Special Mission – The Ultimate Teams and Eureka Moment

This is a true story!

The Plot

It was a well-orchestrated corporate training program which by all parameters of evaluation could be considered a success.

I was the choreographer, conductor and trainer. CEO of the company, a brilliant innovator, research scholar, and educator, a man with a vision, is on a mission. All his employees are handpicked, high achievers, brilliant brains and wonderful individuals The CEO had recognised the need and defined the desired outcome-state. He was clear as to what he wanted.

Challenging and interesting, I customised the entire training program, to suit the demand, in line with their vision statement. When I discussed the blueprint of the proposed programme, the CEO insisted that all his employees go through the programme. 

Methods - Surreal or Real

Most training sessions abound in sermons of lofty ideals and ideology delivered from self-assumed high pedestals, a touch of authenticity added incorporating generous mix of quotes and a few well-worn instruments complete the jamboree. Some stories, real or not, of great valour and sacrifice add the surreal.  Few fun activities thrown in; the salad is done.

I deliberately dumped the established model. My sessions were filled with hands-on activities to yield real work-life lessons. Each session had a clear aim. In general, it brought out individual’s strengths and his/her relevance to the combined potential, in reference to organisational vision. The subtle but real focus was to help individuals identify creases and roll them out to produce a collective which became the base for as many seamless special mission teams as required.  The company designed tangibles from seemingly intangible dreams and ideas!

They are in the process of bringing home, tomorrows today.

Revelations

As the programme unfolded, I observed the random manner in which participants formed groups, broke up and regrouped. I witnessed how competition and collaboration played out as situations unfolded. That is when I noticed team dynamics at play, away from work but as much in force and presented few eureka moments.

I intend sharing with you here, what I discovered. But first let us understand some basics.

Team Types

There are basically two types of teams; one where roles are specifically assigned to the members and the other where members are not specifically assigned roles, but are expected to cooperate, put in their best towards achieving team goals.

However, there is also a hybrid version, like a football (soccer) team where, roles though assigned, necessitate members to dynamically assume different roles to take advantage of an opportunity that emerges or chip in to stem an adverse situation becoming critical.

Characteristics

A team, where roles are formally assigned, will have a team leader, selected or nominated. The leader is expected to direct, lead, command, and control the activities of the team to maximise synergy of efforts and deliver targets expected. Leaders’ individual competency and more important, his/her ability to draw from members and aggregate efforts dictate the final outcome.

A team where no roles have been specifically assigned, members ‘consider themselves’ equals to start with. However, as the task progresses, one individual emerges from within as the leader or a few as the power centre. In such cases, the initial part of team formation could be chaotic. However, depending on the quality of members and their levels of personal aspiration, matters settle down and start working.

The hybrid version of the team presents the structural formalities of a formal team and few dynamics of a team of equals.

Irrespective of the team format, dynamics of the team can be seen through the triad ‘Authority- Accountability and Responsibility’.

But there is more at the beginning! It starts as early as ‘team selection’. 

Selection Criteria? What They Believed

The first major individual activity of the training required each participant to assume leadership of a ‘special mission’ team. He/she was required to choose just one team mate.

‘Leaders’ were then progressively allowed to choose more members, one by one, up to a maximum of three. The selection was in strict anonymity. (Surprisingly only one participant had asked what the ‘mission’ was!)

In one subsequent activity, participants created their own ‘strength template’ aided by others in exploring their ‘Jo-Hari’ ‘hidden’ and ‘blind areas’. It was no surprise that the arena for each individual was insignificant compared to the two other areas. Everyone promised to work towards subsuming the hidden and the blind areas into the arena.

During the ensuing discussion on team-selection criteria, each participant vehemently emphasised that ‘selection’ to the team should primarily be based on competencies.

After all we all believe and preach that all selection should be merit driven. 

Selection Criteria? What They Practiced!

Armed with the fresh knowledge and a well cemented rationale that selection must always be merit driven, the selection process adopted by participants was then dissected.

