Working in TeamsKen Haycock

Transcription of SLIS Colloquium, Spring 2007

>>> Greetings. My name is Doctor Anthony Bernier, and on behalf of the faculty and the staff of the School of Library and Information Science at San Jose State University, I am pleased to welcome you to our spring two thousand and seven colloquia. Together with Dale DAVID, our IT specialist, we are producing a spring colloquia to enhance the connections between current faculty activities and the interest of our students, our faculty, and the broader community.

A colloquium talk is a single lecture or presentation offered to a broad audience, wherein audience members do not necessarily possess the detailed knowledge of the subject matter. And as is common among such lecture series, our SLIS colloquia will offer individual lectures this spring that address a wide variety of topics of concern to our faculty, our future guests, and our community. Look for new colloquium presentations on the SLIS website at least twice month, and you will find an archive of all our colloquia on the SLIS website at SLISWEB.SJSU.edu.

Today it is my pleasure to introduce the school's director, Doctor Ken Haycock, who will deliver his presentation entitled Working in Teams, which has been a topic of some interest around the school lately, as well as our professional conferences. Doctor Haycock is past president of many national and international professional associations, such as the Association of Library and Information Science Education, or ALISE. He is currently serving as a member of the American Library Association Council. His research and service contributions have been recognized by several associations, including the American and Canadian Library Associations. Before coming to SLIS in two thousand and five, he previously served as professor and director of the School of Library Archival and Information Studies at the University of British Columbia. Since coming to SLIS in the fall of two thousand and five, he has launched a number of working groups and teams within the school community to broaden our effectiveness and our reach. Please join me today in welcoming the insights of our distinguished director, Doctor Ken Haycock.

[ applause ]

SLIDE 1

>> Ken Haycock: Well who would have thought this topic would be of such interest that we would attract more than two hundred faculty and students to this presentation? I really appreciate your being here this afternoon. We're going to look at collaboration and working in teams. And if Doctor Bernier would bring back the remote, it would make life much easier for me. Thank you.

Working in teams seems to be the bane of every student's existence. Working with colleagues you would think would be a joyful opportunity and occasion. Unfortunately, most students don't look forward to it, most faculty know it's something that we should do because it's the way of life in the workplace. But trying to organize for effective teams is particularly difficult. There's been a fair amount of research done on working in teams in the business environment, and that's who I want to look at this afternoon, why we think it's important, how to make it work.

If you were to take away one thing this afternoon, I would say that the key to successful teams is group goal, individual accountability. And how you put that together is really the essence of working together in teams.

And why do we look at teams in the workplace? Well, there's a greater focus on collaboration, there's a greater focus on the importance of diversity of background, experience, prospectus and viewpoints in reaching decisions. We know that when people in a workplace are engaged in deliberations around decisions, there's a greater commitment to their implementation. And we also know that it provides an opportunity to build relationships, to get to know other people in the organization, and to build on those networks for better decisions, even when you're making them completely on your own.

There are a number of different ways of categorizing teams. In most libraries, archives, and information agencies there are permanent teams, those that for example will be a group of children's librarians who meet once a month to deliberate over service improvement, a senior management team, whether they're a team or an advisory committee is something we'll talk about shortly. And then there are temporary teams that are put together to address a specific issue, a specific concern, a specific problem, and come up with a solution. So permanent and temporary are one way of categorizing teams.

Another way is based on whether or not they're horizontal or vertical. In most libraries teams are horizontal. That means that people with the same job classification, the same responsibilities, get together and meet regularly to develop whatever kind of product or deliverable if you will that's required of them. And unfortunately in my view we put too much attention on horizontal teams, and indeed horizontal teams are what we use in classrooms, where students who are equal are working together. Vertical teams we know from some research are much more successful in libraries because it brings very different perspectives to a problem.

