HSD 4

In the review of our 2010 Human Systems Dynamics Certification course {ref. last blog post}, F. and I paused at the following spots and commented or shared insights:

• the domain of Complexity Sciences is - well - complex! Or at the very least, very busy and full to the brim. F. counted 13 different fields of study on the provided list of Complexity Sciences, and many we agreed we couldn't explain: "nK Landscapes", "Autopoiesis", "Self-Organized Criticality", etc. They aren't on my lips as I wake up each day!
• nonetheless; now we have taken the course, we are experts on the field of Complex Adaptive Systems! 😁
• combining Complexity Sciences and Social Sciences (more familiarity here - augmented by Twitter and FussBook - LOL) we get Human Systems Dynamics as the intersection. So if you are alive and interacting with other humans you are in the HSD game.
• Simple Rules (example in the previous post) are important initial conditions for every productive behaviour toward a desired result. F. added the insight that to “Attend to the part, the whole and the greater whole” (4^th. rule in the list for the HSD Institute) one also needs to attend to oneself. This is like the maxim I've used in our teamwork sessions: that in an in-flight emergency, one needs to secure their oxygen mask first before trying to help others. So in any situation where help is required or to be given, self-care is important (health, wellness, adequate sleep, minimal stress, etc.). Self-care is also recognized as an important virtue in the teamwork protocols - the Core - from McCarthy Technologies as described in my blogs Team Tips. And even more alignment of best practice occurs with the Personal Commitments which are the introduction to the Core. These are also the Simple Rules which govern the best in team behaviours, including my favourite: “Don't do anything dumb on purpose.” (The only discrepancy between the two bodies of knowledge is that HSD recommends six rules or less - to keep it simple. The Core has a longer list of Commitments.)
• then we got to the definition of a Complex Adaptive System, which is a biggee! F. was struck by the words “freedom to act”: do the values of, and accepted behaviours in, an organization really allow freedom among the individual agents? For example; if one acts outside of the framework then they don't belong in that system, or can be invited to leave the system, and therefore are restrained. (F. finds more unpredictable behaviours in government than in private companies because they are not as focused on the company's goals). Groups often don't share a vision and so act randomly; however, when functioning more as team they know each other better and listen better and act more uniformly. Perhaps the possibility of “freedom to act” depends on using rules to create the environment for freedom - like a country's constitution. We concluded that rules of behaviour on teams leads to greater freedom and creativity; like agreeing in advance to allow unpredictability. My attention was on “in unpredictable ways” (like recent elections). My memory is that it is the unforeseen variety of possible outcomes that makes the system complex. Also, the difference between “complicated” (like a modern, working, internal combustion engine) and “complex” is that complicated things can be designed, built, re-assembled, whereas complex things are unknowable as a whole. We can't build democratic election results. (We do know how to complain!)

We paused at that point and agreed to continue the review at our next meeting.

More to come.

Team Tips - 21 {Ouch, that hurts - Part 1}

You've been to the doctor, right?

There's always the moment when the doctor or nurse has to give you a needle, or draw blood, or otherwise inflict some unmentionable procedure on, or in (ew), some unmentionable part of your humanity.

That's when you hear the phrase:

This won't hurt a bit.

Just like when a “best friend”, or business associate, or the boss at performance evaluation time thinks you really need to hear some feedback, some constructive criticism. After all doesn't everyone want to improve? See their mistakes and learn from them? Make themselves a better person?

This won't hurt a bit. This is for your own good!

It's a wonderful idea if you are the “helper”: being a good friend, advising someone with your pearls of wisdom. But it's not so much fun being the “helpee”. Particularly when it is “inflicted help”. (I think every instance of feedback should be automatically matched in strength and duration with a return message; not as defensiveness or revenge. Just to return the favour.)

Ah, Reeves, you just don't want to hear criticism. You just don't want to be a better person. I'm, like, trying to help you here!

Hmmmm: right; wrong; wrong.

Right: I don't want to hear criticism. I may not respect the source; I may not like the intent; and I've already got my own imaginary critic whispering in my ear.
Wrong: I do want to be a better person. Returning as a dung beetle isn't at the top of my list (see previous post).
Wrong: You really aren't helping. If you really intended to help you would ask me how I would like to receive the “feedback” you have for me.

What I would like you to do, when I ask, for the topic of concern:

1. Tell me how I'm doing numerically, roughly, on a scale of 1 to 10. 
2. Tell me what you like and think I should keep doing 
3. Tell me what I should do differently, or add, to make the score a perfect 10, from your point of view. 

Now:

• I have a quick idea of how I'm doing: 10 out of 10 means I'm good for now; 1 out of 10 means you have lots of improvement ideas for me. 
• And I know what things you think I should continue doing. 
• And, best of all, I know what you think I should do more of, or do better, or add to my game. 
• The final component is that I can decide to use, or not, any of your suggestions. Nothing inflicted. 

