Team Leadership Culture
  • Team
  • Leadership
  • Culture
  • Myers-Briggs
  • Trust Me
  • Short Book Reviews
Top Posts
Obituary
REPOST: Four Functions, Three Rules
ROUNDUP: The Rise of AI
REPOST: Facing Adversity Series
ROUNDUP: Curiousity
ROUNDUP: Deep Work
REPOST: Character vs. Competence
REPOST: Opposite of Victim
REPOST: Listening With the Intent to Understand
REPOST: Performance vs Trust
  • About
  • Services
  • Resources
    • Trust Me
    • Short Book Reviews
  • Contact

Team Leadership Culture

  • Team
  • Leadership
  • Culture
  • Myers-Briggs
  • Trust Me
  • Short Book Reviews
Tag:

Team

BlogTrust Me

How Can We Work Together?

by Ron Potter July 18, 2016

photo-1465516001080-8d478e10a809
Leaders at all levels grapple with the challenge of getting people to pool their talents and work with, not against, one another.
Often frustrating to leaders is a team that consists entirely of “stars” who can’t or won’t play together as a team to “win the championship.” In an era of knowledge workers, leaders find themselves with nonfunctioning teams of all-stars who can easily undermine them. (Peter Drucker defines knowledge workers as those who “know more about their job than their boss does and in fact know more about their job than anybody else in the organization.”)
Chuck Daly, the first coach of America’s Dream Team, found himself needing to take basketball players like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird and build a team of champions, not just a group of incredible superstars. Coach Daly used all his coaching experience, leadership ability, and basketball knowledge to mold this group of all-stars into a team.

You will see a team of professionals in the Olympics again,” said Daly. “But I don’t think you’ll see another team quite like this. This was a majestic team.

Coach Daly could not mold these incredibly talented basketball stars into the successful team they became by keeping the focus on himself. On the other hand, he could not surrender the basic basketball concepts he knew would help the team win a gold medal. He was a builder and a success at developing teams.
Teamwork doesn’t just happen. A winning team is not formed by a miracle of nature. You cannot just throw people together (even knowledge workers or pro basketball stars) and expect them to function as a high-performance team. It takes work. And at the core of team building is the desire to develop people and create a calm environment in which productive growth and seasoning can occur.
When leaders tolerate poor teams or even promote them through their own leadership style, organizations find themselves misaligned. Employees use this out-of-plumb structure just like children who play off each quibbling parent to get their own way. Leaders need to stop this behavior and get teams realigned. Leaders sometimes empower direct-reports to perform tasks or projects that are actually opposed to each other.
When team members come to me, they also have questions. Typically, the questions team members ask are about themselves: “How do I deal with difficult team members?” or “How do I get heard?” These are self-directed questions. The team members are concerned about themselves—getting heard, getting ahead, getting along, and getting their jobs done.
In most cases the leader has not developed the team to the point of understanding the full value of synergy. The team members do not understand that the sum of their collective output will be greater than the work they could do individually.
Worse, many executive teams are not convinced that synergy can happen at the leadership level.
It falls on leaders to get teams excited about working together—about creating synergy. Many of the team members’ questions and wants can be overcome when they feel the power of working together and achieving the goals of the team.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
BlogTrust Me

Teams Under Pressure

by Ron Potter July 11, 2016

photo-1432131578171-252835d174b4

The Discovery Channel recently featured a program about a pride of fearsome lions. The documentary illustrated what happens when the leader is no longer able to preserve order and calm.

In one scene the lioness-leader of the pride is leading the hunt of a zebra. As she chases her prey, the frightened zebra jumps over a log at the very same time the lioness is trying to bring it down from behind. As they both leap, the zebra winds up violently kicking the lioness-leader in the head, inflicting a severe wound.

