Time and Personal Management      

Explores the basics of managing this most precious of all resources: Time

The Three Faces Of Leadership  

Originally published by Hamilton's "BIZ" Magazine under the title "Leadership's Triple Crown" this article examines the leaders roles as "Visionary", "Manager" and "Coach or Mentor"

The Crisis OF Modernity               

A look at the stress and other effects produced by our constantly evolving modern world.

The Magic And Mystery Of Teams

The idea of "Team" may be the most misunderstood  aspect of Twenty First Century management

Articles Published On

Our Sister Site:

 http://www.acresofdiamondsrevisited.com/articles.php

A Seven Point Strategy For Your Life	Can You Spell Success - Part 1
Chew Your Cabbage Twice	Can You Spell Success - Part 2
Directed Introspection	Failures
I Think I Can	Identify Your Goals
Making Time	The Crisis Of Stress
The Law Of Expectations	What Do I Know?
The Team - Part 1	What Is Your Destiny?
The Team - Part 2	What's Next?
The Team Part 3	Coaching A Task Force Team
Types Of Teams	Coaching Basics

            

Back To Home Page             Back To Top Of Page

 

 TIME AND PERSONAL MANAGEMENT

If you can't schedule it, you can't manage it!

Most business people agree one of their most critical challenges is the effective use of time.

We are each allocated the same number of minutes every day but have you ever noticed that some people seem to accomplish a lot more in a day than others?

Many people who do a strict study of their time use are appalled at how little time they spend being productive, and how much time they are unable to account for. Time and water may be our most wasted resources.

Time spent "putting out fires" detracts from time for managing and building the business and ... firefighting tends to leave managers so exhausted they just want to "veg out" for a while  ...  or   ...  so exhilarated that they spend a couple of hours  indiscriminately kicking butt. Either way, productivity suffers -- big time!

When managers procrastinate, spending too much time in investigation, scenario building and analysis, there is little time left to get anything done.

Have you ever sat through a meeting wondering "why am I here?"... knowing the answer is, "because you are a manager."? Have you ever worked out the cost of a dozen managers spending four hours in a meeting "just because"? Do you often come out of meeting fearing that your whole department may have "burned down" while you were away?

Time management is personal management, a large component of which is, the ability to say "no". It's a lot easier to say "no" at the appropriate time if we know what we're trying to accomplish, why we're here... and if we already have time scheduled (committed) to do the important things.

Think about it.  If you were to schedule every minute of every day to do important things, there would be no time left to do unimportant things! AND, if you did all of the important things before they became urgent, you would never have to put out any fires! Because, fires are the result of important things not getting done until they become urgent...a crisis!

It sounds too simple to be true doesn't it? However the fact is, all of your time is going to get used up -- if you don't schedule it...someone else will! If you can get a handle on what are the five or six most important things you do at work, and if you regularly and consistently schedule the majority of your time to do those things, and if you can learn the personal discipline to stick to your schedule,I can unconditionally promise that you will become more productive.

Now before someone goes ballistic let me state categorically that I would not ask you to schedule every minute of every day (that would be life in hell!). On the other hand, if it's important to you...and if you're not doing it...schedule it! That includes a dinner out with your spouse, an afternoon with the grandchildren or a game of golf.

A small investment in a time and personal management program can pay huge dividends at work and away!

Len McNally

Back To Home Page              Back To Top Of Page

The Three Faces of Leadership      

http://EzineArticles.com/featured/

this article was published by Hamilton's 'BIZ' Magazine in the Fall 2003 edition under the title:

"Leadership's Triple Crown"

What does it take to be the head of a small business, a department manager, or even a corporate CEO? the successful leader / executive is a broad visionary, an effective manager and an inspiring mentor / coach. But being competent in all three roles is only the beginning. Which hat the boss wears and when shifts with the business climate, organizational needs and with the individual's own abilities.

The Leader As Visionary

The visionary is the one who handles the creation or inspiring of goal-directed action. This leader is the man, or woman, with the plan.

The senior manager, CEO, president, general manager or owner has a fundamental responsibility to "Create the Vision." The illusory definition of who, as a company, we are, what we do and why, where we are, where we're going and how we get there from here. Once that vision is defined -- and that's no easy task -- the leader must articulate it in terms the will enable, even compel, others to buy in and dedicate themselves to it. In other words, agree to follow. To quote author John C. Maxwell, "If you think you are a leader but have no followers, you're not leading, you're just going for a walk."