In fact, this can be seen as a game. We could even call it, say, the Perfection Game. Crazy! 

It could be part of the Core Protocols. 

Oooops; Jim & Michele McCarthy already thought of that.

10 /10 from me.

Team Tips – 11 {Myth busters}

One of the many, many, many things that one learns from the Core Protocols and the concepts in Software for Your Head by Jim & Michele McCarthy is that axioms we have been taught elsewhere about teamwork just aren't necessarily true. In other words, these “axioms” are more correctly  accepted wisdom, rules-of-thumb, even assumptions, that need to be verified and validated.

Just as once we thought the universe revolved around the earth – with really obvious evidence – we have learned that this knowledge, once taken to be fact, is actually wrong. Similarly, a lot of the accepted wisdom about the behaviours of successful teams, has not survived the living laboratory of teamwork we know as BootCamp. From teams' experiments in BootCamp we have captured essentials of great teamwork in the Core Commitments and the Protocols – the Core.

Some of these axiomatic falsehoods about teamwork we previously accepted from training or experience include:

• teams need to be led by an appointed leader
• teams need facilitation
• team decisions need consensus
• effort matters
• all team members have to work equally hard
• the best ideas come from the tenured members
• unsolicited feedback is useful
• emotions shouldn't be allowed
• conflicts should be set aside
• there is no “I” in “Team”
• etc. (I'd like to hear about your list)

But one of the bombshells concerns a myth of Project Management in an intellectual property development world.

Anyone who has worked on a project, or been taught classic project management thinking, knows about the scope, time, resources triangle. Given X resources on the team, to produce a Y scope of work, in Z time, we can visualize the triangle with sides X, Y, and Z. If one of these sides is to shorten or lengthen, then clearly the other sides must flex or else the triangle breaks and the project fails.

We can all think of many examples where that appears to be self-evident. If I decide I want a second story on my one floor bungalow in the middle of building the house, then the contractor will certainly tell me it will cost more money, more materials, more equipment, more builders – in short more resources.

So how can it be that teams using the Core and the experiences of BootCamp are successful with the Intentional Development Protocol which says:

There is not a rigid triad of time, resources, and scope as you may have been told in your project management class. The triangle is in fact an angle with an infinite space between the two lines. The infinite space is the “resources” space. Maximizing the human potential of your team, your resources, can overcome any deficiencies you feel in the time and scope domains. Your belief that you don’t have enough time or too much scope is the signal to you that you are not being receptive enough to what’s available to you.

And that statement is from Jim McCarthy (Bell Labs, Microsoft) who had previously promoted the classical triangle is his previous book The Dynamics of Software Development!

What gives? How can a finite team have indeterminate / unlimited / infinite resources?

One clue from the BootCamp experience is that in the realm of creative production one never knows when or from where the next good idea will appear. When the resource constraints are simply the minds available to the team, and the team knows how to best access these resources, that side of the triangle starts to bend, balloon, flex, wiggle, and expand, if not vanish.

If the team's focus is on delivering quality features for this milestone at this deadline, and the Simple Rules and Tools of the Core are familiar to them, then there is virtually no limit to whom, and when, they might ask for help in getting results.

Compare that to a team not having been to BootCamp, working the traditional paradigm of time, scope, and resources. The resources they perceive available to them are primarily, if not exclusively, the individuals on the team. They may or may not even ask each other for help on their own tasks. If they do ask for help, it is often restricted to non-significant issues - certainly nothing that is frightening to them: challenging egos, being vulnerable to appearing lacking in knowledge or capability, giving up on positions of power and influence from seniority or status, etc. They don't naturally ask for help quickly and easily from those outside the team, the department, the company, their locality, the world at large.

When this group gets into trouble with delivering quality on time, they do all the standard things: put in extra hours and effort, de-commit from scope by dropping features or the depth of features, ignoring quality, asking for more team members or different skill sets, changing timelines on task achievement or overall deadlines, focusing on "easy" stuff, not testing, not prototyping the end product, getting sick, spending more energy on working out options, excuses, blame, tossing the issues in the project manager's or boss's lap, etc.

The team that has been to BootCamp knows they don't need to do any of the above.

• They know they can ask anyone anywhere around the world for help. Just asking alone often provides the answer that was waiting to be found in their own minds.
• They make quick unanimous decisions about this new insight based on their shared vision of the outcome.
• They convert planning time into building prototype solutions to check the boss's and or the user's acceptance.
• They spend their energy on results – the results they agreed in advance they could produce.
• Their focus and energy dilates time – they get better work done faster.
• They are receptive to opportunities that appear spontaneously, perhaps are strange, unclear, yet somehow align with their vision and resolve an issue, add quality, provide a shortcut, help meet the deadline. This receptivity is key.

Impossible isn't it? And of course, the sun revolves around the earth – until one gets a new perspective. Then...

Myth busted.

Team Tips – 9 {Ramble on...}

It's a rainy day here, and I've pretty much caught up on work and administrivia, and since I've already fixed the hole where the rain gets in, my mind isn't kept from wandering...

This random? wandering includes the team challenges:

• maintaining momentum
• taking the Core Protocols literally
• mining the richness of the BootCamp learning
• why do bees buzz?

Maintaining momentum

As Vickie and I continue to work with groups that have attended the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams Immersion (aka BootCamp) inevitably individuals and teams find some aspect of the week long immersion into the delight of being useful – to themselves, and others – waning. Part of that might be running out of the adrenalin that typically is part of the experience. Sometimes it is physically demanding to stick at something. Perhaps we are experiencing enough personal change that our legacy behaviours and training start to push back. There can be disappointment that things didn't work as well on this part of the product as we remember it the last time. Or in the fun of trying many ideas we have lost track of a pattern for success – how we did it last time or how that felt. When we have reached the greener grass on the other side of the fence it can be difficult to remember how dry and withered the original side was.

Sometimes we just need to pause, take a collective deep breath, renew our support for each other, reconfirm our vision and alignments, and remember the wealth of possibility in front of us.

Taking the Core Protocols literally

If a particular Rule or Tool – Commitment or Protocol – is feeling like a burden, then we might be taking it too literally. Consider the problem of attempting to write down the paths to greatness. How I, or the next person, or the Core Protocols document, or the BootCamp Manual describe an experience will be highly variable. My view isn't automatically yours, your insights may not be mine, your words a different choice than in the document. If we are used to working with computing devices in black or white coding we have to remind ourselves that great teamwork is poetry, not bits and bytes. The algorithms of great team behaviour – the Protocols – are the result of years of refinement, including finding the best words. And if English isn't our first language, the difficulty is compounded. Take the example of “Will you ...” in Ask for Help. I've learned that this causes no end of confusion for translators. The intent isn't the future tense of the verb, but agreement to participate. Even the conditional “Would you” doesn't work.

The words are the best we have at the moment; the trick is to comprehend the intent and the spirit in the rules and tools, and keep practicing.

Mining the richness of the BootCamp learning

And if we digest each word in the Core, and read the BootCamp Manual many times, and think deeply about our week of immersion in the Simple Rules and Tools are we finished? I know for myself after 10 years of daily use and helping to instruct over 25 teams that I still learn something every time I read the words. And it is always fun to read some new book, a blog, a technique, a study that speaks to one single idea that is part of the thousands in the BootCamp experience as if that one alone was the answer. We live in a world looking for the seven habits, the four dashboard quadrants, the four agreements, the ten commandments, etc. Naturally authors and publishers are going to try to attract our attention to the silver bullets that make our lives wonderful. I just wonder how they would react to finding the wealth and depth and richness of BootCamp learning.

There is just so much there to explore, to try, and play with when one is dealing with the foundations of team communication and behaviour, the science of human systems dynamics.

Why do bees buzz?

Because they don't know the words. However, that doesn't stop them. I don't perceive that they analyze, I think they just get on with it. They do what works for them. When that flower doesn't work today they try another one. When a field or garden does provide pollen they repeat what works.

That's also what we have seen. Successful teams just get on with it. If this commitment or another helps, or this protocol or another adds value, then use it again. Or not. Try something else. Just get into the garden and smell the roses. And enjoy the honey.

Ramble on!

Team Tips - 8 {Stop the bus!}

The challenge for teams discussed in Team Tips - 3 was how to find members for a great team. But, sometimes, teams experience the opposite challenge:

How to DE-select members for a great team?

Some years ago Vickie and I assisted Toyota Technical Field Operations in the US with improving their processes towards providing more consistency and hence higher value. The boss, David J., was appreciative enough of our work to not only pay our invoice (always important), treat us with thoughtfulness and respect (a wonderful bonus), but to also provide a gift of a book (a special thank you).

The book was Good To Great by Jim Collins. Not only did this selection indicate his state of mind – the desire to transform his organization – it also became very important to me personally.

I've always been fascinated with this differentiation: Good vs. Great. While I'm fussy about precise definitions and clarity these terms are wide open. They can mean almost anything to anyone; however, they still easily allow us to distinguish companies, organizations, workgroups. Given a choice, we would at least want to work with Good ones, even better if we can find Great ones.

But what makes the difference between Good and Great organizations?

That is exactly the quest Jim Collins took on. One of the differentiators Collins and his research team found was this concept: Transformative executives

... first got the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) then figured out where to drive it.

The Simple Rules and Tools Great Teams Immersion (aka BootCamp) demonstrates the same principle: Have the team self select its members, then have them determine their shared vision of their future.

For me this is an instance where universal truths are determined by the connection of ideas from separate sources that provide us a fundamental insight.

