Blog Articles about Teams
Page 1 of 1 page(s)
February 09, 2010
Look for IMPACT in the Globe and Mail today.
Yesterday a Globe and Mail reporter called me and ask if she could interview me about risk. She was interested in leaders motivating their teams to take risks given the New Orleans’ Saints recent Superbowl win.
This reporter wanted to know how a leader can help his team follow him (or her) when the leader makes a risky decision. I said a number of things. First, good leaders are transparent and help their people understand the options considered and why the perceived risky path was taken. People usually need to understand the leader’s thinking in order to be supportive. Second, good leaders work with their teams. They focus on the people who are comfortable with the risk and ready to move forward and they involve those people in the change by asking for their help. Good leaders also allow those who need more time some of that extra time —within reason. Finally risks happen in a “safe” environment. If people know the leader “has their back” by really owning the risky decision, they will be more likely to embrace the risk.
December 09, 2009
Smaller is Better Sometimes
I am currently working with three leaders who are in the midst of restructuring in some way. Two of these leaders ended up with smaller senior teams. They went from a large span of control (10 or more team members) to a small but powerful team of 3 or 4.
I got to see one of those teams in action in the past few days. What I saw was a team that was nimble and able to make decisions quickly. There was deep trust within the team as some team members made decisions that the team supported without needing major detail. Discussions were strategic and remained on track without major diversions. There was an “evenness” to the quality of the input from the individual team members – there were no weak links in terms of talent.
The leader of this team turned to me yesterday and said the following. “It is easier to lead a smaller team.” Indeed it is. Simply, things happen much more quickly with a smaller number of people.
The trend lately has been to “delayer” organizations and expand spans of control as wide as 15 people. The lesson here for me is clear. One size does not fit all. Sometimes large spans of control make sense. They fit the leader’s style. They fit the organization’s needs. Sometimes they cost more in terms of strategic decision making than the payroll costs they save.
As another client said recently, “I added a layer of VPs. I added payroll costs but I increased the efficiency of the group and reduced the overall cost to the organization.” If you want to drive change, consider adding a layer sometimes.
February 04, 2009
Too Few Data Points
"Too few data points". That was a client's description of a leader in her group. She had just met with him to get to know him and to discuss her own career. I asked her how the meeting went and she said it was "fine". She further went on to say, "I think his instincts are good. I think his values are strong. He sometimes makes poor decisions because he takes too few data points. Sort of like George Bush -- not a bad guy, just took too few data points."
Whether or not you agree with my client on George Bush is not the point here. The point is that great leaders make decisions after taking in lots of data. As I coach leaders, I see that they often go with their "gut" on decisions. The really talented leaders take lots of data points and then go with their "gut".
November 16, 2008
Compensation is always a trade-off.
Once you come to terms with the fact that compensation is always a trade-off and never perfect, you are released from trying to justify compensation decisions. Wouldn't it be wonderful not to have to justify? I have coached many people on how to handle tough compensation discussions. It is rarely rewarding for either party.
In my last blog, "Performance Management is so Yesterday", I talked about how current performance management systems sap motivation and are often "widely inaccurate". I suggested changing to a true "coaching and development model". In this model conversations are frequent and focused on support and problem solving and not on assessment and ratings.
This blog resulted in lots of comments -- the vast majority of comments were supportive. Here's a sample.
"People are tired of the way we do performance management. It is cumbersome and the conversations are difficult." "It is unheard-of for the hockey coach to play his team for half the season and then sit down and spend an hour telling each player what he or she did right and what needs to be improved. He needs to be talking to his whole team and each of his players continuously."
I share this hockey analogy comment because it highlights how ludicrous our current approach is. I'll continue with this analogy as I move into the next question to be answered-- "if we can't rate them, how do we pay them?"
November 04, 2008
Performance Management is so yesterday
Think about it. Even the words "performance management" are kind of off putting. Begging the question "Who are you to manage my performance?". I have always disliked the performance management process. I say this, even though as an HR professional early in my career, I helped put in place many performance management systems.
July 21, 2008
You can’t have trust without dependability
A client canceled a meeting today with me today. You are no doubt thinking, "So what? Happens all the time."
It happens all the time with some people. A few people never cancel. Everyone is busy.
January 29, 2008
“You don’t get to work with perfect people.”
This a quote from one of my clients. "You don't get to work with perfect people." Too many leaders who are having problems with their teams, immediately decide to remove someone or restructure. My experience as a coach tells me that you can try working with the team first. If you can get the whole team working more effectively, you can either solve the problem without letting someone go or you will highlight where the real issue is and make the right decision. You can help the whole team work more effectively through coaching the team.
Coaching teams is not the same as having a team building session. Coaching teams is far more effective than conducting team building sessions. Team building sessions create a "feel good" atmosphere during the session and maybe, if you are lucky, for a short time after the session. Coaching teams takes a few sessions, some time, some one-on-one coaching work and some measurement.
Team coaching also takes a committed and courageous team leader. The leader is the force who drives the team to make changes. The leader shows leadership by changing first. The leader must also be prepared to look at themselves honestly and make their own changes. Often there is feedback for the leader to consider. Effective teams are not solely about the leader, each person will have to commit to doing some things differently.
January 16, 2008
Leveraging Strengths Gives “Life” to People and Organizations
People think coaching is about fixing problems. It is sometimes. Coaching is most powerful, however, when it is used to leverage strengths.
The more I coach leaders, the more convinced I am of the power of leveraging strengths. Everyone has a unique approach to what they do. Everyone can get better by exploring their strengths in detail, understanding them and leveraging those strengths. It seems obvious, I know. Few people do it in enough detail to truly leverage their strengths. Even fewer teams, business units or organizations do it well.
Page 1 of 1 page(s)
