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.     

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.     

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.     

Are you a good boss--or a great one?

Private moments of doubt and fear come even to managers who have spent years on the job. Any number of events can trigger them: an initiative going poorly, a lukewarm performance review, a daunting new assignment. HBS professor Hill and executive Lineback have long studied the question of how manager grow and advance. Their experience brings them to a simple but troubling observation: Most bosses reach a certain level of proficiency and stay there--short of what they could and should be. Why? Because they stop working on themselves. The authors offer what they call the three imperatives for managers who seek to avoid this stagnation. First, manage yourself--who you are as a person, the beliefs and values that drive your actions, and especially how you connect with others all matter to the people you must influence. Second, manage your network. Effective managers know that they cannot avoid conflict and competition among organizational groups; they build and nurture ongoing relationships. Third, manage your team. Team members need to know what's required of them collectively and individually and what the team's values, norms, and standards are. The authors include a useful assessment tool to help readers get started.     

Error Detection by Industry-Specialized Teams during Sequential Audit Review

To improve audit effectiveness, public accounting firms have organized their practices to include hierarchical review by teams organized along industry lines. We examine how industry specialized auditor teams detect errors, using a sophisticated experimental design. Our analysis of nominal teams created from seniors and managers working individually shows that seniors add value to the team by detecting more mechanical errors while managers detect more conceptual errors. Working within specialization, managers and seniors both contribute in a nonredundant way to the team's overall effectiveness. We also find that the nominal teams outperform real teams in the detection of mechanical but not conceptual errors. These results only hold when the auditors work within in their industry specialization. Out of specialization the auditors are not effective at detecting errors, and real teams perform below the nominal team benchmark in the detection of both mechanical and conceptual errors.     

Coming through when it matters most

All teams would like to think they do their best work when the stakes are highest-when the company's future or their own rests on the outcome of their projects. But too often something else happens. In extensive studies of teams at professional service firms, Harvard Business School's Gardner has seen the same pattern emerge over and over: Teams become increasingly concerned with the risks of failure rather than the requirements of excellence. As a result, they revert to safe, standard approaches instead of delivering original solutions tailored to clients' needs. Gardner has a name for this phenomenon: the performance pressure paradox. Here's how it develops: As pressure mounts, team members start driving toward consensus in ways that shut out vital information. Without even realizing it, they give more weight to shared knowledge and dismiss specialized expertise, such as insights into the client's technologies, culture, and aspirations. The more generically inclined the team becomes, the more concerned the client grows, which turns up the pressure and pushes the team even further down the generic road. But forewarned is forearmed. By measuring each person's contribution deliberately, ruthlessly insisting that no one's contribution be marginalized, and framing new information within familiar contexts, teams can escape the performance pressure paradox and keep doing their best work when it matters most.     

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.     

How to have an honest conversation about your business strategy

Too many organizations descend into underperformance because they can't confront the painful gap between their strategy and the reality of their capabilities, their behaviors, and their markets. That's because senior managers don't know how to engage in truthful conversations about the problems that threaten the business--and because lower-level managers are afraid to speak up. These factors lie behind many failures to implement strategy. Indeed, the dynamics in almost any organization are such that it's extremely difficult for senior people to hear the unfiltered truth from managers lower down. Beer and Eisenstat present the methodology they've developed for getting the truth about an organization's problems (and the truth is always embedded within the organization) onto the table in a way that allows senior management to do something useful with it. By assembling a task force of the most effective managers to collect data about strategic and organizational problems, the senior team sends a clear message that it is serious about uncovering the truth. Task force members present their findings to the senior team in the form of a discussion. This conversation needs to move back and forth between advocacy and inquiry; it has to be about the issues that matter most; it has to be collective and public; it has to allow employees to be honest without risking their jobs; and it has to be structured. This direct feedback from a handful of their best people moves senior teams to make changes they otherwise might not have. Senior teams that have engaged in this process have made dramatic changes in how their businesses are organized and managed--and in their bottom-line results. Success that begins with honest conversations begets future conversations that further improve performance.     

Customized Assessment Group Initiative: A Complementary Approach to Students' Learning

Abstract

This study, conducted in a US setting, examines the importance of group dynamics that emphasize cooperative team building through the proposed grouping strategy called Customized Assessment Group Initiative (CAGI). CAGI is a student grouping strategy designed to operationalize the mutual accountability concept central to the definition of teams by Katzenbach and Smith [(1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press]. Spanning two semesters and using a sample of sophomore students in the Introductory/Principles of Accounting class, I implement CAGI in a five-stage process to show students’ performance differences between the conventional grouping technique and the CAGI grouping strategy, thereby highlighting the potential pedagogical value of CAGI in the classroom. The findings demonstrate that CAGI has the heightened capacity to enhance substantially and improve concretely students’ performances. I strongly believe that CAGI could be promising to accounting and other business school students at a university where emphasis is placed on ‘teamship’ and not just group membership.     