Team Tips - 3 tackled the challenge of getting the right people on the team:

And just as the great teams work with a bias toward action instead of discussion, and incrementally building prototypes, and perfecting them, they can do the same thing in confirming new members. That is, work with them over a probationary period for everyone to confirm that the newly expanded team is functioning as well or better, and similarly the team is a good fit for the new member.

But what if someone isn't sure they're on the right bus, or decide it is the wrong bus for them? Or, the boss or the team decide someone should get off the bus? Just as being in a mediocre organization or workgroup isn't comfortable for some people, some aren't interested in being in workgroup striving for Great. And, a Shared Vision doesn't meet its potential if it is not truly shared.

Happily, the Core Protocols – the Simple Tools – provide lots of techniques to develop the desired synergy: Check In, Ask for Help, Personal Alignment, Investigate, Perfection Game, the Intentional Development Protocol for example. These all enable the high-bandwidth communication to explore ideas and develop a shared vision.

But this isn't mind control. We may just agree to disagree.

In the ideal situation, the team works with and supports the diversity of thought and dreams of each of its members. In fact that diversity – explicitly shared and explored – is the team's strength. All the intellectual diversity, aspirations, dreams, visions of greatness combine to produce a shared vision that is far beyond the sum or the multiplication of its parts. And each member's share of results towards that vision needs opportunity for hearing, investigating, support, and perfecting.

If one member of the team isn't aligned with that vision, then he or she needs room to explore that difference, work on their own, promote their alternative to the rest of the team. That may lead to a new product feature, a different development technique, a supporting element which still delivers team success.

Or not.

Perhaps that member is simply on the wrong bus. He or she then needs to take responsibility for themselves – part of the Core Commitments – to get off the bus. And the analogy works: this is not grabbing the steering wheel and yanking the bus off the road into the ditch. This is calmly, and with good intent, dealing with the difference which may lead to getting off. A quick stop, planned and controlled, that lets one off to catch a different vehicle.

And the team's responsibilities include being open to those differences, and where they aren't resolved, facing up to the fact that this is the wrong bus for that individual. If an adjustment can be made that makes the bus and its direction attractive to all, then make it. Otherwise, agree and accept that the bus needs to let someone off.

In the least ideal case, the boss has to recognize this situation and initiate the bus stopping. Here we can turn the slogan “The buck stops here” to “The bus stops here”. (Sorry; that really is bad!) The point is that we all have a responsibility to each other's success and well being, including helping them make a tough decision to leave us and join a different team.

This isn't about being right or wrong; it is about making a good decision. Having someone leave, then having to replace them and make up for lost opportunity is expensive in many ways. What a shame not to have, or use, the Simple Rules and Tools to get the best from each team member and make that bus trip Great.

How's your bus doing?

Team Tips - 7 {I, Robot}

Here's a challenge from some who have heard about, but not fully experienced, the Core Protocols in action:

Using protocols of behaviour turns us into robots.

Sure.

And the use of best practices in our work puts us in process hell, building quality into our results is expensive, rules inhibit creativity, great results require huge effort, and the earth is flat.

Just in case you haven't guessed yet, I have a bias. Yes, I am a fan of the Simple Rules and Tools for great teams – the Core Protocols from McCarthy Technologies.

And my bias is toward action, getting the best results with the least effort, being clear and explicit in communications, using standards of process to provide consistency of quality wherever possible, and promoting creativity and excellence.

If you have an uncontrollable urge to “roll your own” and be as free as bird with no constraints in developing and providing your particular product or service, then fill your boots.

I trust you won't be offended if I don't get into your car for the next trip across town, or get into the aircraft your company provides for travel. I'm just not that comfortable in blowing through stop signs and red lights because they are too constraining. Nor would I be thrilled if the pilots for my next flight didn't care to check the aircraft, do any pre-flight cockpit work, ignore air traffic control, and attempt the take-off from the taxiway with only fumes in the fuel tanks.

Yup; those dang protocols do inhibit things.

Like:

• using all the comfortable legacy behaviours that aren't productive and deliver low quality results
• having low bandwidth communication full of blather and unspoken assumptions
• spending more time on project management than on producing product
• getting tangled up in whining, complaining, and the Drama Triangle
• producing mediocre products or services so we don't achieve too much revenue

So if you are getting your very best results already, if you are sure there is nothing you can gain by trying a different approach, if you are completely, outrageously happy, financially secure, and have absolutely nothing else to offer the world, then please ignore the Core Protocols. Instead, please send me your own protocols.

The commitments from the Simple Rules and Tools include using the Tools – the Protocols – or something better. So I'm serious. If you have something better I need to know.

But in the meantime give the Simple Rules and Tools a try. How does any idea become a reality except by eventually trying it out and looking at the results?

Mainframe computers, became mini computers, became personal computers, became laptops, became hand held devices, etc. Computer assembly languages fostered compilers and interpreters, etc. Waterfall project management became more agile with – you know.

If you feel that protocols would turn you into a robot, then perhaps you need to be the one to show how they don't have to.