The visionary, however, is not just a dreamer. The plan must translate into action. The leader is the one who must outline a clear, specific, and effective strategy for bringing the vision to life. This "plan" isn't just a simple timeline. You can't say you intend to land on the moon next year without considering how to build the rocket required for getting there. The vision will fail without a reasonable estimate of the necessary resources, including capital, facilities, equipment, people and talents essential to a successful implementation. Determining what is needed, how to acquire it, and where best to deploy assets is fundamental to making a vision reality.  Any map includes milestones along the road and a method for tracking results so that everyone involved knows at all times what progress is being made. You would run out of gas on the highway without a fuel gage. Don't expect your people to complete a journey without an idea of how far they have to go and what resources they have to get there.

A leader's ability not only to be a visionary but to convey that message powerfully enough so employees want to strive for that goal has a direct impact on the company's bottom line. The clearest example I know of this is two well-known Hamilton, Ontario companies located just down the street from each other but miles apart in direction, focus, and profitability. I'm talking of course about Canada's two largest steelmakers Dofasco and Stelco.

Dofasco, with a clear vision, and a history of strong leadership, is seeing major returns even during tough economic times for the steel industry as a whole. The story is completely different a few blocks away. At Stelco, there seems to be a focus on the bricks, mortar, and machinery as the corporate essence without a real sense of where the company is going and why. The absence of apparent vision and feeling of corporate destiny breeds apathy in the workforce and leads to no feeling of accomplishment or pride in their work. It's just a place to earn a living and to get away from as soon as possible. In a recent meeting with a  Vice President I was told that in one mill, "wrench time" (the time that maintenance people actually charge to specific jobs) was down to 90 minutes per shift compared to the industry average of 4 hours, and no one can see a way to improve it.

While the absence of vision and poor atmosphere are not the sole factors in the company's decline, it's hard to argue with their lack of success. Stelco again reported a net loss of $82 million in second quarter 2003, more bad news after a first quarter 2004 net loss of $44 million.

Stelco is now trying to stop the hemorrhaging with a change in leadership. Jim Alfano stepped down as President and CEO in July, replaced on an interim basis with Fred Telmer, Stelco's Chairman of the Board. While Telmer heads the transition team, the search is on for a new CEO. "Has vision" should be at the top of the qualification checklist.

Results rest on the shoulders of the visionary, no effective leader acts alone. The senior leader may only create an initial "rough draft" of the company plan and must flesh it out through team input. But unless the leader has a clear vision of where he is going, the rough draft is likely to remain just that. He must guide the polishing process.

As the vision is disseminated deeper into the organization, internal leaders -- for example, the middle management, department heads -- are presented with an already defined goal but the process of articulating that vision and of directing the rest of the process through his or her level of responsibility is much the same as the view from the top. After all, leadership exists at every level in a company. Even when the plan reaches the "shop floor", every employee can learn to take responsibility for self direction in accepting personal responsibility for his or her actions, results and focus on the corporate goal.

The Leader As Manager

A manager, by definition, manages. In other words, the manager must plan the processes, create the rules, assign responsibilities, direct activity, provide training, focus efforts, control costs, measure progress and report on results. The "leader as manager" is the one with the "hard skills" -- the planning and organizing, the number crunching, the industry, equipment and process knowledge. This is the foundation of leadership on which true leaders build their soft skill development.

The key to being a successful manager-leader is the ability to troubleshoot. That is, to find solutions to problems and make effective decisions that will keep them from re-occurring. The manager shouldn't be just putting out fires; he should be preventing them. The ratio of prevented crisis to reactive problem solving is the main indicator of the effective manager-leader. If the leader is always running around with a bucket of water, sooner or later someone is going to figure out if he's always putting out the same type of fires. Either he lacks the necessary planning, organization, influence, and resourcing skills to manage or he has failed to build on his hard skill foundation to bring his leadership to the next growth level. If the leader brings nothing more to the role than the ability to problem solve, the company doesn't have a firefighter, it potentially has an arsonist -- someone who consciously or unconsciously creates the conditions that require his skill set. If the operation runs from one inferno to the next, when does anyone have time to grow the business? The company suffers. No matter how addictive the rush of being the "go-to" person can be, nobody can run on high octane forever. The leader, his performance, as well as his quality of life outside of work, all deteriorate. What the arsonist has done thinking it will make him essential will eventually burn him out of a career.

Time spent on the managerial role is on a continuum. The more junior the leader, the more time -- as much as 80 per spent -- is spent on the management functions.  The senior executive dedicates less than 20 per cent of his time to "managing". While the CEO must always pay attention and be aware of what is going on, managerial tasks are an effective subordinate developing tool and are among the first to be delegated.

