Canadian HR Reporter

STRATEGIC CAPABILITY NETWORK'S PANEL of thought leaders brings decades of experience from the senior ranks of Canada's business community. eir commentary puts HR management issues into context and looks at the practical implications of proposals and policies. CANADIAN HR REPORTER CANADIAN HR REPORTER April 21, 2014 April 21, 2014 www .scnetwork.ca EXECUTIVE SERIES EXECUTIVE SERIES 11 11 Dave Crisp Organizational Effectiveness Humans are the limiting factor Humans are the limiting factor A Minnesota speech coach is credited with observing " e natural result of communi- cation is misunderstanding." Nowhere is this more relevant than when teams gather. I suppose you might also conclude " e nat- ural result of working together is one or two people dominating." is points to a fact that is in- creasingly clear: Human beings are the limiting factor in get- ting better results — not money, technology or ideas. To improve means overcoming ideas we take for granted as common sense that may not be sensible at all — old saws like "If you want something done right, do it yourself " and " e fastest team is one person." It takes work to learn how teams function best and it doesn't feel natural at all when you fi rst start out. For example, in the past, we promoted the best tech spe- cialists to leadership roles only to fi nd they might be excellent at the tasks but poor at getting others to produce results. at's why build- ing skills for eff ective team leader- ship is essential for organizational eff ectiveness. How often have all of us been stuck in team meetings where most attendees weren't sure there was much point to being there, where heads nodded consistently when the boss spoke but people worked on other things while fellow team members reported on their activities since the last meeting? Total consensus of all members is rarely achievable except in the broadest terms — "We want bet- ter results." e question of how to get them, whose plan will be followed, who will get what bud- get allocations and so forth may all cause dissention, with each person truly believing they see the best solution — which just so happens, in most cases, to favour their function. Internal political power comes into play, the most common situ- ation being the boss dictating, di- rectly or indirectly, what the goal will be and, far worse, how to go after it. We know the boss is part of a larger team and may have to lay out what the goal needs to be. But, ideally, she will also provide a compelling rationale that team members can feel good about — a noble purpose. Instead, our meetings tend to be fi lled with the boss giving orders, only to have executives huddling in the hallway afterward, discuss- ing why they would never work. e presenter's comment I liked best was about such gossip — that you can't stop it but need to move toward getting it on the table dur- ing the team meetings. I've been there for sure — sometimes try- ing, rarely succeeding. e problem was, and still is, no one wanted to seem negative or get a reputation as the person who always objects, points out inconvenient fl aws or drags her feet. ose can be career-limiting moves, so most would nod agree- ment and let time prove their silent doubts right. ere were always ways to shift the blame for a lack of results toward some- one else on the team. e notion of "cover your ass" still thrives in many organizations. We look to the leader to set the tone and we can be pretty sure from research that fewer than 20 per cent of leaders are skilled at drawing out the problems, not submerging them. Everyone who trains and promotes leaders needs to act on this problem, now — or teams will continue to fl ounder. Dave Crisp is a Toronto-based writer and thought leader for Strategic Ca- pability Network with a wealth of ex- perience, including 14 years leading HR at Hudson Bay Co. where he took the 70,000-employee retailer to "best company to work for" status. For more information, visit www.balance-and- results.com. Assumptions about teams often wrong Assumptions about teams often wrong Modern, complex businesses routinely use teams to support innovation and produc- tivity. So why does that reliance on teams often go wrong and lead to a lack of in- novation and productivity, combined with an increase in frustration and time wasted? Liane Davey outlined fi ve traits of toxic teams — crisis junkies, egos, passive-aggressive, bobble- head agreement and spectator participants. Interestingly, the fi rst step she identifi ed in the process of ad- dressing toxic teams had nothing to do with behaviour. Her pro- cess begins with putting the team into its business context. This prompted me to refl ect on our as- sumptions about teams and fi rst principles. Teams are a modern concept Teams aren't actually a modern idea — people have functioned as teams, informally or formally, since the beginning of time. Hu- mans collaborated as hunter- gatherers, as farmers and in small communities where various in- dividuals had diff erent skills and expertise. Large organizations are diverse in terms of functions, expertise, products, consumers, geography and reporting struc- tures. ey rely on teams to cross these boundaries and deliver results that factor in a variety of perspectives. Because