Of course you can also persist in ignoring the success of the Simple Rules and Tools, and sail your boat off the edge of the world.

Your call. :-)

Team Tips - 6 {Ouch - that hurts!}

Here's a team challenge from Christophe T:

I noticed we perform better as a team once we shared our fears, hopes, prides, etc. How can we go vulnerable to our team ?

Contrary to popular belief, and certainly my corporate training, we can't leave our emotions out of the workplace. As human beings it is not possible, as hard as we might try. Nor should we. Both Spocks in the latest Star Trek movie (2009) validate that learning.

We ask, for example, for people to leave their egos at the door as they enter the boardroom meeting. What we truly want is to reduce as much as possible the drama associated with our personal agendas. Irrational behaviour driven by extreme emotion often leads to behaviour well described by the Drama Triangle. In the Drama Triangle the roles of Persecutor, Victim, and Rescuer are assumed by those involved in the drama often moving between people as the emotional energy escalates. And that is not productive.

Nor is the emotion attached to grasping for our personal agendas, persisting to have things our way. This easily happens when each individual involved has their own vision of success as opposed to a shared vision among the members of a team. If I am stuck with “My way, or the highway” then we have a dictatorship instead of collaboration.

In fact we could say that without a shared vision a group of people is not a team; certainly not according to our definition in Team Tips - 1. More precisely we can say that such a group might have a common objective but no shared concept of what that actually looks like: what is the picture of the future once that shared vision is achieved.

Accordingly, to attempt to leave emotion out of the equation doesn't work. And you may have guessed already that we have observed that emotion plays an important role in team behaviour. For example, how did Christophe make the observation above? He knows that individuals on Great Teams use the Check In protocol – from the simple tools – to share their emotional state with their team.

Why do the best teams do this? 

• first: simply in order to provide that information – to make explicit what is implicit in my attitude at that moment
• second: to give the team some insight into what is driving my behaviours and actions
• third: to remove the energy from a dramatic scene of possible accusations and rebuttals inherent in the Drama Triangle
• finally: to declare to the team that in spite of, or along with, or because of that emotional energy, I am still ready to adhere to the Core Commitments and so be fully engaged in the team's activities.

OK?      Are you kidding? !!

At least that is often our instinctive reaction to such a foolish suggestion. I'm not about to be vulnerable to others that way, nor vulnerable in any other way, we say. I'm not interested in having the sharks smell my blood and attack.

But, I'm not talking about swimming with Great Whites. I'm talking about working with your associates, your team, who are all sharing their “vulnerabilities” to some degree as the level of trust between members grows.

If one is courageous enough to share emotion, to open the kimono, to expose his or her thoughts and then does get attacked – obviously or subtly – then, of course, that ends that, and a “team” allowing attacks should be left behind to feed on someone else. Sooner or later they will eat themselves.

Being vulnerable on a Great Team means being open to sharing and receiving information of any type, being willing to listen and learn, being willing to risk being wrong, being willing to change.

And that kind of vulnerability comes from great strength and power.

Team Tips - 4 {Is this for me?}

Another challenge for teams comes from Jose R.:

“Can everybody work in teams?”

I am so very tempted to reply with a sarcastic answer, except that wouldn't be helpful, and this is a really tough challenge.

Some people I have observed over the years just don't seem suited to work with others at all. I leave it to psychologists to analyze and guess why. But most of us have encountered those who simply like to work independently or even have a difficult time making conversation with one other person, let alone a team.

In fact, some people, like myself, chose to work in fields like computer science to reduce the amount of time needed to deal with other humans, their emotional states, their foibles, etc., and maximize their time dealing with the pure, rational, logic of computing.

And some, like myself (again! ?), find themselves so disappointed and de-motivated working in organizational groups where there is no clear vision, objective, approach, sharing of ideas, focus on results, etc. that they can't function effectively. In those kinds of organizations I am un-employable (and have the severance packages to show for it.)

So if we view the challenge as “Can teams provide a work environment for everyone?” we can see why team building, team work, team success is difficult for lots of organizations and anyone who is stuck on those teams.

For those teams that can demonstrate success through the delivery of great results on time every time*, we can revert back to the original question and ask: “Can anyone at all become part of that team?”

And unless the product or service that your organization delivers to its customers can be built by one person only, never interacting with anyone else, we need to address this challenge.

What we have found in our work with teams using the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams* is that no, not everyone will want to be part of a given team's shared vision, and adopt the rules and tools to deliver great results. Some just aren't ready to step out of their comfort zone, give up their previously learned models and behaviours for mediocre results, accept the responsibility and accountability to be their best. This isn't a judgemental statement; it's just fact.

We all become ready to be our best in our own time, at our own pace. Unfortunately, in my opinion, some run out of time before they get to a decision.

