Team Cooperation and Competition

The decision to form a team should stem from the purpose in which the team is designed. The goals, or purpose of the team needs to be realized by all participants and understood in order to move forward with a common sense of direction. With the purpose in mind, and as the initial formation stages of team take place, the individual members should have a say in the ground rules. This is the essence of a Team Charter.

Recently, we have formed a team in our Master's program to build upon team concepts, teamwork, and accomplishment of team goals. By this time in our program we have all participated in some form of "online team" and we all have a sound concept of what works and what doesn't. So, we made our Charter and expressed our individual strengths, expectations, past challenges, team goals and barriers, as well as some simple ground rules. This particular team is comprised of five motivated professionals sharing a common experience in self-education, and this blog is dedicated to the process of forming our group.

First off, we were given an outline for our charter. Each member was to include their respective contact information and fill out the fields with their thoughts and expectations. There are several ways to accomplish this with members scattered around the US, and we chose the "hot potato" method. The first team member out of the gates posted his portion of the charter to our file exchange, and then posted a discussion board comment on how others should follow. Each person was to download the file, add their information, and repost to the file exchange for the next person to complete. The final member to fill out the charter then posts it for the group to review and submit for grading. Simple and effective.

Not only is the content of our charter and submission process effective, but it allows us to catch a glimpse into the thought process (behaviors) of our members. Will anyone wait to the last minute? Does anyone object to this process? Or, will we all build upon a solid foundation of teamwork? It is a good test to establish the working behaviors of a new and dispersed team.

The main theme throughout our charter was communication. We have assignments that have deadlines, and we need participation from all members to accomplish these tasks. We also all have very busy and productive professional and personal lives that demand our attentions. So, if someone is going to be late or having trouble with their submission we all agreed we need to know about it sooner rather than later. We can only bridge gaps if we see them coming in enough time to fix them.

Our results were successful. We now understand each others' strengths and expectations of the group. So, what if someone doesn't hold up there end of the bargain? Simple... we complete the task, submit our work as professionals do, and confront the slacking member to find out why they dropped the ball. I believe that we all are in this program to succeed, and we all want to perform well (mainly an assumption on my part based on my own feelings and personal expectations). Life does have a tendency to happen, but we now all agree that communicating situations that will compromise the teams purpose is expected from all five.

Personally, I love these team projects. Online Teams, or virtual teams, have unique obstacles inherent... mainly time zone barriers. Learning to overcome these barriers is best done through understanding, communication, and respect of other members. In my personal and professional experience I will always be a part of a team in some way, shape, or form. My wife and I are a team for our family. At work we operate as a team, and understanding, communication, and respect are all necessary elements that ensure solid teamwork. In the immortal words of John Madden, "It's the team that gets into the end zone the most that is going to win". NO one gets ahead by themselves, and if they do they will probably be too tired to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

JP

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.

Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention

Engineering changes within an organization is a complex task with many moving parts. There are technological advancements, faster methods for decision making, and changes in global markets that all contribute to making the right choices for change. None of these factors come without their fair share of risk, and the risk centers around doing things differently than they were done before. In other words, continuous change requires an understanding of the continuous risk involved with change. It is not a simple matter of making a decision to move in a new direction, but gaining the support of everyone involved to get you there.

Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, and Gordon Bethune, CEO of Continental Airlines, spoke with MBA students of the Fuqua School of Business at Duke about how they both dealt with major changes in their companies, markets, and mergers (in the case of Honeywell and Allied Signal). Both leaders in their respective industries, Bonsignore and Bethune touched on how they handled major changes to move their companies forward through tough times and financial uncertainty. Throughout this interview there was a common interest in how these leaders lead their companies forward while implementing huge changes in the structures of their companies. This common interest was focused on changing the culture of their company identities.

In the case of Honeywell/Allied signal there was a clash of cultures merging together in the hopeful efforts of increasing productivity, making better products, and reinventing long term cultures into a new blended mission, a huge task considering the size and scope of both Honeywell and Allied Signal. Bonsignore made a very clear statement that those who help this new culture vision prosper will be rewarded and those who work against it will suffer. This decision and strategy defines the company's seriousness on moving forward as a new entity with new goals, vision, and direction. In my opinion, this is the paramount effort of a leader who says to his/her people, "You are either with us or against us. Get on the bus, or we will leave you behind". This puts the choice of change in the employees court. Work together to create something new and better, or get out of the way.

