Effective team building
Jagoda Nowacka
On how to work as a team and not get peckish
Why was our proprietary Creativity+Thinking method created? We decided to expand traditional Design Thinking to emphasize an even more attentive approach to the project team.
It is at C+T that we place a very strong emphasis on the project team, their proper selection, but also their motivation so that throughout the process the team identifies with the solutions they are working on. The keyword for creating an ideal project team is DIVERSITY.
A diverse team is more productive and creative, and it is easier and more willing to step outside the box.
So what does a chicken coop have to do with the right choice of team? In the following article we will try to answer this question.
Dr. Margaret Heffernan is a highly regarded entrepreneur, CEO, speaker and author of numerous publications, including the most important business books of the decade. She mentors CEOs and senior executives of the world's largest organizations. Ted Talk Heffernan's speeches have been watched by more than 12 million people.
Her motto is: "Let's not play the game, ... let's change it."
What is a dream team for Dr. Heffernan?
It might seem that a team consisting of the best employees of an organization is an ideal team. After all, the very experts in such a super-team are maximally efficient, effective, creative and deliver the best results. In short, a team that is every leader's dream.
But are we sure? As Margaret Heffernan says, citing specific examples of research and experiments - not at all! Interested in the efficiency of teams, evolutionary biologist William Muir of Purdue University decided to test this by conducting an interesting experiment on hens, whose efficiency is easily checked by simply assessing the number of eggs laid. Muir observed a completely average flock of hens for 6 generations, and in parallel - selecting from each generation the most efficient super hens alone - he formed a super flock.
What do you think Muir observed? Well, after 6 consecutive generations, this average flock was doing normally - the chickens were feathered, and the number of eggs they laid increased. However, in the super flock, only 3 super chickens survived, and they pecked the others to death - they achieved success by inhibiting the efficiency of the other hens of their flock.
The conclusion of this experiment is that a super-team, that is, a group of people judged to be the best, is only a seemingly good configuration, fueled by illusory notions and expectations, which reality mercilessly verifies and accounts for.
So why do we continue to rely on the best so often, and what consequences might this have for team performance?
As Heffernan explains, patterns imprinted in our minds over the years are still at work. Thinking stereotypically, we assume that success is achieved by selecting and working with the best, brightest superstars whose hard skills are at an above-average level. However, even if we give them all the resources they need, their efficiency and effectiveness are no better than the others, and the work itself with only the "chosen ones" is very often difficult, demanding, exhausting, often resembling the proverbial rat race or mutual "pecking of hens," a practice that only a few of the most persistent, best of the best survive at most.
Meanwhile, rivalry - the unhealthy kind manifested, among other things, by suppressing the performance of the rest of the group to increase one's own chances of success - is a straight road to project failure and team disintegration.
Does this mean that we should beware of superstars in teams? Absolutely not! It would be a sin to waste such potentials. It's just a matter of properly and non-accidentally - taking into account individual predispositions, talents or personality traits - selecting people into groups. Only then can you create solid and diverse teams, operating in an atmosphere of cooperation, because, after all, what really motivates people are the bonds, loyalty and trust they develop among themselves.
After all, "it's the mortar that counts, not the bricks themselves...", so when building teams, it's worth taking a broader look and, in addition to analyzing the skills on a resume, also leaning into the interpersonal competencies of (potential) employees.
So, what works and what makes some teams better than others?
According to a study conducted by a team from MIT, 3 characteristics account for the advantage of effective teams:
- high social sensitivity,
- Lack of domination and inaction by team members,
- More women than men in the team.
In order to achieve real success, it is important to have social capital based primarily on trust, which is the foundation for equally important sincerity, cooperation or psychological security. The interconnectedness of team members seems to be the key to success, which goes beyond results and extends to the process itself, the atmosphere, relationships, etc., so it is worth caring not only about the realization of the goal itself, but also about the way it is achieved, providing opportunities for team members to get to know each other. Nurturing relationships not only influences the atmosphere and facilitates working together - it also gives space for constructive disagreements, which we know are inevitable - as well as nurtures a culture of mutual assistance that is the real driver and basis of effectiveness.
It's high time for a change of attitude! Instead of valuing, judging and dividing into better and worse, let's remember that everyone brings some value to the team and everyone is important, so we need everyone - this is the only way to unleash real energy in the team, to stimulate imagination and give power to action to create works beyond measure.Based only on supermen and supermen, we can fall into a trap and blinded by their uniqueness miss a valuable opportunity. For a proper and healthy organizational culture, not only hard skills are important, but also social competencies that allow the development of both employees and the entire organization.
Naturally, a gateway opens up for leaders who can and should prove themselves as leaders who create a safe and cooperative, frank working environment that allows everyone to freely reveal their boldest ideas and provide opportunities for growth. Because, as Margaret Heffernan says, "Companies don't have ideas, people do."
If you're curious_and want to learn more about why we should end hierarchy at work and the details of the experiments cited by Heffernan, we encourage you to watch the Ted Talk:
