By Mike Myatt, Chief Strategy Officer, N2growth

Teamwork MattersI read an interesting post last night by Dan Rockwell (@LeadershipFreak) entitled “Six ways to make teams work” and found myself in complete agreement with Dan on 5 out of the 6 points. Where Dan lost me was on point #4 – Teams Decide by Consensus. In recent months I have observed a decent amount of politically correct discourse on the topic of team building and equality. The gist of the argument seems to be that for teams to be productive, employees have to feel “empowered” by having an equal voice. I can sum-up my feeling on this in one word…ridiculous. To be blunt, the concept of equality in the workplace has only made team building more difficult as employees seem to have a sense of undeserved entitlement with regard to their roles and responsibilities. And as odd as it may sound, one of the greatest impediments to building productive teams is practicing management by consensus.  In today’s post I’ll share my thoughts on team building and equality…

Before I start, let me point out that I hold Dan in high esteem and find myself in agreement with him much more often than not. He is one of my favorite leadership bloggers, and hopefully we’ll still be on speaking terms after this post. That said, let me be as direct as possible with my next statement – While all people may be created equal, they are certainly not all equals in the workplace. While the thought that all employees should have an equal say may get some air time in business school, I have found that often times the theoretical discussions that take place in halls of academia have little to do with the realities that exist in the world of business. You must also keep in mind that the classroom is one of the few remaining bastions of true equality (at least until the grades are posted). The business world is not fair…it is regrettably most times rather merciless. In a highly productive organization the power and influence of your voice is earned through trust and performance, and not entitlement.

Team building basics are often overlooked by ineffective leaders or unproductive companies. However great leaders and highly productive organizations always focus on team building as a key priority. I have found that highly productive executives and companies clearly understand the value, leverage, efficiency, and economies of scale that are generated by assembling highly focused, motivated, and productive teams. If you are a CEO or entrepreneur and don’t see team building as a priority, then the text the follows is written for you.

I’ve often said that theory without action amounts to little more than useless rhetoric, and while most companies are spinning their wheels pontificating on the merits of team building, it is the truly great organizations that put theory into practice. Great leaders intrinsically understand that team building catalyzes collaboration, creates both disruptive and incremental innovation, facilitates a certainty of execution, and is one of the key foundational elements associated with creating a dynamic corporate culture.

It is one thing to be able to recruit talent, something altogether different to properly deploy individual talent, and quite another thing to have your talent play nicely in collaboration with one another. It is the responsibility of executive leadership to set the tone for great teamwork by putting forth a clearly articulated vision, and then aligning every aspect of strategic and tactical decisioning with said vision. A lack of clarity, the presence of ambiguity, obviously flawed business logic, or constantly shifting priorities/positions are the death of many a venture. However CEOs that implement a well thought out and clearly articulated vision, create a sense of stability and a bond of trust amongst the ranks. This in turn leads to a very focused, coordinated, and ultimately a very passionate work environment. It is not too difficult to get your crew all oaring together when these characteristics are firmly in place because they now know which direction to row.  

I have been generally well regarded throughout my career for building extremely effective teams, and what I can share with you is that team building is not about equality at all. Rather team building is about alignment of vision with expectations, getting team members to understand exactly what their roles are, and making sure they have the right resources to perform said duties with exacting precision. Building productive teams is about placing the right people, in the right places, at the right time, and for the right reasons.

Team building should have nothing to do with ego, tenure or titles, but rather it should be all about competency, collaboration and productivity. Leaders must clearly communicate to team members what their duties, roles, and responsibilities are, as well as setting forth a road map for performance expectations. Team building, group dynamics, talent management, leadership development, and any number of other functional areas are much more about clarity, focus, aligning expectations, and defining roles than creating equality. If you examine the most effective teams in the real world you’ll find numerous examples which support the thoughts being espoused in this text.

Whether you look at athletic teams, military teams, executive teams, management teams, technical teams, design teams, functional teams, or any other team, you’ll find that the best of the best have structure, a hierarchy of leadership, a clear understanding of roles, responsibilities and expectations, clear and open lines of communication, well established decisioning protocol, and many other key principals, but nowhere is equality found as a key success metric for teams. Decisioning by consensus usually results in no decision being made, or an intellectually dishonest, watered-down decision that is so full of compromises, hedges and caveats that a non-decision might have been preferable.  