What we have also found so far is that the best way to know if one IS ready to be part of a team is to attend the team building session known as BootCamp from McCarthy Technologies. There one is immersed in the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams and can discover for themselves if they are ready, and what it means to be part of a great team. As covered in the previous posts, this also allows the boss to recognize which people are creating which team, and for an existing team to determine their members.

Another choice is to join a great team for a probationary period to see if one is up to the challenge. An important team work practice is prototyping: building versions of the required product or service to be “perfected” (using the Perfection Game tool). Similarly, a probationary period for a new member is a use of prototyping.

Being part of a team isn't about group hugs or being in constant agreement with the rest of the team. Sometimes independent behaviour by a team member is the best choice for the team in a particular situation. Further, if the team's shared vision isn't shared by someone, then it is best that they leave the team – to possibly form their own team.

So if you are one of those extremely rare people who never needs to work with anyone else, you don't have to concern yourself with team work. Happily for the rest of us there are really excellent options.

Click here for your own copy of the Core Protocols – the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams.

To add your team challenges to the list please add a comment below or message me @ReevesResults on Twitter.

Team Tips – 2 {Where's the Boss?}

Assuming you've read the previous post – Team Tips - 1 – you know the definitions I'm using for “teams”, “boss”, etc. and can guess that I will be relying on the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams – the Core Protocols – in my answers.

Indeed, the underlying premise in all these answers is that the team is using the Simple Rules – the Core Commitments in the Core Protocols – and the Tools – the Protocols themselves, for their day to day operation. This is simply the smartest approach for any team that we have found.

So here is the “catch”. If what I am suggesting doesn't seem workable in your situation, then the organization needs to use the Core Commitments and Protocols (or something better).

Let's start with one of the most complicated situations Vickie and I have had to work on with a team, the question Jose R. asked:

“Does the boss belong to the team, or he just must work for it?” (I believe for the last part Jose meant “or does the team just work for the boss?”)

(Remember: “boss” as used here is defined in the prior post Team Tips - 1).

Boss

The simplest rule is NOT to have the boss be part of the team. The team works for the boss, and delivers the product or service the boss requires, in the timeframe the boss requires, with the quality the boss requires. And in large enough organizations the boss is on his or her own team with other bosses of other teams.

Team

In fact the teams working for a boss ARE THE PRODUCTS of the boss, and the teams across the organization are the products of the team of bosses. In the purest arrangement the bosses don't produce any final product or service for sale to their retail customers – their teams do.

And to get even more precise, the boss sets the initial conditions for the team – what must be produced and delivered by the team, and when, and within what constraints (resources, values, legislation, policies, etc.). The most experienced and mature teams can take responsibility for deciding what can be produced and delivered against a given deadline, or alternatively, what deadline they can meet for a given product requirement.

All of this works smoothly when there is a high level of trust and a high level of communication both ways between the team and the boss. And, of course, individual commitment and responsibility from each team member. (We'll explore trust and commitment more in future posts.) These elements are all comprehended and provided for in the Core Protocols.

But the situation gets trickier when the organization is smaller and, for example, the owners of the business are the bosses AND are also contributors to the team and its products.

In this special case the boss or bosses have to operate in two modes: explicitly as the boss, and explicitly as a team member. The modes have to be crystal clear at each moment in each transaction between all parties – that is why I emphasize “explicitly”.

In all cases, the boss's job is to have the team produce a result on time that is great in the opinion of the team and the boss. The boss does not have to be concerned with how that is done, what tools or methods are used, etc. as long as the initial conditions – the non-negotiable items – are met. If the result exceeds expectation or is finished early – fantastic. If there is any doubt that this will happen, the team should be reworking their methods, their focus on deadlines, their quality, etc., without expecting the boss to intervene or rescue them, unless they specifically ask the boss for help.

Similarly, in daily operation, the team relies on the merit of the best ideas from any team member at any time to proceed to producing the team result. The boss as a team member cannot have any special standing or influence, otherwise the other team members will eventually stand back and wait for the boss to propose all ideas and make all the decisions, and the huge opportunity for individual leadership, innovation, and energy is lost.

Accordingly, as the boss the business owner states the end result required or the deadline, then steps aside to let the team get on with it. As a team member, the owner acts as an equal with all the other team members to determine how best to produce a high quality result, or when the result will be completed as appropriate.

To be crystal clear about what mode the business owner is in – boss or team member – he or she may use a special name, put on a particular hat, etc. or simply say: “As the boss I need...” or “As a team member I propose...”

Needless to say, this special case can add a layer of extra effort and confusion, and so we recommend the simplest scenario for teams that are just getting accustomed to using the Core Protocols for team building and operation. But if there is no choice, we have a number of ways of accomplishing the special case.

If you already are knowledgeable about the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams – the Core Protocols – then you can see how this boss / team model works.

If not, then you will probably have many more questions on how this model can possibly work! So please send in your questions via the comments section below or @ReevesResults on Twitter.

