Have you ever been on a team in which there is a free rider?
That's an expression used to refer to the fact that
some team members contribute a lot less than others on a team.
Let me give you an example of a frustrated team member.
Let's call her Mary, who turned to Fortune Magazine's career columnist,
Ann Fisher, for advice.
Mary had to stay until 9:30 PM once again,
missing her daughter's piano recital to finish a project because another member of
her team, John, went waltzing out the door at 5 PM
without completing his share of the work with the deadline being the next morning.
Other people on Mary's team had also picked up slack for
John on many occasions.
So it wasn't just Mary, but she was really starting to feel like a chump.
So far John has gotten away with slacking off because he's very likeable and
fun to have around.
And everybody tip toed around the fact that he's not doing his job.
But Mary is really frustrated with his behavior and
thinks that it's time to do something about this.
In my own teaching experience,
I have had countless people like Mary tell me similar stories.
And in my own research, I've discovered that a lack of engagement or
free riding is the number one issue that keeps leaders up at night.
The question is how to prevent it from happening.
The team charter is my favorite tool to combat free riders.
The team charter is a living document that is written by all team members.
There are three ingredients in the team charter, goals,
responsibilities, and norms.
By the way, it's not going to work if the leader, or heaven forbid,
senior management writes the team charter and voiced it on the team.
The charter needs to be collectively authored by the team.
Don't let it exceed one page, and don't put it in a file drawer.
It should be in clear sight each time the team meets.
Let's talk through each component.
Goals, suppose you gave everyone on your team a Post-it note, or
index card, and asked them to write a one sentence description of the team goal.
Keep it anonymous, would you see overlap?
Many leaders find that there's little or no overlap.
Teams would be a lot better served if they revisited their
overarching goal at the beginning of each meeting.
Roles and responsibilities.
Oftentimes, people are members of teams, but they don't know why they're there, and
they don't know who's calling the shots.
It's far better to be explicit about roles and responsibilities.
I like using Richard Hackman's model of team and leader responsibility.
As we work through this model, think about your own team.
Let's start with manager-led teams.
In a manager-led team, the team is responsible for
executing the task, and the leader is responsible for
selecting the team members and monitoring and managing performance processes.
What's an example?
Okay, suppose I pull together a team to do a competitive analysis
of other business schools that have executive leadership programs.
I want a report completed in six weeks.
I'm expecting weekly progress reports, and
I will personally deal with making sure members are contributing.
I realize I sound like an ogre, but I'm trying to make a point.
Now let's move to self-managing teams.
In a self-managing team, the team not only executes the task, but they, not
the leader, are in charge of monitoring and managing their own performance.
Let's go back to my competitive analysis team example.
Suppose my team tells me, look, Thompson, we've already had a meeting.
We will deliver the final report in eight weeks.
And we will update you every fortnight.
And we're having our own meetings on Thursdays to which you're not invited.
Okay, you get the picture.
They are monitoring their own performance, not me.
A third type of team is a self-directing team.
Self-directing, also known as self-designing teams,
do all the things that self-managing teams do.
But in addition, they select, recruit, and staff the team.
They have border control.
Okay. Let's go back to this example.
Suppose that the team announces that they've added Greg and Lisa to the team.
Who the heck are these people, I might argue.
Back off, Thompson.
We did not ask for permission, and we're not gonna beg for forgiveness.
And heaven knows what we're gonna do next week.
Okay, I'm overdramatizing, but you get the picture.
A fourth type of team is the self-governing teams.
Self-governing teams do all the things that self-directing teams do, but
in addition, they have some influence over the larger organization.
For example, they may shape strategic direction and new initiatives.
The most common question I get is, all right,
already, there are differing degrees of leadership involvement with a team,
ranging from hands on, very directive to very laissez faire, coach in the wings.
What's the ideal?
The answer is, depending upon your experience level as compared to that
of your team, the organizational culture, how over-committed you are, and
a variety of other factors, any one of these might be ideal.
If you are not transparent about your relationship with the team,
the risk you take is that people will feel over-managed or under-led.
Rules of engagement, many teams never discuss rules of engagement.
They simply let things evolve.
This is very unadvisable because quite frankly,
the least conscientious people will set bad norms.
Did you know that norms are set within microseconds of a team's first meeting?
It is far better to be proactive.
And if I hear one more manager tell me that our rule is that we have no rules,
I'm gonna scream.
Teams that declare we have no rules
ultimately become paralyzed by dysfunctional norms.
Far better to have clear rules of engagement.
Let me give you one example of a team who set clear norms.
Recently, I was working at an offsite with a senior leadership team, and
they brought in a big basket at the beginning of the meeting.
All the senior leaders stood up and put their phones into the basket.
Their norm was that no phone call or e-mail could
possibly be more important than listening to the people at this meeting.
Is there any evidence that teams who develop charters are more effective?
According to Ruth Wageman, the answer is yes.
Well designed teams with poor leaders outperform
poorly designed teams with good leaders.
Let's sum up, it is never too late to develop a team charter.
Treat the charter like a live plant, revisit it, adjust.
What's working?
What's not working?
What should be added?
Finally, have the conversation with your team that too often is not had.
What kind of a relationship do you want with your team?
If you don't have this conversation,
someone is having it without you in the room.
And that's not ideal.
0 Comments