The Keys to Team-Building

Poor team players? Here’s how to get employees to play well with others.

Let’s start by belaboring the obvious: Collaboration is good. Authorities as diverse as Benjamin
Franklin ("If we don’t hang together, we’ll all hang separately") and Jonathan Winters ("We’ve got
to get organized!") say that except when the unique skills of an individual contributor are needed,
coordinated team play produces greater synergy, efficiency, results and sense of ownership by all
involved.

Doughlas Richardson, http://www.careerjournal.com

With such evident benefits, why are so many of us such lousy — or at least reluctant —
collaborators? Many executives, managers and project leaders get hung out to dry because they
don’t play well with others. We’ve all heard the shots these noncollaborative types take: Too
autonomous. Loner. Self-aggrandizing. Aloof. Rebellious. Opinionated. Stubborn. Not a "team player."

A lot of these criticisms may be bad raps. Negative attitudes and intentions are presumed, but the
real culprits are confusion or basic personal temperament. Collaboration, in fact, isn’t a simple moral
virtue, but rather a complex interplay of factors that are worth examining.

For starters, while collaboration appears to be a team activity with team rewards, it’s really built on
the attitudes and behaviors of a bunch of individuals. It’s only when all these individual actions are
aggregated that the outcome appears to have a collective purpose. It’s like summarizing millions of
separate stock transactions and saying, "The stock market was bullish today."

Team-Play Conditions

An individual will collaborate if two conditions are met: 1) he or she is motivated to collaborate; and
2) he or she understands what to do to collaborate effectively.

Start with the first issue. Why doesn’t everyone commit to ardent, unhesitating collaboration? Easy:
They’re afraid it may not be safe. The majority of us make decisions based on the "WIIFM Principle."
That stands for "What’s in it for me?" This basic tenet of human nature isn’t meant to suggest
selfishness, but rather the universal human tendency to constantly weigh the likely rewards and
risks of any action. Obviously, if the downsides clearly outweigh the benefits, most of us will choose
not to act.

It’s trickier when we can’t tell what the consequences of our actions will be. Whenever we can’t
accurately assess risks and rewards, or if the same behavior gets us a stroke one time and a poke
the next, we tend to withhold trust and decline to take the initiative. This lack of trust doesn’t
always appear as open resistance, so the leader doesn’t always understand why team members all
nod their heads yes-yes-yes, but nothing is getting done.

How does a leader fix this reluctance to trust among team members? The classic recipe is open and
frequent communication, clear and consistent standards and feedback, plus making individuals feel
as if they really matter. Just as collaboration isn’t really a "mass" activity, trust isn’t really a group
norm: It’s a foundation built person-by-person until it coalesces into a climate of collective trust.
That’s hard to create — especially during periods of change and uncertainty — and easy to destroy.
Without trust, however, true collaboration is impossible; the best a leader can hope for is
compliance.

Natural Resistance

In addition, some personality types are naturally resistant to collaborative activity. By nature,
they’re highly autonomous; they simply get more satisfaction from individual achievement than from
team triumphs. For these folks, results mean more than relationships. They play golf, not
basketball. They tend toward careers as "individual contributors," as accountants, lawyers, doctors
or other subject-matter experts who "do it themselves." As leaders, they would rather coordinate
("Be reasonable, do it my way.") than collaborate. As team players, they just want to be left alone
to do their own thing.

The best way to get autonomous people to collaborate more effectively is through role clarity with
distinct boundary lines of responsibility and accountability. Savvy autonomous people know they
can’t do everything themselves. The key is to create complementary roles among them so they
retain some sense of a personal win even as the team as a whole wins. There are, for example,
very effective project teams made up of lawyers collaborating on major legal cases — although the
interplay of individual egos makes such teams look rather different than, say, a social-work agency.

Suppose we can get past the motivational issue and assemble a team of contributors willing and
able to function collaboratively. Will they automatically function together like a well-oiled machine?
Not unless all players’ trust and commitment are supported with a concise understanding of what
they’re supposed to do. Before putting a project (or department or company) in motion, the leader
should take steps to assure that every participant is fully informed regarding all relevant factors in
the "collaboration equation."

Important Questions

To do this, the leader may want to work systematically through the "GRIP" model with team
members. GRIP is a logical sequence of questions that elicit and communicate practical information
instrumental to team success (The model is also handy for trouble-shooting any task or project that
has jumped the tracks.):

Is there GOAL clarity?

Do we all understand what we are doing and why?

Do we all agree on our goals, objectives and priorities?

Do we have our priorities and our tactics in order?

Is there ROLE clarity?

Have we inventoried our skills and experience to determine the capabilities at
our disposal?

Do we all know what each of us is supposed to do at all stages of the task?

Do we all agree that we are the right person for our role? Is this a good "fit"?

Do we understand the connections and relationships between our roles?

Are we clear about leadership and authority — who has it, and why?

Do we know how we will allocate authority, responsibility and accountability?

INTERACTIONS: What about morale, motivation, trust and commitment?

Are all voices being heard and respected? Are all styles accepted?

Are individual needs being met in addition to team objectives?

What are our behavioral norms and values? (Are they positive or negative?)

Are we having fun?

Are we behaving professionally and respectfully? How do we curb unproductive
behaviors?

Does our work provide avenues for growth and personal development?

PROCESSES: Do we all know what to do, how to do it, how we interact with others
and how we’ll measure progress and performance?

Have we created plans, priorities, procedures and standards for each
deliverable?

Do we have clear and open channels of communication — up, down, and
sideways? How do we fix them if we don’t?

Do we have sufficient resources, including people, time and money?

How will we monitor and coordinate our efforts?

How will we provide each other with feedback? (Form, formality, frequency,
causes and consequences.)

Do we have ways to test our assumptions and reality-test progress?

Have we thought through possible contingency plans if things go off-course?

The GRIP model cascades. That is, without goal clarity, nothing else will work worth a darn. With
good goal clarity but poor role clarity, failure and friction are inevitable. Goals and roles may be
clear, but if everyone is discouraged — if interactions haven’t been fully considered — morale will flag
and compliance is the best you’ll get. And absent clear processes that define and measure activity,
other team virtues merely sound nice.

It’s better and easier to engineer GRIP from the beginning, rather than try to build it in after the
team fails to collaborate. Each of the questions is important; any unasked question or untested
assumption is a vulnerable spot waiting for Murphy’s Law to take hold.

On the other hand, as the GRIP model suggests, adequate attention to the interactions piece can
do wonders for morale, trust and commitment. This model is hardly rocket science or the ultimate in
sophistication, but it does encourage thorough planning and thinking. In terms of effective team
collaboration, it really makes sense to "get a GRIP."

This article is reprinted by permission from CareerJournal.com (c) 2002 Dow Jones & Co. Inc. All
rights reserved.

http://www.cfo.com/printarticle/0,5317,7641|,00.html