HSD 7

In the review of our 2010 Human Systems Dynamics Certification course {ref. HSD 3}, F. and I continued our discussion about tools to deal with each type of change.

For static or dynamic change, traditional methods can be used to measure outcomes; e.g. statistical methods from quality control like histograms, distribution curves, etc. However, Project Management might work for static or dynamic change but not dynamical change because for this type of change we don't know what the interactions and interchanges between the agents are, and might be, as the project progresses.

Another difficulty we recognized comes up with stereotypical management activities such as the Board of Directors asking for the forecast of profit results for the next quarter without understanding that the results are actually due to dynamical change. This situation requires management understanding of dynamical change and comfort with the uncertainty of unknown influences and with imprecise results. In other words, as F. noted: a reduction in strategic planning replaced by strategic thinking.

The golden rule F. suggested is to observe each type of change without prejudice. In other words, treat each situation with the scientific method starting with observation and description to reach a hypothesis. Instead of using methods based on intuition, use a systematic approach. That would include being careful to understand the type of change in front of us using the questions we discussed last time. {ref. HSD 6}

We then began looking more deeply at dynamical change.

With open boundaries around the system, influencers are outside the system in question and are unknown. F. pondered the possibility of attempting to determine the “openness / closeness” of a system. Could we build a rating method that categorizes systems on a scale from “closed” to “open”? My concern is that even with such a rating there would be difficulties: a closed box in a sealed room is subject to external influences some of which are known, such as gravity, temperature, etc. but this situation is still subject to unknowns.

I applied this difficulty to planning a workshop. We can get all the details available about the participants, the venue, the circumstances, etc. - in short, think about all possibilities. However, there still will be surprises, and unknowns that affect the outcome. Therefore, understanding the dynamical nature of the situation leads to an approach which can use the surprising, emergent elements successfully.

We agreed that the approach used in an “Open Space Technology” workshop {Harrison Owen} comprehends that there will be unknowable influences on the participants, and the workshop as a whole. This knowledge allows the organizers and participants to use these influences to achieve emergent and unexpected results. Accordingly, the goal is not to seek a specific result but to use an approach that allows a variety of unanticipated results.

More to come.

HSD 3 {HSD 1 revisited*}

A friend has been nibbling away at me over the last few years to review our HSD Certification course. (As I write the acronym it occurs to me that it sounds like a disease. 😜 )

HSD is far from a disease - it's a means to a cure. It stands for Human Systems Dynamics and provides a perspective on organizations and all the interactions and related ups and downs that occur when groups of two or more humans try to accomplish something.

You know: CHAOS. (The most recent elections in the U.S. and about Brexit might come to mind.)

Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone could provide some insight and practical suggestions to deal with this kind of mess? The mess being a complex system that has unforeseen and unintended consequences? Like... oh, LIFE in general?

Well, Glenda Eoyang and the HSD Institute can, and do!

And since my lovely and talented partner, Vickie Gray, and I have dealt with many messy organizations with complex problems throughout our consulting days, Human Systems Dynamics seemed very worth learning about. So we did, by taking the HSD Certification course from Glenda in 2010.

As well as being a rewarding, insightful, and revealing learning experience we got to work with a cohort of classmates with years of organizational experience and insight on the related problems and challenges they had tackled.

One of the kindred consultant spirits in the group was F., and it was his idea to review the course, share experiences and new learning, and discuss questions since six years has passed.

So F. has been poking at me and trying to set aside time in his busy practice for us to talk. Today was our first solid crack at opening our class binders and walking through the materials. 

I thought it would be useful to capture our thoughts and insights here as we go forward.

To set the stage I'm borrowing the Simple Rules that the Institute established for their course:

• Teach and learn in every action
• Search for the true and the useful
• Give and get value for value
• Attend to the part, the whole and the greater whole
• Engage in joyful practice
• Share the HSD story

Just the concept to even have Simple Rules to follow as part of the initial conditions for group behaviour was one of the first lessons. I'm sure we'll come back to this later.

Stay tuned for more!

{* My first blog post on HSD was in 2010.}

Management 11

A very special person is lining up his first management assignment. 

He's been poking at the idea for some time, even tried for an opening in his organization a while ago. Another opportunity has now come along and we've been talking about it: what the current situation is, is he interested, is he ready, what are the implications, etc., etc.

These conversations are wonderful for me because I love sharing what I've learned and the results. I'm a strong believer in the pilot's adage: Learn from the mistakes of others, because you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

So after an ask for help from him to prepare for this new opening, I've been thinking about how best to be helpful. How do I usefully condense 20+ years of management learning and experience? It suddenly occurred to me that I had posted thoughts on management before, and they might be useful. So the list below is an index of management topics from which anyone can pick and choose items of interest.