Both Honeywell and Continental have their barriers to their respective visions and goals. Rapid market shifts, economical fluctuation, technological advancements, and a whole bunch of employees to buy in to the changes being implemented. Both CEOs shared similar view points on how they over came these barriers. They got their people on board and helped them believe change was possible. Neither were afraid of making mistakes, and both of them emphasized the importance of learning through making them. Both CEOs credited their employees with the successes of their businesses. The focus on customer satisfaction also resonated with both of these leaders. Taking care of the people they serve, both internal and external, was Bonsignore's and Bethune's main focus, and this is the essence of their effective leadership styles.

Change hardly ever comes easy and without a price. Technology is expensive, restructuring an organization costs jobs, and creating a new culture or identity within an organization takes time and leadership. The examples Bonsignore and Bethune offer their companies are centered around a strong confidence that the vision and direction of change is important and good for the company. They live what they believe, and they both set the example for their organization to follow. This example is how I will focus on leading my small business forward. Whatever direction or vision I feel is going to be the best decision for the company, our customers, and our employees will be my personal driving force and dictate how I conduct myself as their leader. Changing the culture of an organization, large or small, starts with the leadership. Every decision I make, every change I implement, and every action made must reflect the overall vision and goal of the company. Change is a good thing, and getting your people behind it is the only way to make change work effectively.

50 Reasons Not to Change/The Tribes We Lead

There are three types of people in the world. There are the can-do's, the can't-do's and the watchers. The can't-do's are comprised of those who make excuses why things can't be done. For this type of person their excuses are valid, logical, and endless. It is not that don't want things to change, it's more of an internal belief that the changes just won't work. Dr. Daryl Watkins address a list of 50 reasons most commonly used by people who just don't (or won't) accept change in his presentation 50 Reasons not to Change. Unfortunately, there are a lot of can't do's in the world either by a lack of understanding, education, or unwillingness to swim against the current. Maybe it is because risk is a two sided coin, or they like "the way things are".

The second group of people are the can do's. To these folks anything and everything is possible. Obstacles are opportunities in disguise, and hurdles are there to make accomplishment that much more rewarding. These are the people who have established democracy, sent men to the moon, and fought for human rights. They will find a way to make things work. To these types of people there is always a way, they just have to find it. Fortunately, there very few of these types of people because the efforts of the few have always effected the greatest change.

And then there are the watchers. These are the undecided ones. The "maybe" people. They can be swayed towards the can't-do's through hesitation, or towards the can-do's by inspiration. "What if" is the deciding question the watchers ask themselves. This is the fence they sit on, and they are susceptible to influence.

When I was clicking through Dr. Watkins' presentation I was thinking to myself, "Yep, I have heard that before". Heck, I've even said them before. I admittedly accept that I was a can-do trapped inside a can't-do for a long time. For me, it took stepping out of my bubble, interacting with people who often failed, but never failed to get the job done. I started to meet a few people who quit on quitting, and was unshackled from my can't-do self. My father used to tell me that if one can do it so can another, they just might have to try harder. Now, I don't even acknowledge the excuses of the can't-do. They are just one more obstacle in my way towards progress. However, when I hear some of the reasons not to change I become more aware of the type of people I am working with, which helps me gauge the amount of effort I will expect to put in to prove them wrong.

The biggest difference between the can't-do's and the can-do's is attitude. If you believe, you can achieve. Our attitudes are directly affected by the changes we encounter on a daily basis. We either focus on the negatives or on the positives. Seth Godin opened his TedTV speech, The Tribes We Lead, by arguing that what we do is try to change everything. We try to focus on what bothers us and either complain about or try to fix it. He talks about Nathan Winograd who effectively changed PETA from an animal destroying agency to one that adopts out abandoned animals. He talks about Henry Ford who changed the way we manufactured automobiles. He talks about the can-do's and how making a positive difference can help reshape the world we live in. In essence Seth Godin is talking about converting the can't-do's and watchers into can-do's through action. He talks about tribes, and how people seek out others with shared interests. This is an important concept that reminds us that we do belong to a society, large or small, and positive changes can occur with just a spark among the tribe. We don't have to change the world, but if we infect our "tribe" with a can-do attitude and make positive changes within our "tribe" those changes could spread to other tribes and possibly effect change on a grand scale.