Over the next few weeks, the culture of the pride changes significantly. The lioness-leader becomes fearful and, because of the event with the zebra, shies away just at the moment of the kill. The pride gets visibly angry with her; they are hungry, and the lioness’s traumatic experience has demolished the familiar, effective structure of the pride. She is no longer securing food. Her fear and tentative behavior have created chaos and caused a dysfunctional team that is confused and threatened by starvation.

During times of chaos and confusion, leaders can either be peacemakers, which will bring a calm that pulls the team together, or they can let a “kick to the head” at a decisive moment cause them to pull back, which will cause disruption, loss of morale, and uncertainty.

In my work with clients, most of the questions I receive concern how to find the key that opens the door to a successful team. Often the organization is in turmoil. It needs peace. It wants teamwork to lead the way out and beyond the current situation.

Peacemakers encourage teamwork. They seek group dynamics that unleash the right kind of power and the right attitude to achieve the best results.

So many books, articles, and seminars are developed to help leaders understand how to build teams. It’s ironic that on a moment’s notice during a terrible crisis several people facing impossible odds came together and built a successful team.

In what the news headlines called “The Miracle at Quecreek,” nine miners, trapped for three days 240 feet underground in a water-filled mine shaft, “decided early on they were either going to live or die as a group.”

The fifty-five-degree water threatened to kill them slowly by hypothermia, so according to one news report, “When one would get cold, the other eight would huddle around the person and warm that person, and when another person got cold, the favor was returned.”

“Everybody had strong moments,” miner Harry B. Mayhugh told reporters after being released from Somerset Hospital in Somerset, Pennsylvania. “But any certain time maybe one guy got down, and then the rest pulled together. And then that guy would get back up, and maybe someone else would feel a little weaker, but it was a team effort. That’s the only way it could have been.”

They faced incredibly hostile conditions together, and they all came out alive together.

The Quecreek story pretty well illustrates ideal team dynamics. Being a contributor on an effective team and working together to accomplish a meaningful mission is a deep desire of many. It’s up to the peacemaking leader to coach that team…of so many dreams.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
Short Book Reviews

Teaming

by Ron Potter May 31, 2016

TeamingRon’s Short Review: Fantastic book that turns the noun “team” into the verb “teaming.”  Great concept.  Our corporations today need to be teaming on almost all fronts.  It’s more than building great static teams (still needed).  Teaming as an attitude is what creates the greater impact.

Amazon-Buy-Buttonkindle-buy button

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
Absurd!BlogIn-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: Most Problems are Not Problems

by Ron Potter April 7, 2016

95cdfeefI’m continuing my series on an in-depth look at a wonderful little book that’s twenty years old this year.  The title is Management of the Absurd by Richard Farson.  You may want to consider dropping back and reading the previous posts about ABSURD!  I think it will put each new one in great context.

Chapter 6 is titled: Most Problems That People Have are Not Problems

Farson calls this problems vs predicaments.  Problems can be solved; predicaments can only be coped with.  He goes on to say “Most of the affairs of life, particularly the most intimate and important ones are complicated, inescapable dilemmas – predicaments where no options look very good or better than any others.”

Horns of a dilemma

To me the key word is right in the middle of that statement: dilemmas!  You’ve heard the old adage “on the horns of a dilemma.”  It literally meant for you to think about your predicament as the horns of a bull.  The reality is that you’re going to get gored either way!  All you can do is to pick which horn will do the goring.

Right vs Right

In his book Primes Chris McGoff describes these issues as “right vs right.”  They are not right vs wrong, that’s a problem to be fixed.  They are right vs right.  Either way is equally right (or wrong) but you have no other options, you must choose one direction and commit to it.

Solving a Predicament makes it worse

Farson continues to say, “A problem is created by something going wrong, by a mistake, defect, disease, or a bad experience.  When we find the cause, we can correct it.  A predicament, however, paradoxical as it may seem, is more likely to be created by conditions that we highly value.  That is why we can only cope with it.  Thus, a predicament is often made worse when we treat it as a problem.”