If a leader can not delegate, he creates a development and succession bottleneck. Essentially, he is limiting his own potential for advancement by not cultivating talent to take over.  He becomes locked (at best) in his current position or (worse) shifted to even more managerial-heavy (and thus, lower on the leadership continuum) responsibilities. Moving forward requires the soft skills of leadership. Vision and courage are absolutely essential for delegation as well as the ability to trust others and to get of the way, allowing people to make their own mistakes.

As the leader grows, he must not only delegate his managerial tasks, but also transition from being "hands on" to "hands off". No one, particularly those higher on the corporate food chain, likes to be micromanaged. Being able to effectively assess the level of one's involvement and required degree of tracking in delegated assignments is the main skill leap between the leader as manager and the leader as mentor/coach.

Steve Thompson of Brantford-based Stellarc Precision Bar is one executive mastering this tricky delegation balancing act in his leadership style. Thompson wasn't really sure where his skills needed development, he had only an uneasy feeling that he was spending a lot of time "spinning his wheels." So, he came to The Leadership Centre for support. When he began to recognize how much of a "hands on" manager he was, he resolved to make immediate changes. He reorganized offices, added responsibilities to all of his departmental managers and provided personal productivity, leadership and time management training.

His new focus on giving his managers the responsibility and authority to get things done -- rather than doing them himself -- has given him time and freedom to focus on new visions and new directions for the company as well as on some important personal goals. In the past three years he has more than doubled the size of the plant, added a million dollar state of the art bar processing line and brought in a new, dynamic plant manager all while reducing his own work week to about fifty hours from a grueling seventy hour schedule.

The Leader As Mentor/Coach

Some 80 per cent of people say they are not "engaged" at work. They don't like, respect or care about their company, their managers, their fellow workers or their customers. What's truly scary about this scenario is that the overwhelming number of these employees have no immediate plans to change jobs. They don't believe things are any better someplace else. Is there a measure of personal responsibility for this situation? Definitely. But whose job is it, ultimately, to help change the situation? The leader as mentor/coach.

Of the three fundamental roles of the executive, this is the one that most affects the continuing growth of both people and the organization. It is also the face of leadership requiring the highest level of soft skills. The mentor/coach must have the self confidence to not see growing the potential of others as personally threatening. The mentor focuses outward on results -- not inward on actions; on strengths and on what can be -- not on weakness and what is impossible.

The mentor maintains focus on the goal, the vision, and the "quest for the grail" that drives ordinary people to extraordinary performance. It has been said that everyone has it in him or her to be a superstar in some field, in some role. The mentor helps a person define his or her strengths to build on them, to strengthen them, to find or create a role where these strengths can be utilized to their fullest potential. With proper mentoring, a person's weaknesses -- and we all have them -- do not matter. People are driving their careers on a road that leverages their superstar qualities.

The mentor-leader grows individuals, departments, and the entire organization by helping to set SMART -- specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented, and timely -- goals. SMART goals at each level must reflect and support the overall corporate vision. By forging that link between individual performance and how it directly impacts on the bottom line, the mentor-leader is engaging the employee, making him or her part of the plan, not a victim of it. Influencing others through consensus building and buy-in strategies is a key mentor-leader skill.

Effective mentoring/coaching skills are at the root of a striking turn-around story at Hamilton's ailing National Steel Car. The company, founded in 1912, designs and manufactures railroad freight equipment. But the company was on a bumpy track a few years back until it brought in Dan Elliott, the former President of Wabco Freight Car products in Stoney Creek, as chief operating officer to help turn things. The previous owner/management seems to have been rather autocratic with little responsibility vested in even senior managers -- not at all in line with Dan's way of thinking -- and the company had slipped from its position as one of North America's leading rail car manufacturers. Employment had dropped from nearly 3000 to a mere 300 workers and the company's economic prospects looked grim.

With a senior management team of about a dozen vice presidents, many of them in their early to mid thirties, Elliott began the process of rebuilding the company's vitality. The mixture of youth and experience would succeed only if everyone believed in the future and proactively worked to make the corporate vision a reality. To achieve this, Elliott took on the task of mentoring his VPs in setting departmental and individual SMART goals and then monitoring progress.

The new focus on the vision, with everyone knowing where they want to go and committing themselves to getting it done, is working like magic. Not the process has been an entirely smooth one. The long term people found it difficult at first to accept and believe in the new responsibilities entrusted to them but now, just over a year into the transition, the VPs are emulating Elliott's style and their people, in turn, are emulating them.

Elliot supports his VPs on a daily basis, mentoring and coaching individually and collectively, while ensuring they know he believes in them, trusts their decision making abilities and is prepared to back them up. The result so far -- National Steel Car is regaining its top industry position, employee levels are back up around the 1500 mark and the company, despite overall market slumps, is making steady progress towards real profitability. Vision, mentoring and delegation of managerial responsibilities are combining here to make a huge difference.