While I’m a true believer in candor in the workplace, and have always encouraged feedback and input at every level of an organization, this doesn’t mean that everyone has an equal say, because they don’t…Moreover, those that hold less of a vested interest, that don’t have as much as risk, that don’t have the experience, or those that may be looking out for self-interest more than the greater corporate good should not be considered equal with those that do…

While I concur that there is no “I” in team and many other statements to that effect, such statements are not meant as endorsements for management by consensus. They are simply meant to foster a spirit of cooperation. Understanding how to lead and motivate groups and teams should not be considered one in the same with creating false perceptions of equality that don’t exist (Bonus Post: CEOs and Team Building). Real leadership means knowing when you should make the decision and when you should let others make the decision. Smart leaders may choose from time-to-time to give away authority, but they never give away responsibility – ultimately they own the decision regardless of who makes it and/or how it’s made.

Bottom Line: Show me any team created of equals and I’ll show you a team that will never reach its full potential…

What say you? I won’t hold it against you if you agree with Dan (love ya Dan), but I may push back on your logic.

  • http://www.awesomelysimple.com John Spence

    This is a fantastic post! I have been directing high-performance team workshops for nearly 15 years and I am in complete agreement with you Mike. I believe that if you want to build and sustain a truly world-class team, everyone needs a voice – but not everyone’s voice is equal. You deserve input – but that done not mean that 100% agreement is the goal. Sometimes the leader has to put a stake in the ground and do what they believe is best for the overall organization – even if some members of the team disagree. You absolutely nail it here:

    “Whether you look at athletic teams, military teams, executive teams, management teams, technical teams, design teams, functional teams, or any other team, you’ll find that the best of the best have structure, a hierarchy of leadership, a clear understanding of roles, responsibilities and expectations, clear and open lines of communication, well established decisioning protocol, and many other key principals, but nowhere is equality found as a key success metric for teams.”

    Great post Mike – it is obvious you have spent a lot of time thing about and work with top teams!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/mikemyatt mikemyatt

      Thanks for your comment and kind words John. I really appreciate the sentiments expressed.

      Best wishes John…

      Mike

    • http://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com Dan Rockwell

      Hi John,

      I like what you said in your book about team decision making. Note: your book isn't handy so I hope I haven't botched the idea I took away.

      Consensus means unless someone has a burning reason against the decision they are ALL IN. I like that and find it works very well with the team I lead. And yes, I lead the team.

      However, they are much more than a group of detached advisors. Once we decide all of us are always all in…regardless of the debate or discussion.

      In addition, there are many occasions when discussions are very brief, I say something like, "this is what I think we should do, can anyone see any problems." Other times on high profile or high risk items (as you indicate) their is more discussion. Why? Because we all have skin in the game.

      Best,

      Dan

      • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

        Hi Dan:

        Again, I don't find fault with what you've said here. My guess is that we're not as far apart as the text of this discourse would have people believe. I'm all about seeking collaborative input and desire candid, open discourse, but what if you don't all agree? When all is said and done, who's responsible for the final decision? There is a difference between giving people a seat at the table and allowing them to have a voice, and decisioning by consensus. Your thoughts?

  • http://brainbasedbiz.blogspot.com Robyn McMaster

    Very thoughtful post, Mike, based on your many years of experience. People come to the team with a variety of gifts and talents, which are very different. In our schools some of these are valued more highly than others… writing, for instance. Yet, I have noticed some of the most creative people I know are poor spellers and therefore might not make the top grade in an MBA. However, what that person could potentially bring to a class is very different and top level if digital videos were allowed to express those ideas.

    If we in business welcome new approaches that could be voiced, we could achieve "N2 Growth to your future." Maybe that voice would only chime in once, but that is all that is needed for the new approach. So maybe the voice of the person with IT gifts comes through in e-mails or other means rather than taking up meeting time. Would you agree that a variety of ways to express that voice might work well?

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Hi Robyn:

      Thanks for your comments. You asked: "Would you agree that a variety of ways to express that voice might work well?" My answer: ABSOLUTELY. To be clear, I'm saying that everyone SHOULD have a voice, but simply that not all voices will have equal weight or authority. Over the years I have received great contributions from the lowest levels, highest levels, and all points in between. However, while all were free to contribute, that didn't necessarily mean they had the final say…Thanks for asking the great question and I hope my answer helped to clarify my thinking.

  • http://www.yourvoiceofencouragement.com Meredith Bell

    I believe you're right on the money, Mike, in every point you make in this post. I couldn't help but think of the problems many families have today because the parents try to let the kids have an "equal say" in what happens. If more parents took the approach to leadership and family-building that you advocate here for teams, we'd see children who are better behaved and grow up to be fully-functioning, responsible adults. Thanks for speaking your truth so clearly and boldly. One reason I enjoy your blog so much is that you speak from experience and a base of wisdom.