Team Tips – 1 {Some challenges}

Since my partner, Vickie Gray, and I have been working with Jim and Michelle McCarthy on developing Great Teams over the last 8 or so years, it occurred to me to collect the things we have learned observing successful teams and create a series of blog posts.

These observations might be called Team Tips.

(They are actually recommendations for team members collected over the 15 years that the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams – the Core Protocols – have been gathered and used. But “Team Tips” is more catchy. :-) )

And then I thought: Why not ask my Twitter world for suggestions for posts – what are the challenges that people have about team work?

Here are some replies so far:

From Jose R.: 

“Can everybody work in teams?”
“Which is the best road to high performance teams?”
“Does the boss belong to the team, or he just must work for it?”
"How can you recover trust inside a team that has lost it?"

From Ben N.:

“How to select members for a great team?”

Nothing like starting off with some really important questions!

So while I am working on the answers to these questions (and setting aside all the other recommendations I have for the moment) it seems worthwhile to get some terminology straight so we are all clear on the words.

Here are some definitions we use:

“Team”: A team is a group of two or more people working on a common goal. Immediately that moves us beyond groups at work into any situation: sports obviously, community groups, church groups, families, couples, etc. There shouldn't be any circumstance where the team practices we use – the Core Protocols – won't work. Nor have we found culture, language, arbitrary social class rankings, etc. prohibitive.

“Boss”: A generic term covering all the organizational words for someone in authority over the team, e.g. manager, director, team lead, project manager, etc. The boss represents the power that sets one or all of the goal, resource budget, time deadline, etc. In Human Systems Dynamics terms the boss sets the “initial conditions”. We often refer to these items as those that are non-negotiable by the team. In a typical workplace the boss represents the owner / president / CEO who has the final decision making authority. In a family the boss is the combined and agreed decision making authority of the parents or couple.

“High performance teams”: In my corporate career I previously used this term very loosely as meaning any team operating with some awareness of their own performance and having some techniques to intentionally direct their own work. (And I thought it was a big deal to get that far.) Having since experienced what excellent teams can do I now use “high performing” to refer to teams that are committed (scary word!) to intentionally (not maybe) delivering great results (as considered by themselves and their boss) on time, every time. In other words, teams that consistently and continually use the Core Protocols (or better).

And finally, for now...

“Member”: Any one who considers them-self part of the team, and whom the team agrees is part of the team, not because of any assignment by organizational grouping or task, but because of their behaviour. And that behaviour includes their own commitment to intentionally great results from the team.

I'm sorry if you were hoping for quick and easy answers instead of this preamble. In Human Systems Dynamics (HSD) terms a team, as any group of people, is a complex adaptive system. That is, it is a system constantly adapting to a chaotic environment. Which is why self help books and blogs, weekend retreats, climbing ropes in the woods, facilitated intervention can help momentarily but typically doesn't last or grow. These things are not maintainable, repeatable, scalable for the chaotic, dynamic world we live and work in.

HSD also teaches us that simple rules and tools are important for people in complex adaptive systems. (Simple means a short list that is clear and concise – not necessarily easy).

That is why Vickie and I refer to the Core Protocols for team building and operation as the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams.

And why I'll be referring to the Core Protocols in the next posts as I answer your questions about teams.

To add your questions to the list add a comment below or tweet me @ReevesResults

Simple Rules and Tools - Perfection Game

Making something better and better

The other night at the Aikido dojo some members were tested and successfully achieved their next level of ranking. Immediately before the tests all of us worked through a regular class which usually has us start with practicing a very basic and simple technique and build on it towards a pretty startling movement.


To the casual bystander this approach can seem odd. If I am learning to spin my opponent around me almost horizontally, force them to the mat, and then secure them immobile, why should I spend time practicing having them grab my wrist over and over... and over?


Where's the cool drag them one way, clothes line them across the neck in the other direction, take them off their feet using their own momentum, and have them slam down on the mat, all with a flick of the wrist, twist of the hips, hardly needing a deep breath?


Well, of course, Aikido isn't about being “cool”, or slamming your opponent, who is actually more your partner in an intricate dance than a real threat. At least in the dojo.


And the whole development of these intricate moves occurs step by step, just like learning to fly an aircraft, or any other criteria-based instruction. When one can demonstrate satisfactory performance of one task or movement, then one can progress to the next step.


In particular, at each step one can review, evaluate, and improve to develop a firmer foundation for the next step.


This continuous building and adding to achieve a startling amazing result is one thing Great Teams practice doing during the the Simple Rules and Tools of Great Teams Immersion. The Tool is called the Perfection Game. The initial “movement” is simply whatever idea or proposal is suggested for the team to consider from one of the team members. That person asks one or more of the others to “Perfect” it, and the protocol begins.