Management

• Management 1: The prospective manager dilemma
• Management 2: Precision of terms
• Management 3: My manager is a bozo
• Management 4: Some definitions, to have the correct discussion
• Management 5: My manager is my best customer?
• Management 6: Managing my manager!?
• Management 7: Jobs vs. Roles
• Management 8: Fun with role play
• Management 9: Management training?
• Management 10: Coaching and mentoring and asking for help

And just in case you thought you would see more on "leadership" in these, there are lots of posts on Leadership starting with:

• Leadership 1: Leadership can come from anywhere

through to 

• Leadership 13: Smart leadership

(If you want to scan through all the Leadership posts, just look in the Archive list (middle right), select an arrowhead beside a date to find the desired topic. (Google organizes by date instead of topic.))

Now the fun begins! What does he find most interesting? What did I leave out? Do these posts help him get results?
Stand by!

Team Tips - 22 {Ouch, that hurts - Part 2}

(For the folks just switching from a code window)

BEGIN

IF: you've read “Ouch, that hurts - Part 1”

THEN: jump to END

ELSE: read “Ouch, that hurts - Part 1”

END

So now you know how the Perfection Game works. It's one of the Core Protocols. It could be called the Perfection Protocol, but that could be problematic because we are only human and as much as I would like to improve I'm not counting on getting to complete perfection. I'm such a slacker.

Besides, it really is fun as a game: Do something, Perfect it (Caps meaning Perfection Game steps), do it again, Perfect it, etc. Kids love it. I'm glad I'm a kid.

When I wasn't a kid, I had this very serious corporate manager job being a very serious corporate manager and eventually became a very serious corporate manager of very serious corporate managers. One of the duties of being a very serious corporate manager was to evaluate employee performance, following a very serious corporate policy and filling in very serious corporate forms describing and scoring all manner of employee performance and behaviours.

I'm sure you know what I'm referring to:

• describe the employee's performance over the previous period
• highlight job responsibilities done well, or requiring improvement, for all 99 job duties
• from the following exhaustive sets of descriptors, choose characteristics that best describe the employee's attributes, and those requiring more focus
• etc., etc.
• provide an overall summary score out of 5

All of this is, at best, a well intentioned effort to provide guidance to the manager and to standardize a process that ensures the employee gets some information on their performance in a scheduled, repetitive manner.

But, at worst, it becomes a way to find enough sugar to cover the medicine of enough negative concerns to keep the final score centered on a bell curve. If everyone is regularly at a 4 or 5 out of 5 then they are over performing in their job, ready for promotion, and candidates for salary increases (when there is merit increase money available.) And as a boss, you didn't do it right.

That becomes a mess.

It is stressful for the manager, stressful for the employee, each jockeying for position. Feedback becomes a negative experience even though it should include amplification information as well as dampening. The score keeping becomes a case of “1 aw-shit cancels out 10 attaboys”.

Alternatively, imagine how pleasant and useful the Perfection Game plays out:

Boss:
"Continue doing this, stop doing that, add these things, and I'll be happy."
You: (Realizing the boss doesn't have his facts right, or missed some of your best moves)
"You didn't mention the amazing thing I did 6 months ago; do you still want more of that?
(Realizing the boss is asking for you to do something you are currently doing)
"I can certainly do that." 
(Realizing that you don't understand what is wanted) 
"Happy to give it my best shot; how would it look when I do it?" (Collecting requirements and a definition of “done”.)

As the boss, I don't have to wrestle my way through negative feedback, finding the right words, trying not to hurt feelings, struggling with cultural or maturity differences, etc., etc.

And if the employee follows all the Perfection Game steps and decides to ignore my suggestions, then I am already prepared for the next round - rinse and repeat - until one of you has had enough and you part company.

Now that you have read this far, here's some Perfection for You (provided as an example since you didn't actually ask for it):

• 8/10
• I like that you persisted, put up with my quirky humour, and got to this point
• For a 10, use the Comments area to note some employee performance examples for which the Perfection Game doesn't seem to work; and/or, when using the Perfection Game as your performance management method, a simple scheme to allocate merit increase money if it must be based on job performance.

(Back to your code window - I hear the boss coming!)

Team Tips - 17 {A word with you}

At first I didn't see this post as a "Team Tip". But of course learning is important for any team, and that's what I'm getting at here.

Here's my Best Business Books list.

• “Best” because I learned something important, and thought the author(s) explained it well.
• “Business” because I recommend these books to business associates for help with concerns in the workplace; however, they really apply to humans doing anything, anywhere.
• “Books” because most of them are books (they are all “learnings” but “learnings” doesn't have alliteration with “best” and “business”).

I was tempted to list them in some order of importance. But that is clearly in the eye of the beholder, so what you find useful isn't necessarily what I enjoyed.