Without fully knowing the nature of mission, how could selection be merit based? How could the selector have correlated competencies with the mission requirements without knowing the mission characteristics?

Stated convictions apart, everyone confessed that they chose members based on ‘trust’ and not on any commonly accepted competencies. What drove the selection process, in contrast to what each participant believed in and advocated?

Participants were then made aware of the nature of the mission and allowed to change members if need be. Surprisingly nobody did, although the entire process was done in absolute anonymity.

Everyone was sure, that members they chose will stand by them and deliver results; without even knowing the nature of the task and what competencies will be required.

Trust remained unshakeable! ‘Trust’ emerged the biggest competency!

Meanwhile, I walked around and peeked a view of the selections made. I was surprised! Few names were found in almost all the teams. So there were a few whom everybody trusted!

Would they deliver? How would they impact team dynamics?

I decided to put it to test. 

COG - Center of Gravity

Any team, when stripped off the structural format, consists of functional entities.

One person becomes the fulcrum and around him or her the entire activities would revolve. It is from this ‘center of gravity’, that all instructions and directions flow out to all parts of the team and it is to this person that all information flows inwards. Ideally, this must be the leader of the group when formally nominated and when a team converges to an individual as the leader, he or she becomes the CoG.

In teams where the structure and roles are formally assigned, deviation from this circuitry is a sign of weakness, existence of multiple power spots or challenged leadership. In teams where leader had emerged from amongst equals, deviation is clear signs of leadership being challenged!  In both the settings, output is certainly suboptimal. This is also commonly seen in large organisations where information meanders through multiple channels and layers.

In teams that adopt the hybrid version, presence of defective circuitry inevitably brings unbelievably steep fall in output. Many a national team with defective circuitry has made spectacle of themselves, even against teams considered minnows.

Nothing remains stable when center of gravity is disturbed. Unquestionably the leader must remain the most important cog in the wheel. The foundation triad ‘authority - accountability – responsibility’ must rest here and here alone. 

Catalysts and Facilitators

In and around the CoG functions the set of ‘catalysts and facilitators. They form the effective neural network of the team. It is this set of people who make things happen.

Nobody has to tell them what should be done. They actively seek, decide and execute what should be done in the best interests of the organisation. All of them actively participate in pursuit of the team's goals. Few however, look for opportunities to emerge from the shadows of the existing leadership. Few of them set their sight on the leadership role. Challenge to the leadership normally emerges from them. Some of them are noble. Shorn of ego they expect their fruits of labour to be decided on merit of contributions. The actively bear and hold the two pillars ‘accountability’ and ‘responsibility’ in the ‘authority - accountability – responsibility’ triad. 

The Bulk

These are people who would do what is asked for, to the extent they perceive have been asked to, and in the manner, they think should be done, unless specifically told to. If nothing' has been told, nothing need be expected from them. In situations of adversities, they often adopt the hands-off approach keeping themselves away from the ‘authority - accountability – responsibility’ triad.

It is not that they have no aspirations or lack competencies. It is likely that they are waiting for the opportune moment to come to light. They do not generally fritter away their competencies on chores, they think is not worthy enough. They preserve their competencies for a later day!  If and when it comes, is another matter!

The Experience

When I constituted the teams, I deliberately cast one team with more than three of the ‘most trusted people’ together. In one I put two of them together, in one I ensured just one from the most trusted lot. One team were just the others!

The result was astounding.

The one with many ‘most -trusted’ individuals performed the worst. They took more time in sorting out the multiple power centers. The general environment was that of competition rather than collaboration. When the clock stopped, they were left wondering what happened.

The one with just two ‘most -trusted’ fared much better. It struggled a little but ended up reaching a solution; but split.

The one with just one ‘most trusted person’ quickly completed the task.

Surprisingly, the one that was constituted at random performed the best.

Lessons?

Few questions.

Does trust subsume all competencies of an individual?

Or is trust a sum total of all  competencies as perceived by the environment?

Though I would love to write down my inferences, I am tempted to leave it for my readers to come up with their own explanation as to why, what happened, happened!