Three Leaders In One

To be truly great, a leader must comfortably and effectively wear all three "faces". Strong managers may not have a clear picture of where they are headed, dreamers may not get the job done and mentors will find it difficult to grow others if they are not first secure in both their own hard and soft competencies. Defining the fundamental skills required is the first step in developing one's leadership potential. The leader must then be willing to recognize his limitations and weakness and be committed to continuous learning and development. This sort of honest self-evaluation, willingness to build on strengths and address development areas is fundamental on the road to the top.  That journey can span a career but the pay-off is a successful, prosperous and growing organization with you at the helm.

Len McNally

Back To Home Page                Back To Top Of Page

THE CRISIS OF MODERNITY   

http://EzineArticles.com/featured/

Since the beginning of the industrial era our world has been facing what some historians call an ongoing "crisis of modernity". As fast as we adjust to new circumstances, the circumstances change again, and, the rate of change seems to be multiplying exponentially. Of all the demands imposed by twenty first century leadership, perhaps the toughest is the ability to not only manage change but to instigate it, control it and to be it's master. Dealing with the ever increasing rate of change may be the leader's most potentially overwhelming task. Today's Change Agent is an aggressive forward thinker.

The Industrial Age was supplanted by the Information Age and the Electronic Information Age has made even that seem like kindergarten stuff. The instant availability of information on virtually any subject has eroded our ability to pause, analyze and reason alternatives. In the manufacturing world where only a few years ago, "better late than never" was the watchword, today the word is "better never than late." If your new product isn't first to market - forget it - the chances of recouping R&D costs are just about nil.

We demand instant everything

Even beyond new product development, our customers expect instant response to every request. They demand that we be on our toes, ready and able to provide order status information NOW!  They also expect us to deal with changes in specifications, quantity and scheduling without a hitch - and with no surcharge.

Is it any wonder that more and more people are suffering the effects of stress -- an epidemic second only to the virus of offshore competition -- and of stress induced illness? How can any person be expected to cope with a world where change takes place at supersonic speed, where nothing stays the same long enough to become familiar, where understanding happens only in retrospect?

To stay ahead of change, get behind it!

A fundamental aspect of Leadership Development is learning to not only cope with this epidemic but to turn it into a dynamic force for personal and corporate growth.There is only one way to cope with change. The only way to stay ahead of change is to get behind it! Those who promote change are in charge of it, those who oppose it are overwhelmed by it! Those who must be dragged kicking and screaming into the next set of changed circumstances will be crushed by those who push change ahead of them. To quote author H. Jackson Brown, "In the confrontation between the stream and the rock, the stream always wins - not through strength but by perseverance."

When we determine to become advocates for change we suddenly find ourselves in the position of pusher rather than pushee, we are more relaxed, more self confident, more self assured and we find that others are more willing to follow our lead. The great writer, teacher and consultant Peter F. Drucker summed it up this way, "The best way to predict the future is to create it." It's also the easier way! If you believe you can hold back the snowball of progress, you are doomed to be swallowed up in something over which you can never hope to have any control.

All change is not good - all change is not inevitable

Please don't take these remarks to indicate that all change is good, or even that all change is inevitable. The prayer of St. Francis (long the watchword of AA) asks for; the courage to change the things I can, the serenity to accept those things I can not change and (most difficult of all) the wisdom to know the difference. The sky will remain blue, water will remain wet and the sun will rise in the east. The air we breathe however, will not remain clean, with a sufficiency of oxygen, our water will not continue to give life unless we change the way we treat our environment but most of us will never have the opportunity to make a major impact. We must change what we can and encourage others to do the same.

Of all the traits of leadership the ability to produce lasting and meaningful change is so far out in first place that what ever is second doesn't really matter!

Make change your slave, not your master

How do we take control of this "crisis of modernity" and make change our slave rather than our master?

Leo Tolstoy said, "Everyone wants to change the world but no one wants to change themselves." The truth is that all change must begin with me. If I can not, will not, do not change - and demonstrate that change to all the world, I can not reasonably expect others to follow my advice to change. If the two are at odds people will follow my example while ignoring my words, no mater how eloquently they be phrased.. Only when thought, word and deed are closely aligned can I truly hope to be followed. Only then can I hope to be a leader.

