Discussion: View Thread

Kicab Castaneda-Mendez <kicab@AEJES.COM> writes:

>Our experience in business and play matches Katzenback and Smith's (_The
>Wisdom of Teams_) that certain elements must be in place for a group of
>people to work together well. They define the group as a team when these
>elements exist. We can talk about teams, but few people measurably define
>team. Katzenbach and Smith do. Those elements are:
>1. common purpose
>2. common goal(s)
>3. common approach
>4. mutual accountability
>5. complementary skills
>6. manageable size.

>Perhaps all examples we have heard of good and bad teams may be tested
>against these elements.


Funny, but on my way to work this morning, the term "team player" kept
running through my mind, as in the sense of "He (or she) is (or isn't) a
'team player'."

In my experience, accusations of not being a "team player" are usually
lodged by someone who is having a devil of a time influencing someone else.
On the other hand, when the compliment is paid, it usually ties to someone
who has helped others move an issue forward. Cooperation toward some
greater good, then, seems an integral part of what being a team player is
all about, and that is clearly reflected in the list of elements above.

However, based on my ruminations on the way to work, I think an absolutely
critical element is missing: a sharing of rewards. Whether we're talking
pots of money or pools of glory, real teams share the fruits of successful
team endeavors amongst the team members. So, I would add a seventh factor
to the list: sharing of rewards. That element, by the way, is
conspicuously absent in many organizations where the complaint is lodged.

Fred Nickols, Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service, Mail Stop 09-C
Princeton, NJ 08541
Tel = 609.734.5077
Fax = 609.734.5590
e-mail = fnickols@ets.org

fred nickols wrote:

We can talk about teams, but few people measurably define
> >team. Katzenbach and Smith do. Those elements are:
> >1. common purpose
> >2. common goal(s)
> >3. common approach
> >4. mutual accountability
> >5. complementary skills
> >6. manageable size.

We use the "PERFORM" model for definition or at least a way of
characterizing what a high-performing team looks like ....

Purpose (clear goals,mission,roles,etc)
Empowerment (Group confidence in itself--able to handle obstacles)
Relationships/Communication (open,trusting--much more to say here)
Flexibility (role/behaivor/job flexiblity)
Optimal Performance (lets not forget that teams do accomplish something)
Recognition & Appreciation (wihin and outside of the team)
Morale

After definitions, we conduct a team assessment against these
characteristics.

Tom Sullivan
Professional Growth Associates

On Sat, 20 Dec 1997, Thomas Sullivan wrote:

> We use the "PERFORM" model for definition or at least a way of
> characterizing what a high-performing team looks like ....
>
> Purpose (clear goals,mission,roles,etc)
> Empowerment (Group confidence in itself--able to handle obstacles)
> Relationships/Communication (open,trusting--much more to say here)

Yes, particularly because hidden inside the relationship dimension is the
politics of situation. I think I would separate these two.

> Flexibility (role/behaivor/job flexiblity)

Just a question. If the purpose has a clear mission with well-defined
roles and goals, wouldn't flexibility be inappropriate to use.

> Optimal Performance (lets not forget that teams do accomplish something)

And doesn't the presence of flexibility indicate that the purpose was
ill-conceived thus optimal performance would be hard to determine?

As I read these, it just seem to me that some of these components
counteract the others.

> Recognition & Appreciation (wihin and outside of the team)
> Morale



______________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Abilene, TX
Hm. Telephone: 915.698.7217
mailto:ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu

At 09:13 AM 12/21/97 -0600, you wrote:
>> Flexibility (role/behaivor/job flexiblity)
>
>Just a question. If the purpose has a clear mission with well-defined
>roles and goals, wouldn't flexibility be inappropriate to use.
>
>> Optimal Performance (lets not forget that teams do accomplish something)
>
>And doesn't the presence of flexibility indicate that the purpose was
>ill-conceived thus optimal performance would be hard to determine?
>
>As I read these, it just seem to me that some of these components
>counteract the others.
>
>> Recognition & Appreciation (wihin and outside of the team)
>> Morale
>
>
>
>______________________
>Great Optimism,
>
>Dutch Driver
>Abilene, TX
>Hm. Telephone: 915.698.7217
>mailto:ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu
>
When we develop measures for processes we group them into three categories:
effectiveness, efficiency, and flexibility. Processes (as in standard
operating procedures) are designed to address most cases of a certain type.
Thus, your comment about having a clear purpose and goals would mean that
the common approach would be able to address the clear plan to address the
clear prupsoe and goal.

What happens if an unexpected barrier (obstacle, issue -- pick your term)
arises? The team, with the same common purpose, goal, and approach must be
flexible to address that unexpected situation.

The ability of the team to "stay on course" is a measure of its
flexibility. Thus, we define flexibility as the ability to be effective and
efficient for unplanned (nonstandard) situations.

An example, you prepare materials for a course and are unexpectedly faced
with a student who blind. How flexible are you in developing materials for
that student that still accomplish the same purpose (teaching a particular
content) as for the other students? Will you/institution say: I'm sorry we
cannot handle blind students, exhibiting inflexibility; or, say, we will be
able to address your needs in two days, exhibiting excellent flexibility?

Some ideas....

*********************************************************
Kicab Castaneda-Mendez
aejes, LLC
84 Old South Salem Road
Ridgefield, CT 06877-4841
Tel 800-291-2974
Fax 203-894-9020
E-mail kicab@aejes.com
Web Site http://www.aejes.com

Author of:
1. _Value-Based Cost Management for Healthcare: Linking Costs to Quality
Delivery_
2. _The Baldrige Assessor's Workbook: How to Perform the Examiner's Role
for Internal and External Assessment_ (Both books available from Quality
Resource, New York, 800-247-8519: http://www.qualityresources.com)

aejes, LLC offers services in three areas:
- Strategic Planning, using the balanced scorecard
- Improving Performance, using value-based cost
management
- Self-Assessment, using the Baldrige Criteria.

*********************************************************