Case studies: how real teams benefit

Example one: the sclerotic team:

When we first encountered this team the signs were not encouraging. Observing their meetings, we saw the following:

An icy, over-formal atmosphere: absolutely no laughter
Almost all discussion was between individuals and the leader – virtually no cross-table talk
Individuals furtively playing with their Blackberry devices rather than being actively engaged with discussion
The discussion drifting into analysis and minutiae despite the apparent need for decision and action
An undercurrent of defensiveness and a willingness to be offended
An active frustration at lack of progress – e.g. familiar items constantly returning to the meeting agendas for further checking, analysis or approval
Members appearing to comply verbally whilst their body-language betrayed lack of commitment
A sense of being overwhelmed by their performance requirements from above
Corridor accounts to the coach of feuds and vendettas between members

As the team coaching proceeded, all sorts of historical and organisational blockages became known to us that at least partly explained the behaviour of the team. At the same time the roots of interpersonal disagreement and even dislike were slowly and patiently revealed as little more than past occurrences that were constantly re-referred to. Over time with their coach, the team was able to explore these issues and unpick some of the emotional knots their history had created for them. They were also able to:

Re-focus on vital goals
Learn to offer and accept personal feedback skilfully and graciously
Accept as individuals their responsibility for the well-being of the whole team, thus taking pressure off their harassed and frustrated leader
Create greater clarity for themselves about where to expend their energy to greater effect
Set the performance bar higher – and with it increase their sense of collective pride
Recognise when they were heading off-track into ‘paralysis by analysis’ and break out of the pattern
Trust each other to accept responsibility and make decisions without having to indulge in elaborate back-covering and rationalisation

The last time we worked with them they were unrecognisable. The room was full of energy and laughter, but at the same time a ferocious agenda was being worked through with confidence and purpose. The leader contributed no more than anyone else. There was not a distracting Blackberry in sight (these had been banned form meetings long ago). The team was relentlessly picking off demanding performance targets one-by-one. At the end of the meeting they went for a drink together . . .

The Scattered Team

This team was full of very sophisticated, high powered executives. They all (except the leader) belonged primarily to other teams within the organisation. Most led large teams of their own. The aim of this team was to lead and manage a very wide-ranging programme of change, as decreed by the Chief Executive.

When we first met this team the signals were rather mixed. Positive signs included:

A high level of energy in their discussions
An apparent enthusiasm for team development
A general air of confidence
A sharp intellectual understanding of the issues – (at least, this appeared to be the case at first)
A robust (if sometimes cutting) style of humour

Negative signs were:

One member of the team whose cutting humour could spill over into domineering behaviour
The same member repeatedly declaring words to the effect that ‘he was who he was’, i.e. not open to behavioural change, and that the team had to accept this: “You have recruited me as a hatchet man, and you need me to be one, so that is what you are getting” summed up his position. No-one seemed brave enough to challenge him on this at first
A sense of ‘paralysis by analysis’ – lengthy discussions on political and philosophical aspects of the project and the wider organisation that produced insufficient practical action
A sense that most of the team felt that their ‘real’ work lay elsewhere
A mounting sense of frustration that the project was getting bogged down
A gradually rising tension between the members, often (but not always) focused on ‘Mr Hatchet Man’, as reasons for the team not achieving
A rising frustration on the part of the leader that the team was not producing
A disempowering sense that the CEO was always ‘in the room’, i.e. that nothing could be done without his approval.

This was a very complex project run by a very complex team that spoke and behaved in complex ways! Relationships were not helped by their physical and departmental separation and a history of conflict between the departments they represented. It was clear that the way the team members were connected to the wider organisation was profoundly affecting the dynamic within the team.

One affect on us as coaches was the tendency to get drawn in to, and attempt to understand, the endless complexity of how they spoke about their issues.

But in the end it was relatively simple interventions that seemed to have most impact. For example, when discussions got bogged down or unproductive we got into the practice of asking the team to stop and review how they were behaving. We introduced the idea of feedback and of confronting unhelpful behaviour in a positive way, and after one or two moments of drama this had a sustained beneficial effect.

Perhaps the single most helpful intervention was to help the team to map out, organise and plan all the different aspects of the project itself. It emerged that despite the sophistication of the talk, most if not all the team members were really unclear about the full extent of the work to do, let alone the associated interdependencies and accountabilities. Mapping it all out thoroughly brought clarity, purpose and a sense of ‘can do’ to the team. This mapping process also brought with it a sense of agreed priorities and thus a focus on action. As work proceeded, success brought with it increasing confidence and pride, and an enhanced sense of respect between the members for each other.