Let me give you two examples. It's not uncommon in libraries when looking at circulation systems that the people who sit down and make the decision are the circulation supervisor, the librarian who's

responsible for access services or circulation, and people who are at a similar level. The people of course who know the most about the circulation problems and issues are the people who are at the circulation desk, and that would be a vertical team. People from different levels of the organization, different perspectives, the same kind of problem, the same issues, but different ideas to bring to bear. Similarly, studies of bookmobile services in public libraries, rarely is the driver involved, yet the driver's the one who hears everything that people have to say when they're getting on and getting off, and yet that person is considered almost invisible, unless they're dong double duty as a library technician or clerk as well. So vertical teams have a lot of merit to them, depending on the issue or the problem.

The fact of the matter is people don't like working in teams. "I can do it better myself," "I'd rather not have to deal with these people," "I'm the only one willing to work." I'm sure that every faculty member has had somebody hand in an assignment on behalf of a team, and then the little voice says, "And of course I did all the work." And you feel like saying, "Well more fool you." I mean why did you do this? "Well I was the only one who had high standards." Well that should have been negotiated at the beginning, and we'll look at that as well. We know that there's discomfort around teams, and some reluctance to work in them.

SLIDE 2

It's been suggested that there are six phases of a project. [ laughter ] Perhaps you've had that experience in your own organization, I certainly have. And the problem is that we need clear performance goals more than politics. We need standards, and we need to give teams the ability to chart their own course.

SLIDE 3

So what are we going to look at here? First of all, we're going to look at the definition of a team, because that's really foundational for what we'll be talking about. We're also going to look at the criteria for success that the research suggests is important. There are actually four stages in team development that every team goes through. There are characteristics of those stages, and there are things that can be done to help people move through them. There are also some very common problems that we've all encountered, and of course there are some other considerations as well. There's no reason for interpersonal conflict to be the essence of team dynamics and team problems.

Essentially, one of the basic rules of effective teams is that you have no right to talk about an issue unless you're willing to put it on the table with your teammates, and address it respectfully and carefully

in front of others. Too often the issues are discussed in sidebars with one other member of the team, in the restroom, in the halls, and they aren't put on the table for everyone to discuss.

SLIDE 4

Well why are teams important in a school like ours? We know from learning theory that people who only read or hear information don't retain it. There's a far better chance that things are retained when they're shared with others through discussion, through postings in virtual teams, through response to what others have had to say, and really thinking about and responding to, and sharing with our colleagues, we retain much more about what we've taken in, and can use it more in the future. And that's also one reason why there's such a heavy emphasis in graduate programs on presentations. Because when we're teaching somebody else, the side benefit is that we tend to learn much better ourselves in order to present it to someone else, rather than simply receiving the information.

SLIDE 5

Well let's look at the differences among these three. Unfortunately, most groups that are called a team are really a committee, or a group that's being put together. What distinguishes a team is that the individuals have some independence. They have independence over how they're going to address the problem or issue that they've been given. Usually, in terms of autonomy, as well as independence, a committee tends to be advisory. We have advisory committees to the university librarian, we have advisory committees to a director, we have a committee that's put together to advise a branch manager. But they don't tend to have any authority.

A team on the other hand has authority for producing a product, and often a recommendation. The team also has authority and responsibility for gathering its own information and pulling it together. It's not meeting once a month to share information that's come from the bureaucracy, or someone higher up in the organization, it's meeting regularly in order to gather its own information, and make its decisions and recommendations. A team tends to be self managing. In most teams for example, the team will choose its own team leader. The team leader will have responsibility and authority that's been given to that individual by the members of the team.

A committee on the other hand, the chair tends to be appointed by the person to whom the chair and the committee reports. So it doesn't have that same right of management and responsibility. A team also has very clear objectives in terms of what it's to do, and by when, and when the deliverable is to be presented. And a team, unlike a committee, is concerned as much about process as it is about content. A committee, it doesn't matter if a third of the people don't show up one month, a team it makes a big difference because they're all accountable for presenting something and sharing it. In a committee, it doesn't much matter if everyone presents or shares information, or contributes, in a team it makes a big difference because you're all accountable for the quality of the work, not simply the chair or the team

leader. So a team really is much more self managing, has much more accountability, has much more responsibility, and is quite different from a committee, and a group is somewhere in the middle, usually called a team, but really acting more like a committee with some elements of a team thrown in.

