{"id":4528,"date":"2022-02-24T17:00:17","date_gmt":"2022-02-24T17:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/?p=4528"},"modified":"2022-04-13T11:57:35","modified_gmt":"2022-04-13T11:57:35","slug":"co-creation-blog-developing-teams-the-most-overlooked-source-of-competitive-advantage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/co-creation-blog-developing-teams-the-most-overlooked-source-of-competitive-advantage\/","title":{"rendered":"Co-Creation Blog : Developing Teams – The Most Overlooked Source of Competitive Advantage?"},"content":{"rendered":"[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”]\n\t\t\t[et_pb_row admin_label=”row”]\n\t\t\t\t[et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]\n

When it comes to helping their organisations develop people-based competitive advantage, what do most HR executives prioritise?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A quick glance at a random selection of HR Directors\u2019 agendas suggests it might be leadership, culture, engagement, talent or, increasingly, wellbeing – all worthy considerations, but hardly overlooked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, developing teams earns not so much as a footnote in most HR strategies, despite many compelling reasons for its prioritisation, including (but not limited to) the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Teams are the primary unit of production \u2013 on average we spend about 54% of our time working in them and probably much more contributing towards them (source: Oxford Review Special Report on High-Performance Teams 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) They\u2019re perfectly suited to resolving complex, urgent, and unprecedented problems that require learning at speed and sustained commitment \u2013 a summary of many organisations\u2019 current\u00a0 challenges (source: Oxford Review Special Report on High-Performance Teams 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) They fulfil fundamental social needs for connection and belonging which underpins individuals\u2019 engagement and contribution (source: Maslow\u2019s Hierarchy of Needs)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Kenneth H. Blanchard once memorably quipped, \u2018None of us is as smart as all of us\u2019 – although he might have added that in today\u2019s rapidly changing, increasingly complex, highly specialised world, \u2018None of us is smart enough to do very much without all of us.\u2019  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, why don\u2019t we prioritise developing teams more?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s possible many of us still negatively associate it with running around together outdoors (usually when it\u2019s cold and wet) and completing relatively pointless tasks (build a raft, cross a river, transport some eggs or something similar in the process) or being encouraged to share uncomfortable thoughts and feelings that many would prefer remained private. At worst, such events evoke dread, at best they might be considered harmless fun. Few genuinely anticipate any significant and sustained benefits to the team\u2019s effectiveness (for which some development professionals have a lot to answer for).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, some executives might simply consider team building to be an integral component of leadership. However, curricula typically focus on developing leaders\u2019 attributes and not usually on gaining any practical understanding of how to develop the teams on which their performance ultimately depends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most importantly, there\u2019s an inherent, cultural bias (at least in most organisations) towards individual accountability which is rigorously reinforced through individual performance objectives, development interventions and rewards \u2013 all of which goes some way to explaining the low prioritisation of team building.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if it\u2019s important to develop teams, how do we do it effectively?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recent authors have thrown more light on the discipline. Two texts are particularly interesting and potentially particularly important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katzenbach and Smith (The Wisdom of Teams, HBS School Press) emphasised the causal relationship between the team\u2019s performance requirements on its effectiveness. A demanding performance challenge creates great teams, not team-building exercises, or leaders with particular profiles \u2013 \u2018necessity is<\/u><\/em> the mother of invention\u2019 after all. A shared purpose \u2013 effectively the team\u2019s expression of their performance challenge \u2013 is fundamental to team building, as is working together to determine a common approach to collaboratively fulfilling it. This understanding, borne of their extensive observations of teams in many different organisations, also enabled the authors to conclude that not all groups need to become teams (consider a company executive operating primarily through its respective functional departments and producing little or nothing collectively), and not all teams need to be high performing (only those with the most demanding performance challenges require the level of investment that this inevitably requires) – a clear departure from the misguided convention that all groups benefit from developing closer and more interdependent working. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whereas Katzenbach and Smith focused principally on organisational team-building disciplines, Amy Edmundson (The Fearless Organization, Wiley) emphasised cultural and behavioural aspects by linking the development of innovation for competitive advantage to psychological safety and accountability. In short, she argued that high levels of psychological safety and mutual accountability enable and motivate teams to increase the intellectual friction they experience when working together (something diversity alone can\u2019t provide) and that this fosters better innovation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Together, these texts provide the basis for a fundamentally different, more effective approach to building teams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean for team development?