It starts and ends with "ME"

To begin the process of personal change I must examine my self. I must understand what I believe and why, what I want to accomplish and why "The soul is dyed the color of its thoughts. Think only on those things that are in line with your principles and can bear the light of day. The content of your character is your choice. Day by day, what you do is who you become. Your integrity is your destiny - it is the light that guides your way."
Heraclitus  535-475BC, Greek Philosopher

Introspection

One of the greatest obstacles to progress can often be our awareness of past failures. If we tried something a couple of years ago and fell flat on our faces (and especially if we were ridiculed or derided as a result) we tend to be reluctant to rock the boat again. When we believe that history will repeat itself, we become paralyzed by fear.

Mentoring managers through a process that I sometimes refer to as "directed introspection" in order to expose attitudes and prejudices can often produce startling results. Knowing where we are starting from does not in and of itself guarantee that we will arrive at our desired destination (on time and within budget) but not knowing weights the odds heavily against us. I believe that if we want to go somewhere we must first know who we are and where we are. When we know the starting point, personally and professionally, in regard to ourselves, our people and our company we are more likely to have a clear picture of where we want to go, how to get there and what must change en route.

I believe that as many people as possible in an organization should be involved in the process of creating statements of Vision, Mission, Purpose, Values, and Goals. When people have had a hand in the creation, buy in to do what ever is necessary to get results is almost automatic. When these guiding principles are understood by everyone from the "Ivory Tower" all the way to the Shop Floor everyone knows where we are going, why we are going there and what we have to do to get there. They also know the down side of not going there and of not participating in the process. Is not the search for heaven made more intense by the awareness of hell? In addition, when everyone understands his or her WIIFM, (What's In It For Me) getting results is like picking low hanging fruit.

Vision must be followed by a plan

Strategic planning can be an arduous (but exhilarating) process. Often a three day retreat with an outside facilitator is the only way to get the concentrated focus, the brainstorming, necessary to initiate the process. We must examine all aspects of the organization, physical and human resources, management skills and needs, culture, attitudes, market place, industry, supplier relations, customer relations, government regulations, labor agreements, etc., etc. We have to remember that Rome was not built in a day. If we are looking for instant gratification we will surely be disappointed.

When we have suspended our doubts and fears, set aside our memories of past failure, forgotten our prejudices, examined our strengths and planned to enhance them, seen in our minds eye the potential within ourselves and our organization, created a vision in which we believe, we will become advocates for our organization and evangelists for the realization of that vision.

Vision is a powerful driving force

Once we are over the initial hurdle we will be driven by the power of our vision for the future. A clearly articulated vision coupled to a specific plan of action for its attainment (including target dates for each step), and a firm commitment to that action, is an unstoppable combination. YES, it will require perseverance, dedication and hard work; and YES, it will be extremely satisfying!

Effecting organizational and personal change is never a cake walk but learning the basics of how to set goals and create plans with specific, time sensitive action steps for their achievement can be learned in only a few hours. When coupled to powerful statements of Vision, Mission, Purpose, and Values, and a well-organized coaching, mentoring and measurement process, the pain is minimal while the results are huge!

Coaching As A Leadership Development Tool

You will likely find that most effective Corporate Coaches have a similar approach. We help to develop Leadership and Change Management Skills through Executive and Corporate Coaching and Management Team Building. Here at The Leadership Centre for example, we state: "We help managers to understand their greatest strengths and to build on them, to recognize and utilize the strengths of others, to create and articulate a vision of what can be, and to devise, implement and take the specific action steps required to bring that vision to life."

If we can change our beliefs, we can change the world.
And we can change our beliefs.

Peter F. Drucker once wrote, "Management is seeing that things get done, Leadership is seeing that the right things get done." Leadership pervades every aspect of business life, it's the one quality that must be there before anything else can happen. Coaching at an organizational level can produce dramatic improvements to leadership and will often produce bottom line results far in excess of anything I would ever promise.

Aside from huge bottom line results you should expect:

Less Stress - for everyone  A happy, more relaxed work environment
Reduced employee turnover             Reduced absenteeism
Increased productivity   Improved labor relations
Improved customer relations             Improved supplier relations
Improved personal lives   {this took me by surprise when I first began to see it!}

Like most effective coaches in fact, if we don't see the potential for huge gains in many of these areas, we won't issue a proposal to work with you! We don't work cheap and we won't settle for minuscule results!

A Free Do it yourself - get started kit

If you would like to do your own analysis of your needs we will be glad to e-mail a questionnaire that will help you to look objectively at your self, at other executives and at your organization. Simply click  Here  and we will respond within 48 hours -- no obligation of course. If you are seriously looking at Executive or Corporate Coaching as a management tool, this may help you better understand what you are really looking for.