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Hi Meredith:

      Thanks for the kind words…I couldn't agree more with your observations on the topic of parenting. Parenting (done well) and leadership have much in common. Good parents have the same qualities as servant leaders – they are committed, focused, loving, caring, empathetic, and are present without losing sight of the future. However they also understand the need for, and value of, structure and discipline. Kids don't need or want parents who try and be one of the gang – they need parents who model the values and behaviors they hope to instill in their children. Thanks for sharing your wisdom Meredith…

  • http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog Michael McKinney

    I would agree with you Mike. Good teams create input. It’s a formal way to help reduce the isolation that it endemic to leaders and leadership. A team helps to create the best foundation for a decision or action. Consensus isn’t the goal. Good input is. It’s nice when everyone agrees on a direction, but it should also give one pause. It reminds me of Drucker’s first rule of decision making: one does not make a decision unless there is disagreement. Generally, I believe in the wisdom in crowds (teams) but not in the wisdom of crowds (teams).

    Thanks Mike and Dan for creating this discussion.

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Thanks Michael – your insights are spot-on and well stated. I particularly liked: "Consensus isn't the goal. Good input is."

      I don't want to turn this into a Dan vs Mike thing, as I too thank Dan for starting this conversation…My guess is that Dan could certainly find a few things about my opinions to take issue with, but this isn't really about Dan and I, it's about understanding that opinion shopping and appeasement don't instill creativity and performance, they stifle it.

      • http://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com Dan Rockwell

        Mike,

        When I read this part of the conversation it made me think about the importance of someone who holds out the grand objective with tenacity and won't let others quit until they figured out a way to make it happen.

        Thanks again,

        Dan

        PS… Oh and I agree that this isn't a Dan or Mike or Michael thing. I'm having too much fun.

  • elliotross

    Quote – Alan Weiss

    "….consensus…..mechanisms are employed in the misguided belief that if enough people can agree on something it’s probably accurate and true"

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Thanks for sharing the quote Elliot – I really hate it when someone can articulate in 21 words what it took me almost 1,200 words to communicate. A lesson in the power of brevity from Mr. Weiss…

  • http://leadershipfreak.wordpress.com Dan Rockwell

    Mike,

    Great post. I'm thankful to you for your kind words and for your wisdom.

    I wrote a brief reply to John Spence above. Here I'll just add a couple thoughts.

    I think your approach makes most sense in project teams. Where levels of responsibility and consequences for success or failure fall differently on various participants.

    In my case. I work with a small group of leaders. (One just left to lead a new project so now there are three of us.) There view of me is, "I am the leader of the leaders." It's not unusual for us to have short discussions that end with me saying I think we should do this, any problems you can think of? (silence) … great then lets move forward. That's consensus.

    I wrote about high risk/high visibility decisions under my comment to John Spence.

    Having said that, I went back and reread what I wrote about consensus and it is too broad. There are no conditions. I received some push back in the comments section. Tim, Mark, Hans and perhaps others correctly offered alternatives to a team decision making process based exclusively on consensus.

    My hats off to you. I love how you handled this. My greatest delight in the blogospher is the conversation and you've masterfully created one here.

    Now the deeper question. Will I keep speaking to you? I may not speak. But I will listen.

    All the best,

    Dan

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Thanks Dan…I appreciate the kind words and know that I'll totally take offense if you don't continue to speak-up:)

      I agree that consensus is too broad and conditions need to exist. I responded above to your comment to John and feel that we're not likely as far apart as it may seem. Thanks again Dan for starting this dialog and have a great weekend Sir…

    • http://www.leadershipnow.com/leadingblog Michael McKinney

      "It's not unusual for us to have short discussions that end with me saying I think we should do this, any problems you can think of? (silence) … great then lets move forward. That's consensus."

      Dan, I believe I know what you are describing. It sounds like a supportive, mature environment you are describing; where ego isn't the main thing but doing the right thing is. Once a decision has been made, it's up to the team to figure out how to make it work. A consensus of attitude if you will.

      Thanks again,
      Michael
      Lead From Where You Are

      • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

        Michael – I think you've hit the nail on the head – While this debate is of consequence, and words do matter, I think there is an element of semantics at play here.

        Everything I know of Dan indicates he is a mature, supportive leader with his ego in check. The real issue however is not with us refining our semantics with those of like minds, but rather how we educate those who clearly have adopted a management by consensus posture both in attitude and in practice.