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The implications of the findings I\u2019ve referred to here are that team building interventions should be systematic, research-based and focused on tangibly improving their performance (not just improving general feelings or relationships between members).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They should enable leaders and their teams to determine together a compelling, shared purpose and an effective, collaborative approach to its fulfilment – because this is what differentiates \u2018real teams\u2019 from \u2018pseudo teams\u2019 (groups aspiring to become a \u2018real team\u2019 but lacking any common purpose and\/or collaborative approach to its fulfilment). High levels of psychological safety and mutual accountability should be developed through the process (as opposed, for example, from charging through the countryside with their team in tow).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The process centres on some fundamental questions for leaders and their teams designed to help them determine their focus and function. Development professionals can valuably assist such interventions, but only if they understand the principles that underpin this approach (otherwise you might be better off asking them to help you build a raft to transport eggs across a river, so to speak).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why not consider these now for your team? \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Do the performance demands made on our group require us to produce something tangible together that exceeds the sum of our individual parts? (YES = you have the potential to become a \u2018real team\u2019 and, if the performance required is particularly demanding, a \u2018high-performance team\u2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) For what purpose does our team exist and how will we measure our success? (ANSWER = your common purpose & performance goals)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) How will we work collaboratively to fulfil this purpose and achieve our goals? (ANSWER = your approach for determining, planning, executing, and evaluating your work together)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4) How comfortable are we being and expressing ourselves in this group? (ANSWER = team\u2019s current levels of psychological safety)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5) To what extent do we expressly hold ourselves and each other accountable for both our actions and results? (ANSWERS = team\u2019s current levels of mutual accountability)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you want to know more about how to develop teams or team leadership in your organisation, drop us a line at <\/em>info@co-creation.group<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column]\n\t\t\t[\/et_pb_row]\n\t\t[\/et_pb_section]","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

When it comes to helping their organisations develop people-based competitive advantage, what do most HR executives prioritise? A quick glance at a random selection of HR Directors\u2019 agendas suggests it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":4531,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n

When it comes to helping their organisations develop people-based competitive advantage, what do most HR executives prioritise?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A quick glance at a random selection of HR Directors\u2019 agendas suggests it might be leadership, culture, engagement, talent or, increasingly, wellbeing - all worthy considerations, but hardly overlooked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast, developing teams earns not so much as a footnote in most HR strategies, despite many compelling reasons for its prioritisation, including (but not limited to) the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Teams are the primary unit of production \u2013 on average we spend about 54% of our time working in them and probably much more contributing towards them (source: Oxford Review Special Report on High-Performance Teams 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) They\u2019re perfectly suited to resolving complex, urgent, and unprecedented problems that require learning at speed and sustained commitment \u2013 a summary of many organisations\u2019 current\u00a0 challenges (source: Oxford Review Special Report on High-Performance Teams 2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) They fulfil fundamental social needs for connection and belonging which underpins individuals\u2019 engagement and contribution (source: Maslow\u2019s Hierarchy of Needs)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Kenneth H. Blanchard once memorably quipped, \u2018None of us is as smart as all of us\u2019 - although he might have added that in today\u2019s rapidly changing, increasingly complex, highly specialised world, \u2018None of us is smart enough to do very much without all of us.\u2019  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, why don\u2019t we prioritise developing teams more?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s possible many of us still negatively associate it with running around together outdoors (usually when it\u2019s cold and wet) and completing relatively pointless tasks (build a raft, cross a river, transport some eggs or something similar in the process) or being encouraged to share uncomfortable thoughts and feelings that many would prefer remained private. At worst, such events evoke dread, at best they might be considered harmless fun. Few genuinely anticipate any significant and sustained benefits to the team\u2019s effectiveness (for which some development professionals have a lot to answer for).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, some executives might simply consider team building to be an integral component of leadership. However, curricula typically focus on developing leaders\u2019 attributes and not usually on gaining any practical understanding of how to develop the teams on which their performance ultimately depends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most importantly, there\u2019s an inherent, cultural bias (at least in most organisations) towards individual accountability which is rigorously reinforced through individual performance objectives, development interventions and rewards \u2013 all of which goes some way to explaining the low prioritisation of team building.