Frame the Issue Properly

In the corporate world most predicaments and dilemmas are framed as right vs wrong problems.  People end up on one side or the other and will argue in favor of their point of view and the demise of the opposing point of view.  But as Farson states that makes the issue all that much worse.

Be very careful to frame your issue correctly.  Is it a problem that can actually be fixed?  Or should we understand it as a predicament or dilemma that requires choosing between two rights or two wrongs?  If we can only frame it properly we’ll be much more successful at coping with difficult situations.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
BlogTeam

Aristotle Strikes Again

by Ron Potter March 24, 2016

photo-1431540015161-0bf868a2d407

As reported in the New York Times recently, Google embarked on an effort to build the perfect team. And as Google would be prone to do, they began to collect data in search of a pattern. As one participant stated, if anyone is good at recognizing patterns it’s Google. I don’t think there’s any argument about that.

However, after collecting data on hundreds of teams the first problem they ran into is that they couldn’t find a pattern. Or more accurately they found too many patterns which is just as much of a problem as finding none at all. So the search continued.

In the end they did find two very interesting correlations that seemed to be present on every good team. Not surprisingly those two elements were trust and respect. The two of them together formed an environment that has been labeled ‘psychological safety.’ If the team members feel psychologically safe because trust and respect has been built, the team will become a high performing team. (Tweet this)

Another pattern that began to emerge however was the productivity of these teams over multiple problems and projects. Teams that fell short on psychological safety didn’t seem to perform well at any kind of problem. Conversely, teams that exhibited psychological safety seemed to perform well no matter the nature of the problem. So the one element that people most often assume to be a needed ingredient, subject matter experts, didn’t seem to make any difference if there was no trust or respect.

Now, here’s the part I enjoyed. The internal name for the effort was called the Aristotle Project. One of the foundational structures that I always introduce to the teams I work with is Aristotle’s Levels of Happiness. The fourth and highest level describes the five things needed for great team work. In Aristotle’s word they include: Truth, Love, Purpose, Beauty and Unity. Every team needs a purpose but to accomplish that purpose they must be able to share and speak the truth, do it in a loving respectful way, in the most beautiful and elegant form possible and finally reaching a commitment of unity. Without those elements a psychologically safe environment doesn’t exist.

Although I’m glad they actually made the effort, had they simply started with what Aristotle knew they could have saved a lot of effort in figuring out what makes great teams.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
BlogMyers-Briggs

The Only Team I Ever Recommended Be Split Up

by Ron Potter February 8, 2016

Diversity

The best teams I’ve ever worked with have had a great deal of diversity of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) preferences on the team.  However, diversity alone is not enough to ensure a high performance team.  But, it is a great foundation.

photo-1453474473052-08cd150dfe87 (1)There has only been one time in my twenty-five plus years of Team and Leadership Consulting that I’ve recommended a team be split up and given other assignments.  That team of seven people were all resident in one particular Myers-Briggs Type Preference.  And while MBTI is certainly not the end-all measurement of team diversity, it produced a very discernable pattern.

THE answer to the question

I would find myself asking a question of one member of the team.  That member often would give me a very complete and articulate answer.  But then I would ask each of the other members if they agreed with the answer and the response was:

  • Yup,
  • Yup,
  • Yup,
  • Yup,
  • Yup,
  • Yup!

All of the other six members responding with a pleasant smile and a subtle nod of the head!

OK, let’s ask a different question: “Could we look at this question from a different perspective and maybe come up with a different answer?”

  • Nope,
  • Nope,
  • Nope,
  • Nope,
  • Nope,

All of the other six members responding with a pleasant smile and a subtle twist of the head!

Different Perspectives

Even when I tried some of the more off-the-wall approaches to perspective shifts:

“How would a gorilla solve this problem?

  • He would grab it by the head and beat it to death!
  • Yup,
  • Yup,
  • Yup,
  • Yup,
  • Yup,
  • Yup!

“How would a giraffe solve this problem?