SLIDE 6

Well what actually is a team then? First of all, usually five to eight people, sometimes as many as a dozen, sometimes as many as, or as few as three, but generally five to eight people are put together on a team. They can have different skills or strengths, one may have strengths in technology, one may have great skill in dealing with interpersonal conflict and issues, different backgrounds and strengths that they bring to the table. Of course in the, our graduate program the common purpose is typically completing the assignment that's been given. And it's very clear, but sometimes what the assignment requires is not clear. And unfortunately, what happens too often is the people in a team start to trade ignorance about their perception of what is required, rather than going straight to the source and say what is it that you're requiring here? Now maybe that the assignment is worded in as vague a way as necessary so that there is that discussion and that deliberation, but often people who work in teams that are self managing will say clearly we're not sure what the purpose here, how it's to be done, let's have one of us go out and just get this clarified, and bring it back to the team. Not all five, not all eight, one person designated to do it for the team. Because one of the advantages of teams is that you're saving time, you're saving energy, not only the team members, but also the person to whom you're reporting, in this case the instructor.

And very important in a team, what are the common performance goals? One of the worst examples in graduate work of a team is where unstated around the table one person would never submit anything for which she did not expect to get an A plus, and somebody else is quite happy with a B minus, as long as they get through. Well that needs to be put on the table right at the beginning. What are our performance goals here? What do we expect? What would we be satisfied with? What are we aiming for here? And once those performance goals are established, it's easier to work towards a common end. But if there's unstated performance standards that are different around the table, that's when you in fact get the person who comes and hands it in and said, "Well I did all the work, I did eighty percent of the work, I should get the A, the others should all get Cs actually," and of course that isn't very productive, and it isn't fair if things aren't put on the table in front of everyone. And we've agreed on a common approach, we've agreed on how we're going to do this. What's going to be done, by whom, and when, so we can move forward to accomplish that goal at an agreed upon performance standard.

The research suggests the teams that don't work carry one or more of these five characteristics, the five dysfunctions of team. The first is an absence of trust. I know you said you're going to do this, but will you really produce it when you're supposed to? A real absence of trust, in part because it's a leap of faith if you haven't worked with people before. Typically in our program, except for the Executive MLS, people

are put together in a team for a particular assignment, or it could be for a particular course. But it doesn't tend to be longer than that, across a longer period of time.

The second dysfunction is based on a fear of conflict. What we know in organizations is that the more we collaborate, the more we'll have conflict. So we value collaboration, but we don't value conflict, and yet it's what comes with collaboration. So the issue isn't whether there will be conflict, the issue is whether we have means of dealing with the conflict. Putting it on the table, discussing it respectfully around the table, what are the areas that we agree upon? Where are our differences? How can we clarify them? Are we going to reach a compromise or are we going to just move forward with one person's viewpoint? How are we going to make those decisions?

The third is a lack of commitment. I mean, "I realize we have to do this, but you know, frankly I don't care, as long as I get through. I don't want a C minus because I'll have to repeat the course, but if I get a C, well I'm fine with that." Well that kind of lack of commitment can be addressed through the common performance goals.

The fourth is an avoidance of accountability. And this is where you know, there is one assignment, everyone gets the same grade, regardless of who does the work. And so there's a need to build in accountability. My own preference is one that some students don't favor, however it's just done in the courses that I teach, and that's peer assessment. And with every team based assignment that's submitted, each individual writes an assessment of the other members of the team and what contribution they made to it. It's not about them personally, it's just how did they contribute to this particular goal, without evaluation, just a description. Or it may be done by the team leader if the program is based on team leadership.

And then the fifth dysfunction is inattention to results. In other words, we're not so concerned about what's really required by the instructor, we're just going to do what we want to do and get it in and get it done, and hope for the best in all of this.