It's a very special, structured, and positive form of feedback:

• it only occurs at the requestor's asking
• it indicates how much value the responder is hoping to provide to improve the suggestion
• it covers the aspects of the suggestion the responder likes with only positive comments
• it indicates any improvements the responder would like to see to make the suggestion as close to perfect for them as it might be – the value the responder is adding

That last step is where the continual building, improvement, and adding value occurs, particularly when the whole team is involved – either at the same time or in stages.


So if you like the opportunity for continuous improvement – kaizen – in your martial art, your flying, driving,... whatever, or are just looking to make an idea better in any situation the simple tool the Perfection Game protocol is ideal.


Find out more about the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Teams at http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/news.html


Get a free copy of all the rules and tools known as The Core Protocols at  http://www.BusinessImprovementResults.com/whatresults.html


See our example of the Perfection Game at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40a4Lf0hsaI&NR=1

Software for Your Head 4

Finishing the project team kickoff meeting story from Software for Your Head by Jim & Michele McCarthy.

(from page 8):

Well, hell, if he did all that, you would consider him to be all the way checked in. Hmmm. What’s more, you think maybe, just maybe, that scenario might just do the trick for the whole damn team. Tell you what, you’d bet your bottom dollar that his teammates will at least respond with their fullest, focused attention. That’s just what people do whenever someone reveals himself a bit. If he’s talking and acting with just the least little bit of enlightenment, something new, they’re going to listen up and watch closely. As long as the person says what he says and does what he does with thoughtfulness and truth. But if it is true, you’d predict that the team, just by witnessing a more honest, genuinely new engagement level, will then be much more likely to act on questions of shared vision (which, you remind yourself, is the top-level symptom). At least, you figure, they’ll be more likely to act on things they care about, anyway, and that would be all to the good. Moreover, everybody who watched this thing unfold from just one person will have been really informed, and maybe even inspired, by the difference made by his acceptance of personal accountability for how he has been spending his own life. Really, not only for his own results, but for the results of all.

You half listen to the team struggling to cram everything in the agenda in the last few minutes. Maybe the others would also begin to experiment with the new power they are seeing and feeling (and there is tremendous power in accepting individual responsibility for achieving results together). If your guidance would help one or more of them to engage more deeply, and not to waste any time and never to do anything dumb on purpose, why, you’d have made a huge difference. Hell, the dumb quota can always be met by doing things you thought were smart to begin with. You don’t have to do anything dumb on purpose to meet the quota.

You imagine that a newly awakened team member would see a whole bunch of things, maybe all at once; the problem is not a case of a team without a shared vision, a case of just another stupid project, or another example of bad management or poor leadership. No, when he thinks it all the way through, he’ll see that the trouble is not “too few people,” or “not enough time,” or some other cockamamie story about how the mediocrity was out of his control. The crux of the thing is that he, personally, has been accepting less than he wants, and less than he deserves. What’s more, he has been doing so without making any genuine creative effort to get what he requires to efficiently create what he wants. He’ll see that the problem is his own lack of integrity and his shallow engagement. The problem is rooted somewhere near his deficient caring about his own life. To persist as it has, the problem requires his repression of passion, it mandates that he fail to accept his own wisdom, and it seduces him into daily acts of cowardice that promulgate rather than abolish the general foolishness of which he is such an important part.

But should just this one person truly check in, you think, the whole team will be moved to a better ground. Even if team members backslide, and all do,they won’t forget this vivid instance of accountable behavior and the simple, unambiguous actions that supported it.

One self-respecting person, you reflect, with even a modest degree of personal engagement, is all it takes to start this team on the path toward much greater achievement. No permission is required for the pursuit of greatness, no consensus to improve your own results. All the orgs and re-orgs in the whole damn corporate universe, all the resources consumed and processes proceeding can’t stop one honest person from making sure he spends his time wisely. And that’s all that is needed to get the ball rolling.

Why not believe, you think. Pretend. OK. So from this one moment of surpassing individual and dawning team clarity, this whole group will quicken, will revive. Of course, team members will need some new supportive structures; they’ll require whatever information there is about highly effective connection and collaboration. In particular, they’ll damn well want more moments of clarity, and will be willing to adopt whatever practices create just the right conditions for genuine checking in.

They can’t hold it, probably. And would they spread it around? You have a spike of unease, but then you reassure yourself that the team you are envisioning would of course look for any behavior patterns that would achieve its goals. If there weren’t any, team members would just figure a way to create them. And put them in a book.

But first, one of them must check all the way in. Just one. Who? All this, after one of them has decided that his life, time, and creative output really do matter. But not before.

Interrupting your reverie, your nascent vision, the meeting suddenly stops as people scatter and depart, ceasing to meet rather than finishing their work. Finishing is way different from ceasing, you muse. As you gather yourself, one of the team newbies, together with the team’s most infamous cynic, approach you. You bet they want your take on things. Your help.

So that's the kickoff meeting that we've all been to, and all have wished was better.

What have you done in this situation? Thoughts? Comments?