Virtuoso teams

Managing a traditional team seems pretty straightforward: Gather up whoever's available, give them time and space to do their jobs, and make sure they all play nicely together. But these teams produce results that are often as unremarkable as the teams themselves. When big change and high performance are required, a virtuoso team is far more likely to deliver outstanding and innovative results. Virtuoso teams are fundamentally different from the garden-variety work groups that most organizations form to pursue more modest goals. They comprise the top experts in their particular fields, are specially convened for ambitious projects, work with frenetic rhythm, and emanate a discernible energy. Not surprisingly, however, the superstars who make up these teams are renowned for being elitist, temperamental, egocentric, and difficult to work with. As a result, many managers fear that if they force such people to interact on a high-stakes project, the group just might implode. In this article, Bill Fischer and Andy Boynton put the inner workings of highly successful virtuoso teams on full display through three examples: the creative group behind West Side Story, the team of writers for Sid Caesar's 1950s-era television hit Your Show of Shows, and the high-powered technologists who averted an investor-relations crisis for Norsk Hydro, the Norwegian energy giant. Each of these teams accomplished enormous goals and changed their businesses, their customers, even their industries. And they did so by breaking all the conventional rules of collaboration--from the way they recruited the best members to the way they enforced their unusual processes, and from the high expectations they held to the exceptional results they produced.     

The discipline of teams

Groups don't become teams because that is what someone calls them. Nor do teamwork values by themselves ensure team performance. So what is a team? How can managers know when the team option makes sense and what they can do to ensure team success? In this article, drawn from their recent book The Wisdom of Teams, McKinsey partners Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith answer these questions and outline the discipline that makes a real team. The essence of a team is shared commitment. Without it, groups perform as individuals; with it, they become a powerful unit of collective performance. The best teams invest a tremendous amount of time shaping a purpose that they can own. The best teams also translate their purpose into specific performance goals. And members of successful teams pitch in and become accountable with and to their teammates. The fundamental distinction between teams and other forms of working groups turns on performance. A working group relies on the individual contributions of its members for group performance. But a team strives for something greater than its members could achieve individually. In short, an effective team is always worth more than the sum of its parts. Katzenbach and Smith identify three basic types of teams: teams that recommend things--task forces or project groups; teams that make or do things--manufacturing, operations, or marketing groups; and teams that run things--groups that oversee some significant functional activity. For managers, the key is knowing where in the organization real teams should be encouraged. Team potential exists anywhere hierarchy or organizational boundaries inhibit good performance.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

The myth of the top management team

Companies all across the economic spectrum are making use of teams. They go by a variety of names and can be found at all levels. In fact, you are likely to find the group at the very top of an organization professing to be a team. But even in the best of companies, a so-called top team seldom functions as a real team. Real teams must follow a well-defined discipline to achieve their performance potential. And performance is the key issue--not the fostering of "team values" such as empowerment, sensitivity, or involvement. In recent years, the focus on performance was lost in many companies. Even today, CEOs and senior executives often see few gains in performance from their attempts to become more teamlike. Nevertheless, a team effort at the top can be essential to capturing the highest performance results possible--when the conditions are right. Good leadership requires differentiating between team and nonteam opportunities, and then acting accordingly. Three litmus tests must be passed for a team at the top to be effective. First, the team must shape collective work-products--these are tangible performance results that the group can achieve working together that surpass what the team members could have achieved working on their own. Second, the leadership role must shift, depending on the task at hand. And third, the team's members must be mutually accountable for the group's results. When these criteria can be met, senior executives should come together to achieve real team performance. When the criteria cannot be met, they should rely on the individual leadership skills that they have honed over the years.     