SLIDE 7

So where do you fit, in terms of holding yourselves accountable, and how you work towards that, and what your contribution might be? Effective teams start with self awareness. I know what my strengths are, I'm well organized, or I do very good research, or I meet deadlines. I also know what my weaknesses are, perhaps I'm a procrastinator, perhaps I'm not so comfortable with some of the technology that's required. But I know what my strengths and weaknesses are, and I know what pushes my buttons, somebody who's late, or somebody who doesn't take things seriously. So I'm really self aware about

what's involved here. I understand what my role is going to be on the team, and it may be that I'm going to be the editor primarily, it may be that I'm going to do the background research. But we've all got roles and responsibilities, and I know how I can make my contribution, and I know what my weaknesses are, and I have some means of addressing them and doing something about it.

Part of this is based on what some people call courageous conversations. You know, we're willing to discuss this at the outset, what I bring to the table, where I can make my best contribution, and we try to play to each other's strengths when we work together.

SLIDE 8

And we treat people equally. Most support staff are thrilled to be involved. But then they're asked to take the minutes or run for the coffee, or something like that.

SLIDE 9

Well what are the criteria for success then? The first is are we really clear about what's expected? In the workplace it's based on the task that we've been given, in an academic environment it's based on the assignment. What is the deliverable here? What's expected of us? And where are we going with it? What are our roles and responsibilities? Who's going to be the team leader? In some highly successful teams there's discussion about what are the characteristics of a team leader that we'd like to see, and then one is selected. I've actually worked in classes where they had elections for team leader in a team of five when two people wanted it, and they voted on who was going to be their team leader, because it's a really important role. Is the team leader actually going to play an equal role with the others in moving towards the assignment, or is the team leader going to orchestrate everybody else moving towards a completed assignment? And personally I think that if the team leader's doing his or her job properly, it's probably more orchestration than actually being an equal member around the table, and doing my own work in that particular way.

Do we have ground rules? Ground rules are the most critical piece of successful teams. No team should ever start without someone saying what are our ground rules. And we should write them down, and we should revisit them. Ground rules are things like we'll arrive on time, we'll come prepared, or we'll give people twenty four hours notice. We'll finish on time, we'll share information with each other, we'll build in some checkpoints so we can check each other's work as we're moving through the course. We'll ask thought provoking questions that are not meant to attack anyone, but to get more information, we'll follow the agenda if there is one, we will keep notes of our decisions. Those ground rules are critical, and they're part of the decision making process. Are we going to make decisions based on consensus? Are we going to make decisions based on votes? If we're having an electronic meeting and I can't make it, does the ground rule say that I live with the decision? Or two days later we revisit the whole thing because somebody didn't happen to be there?

The ground rules are really important, because with ground rules you can bring in consequences, and consequences, whether we like it or not, are what keep people together and moving forward. Consequences can be if there's an issue the team leader will take it up with the team member offline or offsite, privately. The ground rule can be that if the behavior doesn't change, we'll have a discussion focusing on that particular behavior. The ground rule can be that if we seem unable to move together, and someone keeps breaking the ground rules, the instructor will be informed by the end of the first month, or half way through the course so that there can be some intervention. But those ground rules are pretty important. And if you do peer assessments they can be done quite objectively, and certainly in a management course it's useful for helping people to write performance appraisals if in fact the criteria are following the ground rules, and did this person follow the ground rules? Did they contribute equally? Did they ask important questions? Was there balanced participation? And did we put the issues on the table that we expected to?

Ground rules I have seen used by senior management teams, it's not something that's Mickey Mouse, it's taken very seriously. I've worked on senior management teams where the ground rules were actually put on the wall in the meeting room, and we were reminded of them if somebody wasn't meeting them. If somebody always arrives late, you then have some basis for saying you know, we agreed that we were going to start on time, you're always ten minutes late, would it be better if we changed our starting time? Would that help you to meet what we set as a common expectation? Or are you simply going to be late all the time? In which case we've got a problem that we need to discuss.

SLIDE 10

Similarly, as I mentioned, how are we going to make our decisions? Are we going to record our decisions? Are minutes going to be taken of our meetings? And are we aware of both the content, you know, the sharing of information around the issue or problem, the putting together of the document or deliverable, the assignment, but are we also stopping every once in a while and saying how are we doing as a team? You know, are we getting along? Do we have balanced participation? Are we meeting our ground rules? And that process is what uniquely defines a team, particularly against a committee, where we're concerned about the process, we're learning from how we're working together, and moving forward. We also understand the stages so we don't take it personally.