Len McNally

Back To Home Page                    Back To Top Of Page

The Magic And Mystery Of Teams

http://EzineArticles.com/featured/

Teams - Magic and Mystery

As the world of manufacturing has become increasingly competitive, managers have diligently searched out new and innovative ways to increase productivity, multiply the power of every employee, and better utilize every resource in order to positively impact the bottom line.

For more than a decade one of the most popular "Hot Trend" innovations has been the idea of "Team". We are told that no man is an island, nothing of significance has ever been accomplished by one person alone, the whole is equal to more than the sum of its parts and on and on and on.

One the other hand I recently read about a Canadian government survey that concluded there is no evidence to support the idea that team environments are more productive than non team environments. Some unknown genius said, "If you think you are too small to be effective, you have never been in the dark with a mosquito."

Bacon and eggs make a great breakfast team whereas mashed turnips and eggs just don't seem to work. When a CEO brings in an advisor, coach or consultant to discuss available options, perhaps the first question to address should be, "Is this a team situation?"

Are there situations where a "Team" approach is not appropriate and if so what is it that separates a "Team" scenario from some other method?

Many years ago my philosophy professor taught me that before you can argue for or against an idea you need to define your axioms.

So what is a "Team"?

Any group of people working together -- right?

Wrong!

When is a group not a team?

A basic tenet of "Team" is joint responsibility, joint blame and joint credit. Any situation in which individuals are going to be judged, assessed or rated according to individual achievement is not a team situation. Someone has said, "individuals score points, teams win games."

Salespeople in a car dealership rarely pass on leads to each other or step in to help each other close a deal. In fact they are more likely to steal each other's potential clients. Even when they become friends and a senior salesperson mentors a junior, offering advice on assessing customers, prospecting, closing deals, etc., this is not a team. Many organizations refer to their sales staff as a team, but each salesperson is solely responsible for results in a given area, territory, geographic location or product line. No matter how determined we are to have all sales people deliver the same message, in the same way, if they do not need interaction, co-operation, and support from one another, and if they are not going to be judged primarily by overall results of the group, they are not a team.

Another basic tenet of team is decision making method. In many groups we seek majority agreement, seven for -- five against -- the "for" is carried. Not so with a team. Here we must seek consensus. We must arrive at a decision that everyone can support. We must keep asking what can be modified to get support from those who disagree. (If we delete this, modify that, add something else, would you then be able to go along?) We must have unanimity. The joint credit,   responsibility, blame, demands it.

If you still like to call your sales staff, "The Sales Team" because you like the sound of it, you believe your customers like the sound of it, or even because the salespeople like the sound of it, go ahead, we don't need to play with semantics. But don't delude yourself into thinking that the attitudes that make your favorite hockey team a champion will work here! Instead, seek to develop the attitudes to practice, conditioning and a positive mental attitude that make individual players great.

Similarly a "Management Team" is rarely that, at least not in all aspects of each executive's function. By all means, when managers come together to analyze performance, determine employment standards or create a strategic plan for growth they will likely be operating as a team. A CEO has authority to impose, assign, delegate and hold other managers accountable. When he or she brings subordinates together for a pep talk, sites the shortcomings of individual departments, lays out new policy, directives or goals, this is no team environment. A team has a leader, other groups have a boss! And yes, we still need bosses!

From this I think we can conclude that, when an enterprise demands individual effort and that individual alone must be responsible for results, the idea of "Team" is inappropriate. We must also be aware that in any endeavor where we are putting all of our eggs in an "individual" basket, the selection, training, coaching and mentoring of that individual is crucial to the success of that endeavor.

We may also conclude that when an enterprise is so critical as to demand very tight control, a high degree of expertise or quick, on the spot decision making and action, even if many people are involved we have a committee or a task force, not a team. (Some teams can be called a "Task Force" but more on that in my article "The Task Force")

Why is it important to differentiate?

The idea of team is most important to corporate culture. A culture that embraces the idea that everyone is working together co-dependently toward the accomplishment of a noble objective is masterfully put forward in the little book, "Gung Ho!" By Ken Blanchard and Sheldon Bowles. The idea of everyone accepting individual and joint responsibility for the overall corporate effort and result, sharing the dream and the rewards is seen as the key to achieving corporate goals.

The Team

In examining organizations where teams have proven to be successful we see some obvious differences from non team environments. The word "Team" seems to be constantly on the tip of every tongue. We hear references to "the management team", "the sales team", "the safety team", the productivity team". We here that "George, Sally and Roberta teamed up to...", "the Tom and Bob team produces..." and so on. There is an apparently constant awareness of and focus on the "Idea of team." We, them, and us are heard much more often than I, she, you and him.