How management teams can have a good fight

Top-level managers know that conflict over issues is natural and even necessary. Management teams that challenge one another's thinking develop a more complete understanding of their choices, create a richer range of options, and make better decisions. But the challenge--familiar to anyone who has ever been part of a management team--is to keep constructive conflict over issues from degenerating into interpersonal conflict. From their research on the interplay of conflict, politics, and speed in the decision--making process of management teams, the authors have distilled a set of six tactics characteristic of high-performing teams: They work with more, rather than less, information. They develop multiple alternatives to enrich debate. The establish common goals. They make an effort to inject humor into the workplace. They maintain a balanced corporate power structure. They resolve issues without forcing a consensus. These tactics work because they keep conflict focused on issues; foster collaborative, rather than competitive, relations among team members; and create a sense of fairness in the decision-making process. Without conflict, groups lose their effectiveness. Managers often become withdrawn and only superficially harmonious. The alternative to conflict is not usually agreement but rather apathy and disengagement, which open the doors to a primary cause of major corporate debacles: groupthink.     

Managing multicultural teams

Multicultural teams offer a number of advantages to international firms, including deep knowledge of different product markets, culturally sensitive customer service, and 24-hour work rotations. But those advantages may be outweighed by problems stemming from cultural differences, which can seriously impair the effectiveness of a team or even bring itto a stalemate. How can managers best cope with culture-based challenges? The authors conducted in-depth interviews with managers and members of multicultural teams from all over the world. Drawing on their extensive research on dispute resolution and teamwork and those interviews, they identify four problem categories that can create barriers to a team's success: direct versus indirect communication, trouble with accents and fluency, differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority, and conflicting norms for decision making. If a manager--or a team member--can pinpoint the root cause of the problem, he or she is likelier to select an appropriate strategy for solving it. The most successful teams and managers, the authors found, dealt with multicultural challenges in one of four ways: adaptation (acknowledging cultural gaps openly and working around them), structural intervention (changing the shape or makeup of the team), managerial intervention (setting norms early or bringing in a higher-level manager), and exit (removing a team member when other options have failed). Which strategy is best depends on the particular circumstances--and each has potential complications. In general, though, managers who intervene early and set norms; teams and managers who try to engage everyone on the team; and teams that can see challenges as stemming from culture, not personality, succeed in solving culture-based problems with good humor and creativity. They are the likeliest to harvest the benefits inherent in multicultural teams.     

Can absence make a team grow stronger?

Some projects have such diverse requirements that they need a variety of specialists to work on them. But often the best-qualified specialists are scattered around the globe, perhaps at several companies. Remarkably, an extensive benchmarking study reveals, it isn't necessary to bring team members together to get their best work. In fact, they can be even more productive if they stay separated and do all their collaborating virtually. The scores of successful virtual teams the authors examined didn't have many of the psychological and practical obstacles that plagued their more traditional, face-to-face counterparts. Team members felt freer to contribute--especially outside their established areas of expertise. The fact that such groups could not assemble easily actually made their projects go faster, as people did not wait for meetings to make decisions, and individuals, in the comfort of their own offices, had full access to their files and the complementary knowledge of their local colleagues. Reaping those advantages, though, demanded shrewd management of a virtual team's work processes and social dynamics. Rather than depend on videoconferencing or e-mail, which could be unwieldy or exclusionary, successful virtual teams made extensive use of sophisticated online team rooms, where everyone could easily see the state of the work in progress, talk about the work in ongoing threaded discussions, and be reminded of decisions, rationales, and commitments. Differences were most effectively hashed out in tele-conferences, which team leaders also used to foster group identity and solidarity. When carefully managed in this way, the clash of perspectives led not to acrimony but, rather, to fundamental solutions, turning distance and diversity into competitive advantage.     