Every team goes through four stages, including one that's called storming, which we'll talk about in just a minute. So that becomes pretty important. And are we using conflict, not avoiding it, which frankly is a characteristic of library culture, but rather putting the conflict on the table and discussing it respectfully with each other? And that kind of practice in a relatively safe environment becomes important for practice in the workplace as well. And then using evidence rather than the loudest voice or opinion, and making sure that if we've got a problem that we've got an improvement plan that we're going to check on, and we're going to celebrate the small successes. Not that we got the assignment in and we got the grade we wanted, but along the way the checkpoints that we've set in, that we're making progress here, we're on target, we've got a plan, and we're moving forward.

SLIDE 11

The stages of team development are these, and I'll talk about each one of them in just a moment. This is sometimes called orientation, it's when we're put together. We may choose our team members, we may be put in teams. I think it's quite amusing that people who haven't worked in teams before always want to choose their own team, and my experience is that self selected teams are often the worst because we choose people because they're friends of ours and so we think it's going to work out. And really we have more problems dealing with conflict because you've got a long history, rather than an easier time in working with newer people.

And this is the stage of dissatisfaction. Again, I'll give you some examples of that.

Finally, resolution, and then we move to production. And some people get together in a team and naively say well we're just going to skip over the storming phase, who wants to go there? Well you have no choice. Storming is part of the natural team development, and it's something that we all need to give attention to.

SLIDE 12

The research suggests that the major function of the team leader is to move the team through these four phases of development. In other words, acknowledging the process, what's involved, what behaviors we should expect, what I can do to help us address those behaviors, and move forward. And that includes both a combination of pressure and support, pressure is referring to the ground rules, the consequences. Support is saying, “I know you're going through a hard time for the next three weeks. We can pick up some of that work and you can contribute more later in the term.” That kind of support for each other is critical as well.

Well let's look at the characteristics of each of these.

The first then, this is when we're put together in teams. And you know, we're kind of a bit excited, you know, we're anticipating working together with these three or four other strangers. We're a little suspicious about the whole thing, we might be a little anxious and a little fearful, we're not quite sure what's going to happen. But we tend to know what we're going to do and where we're going. We typically focus on the what, what is required here, what are we going to do? And we also know through all of this that as we work our way through it, that at this stage we tend to complain about the organization. We say, “Why does the school require that we all work in teams? Who wants to do that?” We complain about the tax, you know, why'd they give this assignment? What does it mean anyway? It's so difficult. And at this stage we essentially accomplish very little. And at the forming stage some people say it's like hesitant swimmers who sit on the edge of the pool and just put their feet in. They aren't ready to jump right in yet until they know exactly what's going to be required of them. And at this stage, an effective team leader really starts to establish the ground rules. What are our standards for behavior?

How can we set realistic goals? Let's try to chunk this down into small bits. How can we develop a plan for addressing this assignment? What are going to be the limits for behavior? What kind of grade do we all want to achieve as a result of this? Do we just want to be totally focused on the assignment? Do we want to get to know each other a little better? Do we want to have a little fun as we're working our way through it? I mean what are our expectations? Can we reach some agreement around the table about this? And just start to sort of try to move a little forward, get people to focus on the task at hand.

And then you enter the storming stage, which is dissatisfaction. This is when people realize the task is more difficult than I thought it was going to be. Furthermore, I don't think I like some of you people that I'm being forced to work. And your attitudes start to fluctuate a little bit, I mean you're kind of starting to get to know the people around the table a little more, people start to take sides. If you've got five people there'll be a team of two, another team of two, a team of three over here around something else. People get very defensive because they're not used to defending how they approach an assignment or a job or a task. They feel that their ability is being called into question. We tend to rely on our experience rather than collaborating with others. Well I've done assignments like this before on my own, and I've always gotten A's on them, so here's how we'll do it. Well no, we've got five people here who have different experiences, and we want to collaborate around the table. And this is when people who have observed teams in higher education recognize that the attention focuses away from complaining about the organization and the task, and it tends to focus on in the workplace the supervisor, in a class the instructor. How could he have done this to us? Who does she think she is, who does he think he is? What is she doing here? And then there starts to develop as well kind of a perceived pecking order, that all of a sudden we don't all seem to be quite equal in this task, we tend to be deferring to somebody else. There's a lot of tension around the table and disunity. Or virtually it's even harder to recognize because it's much more difficult to communicate virtually in print rather than verbally when you can't see body language and so on.

