Best predictor of group effectiveness?

As I have remarked before, it is always pleasing to come across research that matches and validates one's own beliefs and values.

In this case, it is an article by Adam Grant in the McKinsey Quarterly, called Givers take all: The hidden dimension of corporate culture.  In it, Grant argues that the single strongest predictor of group effectiveness is the amount of help that people give to each other.

Note that this is not just about individuals being prepared to offer help, but also for that help to be accepted: that is to say, it is about a culture in which people are both generous and open with their time and their skills, but also have sufficient humility to recognise that they need help.

He explores not only why this might be the case, but also how to go about developing such a culture, and cites many examples, including the intriguing Reciprocity Ring exercise, with which I shall experiment (watch this space).

I won't summarise the whole thing here: it is worth reading in full - not least for the wonderful example with which Grant concludes his piece. I have no doubt the book, on which the article is based, would be worth reading, too.


As a Christian (work in progress) I have long thought about the relationship between virtues and leadership (and organisational behaviour more generally). 

I think one could draw up a remarkably robust set of corporate values based on the virtues: faith, hope, charity; justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance.  

So I am delighted to see that work like this validates such things as charity and indeed humility. Understanding the value of virtues is one thing; putting them into practice is, of course, another and more difficult challenge.  But as Grant points out, in his final paragraph, walking the talk is essential (or as one team I worked with put it: we may not always walk the talk, but be do try to stumble the mumble.)

When less is more...

It is always fun when one stumbles across research which supports one's own existing hypotheses (or indeed prejudices).  So I was delighted to find a piece or work (courtesy a blogpost on the excellent Harvard Business Review site) which suggests that leaders who talk too much get poorer results from their teams.

The thesis is that leaders who feel powerful tend to dominate (verbally) their teams; that encourages team members to believe that their ideas and contributions are not valued, and the result is poorer team performance.


Call it confirmation bias, but I certainly think I have witnessed this.  And by the same token, some of the leaders I admire the most, and who seem to me to get the best results from people working with them, are precisely those who go out of their way to demonstrate their genuine interest in the ideas of others, and recognise (and counter-act) the power dynamics that make it less likely that people will be truly open and honest in talking with them.

The full article may be found here: and it is well worth a read.  I do not agree with all their hypotheses.  Also I question some of the underlying assumptions. For example, they hypothesise that when leaders are reminded of team members' instrumentality [that is, usefulness to them in accomplishing goals] their tendency to dominate will be restrained, which seems to me to ignore the power of habit. The fact that the experiments were conducted using subjects who do not usually work together might not show this: but a leader who has dominated for years might need more than a 'reminder' of others' instrumentality to help him or her to modify behaviour… (In fairness, the article does recognise this and other limitations implied by their methodology).

(I also deprecate some of their language: 'to summit' as a verb is a new one on me - but I am told that there is no noun that can't be verbed!)

But it is all fascinating and thought-provoking stuff - and the overall message concurs with my prejudices, so is clearly true!

Interestingly, this also resonates with my interest in rhetoric: one of the points I should have made in my previous post is that brevity is often a hall mark of the effective influencer.

Some interesting projects

I have a number of new and interesting projects, all coming live quite soon.

One relates to some early work on a cultural change project in a large organisation; the real launch is in the autumn, but we are planning some taster sessions over the next few months to stimulate interest and pique people's curiosity.

Another is looking at approaches to creativity - an area of particular interest to me for a long time.  We will be exploring both creative tools and techniques, but also facilitation skills to enable creativity to flourish in meetings, and a number of other related approaches.

There's a few interesting team awaydays coming up too;  I always love that sort of work, as the issues are so practical and real, and with all members of a team present, you have the right people in the room to make some substantial changes and ensure they will be implemented and sustained.

Essex Futures again

Thursday and Friday were spent with the Essex Futures crowd.  On Thursday we were discussing how to develop an academic career, with contributions from Cam Donaldson of Glasgow Caledonian and Nigel South of Essex, who discussed their own careers and the learning they could draw from them.  Sue Endean, the HR Director, helped keep the focus very practical with an exploration of the promotion process and a case study based on that, and I offered some provocations around the theme of time and priority management.

In the evening we went to see E!%'s production of Dracula, directed by one of last year's EF participants, Chris Main - and a good show it was too!

The second day was more focussed on research strategies, with Rob Massara and a team from the REO sharing their expertise and offering practical advice; and the day culminated in a Dragon's Den exercise, with participants pitching ideas to our visiting Dragons, having had minimal time to prepare the ideas or the pitches: but as ever they rose to the challenge, and came up with some great interdisciplinary ideas, and some compelling ways of pitching them.

And along the way we picked up snippets of how well their projects are going, and also heard some personal successes in the Action Learning Sets.

Another stimulating event with this very energising group!

An interesting day

The other day I ran a team day which was a bit of a hybrid.  In discussing what might be helpful with the team leader, I'd mentioned both a day exploring the stories (past, present and future) of the team, and also a Solutions Focused approach.  She said both sounded good and could we combine them.