Inner work life: understanding the subtext of business performance

Anyone in management knows that employees have their good days and their bad days--and that, for the most part, the reasons for their ups and downs are unknown. Most managers simply shrug their shoulders at this fact of work life. But does it matter, in terms of performance, if people have more good days than bad days? Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer's new stream of research, based on more than 12,000 diary entries logged by knowledge workers over three years, reveals the dramatic impact of employees' inner work lives--their perceptions, emotions, and motivation levels--on several dimensions of performance. People perform better when their workday experiences include more positive emotions, stronger intrinsic motivation (passion for the work), and more favorable perceptions of their work, their team, their leaders, and their organization. What the authors also found was that managers' behavior dramatically affects the tenor of employees' inner work lives. So what makes a difference to inner work life? When the authors compared the study participants' best days to their worst days, they found that the single most important differentiator was their sense of being able to make progress in their work. The authors also observed interpersonal events working in tandem with progress events. Praise without real work progress, or at least solid efforts toward progress, had little positive impact on people's inner work lives and could even arouse cynicism. On the other hand, good work progress without any recognition--or, worse, with criticism about trivial issues--could engender anger and sadness. Far and away, the best boosts to inner work life were episodes in which people knew they had done good work and their managers appropriately recognized that work.     

TOP MANAGEMENT TEAM CHARACTERISTICS AND LIFE INSURER PERFORMANCE: DO TOP MANAGERS MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Abstract: This study examines the impact of top management team characteristics on life insurer performance. The authors argue that greater social cohesion among team members makes it less likely that the insurer will be able to adapt to the changes that have characterized the U.S. life insurance industry over the past decade and will, therefore, be detrimental to performance. Our findings support this assertion and suggest that life insurers driven by more diversified top management teams outperform life insurers with more homogenous top management teams.     

Saving your rookie managers from themselves

Most organizations promote employees into managerial positions based on their technical competence. But very often, that kind of competence does not translate into good managerial performance. Many rookie managers fail to grasp how their roles have changed: that their jobs are no longer about personal achievement but about enabling others to achieve, that sometimes driving the bus means taking a backseat, and that building a team is often more important than cutting a deal. Even the best employees have trouble adjusting to these new realities, and that trouble can be exacerbated by the normal insecurities that may make rookie managers hesitant to ask for help. The dynamic unfolds something like this: As rookie managers internalize their stress, their focus, too, becomes increasingly internal. They become insecure and self-focused and cannot properly support their teams. Invariably, trust breaks down, staff members become alienated, and productivity suffers. In this article, coach and management consultant Carol Walker, who works primarily with rookie managers and their supervisors, addresses the five problem areas that rookie managers typically face: delegating, getting support from senior staffers, projecting confidence, thinking strategically, and giving feedback. You may think these elements sound like Management 101, and you'd be right, Walker writes. But these basic elements are also what trip up most managers in the early stages of their careers (and even, she admits, throughout their careers). The bosses of rookie managers have a responsibility to anticipate and address these problems; not doing so will hurt the rookie, the boss, and the company overall.     

Divestiture: strategy's missing link

Although most companies dedicate considerable time and attention to acquiring and creating businesses, few devote much effort to divestitures. But regularly divesting businesses--even good, healthy ones--ensures that remaining units reach their potential and that the overall company grows stronger. Drawing on extensive research into corporate performance over the last decade, McKinsey consultants Lee Dranikoff, Tim Koller, and Antoon Schneider show that an active divestiture strategy is essential to a corporation's long-term health and profitability. In particular, they say that companies that actively manage their businesses through acquisitions and divestitures create substantially more shareholder value than those that passively hold on to their businesses. Therefore, companies should avoid making divestitures only in response to pressure and instead make them part of a well-thought-out strategy. This article presents a five-step process for doing just that: prepare the organization, identify the best candidates for divestiture, execute the best deal, communicate the decision, and create new businesses. As the fifth step suggests, divestiture is not an end in itself. Rather, it is a means to a larger end: building a company that can grow and prosper over the long haul. Wise executives divest so that they can create new businesses and expand existing ones. All of the funds, management time, and support-function capacity that a divestiture frees up should therefore be reinvested in creating shareholder value. In some cases, this will mean returning money to shareholders. But more likely than not, it will mean investing in attractive growth opportunities. In companies as in the marketplace, creation and destruction go hand in hand; neither flourishes without the other.     