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But if it\u2019s important to develop teams, how do we do it effectively?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recent authors have thrown more light on the discipline. Two texts are particularly interesting and potentially particularly important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Katzenbach and Smith (The Wisdom of Teams, HBS School Press) emphasised the causal relationship between the team\u2019s performance requirements on its effectiveness. A demanding performance challenge creates great teams, not team-building exercises, or leaders with particular profiles \u2013 \u2018necessity is<\/u><\/em> the mother of invention\u2019 after all. A shared purpose \u2013 effectively the team\u2019s expression of their performance challenge \u2013 is fundamental to team building, as is working together to determine a common approach to collaboratively fulfilling it. This understanding, borne of their extensive observations of teams in many different organisations, also enabled the authors to conclude that not all groups need to become teams (consider a company executive operating primarily through its respective functional departments and producing little or nothing collectively), and not all teams need to be high performing (only those with the most demanding performance challenges require the level of investment that this inevitably requires) - a clear departure from the misguided convention that all groups benefit from developing closer and more interdependent working. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whereas Katzenbach and Smith focused principally on organisational team-building disciplines, Amy Edmundson (The Fearless Organization, Wiley) emphasised cultural and behavioural aspects by linking the development of innovation for competitive advantage to psychological safety and accountability. In short, she argued that high levels of psychological safety and mutual accountability enable and motivate teams to increase the intellectual friction they experience when working together (something diversity alone can\u2019t provide) and that this fosters better innovation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Together, these texts provide the basis for a fundamentally different, more effective approach to building teams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What does this mean for team development?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The implications of the findings I\u2019ve referred to here are that team building interventions should be systematic, research-based and focused on tangibly improving their performance (not just improving general feelings or relationships between members).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They should enable leaders and their teams to determine together a compelling, shared purpose and an effective, collaborative approach to its fulfilment - because this is what differentiates \u2018real teams\u2019 from \u2018pseudo teams\u2019 (groups aspiring to become a \u2018real team\u2019 but lacking any common purpose and\/or collaborative approach to its fulfilment). High levels of psychological safety and mutual accountability should be developed through the process (as opposed, for example, from charging through the countryside with their team in tow).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The process centres on some fundamental questions for leaders and their teams designed to help them determine their focus and function. Development professionals can valuably assist such interventions, but only if they understand the principles that underpin this approach (otherwise you might be better off asking them to help you build a raft to transport eggs across a river, so to speak).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why not consider these now for your team? \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Do the performance demands made on our group require us to produce something tangible together that exceeds the sum of our individual parts? (YES = you have the potential to become a \u2018real team\u2019 and, if the performance required is particularly demanding, a \u2018high-performance team\u2019)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) For what purpose does our team exist and how will we measure our success? (ANSWER = your common purpose & performance goals)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) How will we work collaboratively to fulfil this purpose and achieve our goals? (ANSWER = your approach for determining, planning, executing, and evaluating your work together)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4) How comfortable are we being and expressing ourselves in this group? (ANSWER = team\u2019s current levels of psychological safety)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5) To what extent do we expressly hold ourselves and each other accountable for both our actions and results? (ANSWERS = team\u2019s current levels of mutual accountability)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you want to know more about how to develop teams or team leadership in your organisation, drop us a line at <\/em>info@co-creation.group<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

<\/a><\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"","content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[14],"tags":[36,19,57,44,45],"class_list":["post-4528","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog","tag-growth-mindset","tag-leadership","tag-positive-psychology","tag-purpose","tag-trust"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4528","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4528"}],"version-history":[{"count":8,"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4528\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4610,"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4528\/revisions\/4610"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4528"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4528"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/co-creation.group\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4528"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}