There are some basics that determine the success of any team effort. Number of members, purpose, goals, required and available skills, approach or methodology, accountability and results measurement. In almost every instance where a team fails to meet its objectives a deficiency in one or more of these is the prime cause.

A dozen members is generally believed to be the maximum for effectiveness. More than this becomes cumbersome and unwieldy with too little opportunity for individual contribution.

Everyone must understand what is the object of the exercise, what the group is expected to accomplish that can't be done by individual effort. Each person should also know why he or she is a part of the team.

Goals must be clearly defined both for the team and for the contribution of each individual member and everyone must buy in. The group must share a vision of the team as a powerful force.

A TEAM DOESN'T HAVE TO KNOW ITS A TEAM

I worked for many years as a sales representative in a true team setting. The company (management) thought they had a sales team consisting of nine inside salesmen, nine outside salesmen, in inside supervisor and a sales manager. This of course was not a team at all, there was no common goal or objective (accept to sell more), no co-operation between territories, and no joint accountability.

What this company did not understand was that each inside / outside pair was a definite team of two. The outside person was the team leader and the inside supervisor and sales manager were coaches and mentors. Each team was jointly and collectively responsible to set its sales objectives within their clearly defined geographic territory and to create a strategy to achieve them, and they were jointly accountable for results. The process created natural teams that in most cases were powerful, dynamic, competitive and successful, especially when we acquired a sales manager who became a true coach and mentor.

REQUIREMENTS

In any team, skills must be honed in goal setting, communication, listening, relationship building, presentation, information gathering, analysis, personal management, time management, delegation, conflict resolution, problem solving, project management and team building. Whew!

The approach to the task must be logical, simple and thorough to make sure that all aspects are understood, all necessary actions taken and all unnecessary actions eliminated.

The group must understand the criteria by which they will be measured and except the dynamics of group accountability. No one person must be allowed to except the blame for error or failure. No one person can be allowed to grab the glory. The team is accountable for all and to all.

Much research indicates that focus on becoming a team rarely works. The focus must be on accomplishing the objective, and working together utilizing the diverse experience and skills of other people, is merely a logical way of multiplying the effectiveness of each person. With focus on the goal, the team comes into being as a natural by-product. It has even been suggested that a team should not be told it is a team.

TEAM POWER

John C. Maxwell's book, "The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork" stresses the importance of recognizing that nothing worthwhile has ever been accomplished by one person alone. Every baseball pitcher has a pitching coach, every batter a hitting coach. Every great golfer works with a coach or teacher. Every inventor is the product of educators and the research of others. Every politician, every business person, every military commander, every pastor becomes effective only with a great deal of input and help from others. Everyone must understand how much more power is unleashed when each person becomes a dedicated part of a group effort.

The team is not a substitute for hierarchy within an organization and is in fact an extension of it, a great way to integrate otherwise competitive units or functions. Teams achieve a balance between short term performance objectives and long term organizational building goals by turning long term goals into definable performance criteria and development of the skills necessary to accomplish them.

EXPERIENCE CAN BE A PROBLEM

Most people have been trained to think and act as individuals. They are most often evaluated on individual performance, individual effort and individual accomplishment. Learning to contribute to a joint effort, to become subservient to the needs of the group, to accept a share of failure that may be due to another's shortcomings and to willingly share the glory of accomplishment with others whose contribution in a specific instance may be questionable, is a new, unsettling and often frightening experience.

The process of building a team begins with helping the members to create a vision of what they want to accomplish, to believe in the inevitability of the results and to dedicate themselves to accomplishment of the goals. After the death of Walt Disney, his widow was asked to participate in the opening of Walt Disney World in Florida, the product of a huge team effort. When the person introducing her said, "I wish Walt could have seen this", she replied, "He did". The power of vision is awesome.

A fundamental requirement for success in a team environment is trust, by each member, in each member and in the group. Its development requires time and a sincere effort. Trust is one of those things that must be given before it can be gotten. In "The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People, Stephen Covey talks of making deposits now so you can make withdrawals later. When a person considers that his or her career is at stake in granting trust, it is not granted readily but people can learn to do so. Time and positive results will provide reinforcement.

TYPE OF TEAM DEFINED BY ROLE

There are three distinct types of teams. Teams that make or do things, teams that run things and teams that recommend things. (The Wisdom of Teams – Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith)  In the first two it is relatively easy to define roles, observe skills and recognize contribution.

In the case of the team that recommends things, a task force, roles are often blurred, skills are fuzzy and contribution is not always obvious. One member may not be aware that her great idea grew out of a comment by another member several weeks ago or that her own input has had a profound impact on the thinking of someone else. Recommendation is after all the end result of thinking through options.