And this is where the team leader starts to really listen to the concerns, starts to remind people about the goals, starts to redirect them a little bit, starts to facilitate interdependence, saying, “Well why don't we divide things up a little more clearly. You gather some information in this area, you gather some information in this area, I'll get some information in here, when we come back we can learn from what each other has done, and build on what we've each done.” The challenges are confronted. If we're not clear about the task we sort that out. If we feel that too much attention is being given to one individual, the team leader makes sure that we hear from everyone around the table. And we start to really recognize that you know, there's some hope here, there's some reality to what we're doing, we can really start to move forward. And it's when the, the swimming analogy is where people have jumped off the side of the pool into the water, and they're now thinking they just might drown, you know? And there's no one who's going to help them. All these other people in the pool aren't really going to help them, they're just going to drag them down.

And then we all do get to the norming stage. The norming stage is where we really reconcile things. This is the resolution stage. We start to realize that you know, maybe there's some cooperation that's beneficial here. People start to cooperate rather than compete with each other. At the storming phase people are really competing. Even though there's only five people on a team, they're competing so

everyone recognizes that I'm really good at this, or I can make a contribution, or I'm important too here. We start to then give each other constructive feedback, constructive criticism that's taken. There's some relief and friendliness around the table, and there's also some recognition that we've got some group problems. We've got a process that seems to be working, we can put the problems on the table, we can discuss them, we can resolve them, we can move forward. There's an acceptance of the ground rules, acceptance of the norms of behavior that are being demonstrated. And the game to get here, the team leader really starts to involve people more in groups, goal setting, makes sure that everyone is heard from, makes sure that there's a balance in decision making, makes sure that the ground rules are maintained and established, and gives some attention to some common spirit, and some recognition that we're all individuals here as well.

Not every team gets to the performing or production stage. Some people think that when they get the assignment done they've reached the performing or production stage. In fact, a lot of teams are still at the storming phase on the end of the assignment, they haven't got beyond that. They're still competing with each other, they're still complaining about the instructor and the task, they're still competing, and they're not trusting of each other, they don't observe the ground rules. So getting the task done does not mean anyone is at a norming or producing stage. A high producing team really understands the process, they are comfortable with the content that's produced, they know that if they were put together again they can be quick off the mark, they've got their ground rules, they know their consequences, they know their working behaviors, and they can do great work. They're satisfied with the team, with the team members, they've seen changes in themselves as a result of participating in this team for the better, and they're able to work through their problems. And this is where everyone really works in concert, and there's some comfort with each other. And we see that we're actually linked to a larger task here. It may be that we've worked on this assignment, but we're linked to the whole course as a team of five people. In an organization if we're a team with a particular task, we see where it fits into the larger organization. We share information, and we're really much more comfortable with each other and what we're doing, and where we're going.

SLIDE 13

So this is all of course based on a search for clarity that we know at the outset what our goals will be, first task, we know what the characteristics of an effective team leader are going to be, and effective teams start by saying what kind of team leader do we need? Is there any knowledge background that's required? Are there any personal characteristics or quality we're looking for? What are we expecting the team leader to do for us? What role are they going to play?

And then what are the other roles and responsibilities? Typically a team will assign for a course assignment or in the workplace the role of editor to someone, to do the last look. You know, is the style proper? Are the grammatical errors taken care of? Is the formatting the way it's supposed to be? That's a very important role.

Usually there will be a record keeper for decisions that are made, and they're posted electronically so people have access to them and can see what the decisions were made, especially if someone had to miss the meeting.

There will be the team leader of course.