So ever up for a challenge, I agreed.

I am not sure how well that worked, in fact.  It was OK - some parts went very well, and I think the team left with an increased sense of teamness, with greater mutual understanding, and most importantly, with a clearer sense of where they wanted to get to and a commitment to actions to take them forward.

But there wasn't really sufficient time either to turn the embryonic stories about the desired future into something substantial and compelling, or to get the full value of the material generated by the Solutions tools.

I will be interested to hear the team's feedback, and to explore with the team leader how to ensure we get all the value from the work done on the day.

Memo to self: work through the design more rigorously with the client (avoid agreeing to stuff the day before the Christmas break for delivery immediately after!).

A busy week

A couple of days working with teams at Cleveland Police about to go through a major transition (via TUPE): really good that their management see the benefit of giving them some information on transition itself, and the chance to process that via team awaydays.

Then some time with a team from Northumbria University who wanted to look at their time management as a team - always interesting to approach time mgt from that perspective: there are many ways in which team members can help or hinder each other, both individually and collectively, when it comes to managing time.

Then a day's coaching, which is always stimulating and rewarding, and finally a day to catch up in the office (well half a day really, as WImbledon called...)

And next week looks equally interesting.  Beats having a 9-5 job...

Awayday

Great awayday with the newly-formed Learning and Teaching Academy at Northumbria University.

We spent the day starting their planing process; looking at why (and why not) plan, understanding what they actually do, what the University wants and expects them to do, what they aspire to do and to be (purpose, vision and values and all that kind of thing...), and how to develop as a team and how to take all those strands forward.

A really good, committed set of people, whom I am sure will develop into a strong team; they entered into the day with good spirit and good ideas, despite having learned immediately previously that they are to be the subject of an internal review a mere 6 months after being established (not as a result of anything they have done or failed to do - but that's life in large organisatoins!)

A Story of Failure... The Offstage Character

I've posted a few examples of the Multistory approach working.  Here's an example of it failing - I am always wary of any approach that seems to be a panacea, and I also believe we can learn a lot from failures.

One failure I learned a lot from was in a social work setting, where a new manager had been appointed over a team involved in some quite creative approaches.  The senior practitioner was unhappy with the financial constraints suddenly placed upon her and her team; but that was the very job the new manager had been appointed to do.  The relationship quickly deteriorated and by the time I was asked to help, the two were not prepared to speak to each other.  The boss was also involved, and I included him in the process.  However what I failed to pick up in the early stages was the key role of an off-stage character, who used to share an office with the new manager, and who was still very influential with her.  

I managed to get all three individuals to the stage where I - and they - believed that it might be valuable to sit down in the same room and explore their stories.  However, the manager, who had shown some signs of movement and willingness to discuss by the end of our one-to-one conversation, now dug her heels in and refused to listen or to open up and discuss here real perceptions.  I later learned that her friend and old office-mate had spent some time with her advising her not to give an inch, as the boss and the practitioner would both take a mile if she did.  Had I realised earlier the degree to which this off-stage character was actively involved in the dispute, I should have included her in the process.  In the event, we got nowhere, and the two people who had been prepared to move a little felt very bruised and abused.  The manager was eventually re-assigned to another area: most organisations’ default response to difficult relationship issues.

New Business and Potential New Business

One of those weeks when a lot of new and interesting stuff emerges from almost nowhere (this is why it's tempting to be lazy about marketing!)

Cleveland Police want me to do a series of awaydays for teams embarking on major changes: to celebrate success and plan for the journey ahead.

Another client has asked me to sketch out ideas for a very interesting project which they wish to keep confidential, as they don't want their competitors to get wind of it until it's delivered sensational competitive advantage.

Someone else who I coached a while back is now 18 months into a new leadership role in a complex environment and wants me to undertake a 360 feedback exercise for her.

And I see St Andrews has issued an invitation to tender for some interesting coaching work. See my previous rants about the bidding process: this one includes words to the effect that only those with a good understanding of the culture of ancient universities need apply. Does that mean if you have not worked with them, Oxford or Cambridge you are wasting your time, I wonder. Will probably give it a shot with a couple of colleagues (we all have extensive University experience - but maybe not ancient enough....)

A vision delivered!

A while back I ran a team building event for an IT team. As a fun evening activity I got them to paint a picture representing their vision for the next few years. They weren't hugely impressed, but over a few beers painted a picture of USS Enterprise. (They said it was all they could paint, and was vaguely future and techie...)

Then they discovered that I had some post-it notes in speech-bubble shapes, and had great fun covering it with those, saying the kinds of things they'd like to be saying a few years hence.

We got together again recently, and I asked them to bring the picture. After some umming and erring, they remembered that it was languishing in someone's garage where it had been since the last event.

But to all our delight and astonishment, when we looked at the post-it comments, all but one of their aspirations had been delivered and the last one was work in progress. It was a great start to our team review.

And I am left wondering how important getting them to articulate those aspirations was, in terms of getting them to happen...