I chose to be a can-do. It is a choice. I have to listen for the seedlings of the can't-do's and squash them before they take root. There is no way I can convert all the can't-do's, but I can sway a few watchers and surely I can surround myself with can-do's. I do this by being positive, seeking out what bothers me and changing it, and infecting those around me with a can-do attitude. I don't have to change the world, but I can grab a hold of a good idea and give reasons for others to follow me. This is how I will make a stand and change our world... one tribe at a time.

JP

NASA Culture Change

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is one of the most complex agencies in the US government. They have sent men to the moon, satellites beyond our solar system, peered further into space than ever imagined, and advanced an age of unparalleled discovery. In other words, NASA is the premier pioneer for exploration of our known universe.

What makes NASA so extraordinary? I would say its human resource, innovative thinking, and a willingness to achieve mission success. However, with great exploration comes great risk and failure. January 28, 1986 NASA lost the shuttle Challenger along with her crew, and more recently the shuttle Columbia disintegrated over Texas upon reentry. The loss of life and billions of dollars invested in these programs forced NASA to take a close look at where they could have made better choices, safer operations, and really take a look at their organizational culture. As with any failure NASA needed to know where they went wrong.

NASA employed an external entity to compile data through surveys, interviews, and observation of the entire agency, and what the information showed was a very clear gap in management-employee interaction and a lack of encouragement for upward communication. It wasn't a lack of willingness that was the problem, it was the lack of leadership upholding the core values of NASA that helped contribute to these disasters. NASA's Administrator, Sean O'Keefe, spoke to his organization about this extensive diagnostic effort and delivered an honest account that focused on answering the question of where they went wrong, what they plan to do to fix the issues, and how these changes will ultimately make NASA the organization it has the potential to be.

O'Keefe spoke about the importance of respect for fellow colleagues. He commented on the lack of leadership support and the encouragement of open communications up and down the organizational structure. More importantly, Sean O'Keefe took full responsibility for these pitfalls as the most senior leader at NASA. His message focused on the need for a cultural change throughout the entire NASA family, and I believe he was sincere in his commitment to see these changes through.

NASA core values are safety, people, excellence, and integrity. Every one of these core values involve the human element to achieve. They are not systems that can be established with code or automated with robots and computers. They are "people" values. The diagnoses of the culture within NASA showed that these values were understood thoughout the organization, yet they were not being implemented into action. Basically, the leadership in NASA was not walking the talk, and this is what O'Keefe focused on in his speech. Values without action are nothing more than empty words. Changing this cultural mindset was the answer NASA needed to rebuild their organization into a safer, more innovative, and powerful force in exploration. It starts with the people.

As I was watching O'Keefe deliver his message I kept thinking about my past career as a sales manager for Toyota. While I was not figuring out how to get a rover to mars, I was thinking about how I could be more proactive with my sales team. The only way to know what was going on in the trenches was to venture out from behind my desk and get involved. Sure, I had inventory to manage, numbers to crunch, and bosses to report to every hour, but none of that was more important to me than engaging with our customers and the sales people helping them. I often found myself staying far beyond closing hours to finalize the work I could have done during my shift instead of interacting on the floor, but I never minded that extra effort. It paid dividends with our customers, my sales people, and the dealership. Because of this I was able to find solutions to problems as they developed and not after the fact. I can only imagine how what sorts of results NASA could achieve with that same drive and awareness in its leadership ranks.

Very soon I will be the general manager of a small organization of talented people in Corpus Christi. I was not chosen to make drastic changes in this store, but to improve on the systems in place. Taking what I have learned from NASA and Sean O'Keefe I will focus my efforts not only on the products we sell, or the market we sell to, but on the valuable input and talent of the employees we have. I will continue to be engaged with our staff just as I had been with Toyota. I believe that the lessons learned from NASA's cultural changes supersede industry boundaries, and employing cultural awareness is the foundation for turning a good organization into a great opportunity.

JP