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 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!