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.     

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.     

Team earnings forecasting

While brokerage houses use both teams of sell-side analysts and individual analysts to conduct earnings research, there is no empirical research examining whether teams and individuals differ with regard to their forecasting performance or purpose. We first examine the most-often researched dimension of forecasting performance, earnings forecast accuracy, and show that teams are less accurate than individual analysts in general and their own individual team members in particular. We conjecture that teams focus their efforts on an alternative dimension of forecasting performance, timeliness, and show that team forecasts are timelier than those of individual analysts in general and their own individual team members in particular. Consistent with the notion that teams trade-off forecast accuracy for timeliness to comply with a market research demand, we show that team forecast revisions are associated with larger market responses than those of individuals. Finally, we illuminate the nature of team assignments by documenting that the firms that teams follow are in greater financial distress and larger in size.     

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。     

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.     

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.     

Making strategy: learning by doing

Companies find it difficult to change strategy for many reasons, but one stands out: strategic thinking is not a core managerial competence at most companies. Executives hone their capabilities by tackling problems over and over again. Changing strategy, however, is not usually a task that they face repeatedly. Once companies have found a strategy that works, they want to use it, not change it. Consequently, most managers do not develop a competence in strategic thinking. This Manager's Tool Kit presents a three-stage method executives can use to conceive and implement a creative and coherent strategy themselves. The first stage is to identify and map the driving forces that the company needs to address. The process of mapping provides strategy-making teams with visual representations of team members' assumptions, those pictures, in turn, enable managers to achieve consensus in determining the driving forces. Once a senior management team has formulated a new strategy, it must align the strategy with the company's resource-allocation process to make implementation possible. Senior management teams can translate their strategy into action by using aggregate project planning. And management teams that link strategy and innovation through that planning process will develop a competence in implementing strategic change. The author guides the reader through the three stages of strategy making by examining the case of a manufacturing company that was losing ground to competitors. After mapping the driving forces, the company's senior managers were able to devise a new strategy that allowed the business to maintain a competitive advantage in its industry.     

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.     

8 ways to build collaborative teams

Executing complex initiatives like acquisitions or an IT overhaul requires a breadth of knowledge that can be provided only by teams that are large, diverse, virtual, and composed of highly educated specialists. The irony is, those same characteristics have an alarming tendency to decrease collaboration on a team. What's a company to do? Gratton, a London Business School professor, and Erickson, president of the Concours Institute, studied 55 large teams and identified those with strong collaboration despite their complexity. Examining the team dynamics and environment at firms ranging from Royal Bank of Scotland to Nokia to Marriott, the authors isolated eight success factors: (1) "Signature" relationship practices that build bonds among the staff, in memorable ways that are particularly suited to a company's business. (2) Role models of collaboration among executives, which help cooperation trickle down to the staff. (3) The establishment of a "gift culture," in which managers support employees by mentoring them daily, instead of a transactional "tit-for-tat culture", (4) Training in relationship skills, such as communication and conflict resolution. (5) A sense of community, which corporate HR can foster by sponsoring group activities. (6) Ambidextrous leadership, or leaders who are both task-oriented and relationship-oriented. (7) Good use of heritage relationships, by populating teams with members who know and trust one another. (8) Role clarity and task ambiguity, achieved by defining individual roles sharply but giving teams latitude on approach. As teams have grown from a standard of 20 members to comprise 100 or more, team practices that once worked well no longer apply. The new complexity of teams requires companies to increase their capacity for collaboration, by making long-term investments that build relationships and trust, and smart near-term decisions about how teams are formed and run.     

Why good projects fail anyway

Big projects fail at an astonishing rate--more than half the time, by some estimates. It's not hard to understand why. Complicated long-term projects are customarily developed by a series of teams working along parallel tracks. If managers fail to anticipate everything that might fall through the cracks, those tracks will not converge successfully at the end to reach the goal. Take a companywide CRM project. Traditionally, one team might analyze customers, another select the software, a third develop training programs, and so forth. When the project's finally complete, though, it may turn out that the salespeople won't enter in the requisite data because they don't understand why they need to. This very problem has, in fact, derailed many CRM programs at major organizations. There is a way to uncover unanticipated problems while the project is still in development. The key is to inject into the overall plan a series of miniprojects, or "rapid-results initiatives," which each have as their goal a miniature version of the overall goal. In the CRM project, a single team might be charged with increasing the revenues of one sales group in one region by 25% within four months. To reach that goal, team members would have to draw on the work of all the parallel teams. But in just four months, they would discover the salespeople's resistance and probably other unforeseen issues, such as, perhaps, the need to divvy up commissions for joint-selling efforts. The World Bank has used rapid-results initiatives to great effect to keep a sweeping 16-year project on track and deliver visible results years ahead of schedule. In taking an in-depth look at this project, and others, the authors show why this approach is so effective and how the initiatives are managed in conjunction with more traditional project activities.