        Thanks for sharing Michael…

  • http://www.jamesstrock.com Jim Strock

    What a wonderful post! Among the insights that resonate so much with me is your separation of equality from consensus. People can be regarded equally in terms of opportunity for input–but their output, individual and collaborative, may be anything but equal in value in a given circumstance. The ultimate unity required for effective implementation may well have been been made stronger, because it was achieved without unanimity in the decision-making process. Perhaps working without being disabled by a chimerical wish for "consensus" can be made more likely if team members also recognize that aspects of leadership are dynamic and situational, shifting along with the value of the contribution–rather than based on entitlement related to position, prior experience, formal education, seniority etc. In the end, if the group is to comprise leaders, the person formally accountable for its performance should have a focus on service, enabling others' best performance….As you make clear so well throughout, it's all about implementation and results…

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Hi Jim:

      Thanks for adding to the discussion Jim. You said: "if the group is to comprise leaders, the person formally accountable for its performance should have a focus on service, enabling others' best performance…." This really resonates with me. A leader's focus should be on serving the needs of the group such that they can perform at the highest level. Solid insights Jim. Thanks again for sharing.

  • Steven van Gestel

    I hope those who have posted a comment here, have actually read Dan's article. The text part Mike challenges, also reads: "…However, passionate buy-in by team members is rooted in meaningful participation in decisions that matter."
    In my humble opinion this statement is solid as a rock. Whereas alignment only will have your staff do the job and do it as expected, buy-in fosters excellence.
    Mike is spot on when reflecting to reality of inequality in competencies resulting in inequity of voting right. However, considering this discussion takes place in the context of leadership, it takes a true leader to challenge the right competencies of team members in a team discussion. By avoiding "overlap" in competencies "put in play", each team member actually tributes equally to the discussion and eventually decision-making. As a result, you will most likely not end up with "an intellectually dishonest, watered-down decision", but in essence, as Dan suggested, a consensus-based one.

    Having said this, I appreciate both Dan and Mike equally and consider myself their leadership student…

    • http://www.n2growth.com/blog/ mikemyatt

      Hi Steven:

      Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I don't dispute that buy-in adds value to both the process and the eventual outcome. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the statement. However buy-in in the process doesn't necessarily mean that consensus in the outcome can or even should be reached. Dan and I poked a bit of fun at one another today, but I believe found common ground when Dan agreed that consensus was too broad and suggested that conditions should be applied. Thanks again for your observations and kind words.

  • http://principlesoffailure.blogspot.com Siddhartha Herdegen

    Mike, I think you’re right about this discussion being one of semantics. And I think the relevant term is “team”.

    A team is a group of people working toward a common goal. But a team doesn’t imply unanimous opinion. Rather, a team is a commitment to work together despite differences of opinion.

    Looking at Dan’s original post, I wonder at his definition of “team”. He says, “If ultimate decision making is reserved for the “team leader,” you don’t have a team. You have a decision maker with advisors.”

    Teams can be lead in a variety of ways depending on their size and objective. A decision maker with advisors is a perfectly acceptable style of team leadership. But then, so is consensus leadership.

  • http://principlesoffailure.blogspot.com Siddhartha Herdegen

    The reason we all nod our head a disparate maxims about team leadership is because we can think of examples in which each is a good fit.

    If we’re in an obstinate mood, we can likewise find situations in which they don’t fit. But neither reaction unequivocally validates or invalidates any leadership style. Rather they point out the need for flexibility, adaptability and discernment to know when to apply the right one.

    When Dan says, “Teams decide by consensus” he’s obviously thinking of a specific situation in which this type of leadership makes sense. But you’re also right in saying it doesn’t make sense as a general rule as there are numerous situations in which this approach would be catastrophic.

    The bottom line is, the term “Team” does not connote a particular leadership style, consensus or otherwise. A team is a feel-good label that implies the voluntary participation of all members is necessary for success.

    That may or may not be the case for all teams, but that is the implication.

  • Pingback: Principal (le?) learning » Leadership thinking

  • http://www.drumcircleevents.com.au/online/ Corporate Events

    I have also gone through the article you mentioned and i can say that Dan has done a really wonderful job by writing this informative article in a very expressive way and I am 100% agree on all the points he mentioned.

  • Pingback: Team Building 101 | CallCenterBestPractices.com

  • TeamBuilding

    Team building is always very important and powerful point that helps to
    any organization’s success. This is excellent and informative post.
    Thanks for sharing.

  • http://www.high5teambuilding.com/ High 5 Team Building

    I agree with the comment that not every employee can be part of decision making. Too many chefs in the kitchen can spoil the soup.

  • David

    i agree, i think there should be an agreement of who has the final say within the team. I discovered this from the Team Building event i went on with work, it is much more effective this way!

Links Archives Subscribe
View Archives Subscribe with us
Copyright/Legal | Privacy | Resources | Sitemap | N2growth Blog | © Copyright 2013 N2growth - All Rights Reserved