  • He couldn’t. He’s not strong enough to beat it to death!
  • Nope,
  • Nope,
  • Nope,
  • Nope,
  • Nope,

Change of Scenery

After a few more tries at this I was finally convinced that the members of this team needed to be split up and combined with other people with different perspectives.  My assumption is that didn’t go well.  This team had been together for a long time and in the early days had been extremely productive at getting projects completed.  But the environment had changed and they not only needed to be good project managers, they needed to adapt to changing environments.  Most of them probably had a difficult time blending into teams that didn’t all think alike and in particular didn’t think like they did.

Diversity

Knowing your Myers-Briggs type is not about (or should not be about) what type preference you have and if that’s the “right” way to view the world or not.  The point is that there are 16 healthy type preferences that will each view the world slightly differently.  The point is to use the diversity for the betterment of the team.  You accomplish that be showing respect for and learning from each view point and then determining together the best route for the team to pursue.  Together!

2 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
Absurd!BlogIn-Depth Book Reviews

Absurd!: Exploring Management of the Absurd

by Ron Potter February 4, 2016

lIZrwvbeRuuzqOoWJUEn_Photoaday_CSD (1 of 1)-5I picked up small book off my bookshelf this week that is twenty years old.  When I say it’s small I mean in size (small format and just 172 pages) not stature or content.  It is a profound book and should not be forgotten.  I don’t know if it every achieved numerical success but the forward was written by Michael Crichton (the late author who wrote books such as The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park and others). That should have gotten the attention of a lot of people.

The title of the book is Management of the Absurd: Pardoxes in Leadership by Richard Farson.  You’ll find it on my Reading List but as I said, it’s twenty years old so you may not have spotted it.  But this book is timeless.

Just look at a few of these chapter titles:

  • Nothing is as invisible as the Obvious
  • Effective Managers Are Not in Control
  • Most Problems That People Have are Not Problems
  • Technology Creates the Opposite of Its Intended Purpose

If you’re like me these titles grab you before you’ve read one word in the chapter.  I wish I was as good at creating grabbing titles as this.

I haven’t done this before but I’m going to spend some time going through Management of the Absurd with you.  I’ll capture a few thoughts and lines from various chapters and talk about the timeless nature of the principle.  I believe you’ll begin to see that the truths that guide good management and leadership are ageless and should frequently remind us of the seemingly absurd nature of good leadership.

Chapter one is titled “The Opposite of a Profound Truth is Also True.”  And in the first few paragraphs Farson reminds us that:

“We have been taught that a thing cannot be what it is and also its opposite.”

This belief that if my position or perspective is true than yours must be false leads to an incredible amount of conflict, strife and division within organizations.

F. Scott Fitzgearld reminds us:

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.”

Now I think having a first-rate intelligence would be a great starting point for a good leader but notice that I don’t say a high IQ.  There has never been any correlation found between IQ and success and one measure of a great leader is achieving success.  So it’s not IQ, its intelligence.  Don’t believe that the opposite of a profound truth, your truth, is not also true.

In his book The Primes, Chris McGoff points out that often when teams don’t seem to be able to reach a decision it’s because they are assuming they’re in a right vs wrong argument when in reality they’re in a right vs right argument.  The opposite of a profound truth is also true.  Great leaders realize that they are often choosing between right vs right, not right vs wrong.  Assuming everything is a right vs wrong argument is childish.  Great leaders are also mature.

Don’t let your leadership or management style look like it has the maturity of a teenager.  Realize that even though you may hold the truth on a topic, others on your team also hold the truth.  Bring all the truth’s out together and then decide which direction the team should take.

1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
Short Book Reviews

Team of Teams

by Ron Potter December 26, 2015

Team of TeamsRon’s Short Review: General McChrystal really nails this one and helps us see why the ONLY way we’ll experience success in today’s fast changing world is to build great teams.  A must read.