When failure isn't an option

Some teams, by the very nature of their work, must consistently perform at the highest levels. How do you--as a team leader, a supervisor, a trainer, or an outside coach--ensure that this happens? To answer this question, Harvard Business Review asked six people who work with high-performance teams to comment on developing and managing these teams. The result is a collection of commentaries from Michael Hillmann, deputy chief of the Los Angeles Police Department and commander of its Special Operations Bureau, which includes the SWAT team; Philippe Dongier, who headed up a joint United Nations/World Bank/Asian Development Bank reconstruction team in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban; the National Fire Academy's Robert Murgallis, who trains firefighting teams; Mary Khosh, former career coach for players with the Cleveland Browns; Elizabeth Allen, a planner of society weddings, charity galas, and corporate events; and Ray Evernham, who, as a stock-car-racing crew chief, helped driver Jeff Gordon win three NASCAR championships. The types of teams represented in these commentaries are very different. Some are ad hoc, formed for a specific task, while others are ongoing, typically improving their performance with each task they undertake. For all of them, the stakes are high. Despite their differences, some similarities emerge in the ways they achieve top performance. For example, selection of team members is crucial-as is a willingness to get rid of members who don't consistently deliver. A leader who supports and builds confidence in members is also key, and high-performance teams without such a leader will often informally create one. Finally, the stress that defines the work of these teams helps generate peak short-term performance--and poses the constant risk of members burning out.     

Building better boards

Companies facing new requirements for governance are scrambling to buttress financial-reporting systems, overhaul board structures--whatever it takes to comply. But there are limits to how much good governance can be imposed from the outside. Boards know what they ought to be: seats of challenge and inquiry that add value without meddling and make CEOs more effective but not all-powerful. A board can reach that goal only if it functions as a high-performance team, one that is competent, coordinated, collegial, and focused on an unambiguous goal. Such entities don't just evolve; they must be constructed to an exacting blueprint--what the author calls board building. In this article, Nadler offers an agenda and a set of tools that boards can use to define and achieve their objectives. It's important for a board to conduct regular self-assessments and to pay attention to the results of those analyses. As a first step, the directors and the CEO should agree on which of the following common board models best fits the company: passive, certifying, engaged, intervening, or operating. The directors and the CEO should then analyze which business tasks are most important and allot sufficient time and resources to them. Next, the board should take inventory of each director's strengths to ensure that the group as a whole possesses the skills necessary to do its work. Directors must exert more influence over meeting agendas and make sure they have the right information at the right time and in the right format to perform their duties. Finally, the board needs to foster an engaged culture characterized by candor and a willingness to challenge. An ambitious board-building process, devised and endorsed both by directors and by management, can potentially turn a good board into a great one.     

When teams can't decide. Are stalemates on your leadership team making you a dictator by default? Stop blaming your people--start fixing the process

Leadership teams that can't reach consensus wait for the CEO to make the final call--and often are disappointed by the outcome. Frisch calls this phenomenon the dictator-by-default syndrome. Many companies turn to team-building and communication exercises to try to fix the situation. But that won't work, the author argues, because the trouble is not with the people, it's with the decision-making process. Attempting to arrive at a collective preference on the basis of individual opinions is inherently problematic. Once leadership teams realize that voting-system mathematics are the culprit, they can stop wasting time on irrelevant psychological exercises and instead adopt practical measures designed to break the impasse. They must begin by acknowledging the problem and understanding what causes it. When more than two options are on the table, the scene is set for the CEO to become a dictator by default. Even yes-or-no choices present difficulties, because they always include a third, implied alternative: "Neither of the above." When the CEO and the team understand why they have trouble making decisions, they can adopt the following tactics to minimize dysfunction: Clearly articulate the desired outcome, generate a range of options for achieving it, test "fences" (which can be moved) and "walls" (which cannot), surface preferences early, state each option's pros and cons, and devise new options that preserve the best features of existing ones, Teams using such tactics need to adhere to two ground rules. First, they must deliberate confidentially, because a secure climate for conversation allows members to float trial balloons and cut deals. And second, members must be given enough time to study their options and assess the counterarguments. Only then can they achieve genuine alignment.     