Some teams, and a lot of people are uncomfortable with this, some teams will actually assign someone the job of quote process observer. Which means at the end of every meeting they'll take five minutes and just comment on did we in fact model the behaviors we said that were important that we put in our ground rules? Was there balanced participation? Did everyone contribute? Did we speak respectfully to each other? Did we start on time and finish on time? Whatever those ground rules happen to be, some attention there. We know what these will be before we start, and then we also understand that there are consequences.

People who have worked extensively with successful teams, regardless of their level in an organization, whether a director or CEO, someone working on the frontlines, students in a course, someone who has experience is very comfortable saying what are our ground rules? What are our performance expectations? Do we understand what the task is? What are we looking for in a team leader? What roles and responsibilities are we going to take? And get that out of the way at the beginning.

Others who haven't done that, like any change, will say this is very uncomfortable, I don't want to do this, why don't we just get started? We can figure all that out later, and of course consequences are much more difficult when you don't have any agreed upon standard. And it's very much easier to establish ground rules and consequences when you don't have a problem. Usually people don't like to establish consequences because there is no problem. Well that's exactly why we should establish one because there is no problem now, so when one comes up we've all agreed what action is going to be taken.

The common problem then is something that we've all encountered. What is it that we're supposed to be doing here? Well here the team leader helps to clarify, what exactly is the task? What are our roles? Let's get back on track, we said we were going to follow the agenda, why are we wandering all over the place? Let's stop floundering here.

SLIDE 14

The overbearing participants, sometimes these are the blockers, and sometimes the team leader just has to take a blocker aside physically or electronically and say you know, I know that you're not in favor of the approach that we've taken to this assignment, but we've discussed it at length, we couldn't reach consensus, we ended up actually voting, we recorded the vote, it's over, we're moving on. We can't discuss this for three months. We discussed it for a week, that's what we agreed to look at. So no one's asking you to do this happily or enthusiastically, but you can't block it because we want to move forward, and that's what we're here for. And the team leader has to do that.

The dominating participants, some people suck up more air time than is fair or equal, and the team leader needs to say you know, I don't think we've heard from you, Sam, in two weeks. I'd be interested in your perspective on this, to make sure that they're encouraging participation by others. Because in a team there isn't only the opportunity to contribute, there's the responsibility to contribute, because you're not relying on anybody outside to give you the information or do the work, you're managing yourself, and responsible for that.

And feuding members sometimes have to be reminded of the ground rules, and make sure that they're reminded that they agreed to this process, and we've got to move forward.

SLIDE 15

There are regrettably other problems as well, especially in the storming phase. Someone will say, "Well you know, Brenda, I know why you want to do that. You just think it'll be easier because you wrote a paper on that last term." Well that's attributing motive, and you have no basis for doing that. You take it at face value, and don't attribute motive or desires on the part of somebody else.

We sometimes wander around, we go off on tangents, some people call that bird walks. Well maybe that's important at the beginning when we're starting to get to know each other, but a team leader really has to bring the discussion back on task. We know that there are certain personality types who make a recommendation or a suggestion at a meeting, and it's completely ignored. And fifteen minutes later somebody else makes the same suggestion, everyone says what a great idea. Why didn't anyone suggest that previously? And that kind of throwing things out and no one picking up on it or discussing it is again the responsibility of every team member, but especially the team leader.

And accepting opinion over fact is based on often volume of voice, whether you actually hear it, or whether it's in the equivalent of capital letters on a list. And trying to get things done too quickly is a

common problem in teams, without making sure that everyone's comfortable with where we are, where we're going, and what the outcome might be.

SLIDE 16

I think we've talked about these. Somebody who refuses, we have consequences. There's always the clown, and jokes are good. I mean having fun is great. But when that's all the contribution that somebody is making, that's a problem. And that's a role that some people play in life. And you know, it's been great fun for three weeks, but you haven't produced what you said you'd produce. And we agreed that you know, you would give us twenty four hours notice and we'd cancel the meeting if you couldn't produce. So the team leader needs to speak to people about that.