Nonetheless, the critical few are “The Art of Possibility”, “Closing the Me-You Gap”, “7 Habits”, and “Software for Your Head”. And that's a reasonable order for increasing degree of difficulty, and volume and richness of concepts.

What is fun to do is to look for the similarities in fundamentals expressed in each - our essential stardust.

If you don't expect to read them all, I've added some of the concepts that were important to me from each to help you choose.

Please let me know of any you would add to this list.

Abrashoff - It's Your Ship

• how do you promote individual initiative and responsibility on a US Navy ship that is capable of starting World War 3?

Ackoff - Systems Thinking (YouTube)

• look for any of the lectures by Dr. Russel Ackoff on YouTube to understand the fundamentals of looking at entities as systems to avoid attempting to sub-optimize the various parts, and missing the interactions as the critical element

Collins - Good to Great

• insights from comparing very successful companies to their mediocre counterparts, determining the leadership, thought, and action that made a difference

Covey - 7 Habits of Highly Effective People

• what does it mean to truly be effective; i.e. work on the right things at the right time, and understand all of the roles in our lives and what is important for each?

Goldsmith - What got you here won't get you there

• from one of the foremost business coaches the insight that all the things that have made us successful so far aren't enough to guarantee our rise to the next level, and in fact might get in our way

Gray* - Creating Time

• how to use the Core Protocols from McCarthy Technologies to find more time than we thought we had for any endeavour

Gray* - Closing the Me-You Gap

• how to use the Core Protocols from McCarthy Technologies to build trust with others

Kahneman - Thinking, Fast and Slow

• explains the two systems of how we think - system 1 is fast, intuitive, and emotional, system 2 is slower, more deliberative, and more logical; however, both can lead us astray due to evolutionary forces, and poor understanding of their operation

McCarthy & McCarthy - Software for Your Head

• starting from the typical human faults we encounter in the software industry, this book reveals the anti-patterns and provides the positive alternative patterns (Core Protocols) that let us interact optimally with others in any endeavour to fully realize our potential

Ries - The Lean Startup

• applying the total quality management principles from the Toyota Production System (and similar sources) to any business startup, we are shown in solid detail how to proceed systematically with any venture in any situation where high uncertainty exists

Stone, Patton, Heen - Difficult Conversations

• how to frame the conversation with someone about a very difficult topic in order to reach a successful conclusion (at least to the conversation)

Zander & Zander - The Art of Possibility

• “It's all invented” - in other words, the systems we deal with every day aren't the final or necessarily the best answer, allowing us to find new possibilities at every turn in all we do

Again: please let me know of any you would add to this list.

[* Vickie Gray is my sweetheart and partner in all things]

Team Tips – 15 {Our soufflé fell!}

I had another post lined up for Team Tips - 15 but then this gem popped up this morning on Twitter:

from @LeaderChat

BEST BUY: We Ended ROWE/Work From Home Because It Defines Leadership as 100% Delegation.... ow.ly/jrDjp By @kris_dunn

I was intrigued because a Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE) is a kindred spirit with the learnings and experiences gained from the immersion in the CORE Protocols at BootCamp.

So I followed the url above to Kris Dunn's post:

[the hr Capitalist]

http://www.hrcapitalist.com/2013/03/best-buy-we-ended-rowework-from-home-because-it-defines-leadership-as-100-delegation.html

March 21, 2013

BEST BUY: We Ended ROWE/Work From Home Because It Defines Leadership as 100% Delegation....

Kris ends his post with:

Take a look and soak - it's an interesting conversation. My gut tells me that the delegation angle is window dressing, and when times are bad, people want butts (plural!) in seats.

In this way he leaves the door open for debate on the reported statements on ROWE by the CEO of Best Buy, Hubert Joly, and connects us to the related post by the creators of ROWE:

Cali & Jody Blog

http://www.gorowe.com/blog/2013/03/18/beyond-telework/rowe-creators-set-the-record-straight-best-buy-ceo-doesn-t-understand-rowe/

ROWE Creators Set the Record Straight: Best Buy CEO Doesn't Understand ROWE

It’s disheartening to us that Best Buy's CEO, Hubert Joly, complains of his ideas being “misconstrued” and then in the same breath completely misconstrues another important idea. That idea is Results-Only Work Environment, which up until a few weeks ago was the innovative work culture of Best Buy’s corporate offices.

Jody Thompson continues to explain some myths about ROWE which you should read for the full story. To summarize, they are:

Myth #1 - ROWE is delegation

Myth #2 - If you can see people at the office, you know they’re working!

Myth #3 - ROWE is a one-size-fits-all program

And Jody ends with:

Either Joly truly doesn't understand what ROWE is or he doesn't know how to lead in a ROWE. Either way, he just doesn’t get it.

Fascinating, Captain!

Taking these posts at face value, and assuming Hubert Joly is a smart person with good intent, we have a conundrum.

