|
Page 1 of 2
By Ellen Pearlman
Strategic Thinker:
J. Richard Hackman
Credentials:
Hackman is the Edgar Pierce Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at Harvard University and an expert on teams. He is also the author of several books and articles, including Leading Teams:
Setting the Stage for Great Performances, published by Harvard Business School Press, July 2002.
Big Idea:
Teams consistently underperform, which is why you may be better off without them.
Article:
"Why Teams Don't Work: An interview with J. Richard Hackman" by Diane Coutu, published by the Harvard Business Review, May 2009.
Teams generate plenty of interest in management circles. Seen as a panacea by many for creative and productive results, tomes have been written on the subject. But is teamwork really so effective? Often it's not, according to Harvard psychology Professor J. Richard Hackman in an interview in the May issue of the Harvard Business Review. In fact, Hackman says, "Research consistently shows that teams under perform, despite all the extra resources they have."
He attributes this to problems with coordination and motivation, along with the negative effects created by competition with other teams. In fact, he notes, "having a team is often worse than having no team at all."
I was surprised to learn just how dysfunctional teams can be. Hackman, and his coauthors for Senior Leadership Teams, conducted research on 120 top teams around the world and found that while almost all of them had set clear boundaries-an important part of creating a successful team-less than 10% of the senior executives could agree on who was on their team.
There's no magic formula for getting team building right. But Hackman identifies some key factors that can help improve performance:
- Set a compelling direction—Members need to know, and agree on, what they've come together to achieve.
- Be ruthless about team membership—Not everyone who wants to be on a team will be a valuable addition and some members should be forced off if they are unlikely to be an asset. This means avoiding putting someone on a team for political purposes since they may end up being a team destroyer.
- Create a supportive organization—All support systems (human resources, information systems and reward systems) must facilitate teamwork.
- Provide expert coaching—Most companies hire coaches for individuals, but this doesn't improve teamwork. Team members need coaching as a group in team processes, especially at the beginning, middle and end of a team project.
- Get off to a good start—The first time a team comes together is critical for the ultimate success of the effort. The first few minutes of the meeting will establish what the relationship will be between the team leader and the group and what norms of conduct are expected.
Despite all the expert advice about teamwork, there are some major misperceptions about the best structure for them. People assume, for example, that teams that work well together are better and more productive than those that don't. "The cause-and-effect is the reverse of what most people believe: When we're productive and we've done something good together we feel satisfied, not the other way around," says Hackman.
Another misconception is that bigger teams, with greater resources, are better than smaller ones. Actually, notes Hackman, as teams expand the number of links between members that need to be managed go up at an accelerating rate. He suggests "no double digits" in any team size. "Big teams usually wind up just wasting everybody's time," he says. Hackman limits teams in his classes to no more than six.
Another fallacy is that team performance lags if members stay in place for too long. Actually, the opposite is true. Teams benefit, Hackman says, from the experience of working together, especially when the work involved is in real time and mistakes cannot be tolerated (such as an airline crew).
And despite the fact that no one appreciates the team member who is always derailing the discussion by bringing up an opposing viewpoint, teams actually need deviants. That's because they open up the discussion to more ideas, which can lead to greater innovation. Sometimes deviants are kicked off a team because their incessant questioning is viewed as a problem. That can be a mistake. Losing the deviant can lead to mediocrity, says Hackman. And in fact, Hackman's research shows that teams with deviants outperformed teams without them.
Next:
Finding the Right Teamwork Balance
|