And there are occasionally on teams somebody who doesn't want to be the team leader, they don't want the responsibility, but they want to make sure that everyone recognize they would have been a great team leader if they had so been interested. And so they tend to be the recognition seeker, the power seeker, but they won't accept the responsibility themselves, and you have ego problems then as well.

SLIDE 17

And we know that some people don't suffer from stress, they're merely carriers. And you may have been on a team with somebody like that as well, and again, that's where the ground rules become important. Managing conflict, I tend to say you have to know if the ditch is worth dying in. I mean sometimes you just want to ignore it. That doesn't mean you should ignore all conflict, that would not be very helpful, and certainly wouldn't be a very healthy working environment. But you have to decide whether it's worth confronting. And then it's important to confront it in a non-defensive way.

Now there's language that some people use that they have found to be very effective, and you might consider this if you haven't tried different ways of handling conflict. And it goes something like, "When you, when you're always late for a meeting Anthony, it makes me feel, when you're always late for a meeting Anthony, it makes me feel like my time is disrespected, that it's worth nothing. So when you, it makes me feel, would you consider, would you consider making an effort to arrive on time, or should we consider changing the start time? What do you think?" So you're not only suggesting what the problem is, but how it makes you feel, and a possible solution that the person can respond to, and you provide the opportunity for accepting it or rejecting it.

But bearing the problem is the most destructive way of dealing with team dynamics. And often we think it's only three months, it'll be over soon, let's just get through this, be done with it, and really you've learned nothing about process, and you've learned nothing that's going to be useful to you in a work situation.

SLIDE 18

So these are the four stages. If you are observing a team you can really tell what stage they're at by looking at what the communication pattern is, what's the level of participation among team members? How do they make decisions? Is it fair and open and transparent? How is conflict handled? Is it clear that there's a team leader who's actually providing leadership? Are the people clear on what their goals are, and what roles and responsibilities they hold? What are the norms of behavior? Does it seem like it's a positive, healthy climate that people are working in? Is the tone respectful when they're talking to each other? And are they focusing on problem solving rather than unnecessary interpersonal issues?

SLIDE 19

Stated another way, in another acronym.

SLIDE 20

So if they're so difficult, why do we actually have them? Well some people say that in management positions, at any, beginning even management position, they're spending about thirty percent of their time in meetings. And if you're in unproductive meetings it's very stressful, it's very draining, and it's not helping the organization move forward. So working as a team can be much more satisfactory. We know that if we have goals and a planning process that we can actually make improvements in the area where we work, and feel good about what we're doing, and feel that we've made a contribution as well.

SLIDE 21

We also know that, excuse me, where an issue has high relevance for someone in the organization, and they have expertise given their roles in the organization, they really should be involved in a team and collaborating, where they have high relevance, and they have high expertise. If there's high relevance and they have no expertise, then you might just tell them, or ask them. But there's a difference between consulting and collaborating, and it's important that people be involved if they're going to have some responsibility for implementation, and have something to contribute as well.

Of course there's a down side too. Oops.

SLIDE 22

So in essence then, there are four stages of development. Somebody has to be responsible for helping the team to move through those stages of development. The choice is really yours. You can have a normal functioning team or a dysfunctional team. And if you want a positive experience, then you simply recognize and portray the, or perform the behaviors that are necessary.

SLIDE 23

To your success then, if you know the characteristics that are necessary, if you understand the criteria for successful teams, if you know what to expect, "Oh we must be in the storming phase." It's much easier than, "Why are you doing this to me?" It's just easier to understand, "This is natural, this too will

pass." I mean let's just dump all over the instructor, and that's what people do at the storming phase, but we're going to get through this if we clarify where we're going. We understand the process, if things aren't working for us each month, we're reviewing our ground rules. If they're not working let's change them, or our behaviors, and then we're on a continuous improvement area as well."

It seems to me that we have choices over whether we want to exhibit a positive attitude or a negative attitude when we're working in a team. We have choices as to whether we want to learn as much as we can, or as little as we can. Those are within our control. If you have a positive attitude, if you recognize process, if you want to learn from each other, as well as for our course, then teams can be very beneficial.

SLIDE 24

And there's some additional reading for those of you who are interested. Thank you. [ applause ]