• Perhaps he is misinformed about ROWE, or it's mechanics, or how it has been implemented at Best Buy
• Perhaps he has a bad speechwriter / press agent, or can't read
• Perhaps he has been misquoted, or might plead the Nixon-ism: “Those statements are not longer operative”

Given his quoted remarks it's clear he doesn't understand delegation. When he says no one should delegate the task of building a brick wall to him (because they wouldn't like the result) he seems to not understand that

• delegation of responsibility is only viable when the “delegatee” can produce the desired result, OR
• (and he should surely understand this as the CEO) when the “delegatee” can further delegate the task to a bona-fide bricklayer

Does Best Buy regularly designate responsibility for, say, accounting audits to their facilities people, or IT services to their logistics experts?

And Mr. Joly needs some assistance with the concepts of leadership. His description of possible leadership styles as “coaching, motivating or directing” are more accurately descriptions of parent-managing.

But we started with the belief that Hubert Joly is a smart person with good intent. Hmmm. Reductio ad absurdem?

He at least needs some help. A good executive coach might work with him on his integrity so that he can honestly say: "I don't like our implementation of the ROWE concepts. It hasn't worked out like I wanted here at Best Buy. We are changing direction and asking all HQ employees to work in the office." (BTW: that's leadership - at least in the traditional organization)

Perhaps even: "Butts in seats is good enough for Yahoo so it's good enough for us."

Whichever way you look at it, the chef shouldn't blame the recipe when he doesn't follow it.

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 - 5 {Trust me!}

We're having a snow day; first of the season.

So it's a good time to tackle this challenge for teams from Jose R.:

"How can you recover trust inside a team that has lost it?"

Trust between team members and between the team and their boss is critical for great teams. In fact it is a deciding factor, we have learned, between great teams and those other groups. When we see individuals on the team trusting each other to uphold their commitments and decisions, then we know the team has moved into that “sweet spot” or the “greatness zone”. This is because the energy freed up from dealing with the emotional drama of lack-of-trust issues can be directly applied to producing a great product on time. It is the difference between team energy being wasted in a downward spiral, and having that energy provide creative ideas, the perfecting and execution of those ideas, and the upward spiral of success.

Additionally, that trust releases everyone from managing each interactive transaction as if there were a high risk of misunderstanding, mistakes, waste, and allows that time and energy to be spent where it is most productive.

We call this model “Trust versus Control”.

This becomes very obvious with a boss that is “micro-managing”. If the boss believes he or she has to be involved in everything the team does, then the team can almost be replaced with machinery. They end up doing each task under close supervision like robots. Alternatively, if the boss has confidence in the team's ability to perform the basic tasks, that can be extended to the team determining their own workflow, quality, deadlines, etc. In the ideal case, for example after attending a Great Teams BootCamp*, the team is proficient in managing their own affairs. All the boss need do then is accept the team's status reports, confirm to his or her satisfaction that the product is on time and will be great, and... take the rest of the day off.

Whenever that level of trust is lost then we are back to the more common case of groups in organizations everywhere.

So to Jose's question: What can we do to build or recover trust?

What we have observed over 15 years in the Simple Rules and Tools for Great Team Immersion* – a.k.a. BootCamp – is that the adoption of the Rules – the Core Commitments – and the use of the Tools - the Core Protocols – is a great starting point. These provide a foundation for the desired end result which is a persistent track record between team members, and between the team and the boss, of successful personal interactions. That is: commitments kept, ideas shared, support provided, results delivered, etc., all of which indicate that trust has been earned, like deposits in a bank account.

A significant starting point is the team agreeing on a shared vision. The ideal method to get to this state is the development of personal goals, or wants, by each individual on the team that each team member agrees to support. The sharing of these personal alignments leads to a state of shared vision – people in alignment with each other – and enables the development of a shared vision statement. What we have experienced is that individuals in a state of shared vision have the basis of trust between themselves which can then be amplified across everything they do.

By individuals keeping their Core Commitments, supporting each other's Personal Alignments, and going further to engage each other regularly by Asking for Help, Investigating, sharing and Perfecting ideas, etc., the team members keep making trust deposits. The nature of these deposits is: I can be counted on to act responsibly as an adult, to avoid emotional drama, to meet my promises, to engage with others in every question of product delivery and quality.

If trust needs to be recaptured, these same tools are effective. Particularly Ask for Help.

Individuals following the Core Commitments can be depended upon for adult, engaged behaviour. Asking these individuals for help, on any question, develops a relationship with him or her based on respect and inclusion. This exercise supersedes just getting information. This is an act of connection which starts to rebuild trust. Keeping promises, being open to diversity of ideas, including others in gathering information, sharing ideas are all positive influences for regaining trust.

And based on our experiences with great teams you can trust me on that. :)

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 add a comment below or message me @ReevesResults on Twitter.

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.