| | By Malcolm Sleath
Question: You
often write about
one-to-one encounters
with clients, but most
people work in teams.
Sometimes I find clients
are the easy part; the
difficult relationships
are with colleagues.
What do you think?
Answer: It’s
often not the colleagues
themselves that are
difficult, but the lack
of team-working. But
what does this mean,
beyond just being kind
and considerate to one
another? It takes
self-discipline to work
effectively in a team,
and most people need to
find out that simply
doing what you are
already doing to the
best of your ability
does not make you a good
team member.
Here’s a simple
illustration. I’ve been
having a new home office
built. Most of the time
I have been able to
manage the process by
relating to people
working on the project
individually, or
delegating to someone.
But on one particularly
memorable day, there
were nine people in the
space. Among other
things, the electrician
wanted to get on with
wiring up the mains in
the skirting trunking.
The IT guy needed to get
at the channel for his
data cables. And both of
them were trying to work
around the cable
broadband installers who
were grappling with an
unfamiliar piece of
kit.
Nobody, including me,
thought things through.
The result was that the
electrician took
advantage of the IT
guy’s absence to pull
some of the data cables
through so he could put
the lids on the trunking
and ‘finish his job
properly’.
Unfortunately, the reel
of data cable had a
fault, which meant that
several cable runs had
to be replaced. But
before this could be
done, the painter had
made everything look
nice by filling any gaps
he saw between the wall
and the top channel
trunking lids. The
result was that yours
truly spent a morning
with a Stanley knife,
trying to ease off the
trunking lids without | |
|
| | damaging the paintwork.
Yet each person (IT guy,
electrician and painter)
had been working
individually to the
highest professional
standards they knew.
Admittedly, that was
a relatively trivial
example and the
technology involved was
hardly groundbreaking.
But you only have to
scale things up, imagine
the kind of project
where there are several
unknowns, and throw in a
few cultural
differences, to see how
easy it is for highly
intelligent and capable
people to really screw
things up.
Despite this being
something that
‘everybody knows’,
people continually
underestimate the effort
and investment required
to build an effective
team and maintain
teamwork.
Doing the right
kind of work: Teams
undertake two kinds of
work: ‘activity work’
and ‘process work’.
Activity work is what
everyone thinks work is
about: getting stuff
through the door and
delivering value to
customers outside or
inside the organisation.
Process work is about
holding the group
together, maintaining
its boundary (who you
let in and who you
don’t) and helping it to
function effectively. In
times of change, the
amount of process work
required rises
dramatically, resulting
in a loss of
productivity.
I call this the
development dip, because
it should only be
temporary and represents
a form of investment.
Near where I live, a new
fish restaurant has
opened. In the window is
a notice asking
potential customers to
bear with them while
they are getting used to
new equipment and
working together. The
owner understands the
development dip and is
managing customer
expectations. (Last time
I walked past it was
packed.)
One team with whom I
had the privilege to
work became highly
effective by alternating
their weekly management | |
|
| | meetings between
discussing process and
activity. On week one
they would discuss what
they were doing. Any
issues about how they
were doing it were noted
and held over. On week
two, they talked about
how they were doing
things, making time for
only the most urgent
operational issues that
could not be put off.
Failing to plan for
process work and the
‘development dip’ is
probably one of the most
common mistakes in
change management, and
that includes projects
and business start-ups.
Leadership:
Like good therapists
(who are experts in
managing people through
change) leaders in
change need to do three
things. First they need
to be potent. This is
not about one person
(male or female) being
macho; it’s about people
in the team feeling
safe. It’s that kind of
calm, authoritative
quality that outdoor
coaches have when they
are getting you to
abseil. To display this
quality consistently
takes a lot of energy
and focus. Effective
leaders look after
themselves to ensure
they have it available.
Potency is important
because the second thing
leaders need to do is
give people permission
to change: “It’s OK to
do things differently.”
Change feels inherently
unsafe. It can be
exciting or threatening,
depending on how you
feel about yourself.
Good leaders give people
permission to ‘feel the
fear and do it anyway’.
Working with them is
like being on one of
those theme park rides
that are scary and safe
at the same time. “Yes,”
they say, “I know you
are shaking inside. And
you can do this.”
Finally, good leaders
protect their team while
they are going through
change. They give them
space and defend it from
the incursions of
others. The notice on
the fish restaurant door
was a simple but highly
effective way of doing
just that.
... continued on
page 15 | |
| |
Previous Page 