Amazon-Buy-Buttonkindle-buy button

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
BlogQualities of a Caring LeaderTrust Me

Qualities of a Caring Leader: Understanding

by Ron Potter December 14, 2015
Source: Robert Couse-Baker, Creative Commons

Source: Robert Couse-Baker, Creative Commons

We need to be acutely aware of other people’s needs, focus, dreams, and abilities before we can help them achieve.

For years the late cartoonist Charles Schulz delighted us as his Peanuts characters Charlie Brown, Linus, and even Snoopy provided a window into the complex (and funny) realm of human relations.

Lucy, the extroverted big sister of Linus, was no exception. Her love affair with the Beethoven-loving Schroeder is legendary. Often we see Lucy stretched out by Schroeder’s piano, watching him with longing eyes. Or she is asking a question or demanding his attention in some other way. Schroeder is oblivious to Lucy, so she tries harder and harder to win his heart. In the end, nothing works. Lucy usually loses her temper and pouts, once again the frustrated lover.

What Lucy never gets is how a change in her approach might improve her chances at winning Schroeder’s attention. Lucy’s entire focus is on her needs, not Schroeder’s. Every attempt to secure the heart of the piano genius is from her perspective, not his. Her compassion is entirely self-focused and has little or nothing to do with him and his needs. No matter how bold or romantic she is, Lucy never gets close to Schroeder because she never learns to first understand him.

Increased understanding of others usually leads to better relationships. Our frame of reference becomes their needs, not our own. It becomes a habit to seek to understand our bosses, our direct-reports, and our peers. This understanding is not developed for manipulative purposes. It is an attempt to help people grow and develop by first seeking to understand them—their motives, needs, and styles. Once we understand others and their individual preferences, we can better communicate with them, train them, and lead them.

Abraham Lincoln was a master at this. In 1864 the New York Herald explained how Lincoln was able to overcome the difficulties of guiding the nation during the Civil War—“Plain common sense, a kindly disposition, a straight forward purpose, and a shrewd perception of the ins and outs of poor, weak human nature.”

Lincoln was a master at getting out to meet and know the people—from generals to office workers: “Lincoln gained commitment and respect from his people because he was willing to take time out from his busy schedule to hear what his people had to say.” From this information, Lincoln came to understand his people. From this understanding, he motivated them, challenged them, and moved them to achieve.

It is always interesting, upon entering an airplane, to look into the cockpit and see all those dials and gauges. Each one has a purpose. Many help properly guide the aircraft to its final destination. If the pilots don’t monitor the right instruments, they won’t have a clear picture of the flight, where they are going, how fast they are traveling, how high they are flying, or even if the craft is right side up.

Similarly, if we do not read all the “gauges” of other people, we will be forced to guess what their behavior and words really mean. Learning to read gauges gives you the ability to understand and respond to others based on their needs and frames of reference.

4 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
Short Book Reviews

Team Genius

by Ron Potter December 1, 2015

Team GeniusRon’s Short Review: Rich Karlgaard has become one of my favorite authors.  He builds a great case for why the first word in the name of my company is Team.  Team, Leadership, Culture.  You need all three but it doesn’t work without Team.

Amazon-Buy-Buttonkindle-buy button

1 comment
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
BlogTrust Me

Team Feedback

by Ron Potter November 23, 2015
Source: Howard Lake, Creative Commons

Source: Howard Lake, Creative Commons

The term feedback has an interesting origin. In the early days of rocketry, scientists found that in order to hit a target they had to devote more attention to building accurate, reliable, and frequent feedback mechanisms than they did to controlling thrust. Thrust was the easy part. Hitting the target was the hard part. It took feedback to maintain the ongoing focus required to achieve the goal.

Achievement in an organization is similar. Thrust is the easy part. You and others are willing to work long and hard to accomplish goals. However, as we’ve seen from past blog posts, our efforts can become very scattered and focused on the “urgent.” We need to build accurate, open, reliable feedback systems.

A team leader needs to create a learning environment in which every team member is appreciated, listened to, and respected. In this kind of environment, the opinions of team members are fully explored and understood and are incorporated into the decision-making process. The team actively learns from all members who express their positions and opinions, and as a result, the team is stronger and more efficient.

