I moved from Northeast Texas to Milwaukee, Wisconsin in the spring and enjoyed a beautiful summer. As the year progressed, I experienced the difference between the Wisconsin October temperature and the Texas fall to which I was accustomed. When it began to get cold by my standards, I commented to a group that I was going to start wearing my toboggan. They looked at me with consternation as I continued my presentation. After I completed the meeting one of the participants asked me how I would wear my toboggan. As we discussed the use of a toboggan, it became clear to me that we were not talking about the same item. That day I learned that a toboggan in Wisconsin is a wooden sled: not to be worn on one’s head. In Northeast Texas, a toboggan is a knit hat (we did not need wooden sleds in Texas). This was a reminder that the meaning of words is, at times, influenced by context. This is true of many words we use in organizational life. For instance the words “team” and “leader” are defined different ways in different organizations.

I have asked many groups in different organizations to write a definition of team. The near universal answer I receive is: 

A group of people with a shared goal.

This appears to be a shared definition, but even this definition is interpreted differently by those who provide it. In those same groups, when I ask for further explanation, the opinions usually begin to diverge. In reality, there is no shared definition of the word “team” or the idea of teamwork in most companies. Even though many promote teamwork as a value, they do not define what it means. If you think about it, this definition above can be applied to about any approach to working together. It does not describe work group qualities nor does it imply that the people in the group work together. It is possible to share a goal with someone while approaching the goal from an independent perspective. If you lead a team, this lack of shared definition may be hindering your ability to build your team.

In our Foundation for Team Leadership training, we develop a shared definition of a team that becomes the common understanding of teamwork.

• Group of connected people working together
• Committed to a shared responsibility
• Find meaning in sharing a purpose
• Driven to achieve a shared vision
• Exerting collaborative effort

 I provide this team definition to my clients and ask them to consider, in light of great group experiences they have had, if these attributes were present. To date, every one of them agrees that these descriptors define the group. Does this definition describe your best group experiences?  What would happen if everyone on your team shared this definition?

If you kick a ball, you expect your action to produce a result, changing its position. If you observe the same ball but do not kick it you expect no result or no change in its position. You may have similar expectations as a leader of a group of people. You choose actions that you expect to produce a result. There are times when you choose not to take action expecting that everything will stay the same or you may believe inaction will allow a situation to work itself out.

While most of us think about the results of our actions, we may not consider the results of our inaction. For instance, you may have ignored a conflict between people, hoping your inaction would result in the conflict dissipating. There may be an employee whose behavior is unacceptable, but you choose not to provide feedback thinking he will recognize his negative influence in the team. As you have observed, this approach seldom has a positive ending. The risk of inaction can be understood from a systems perspective. In a system, both action and inaction have consequences. A team is a social system. There are three dynamics that you have experienced in working with people that are evidence of this reality.

 ·  Inaction produces a result.

 ·  The same action does not always produce the same result.

 ·  Different actions can produce the same result.

 As you become aware of these dynamics in your team you might give up on some common assumptions I have heard from managers and observed in groups.

 ·   If I/we ignore it, it will take care of itself.

 ·   Since this worked the last time I/we faced the problem it will work this time.

 ·   A new approach will ensure a different result.

 The assumption of inaction usually results in a crisis that is far more significant than the original ignored problem. There are times that inaction is the right choice, but not when it is because you hope a problem will resolve itself. When you consider the second assumption, the fact that you are using the same solution is evidence that it did not work last time. It might have provided a temporary fix, but you continue to solve the same problem repeatedly. Is that really resolution of the issue? I am aware of an organization that has reorganized four times in the last ten years only to end up in the same situation each time. Every time they reorganized, it was to rollout a new strategy. Each time they reorganized the result was the same. They assumed a change of structure would change their competitive position. They were obviously a victim of the second assumption, but beyond that, their new strategies did not produce a different result. The new approach produced the same outcome.  In this instance Alphonse Karr was right, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.” 

Ask the people you work with to describe his or her responsibility. He or she will probably describe an individual responsibility. That is how we think about our work. It is my work. If you manage others, you may think about each person’s individual responsibility. You probably assign work to individuals who then take it as a personal responsibility. Even though each person’s work in some way intersects with others, it is still considered from an individual perspective. This can result in frustration for managers and work group members who need to produce a shared result. It is similar to everyone creating a puzzle piece when no one has seen the whole picture. Some groups and organizations operate in this scenario and call it teamwork.