Initially, task force members may try to upstage each other, a natural reaction in the often territorial workplace. Direction and guidance is required to prevent resentment and self defense from becoming the norm. Katzenbach and Smith have concluded that the success of teams is the result of "the disciplined pursuit of performance". The emphasis is on discipline.

THE COACH

In every type of team the role of the team coach is crucial. Rarely will a group come together and begin to function as a team without this close up guidance. The coach helps members to develop the required skills through subtle suggestion, open ended questions, pointing out options, not necessarily in regard to the task being performed but in approach to the task and in analysis of potential results. The coach is also a builder of confidence, a reminder of goals, an enhancer of vision, a sounding board for ideas, an attitude adjuster when required, a mentor individually and collectively and a champion for the team in relations with management and other outsiders.

PATIENCE, PATIENCE AND MORE PATIENCE

Rome wasn't built in a day and teams do not happen overnight. Even when teams work together for a full eight hours every day it often takes weeks or even months before they begin to function effectively. In the case of a task force that meets weekly or monthly it is of great importance to provide guidance and direction. If for example, a person's bruised ego or hurt feelings are allowed to fester for a week or a month between meetings, that person's contribution and value to the group is likely ended. The coach must pick up on such things and address them one on one outside of the group or arrange a meeting of two members who are at odds with each other to resolve an issue.

THE TEAM LEADER

The team must have a leader, usually selected by the team, to guide the process on which they are engaged. The leader is neither a supervisor nor a boss but someone to insure that each member has an appropriate role and has the skills and tools required to perform it. The leader helps the team to arrive at consensus, maintains direction and focus and presides over meetings. The leader does not make unilateral decisions but does participate the same as any other member, does his or her fair share of the work, encourages everyone to participate and arbitrates disputes. The team leader is also responsible for the mix on the team, to insure that all necessary skills and experience are available. Since the coach is not with the team full time the team leader must assume some of the coach's role on a day to day basis. The team leader must juggle control and guidance, keeping the team on track without being in charge. In short the leader must accept the responsibility to do whatever it takes to make the team successful.

Especially in task force teams (teams that recommend things) the role of team leader may change with each project under study or consideration. When there is a team member with a high degree of experience or knowledge in a particular area, that person may assume the team leader role for that project.

In teams that make things or do things the team leader is more likely to remain constant and may often be appointed by management. This sometimes becomes a huge role change for a former supervisor who may need a good deal of coaching to make the transition.

TOUGH ON MANAGEMENT

Teams that run things particularly at a very senior level often have an appointed leader. This can be a very difficult situation to manage. Strong leaders who have devoted a lifetime in the pursuit and acquisition of power are often reluctant to give up even the appearance of being in charge.

Management must be willing to stay out of the way, to allow the team to function, to back up its decisions and to insure that all necessary resources are made available, including co-operation from managers, other departments, and where appropriate, access to information, suppliers and often customers. This does not mean that the team (or team members) is allowed to ignore hierarchy or behave insubordinately. All requests and submissions must go through appropriate channels.

For many managers, this can be a tough pill. I remember when working as a career counselor, the consternation of a client returning from a job interview. He had gone to great lengths to point out to the CEO interviewing him that he was a highly skilled, 'hands on' manager. The CEO had asked, "Yes, but do you think you can learn to be a 'hands off' manager?" As sales people know, often you have to give up control to maintain control.

I worked for a short period of time as a sales rep for a company that knew nothing of teams. We got a new branch manager for whom I had a great deal of respect as an able competitor when I had worked for another company. He assembled the sales force, told us he was proud of the team, and then spent more than two hours instructing us on how to make sales calls and represent the company. There was no input sought and no questions asked until he finished with, "Any questions or comments?"  At the time I was the star of the sales force so after several moments of silence I finally responded, "Well Bruce, I've always believed that if you have five people in a room and only one opinion, you have four more people than you need." A week later I handed him my resignation and accepted what was probably the best job I ever had.

Unless managers can learn to be visionaries and mentors, the teams they create will inevitably fail. The old maxim, "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve" certainly applies to team, and simultaneously, if management does not see and believe, the team doesn't have a chance. If coaching resources are not available internally, or if time and workload constraints do not allow their utilization, then outside help must be found. U.S. President Woodrow Wilson once said, "We should not only use all the brains we have, but all that we can borrow." Team-building consultants are not a dime a dozen but they are available.

Perhaps the first question to a consultant should be, "Is this a team scenario?"

Len McNally 

Back To Home Page                     Back To Top Of Page