The association between accounting students’ lone wolf tendencies and their perceptions, preferences and performance outcomes in team projects

In this study we examine the association between accounting students’ lone wolf tendencies and their perceptions of the usefulness of team work, team interaction behaviors, and team performance. While prior studies find that students generally perceive positive benefits from engaging in team work, our study finds that students with greater lone wolf tendencies perceive fewer benefits from engaging in team work. We also find that during team interactions, teams with a greater proportion of students with higher lone wolf tendencies experience less team commitment and team leadership. Further, such teams rate the outcome of their project negatively, although, there is no significant association with the project marks earned by these teams. We discuss the implications of our findings and suggest directions for future research.     

Performance measurement and managerial teams

Organisations increasingly face greater competition and uncertainty. One important organisational development is the creation of inter- and intra-departmental teams that improve both the speed and quality of an organisation’s response. Successful teams require the empowerment of team members, an adequate information base, rewards for team performance, and the requisite abilities in team members. Management accounting systems can provide an integral part of the information base necessary for decision-making and rewarding performance. We investigate the incidence and importance of performance measurement for team performance. Team performance is positively associated with the variety and comprehensiveness of performance measures used. This relationship is enhanced if members participate in setting performance targets. Further, team performance is enhanced when team performance is given a greater weight in compensation. Finally, these effects are mutually reinforcing, such that team performance is substantially better when comprehensive performance measurement is combined with the participation of team members and a larger weight for team performance in their compensation.     

Creativity under the gun

If you're like most managers, you've worked with people who swear they do their most creative work under tight deadlines. You may use pressure as a management technique, believing it will spur people on to great leaps of insight. You may even manage yourself this way. If so, are you right? Not necessarily, these researchers say. There are instances where ingenuity flourishes under extreme time pressure--for instance, a NASA team within hours comes up with a primitive but effective fix for the failing air filtration system aboard Apollo 13. But when creativity is under the gun, it usually ends up getting killed, the authors say. They recently took a close look at how people experience time pressure, collecting and analyzing more than 9,000 daily diary entries from individuals who were working on projects that required high levels of creativity and measuring their ability to innovate under varying levels of time pressure. The authors describe common characteristics of time pressure and outline four working environments under which creativity may or may not flourish. High-pressure days that still yield creativity are full of focus and meaningful urgency--people feel like they are on a mission. High-pressure days that yield no creativity lack such focus--people feel like they are on a treadmill, forced to switch gears often. On low-pressure days that yield creativity, people feel like they are on an expedition--exploring ideas rather than just identifying problems. And on low-pressure days that yield no creative thinking, people work on autopilot--doing their jobs without engaging too deeply. Managers should avoid extreme time pressure when possible; after all, complex cognitive processing takes time. For when they can't, the authors suggest ways to mollify its effects.     

高管团队内部网络与并购绩效

近年来,高管外部社会网络特征对企业决策的影响受到学术界的广泛关注。与以往研究侧重点不同,本文探究高管团队内部网络结构对企业决策是否产生重大影响,并构建了上市公司高管团队内部网络结构指标。基于社会网络和信息不对称等相关理论,本文实证检验了高管团队内部网络对企业并购决策绩效的影响。结果显示,高管团队内部网络结构密度越高,高管成员之间的沟通越有效,公司并购绩效越好。进一步地分析发现,当并购的复杂度和风险较高、企业所在地区制度环境较差以及高管任职时间较短时,高管团队网络密度对于并购绩效的影响更为明显。最后,本文还发现高管团队内部网络密度高的企业并购后,公司的会计业绩和市场业绩也优于其他公司。     