of a large organiza- tion's size, there is a lack of famil- iarity with its diverse parts and little ongoing communication or history between functions. With the scale issue, plus a haste to get to work or get going on a project, teams often fl ounder or do not re- alize their potential. Purpose of a team is obvious An Amish barn-raising is a clas- sic example of a team with a clear purpose, plan and well-under- stood roles. Project teams usually have some type of charter that outlines the details of the project and addresses specifi c roles and relationships. ey often have detailed time- lines, tracking documents and checkpoints, but rarely do they explore how the team will col- laborate and co-create to get full value out of forming a team versus a controlled network of individual contributors. Many teams are formed and given an ill-defi ned task with no real insights on why they are doing what they have been mandated to do. ey know they need to de- liver something by a certain date, within a specifi ed budget and with defined resources. It's for that reason many of the most exciting teams are those that self-form. These "skunk works" deliver because they have a clear, shared purpose and a commitment to playing a role and contributing. Google has tapped into this open team concept with increased engagement and potential new products as a result. Teams are a good thing Anyone who has worked on a team where there was energy, learning, colleagues who collabo- rated to deliver their own contri- bution and insights to improve others' contributions, and the team output exceeded the sum of the parts, knows how good a team can be. e counterculture of toxic teams e counterculture of toxic teams Leaders need to start "teaching people to team." at was one of the messages Li- ane Davey, vice-president of Knights- bridge Leadership Solutions, brought to the table. Why should leaders heed her ad- vice? Because although teams are central to any organization's con- tinued success, she reveals that a counterculture of toxic teams is growing. This is a thought-provoking observation for some leaders and likely distressing for others, es- pecially those who have invested significantly in team-building workshops. Traditional thinking has always supported the notion that eff ective teams solve more complex problems, make better decisions, encourage greater cre- ativity, increase skills and build commitment. However, even if you believe teams are a better way of doing business, the truth is old beliefs and structures are defi nitely not meeting the needs or demands of the workplace. Re- member the "forming, storming, norming and performing" mod- el? Well, it just isn't that simple anymore. e reality check from Davey is it's time to change our thinking since the old team-building models are just not working. As she points out, whether we put a man on the moon or we pick up our morning Egg McMuffi n, it took a team to make it happen. Why should the notion of toxic teams send out alarm bells for every leader? Be- cause if toxic teams are increas- ingly the norm, what does that do for corporate Canada's productiv- ity and long-term prosperity? Would it surprise you to know that in 2012, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development released a land- mark study showing Toronto's productivity between 2000 and 2010 declined by about fi ve per cent? Toronto was the lowest for North America, which included Montreal, Calgary and Vancou- ver. Furthermore, in a recent To- ronto Star article, Roger Martin, academic director at Rotman's Martin Prosperity Institute at the University of Toronto, advocated that if Toronto wants to maintain growth and increase growth in living standards, Canadian com- panies must increase productivity. Even more attention-grabbing is the critical link Martin draws between innovation and produc- tivity. He argues that if Canadian companies do not promote inno- vation, Toronto's productivity can only get worse — which means no growth, lower living standards and a decline in prosperity. What do leaders need to do to build work environments where teams are encouraged to be creative, innovative and take risks? What do leaders need to start doing diff erently to turn the toxic team syndrome around? In listening to Davey's eye-open- ing insights, I was reminded of Margaret Heff ernan's arguments in Willful Blindness: Why We Ignore the Obvious at our Peril. After many years of examin- ing this phenomenon, Heffer- nan revealed the biggest threats and dangers leaders face are the ones they don't see — and it's not because they're top-secret or unnoticeable. Knowing that meaningful team-building does not happen on its own, my question for all leaders is: What will you start doing diff erently to confront and resolve the issue of toxic teams in your organization? Trish Maguire is a commentator for SCNetwork on leadership in action and founding principal of Synergyx Solutions in Nobleton, Ont., focused on high-potential leadership develop- ment coaching. She has held senior leadership roles in HR and OD in education, manufacturing and entre- preneurial fi rms. She can be reached at synergyx@sympatico.ca. Trish Maguire Leadership In Action Karen Gorsline Strategic Capability FIXING > pg. 12

• Cover