we use our power in regards to goal accomplishment. Are we getting in our own way to success? As leaders we need to learn to identify problems quickly and find solutions that are appropriate for the scope of the project. We also need to learn to think freely and work as a team and not independent of it because of our status as leaders. We need to be aware of the group behaviors and norms when working through problems, and figure out how to best work together.

Now that I have started my new job as the General Manager of a small retail outdoor living store we have a dozen Marshmallow Problems each day. I don't have all the answers, but I do have a fresh perspective on possible solutions. I also rely heavily on my team of sales and production members for their insight and ideas. I encourage their thoughts and welcome a collaborative effort. Tom Wujec's Marshmallow Problem reinforces my decisions to incorporate our small group to find practical and creative answers to the many hurdles we face on a daily basis.