Creating breakthroughs at 3M

Most senior managers want their product development teams to create break-throughs--new products that will allow their companies to grow rapidly and maintain high margins. But more often they get incremental improvements to existing products. That's partly because companies must compete in the short term. Searching for breakthroughs is expensive and time consuming; line extensions can help the bottom line immediately. In addition, developers simply don't know how to achieve breakthroughs, and there is usually no system in place to guide them. By the mid-1990s, the lack of such a system was a problem even for an innovative company like 3M. Then a project team in 3M's Medical-Surgical Markets Division became acquainted with a method for developing breakthrough products: the lead user process. The process is based on the fact that many commercially important products are initially thought of and even prototyped by "lead users"--companies, organizations, or individuals that are well ahead of market trends. Their needs are so far beyond those of the average user that lead users create innovations on their own that may later contribute to commercially attractive breakthroughs. The lead user process transforms the job of inventing breakthroughs into a systematic task of identifying lead users and learning from them. The authors explain the process and how the 3M project team successfully navigated through it. In the end, the team proposed three major new product lines and a change in the division's strategy that has led to the development of breakthrough products. And now several more divisions are using the process to break away from incrementalism.     

How the best of the best get better and better

What is the real key to elite performance? According to sports psychologist turned executive coach Graham Jones, star athletes and businesspeople share one defining trait: mental toughness. People who become champions aren't necessarily more gifted than others; they're just masters at managing pressure, meticulously tackling goals, and driving themselves to stay ahead of the competition. Jones, who has advised Olympic medalists and Fortune 500 executives, sees many parallels between the arenas of business and sports, especially in the behavior of people who rise to the very top. These stars have learned to love pressure because it spurs them to achieve. Inner-focused and self-directed, they concentrate on their own excellence and forget the rest. They don't get distracted by others' victories or failures--or even by a personal tragedy off the field of competition. Like Darren Clarke, the golfer who inspired his team to a Ryder Cup victory shortly after the death of his beloved wife, elite performers are masters of compartmentalization. Superstars rebound from defeats more easily, Jones observes, because they don't engage in self-flagellation. One of the keys to their success is a relentless focus on the long-term and the careful planning of short-term goals that will help them attain major milestones. Competition doesn't daunt elite performers; they just use it to challenge themselves--and they never stop striving. Even after becoming benchmarks in their fields, stars keep their edge by reinventing themselves. Star business people and athletes also recognize the importance of celebrating their wins. It's not just the emotional reward that's important, however: The very best performers also analyze the factors underpinning their success. That helps them build their expertise and their confidence.     

Trial-by-fire transformation: an interview with Globe Metallurgical's Arden C. Sims. Interview by Bruce Rayner

Globe Metallurgical Inc., a $115 million supplier of specialty metals, is best known as the first small company to win the Baldrige Award in 1988. But there is much more to this gutsy little company than total quality. During the 1980s, Globe transformed itself from a rust-belt has-been on the verge of bankruptcy into a high-technology, high-quality industry leader. Along the way, the company went private in a management-led leveraged buyout, embraced flexible work teams, adopted a high-value-added, niche marketing strategy, and took its business global. Leading the way in Globe's reinvention was Chief Executive Arden C. Sims, the slow-talking son of a West Virginian coal miner. When he joined the company in 1984, Sims had no experience in the new managerial techniques. He was a product of the old school of management: cut costs and trim operations to regain competitiveness. But he soon discovered that old-style management was not enough to battle offshore competitors, an unproductive work force, rising costs, and outdated production technology. He was forced to go looking for new ideas and practices. In a succession of learning experiences, Sims attended a seminar on total quality in 1985, paving the way for the company's quality program; he discovered the power of flexible work teams when management was forced to run the furnaces during a year-long strike; he organized an LBO, allowing him to change the work order even more dramatically; and he took the company global and into highly profitable niche markets by severing a long-standing relationship with Globe's sales and marketing representative. As a result of these and other changes, Globe leads the specialty metals industry in virtually all performance measures.