 When a manager and workgroup members primarily focus on individual responsibility and then attempt to work together it can create conflict, stress, reworks, workarounds, and at times significant incompatibility. Project delays and missed deadlines can result in blaming that further divides the group. When this occurs, a harder push simply increases the dynamics. This scenario reinforces individualism, creating ongoing conflict. This describes the work environment you want, right?

There is an alternative to this scenario. It requires a shift in thinking about responsibility from the individual to the team. The manager who thinks about assigning individual responsibility must become the leader who sees his or her team’s whole responsibility. Secondarily define the individual responsibilities based on that whole picture. The individual contributor must see, understand, and accept the whole group responsibility. Then his contribution fits the bigger picture. This is a subtle but significant shift in thinking. It is the leader’s responsibility to ensure every member of her team understands and takes ownership of the bigger picture. Beyond that, she must develop a team where individual responsibilities complement one another to create the whole. What are the members of your team focused on?

It is that time of the year when health club attendance increases. Frustrating as it is for those who are there throughout the year, it happens every New Year. People make resolutions that involve healthy living as evidenced by a new workout regimen. If you are one of the frustrated few, never fear because the numbers will decline to very near where they were in December within a couple of months. This is an annual dynamic I have lived through for several years. It has been said that we humans are creatures of habit. For that reason new workout routines don’t last long. We live in patterns of behavior that, while can be changed, usually are not. That makes observation and awareness of behavioral patterns a critical skill for a leader.

Your team, if it has been together for any length of time, has established patterns of behavior. You participate in these patterns, which you usually experience as an unexamined, unconscious part of your day. The ones you notice are probably creating pain for you, but the fact that it is a pattern suggests you have not done anything that really changes it. You may have inherited behavioral patterns another leader set in motion and you are not sure what can be done about them. The importance of identifying your team’s patterns becomes clear when you consider that short term productivity and long term direction will both be determined by them.

As a leader there is another important reason to pay attention to the patterns of behavior in your team. You are creating them. The patterns that exist in your team, if you have been leading it for a period of time, are there because of your action or inaction. The leader is responsible to develop a team whose behavioral patterns support individual and group success. As you observe your team, including you, determine which patterns support individual and group productivity and success. Alternatively, define the negative behavioral patterns that undermine the group. What do you think will happen if you proactively move your team from unproductive to productive behavioral patterns?

Don’t be a victim. As a leader, don’t let those on your team be victims. You are victims when you blame your problems on those outside your group.

“If they (whoever “they” are) would quit changing things we could get our job done.”

“If other groups would cooperate with us we could satisfy our customers.” 

“Our conflicts are caused by others; we would be fine if it weren’t for senior management’s unclear expectations.”

I have heard these and other expressions of frustration in teams that struggle to come together for success. Do you see a problem with this mentality? The belief positions someone else with more control over you than you have over yourself. This is not to say that external influences do not exist, or that they do not exercise power.

If you want to lead a group of people you have to be aware of the context in which the group exists. That context is an organization. Every organization is different. As a leader, your awareness of this context positions you to lead your team effectively. If you describe your organization as a hostile, unsupportive place then guess how your people will experience it? If that is how your team members describe it to you, they reinforce this contextual interpretation for each other, even if you counter with positives. This does not change because you expect them to deal with it. It is a fact that some companies are designed to create a positive context for the work group level of organization, but even in these companies external factors related to change and expectations can be interpreted as hostile at the work group level. So how do you avoid the victim mentality?

The first step toward contextual awareness and interpretation is the neutral view. If you think about it, there are positives and negatives in any organization. As far as I am aware there are no perfect ones.  Before you judge your context or allow your team members to do so, describe it from the neutral view. Look at it and describe it without judgment. Here is a brief example:

Our company operates at a fast pace and expects everyone to be focused on customer service. New leadership is creating concerns about job security and change of direction. Basic communication between departments with some competitiveness creates tension between managers. Managers are provided with resources to be successful with the expectation that goals are met.

The information about this fictional company is factual and neutral if you suspend judgment of it. There are both positives and negatives in this description that can be considered, but only after the neutral description. Can you make a list of the positives and negatives from your perspective based on the description? If you do, you will see opportunity as well as risk. Once you focus your team on the positives that create opportunity you have taken the first step to the potential that exists in your context. Can you describe your team’s context neutrally?