The principles of building a great team have an interesting pattern starting with humility and moving to endurance. In the end it will be the ability to endure through the challenges, criticisms, and doubts that distinguishes the great leaders. But if you have staked your reputation on a wrong or unachievable goal, enduring through the challenges will only take your team or organization down the wrong path. What keeps you from that wrong path is good solid feedback. But good solid feedback is hard to come by, especially the higher you climb in an organization. People don’t like to give the boss bad news or news that doesn’t agree with the boss’s stated position. But without it comes only failure.

Feedback. It’s not just something you ask for. It’s a cherished gift. It’s a wonderful reward for building a trusting organization or team.

An effective feedback apparatus starts with humility. Humble leaders create an atmosphere where feedback from others is desired and honestly requested. Leaders who are focused on growing their people build that growth on feedback. When people know that a leader is committed and wants honest feedback to help reach stated goals, they are more likely to provide the open and honest feedback required. Compassion, integrity, peacemaking—upcoming chapters that will all lead to an atmosphere and culture that is open to and thrives on honest and timely feedback.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
BlogTeam

Patience – A Balancing Act

by Ron Potter November 12, 2015
Source: WorldIslandInfo.com, Creative Commons

Source: WorldIslandInfo.com, Creative Commons

I think building great teams is tough. If you’re in a sports related environment, it’s more obvious that you need to build teams of your five, nine, or eleven players (or some other number). And even in these environments where the value of building a team is so crucial, it’s still difficult. In a corporate environment where it’s not quite as obvious that building a great team is necessary, it’s even more difficult to put in the effort to create a great team.

But for anyone who has been part of a great corporate team, the value of making the effort is undeniable. Patience is a key element to team building. However patience is hard to define or understand and difficult to balance.

Patience: “The capacity to accept or tolerate delay, trouble, or suffering without getting angry or upset.”

One of the images that I really enjoy is the two magnificent lions protecting the entrance to the New York Public Library. Their names are Patience and Fortitude.

Patience and fortitude. The capacity to accept or tolerate delay, trouble, or suffering without getting angry or upset and at the same time fortitude: courage, bravery, endurance, resilience.

Patience with self vs. Patience with others.

I’ve seen one Vice President get very upset with a 2nd Vice President when he did not think his colleague was dealing with what he considered to be an incompetent employee. What was interesting to me is that I was working with both VPs and I knew that each of them was dealing with a direct report that needed to be moved to a new position where they had a greater chance of success. Both VPs did successfully deal with the situation and both worked hard at accomplishing it in the most successful way possible. But while VP#1 seemed to exhibit great patience in dealing with his direct report (because he respected him and believed he deserved patience) he didn’t exhibit the same patience for the other employee or the VP who was proceeding down a similar path. How much control you have over the situation affects your level of patience.

Gumption and Patience

“Successful investing requires this crazy combination of gumption and patience, and then being ready to pounce when the opportunity presents itself, because in this world, opportunities just don’t last very long,” says Charlie Munger of Berkshire Hathaway. “It’s waiting that helps you as an investor and a lot of people just can’t stand to wait. If you didn’t get the deferred gratification gene, you’ve got to work very hard to overcome that.”

Investors in People

Charlie Munger is an investor in companies.  But, as you watch and read more and more about how he and his partner, Warren Buffet, decide on what companies to invest in, they’re really looking at the leaders of those companies who have built great teams.

Leaders are Investors in People.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterThreadsBlueskyEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Rss
  • About This Site
  • About
    • Clients
  • Services
  • Resources
    • Trust Me
    • Short Book Reviews
  • Contact

About this Site | © 2024 Team Leadership Culture | platform by Apricot Services


Back To Top
Team Leadership Culture
  • Team
  • Leadership
  • Culture
  • Myers-Briggs
  • Trust Me
  • Short Book Reviews
 

Loading Comments...