photo by sflovestory
We’ve written a lot about why we think chemistry matters. RoundPegg, after all, is all about finding people who will fit on your team without creating a cloud of chaos around them. The better people fit into the team, the more energy they can spend driving the team forward instead of playing politics.
Kevin Millar, former Boston Red Sox, was recently signed by the Chicago Cubs. While he plays a position at which the Cubs need a backup, the odds of him making the big league team are incredibly slim. He’s fourth on the depth chart where only two will play with the big club. Plus, he’s advancing in his career and hasn’t hit much in the past few years. He was signed strictly to set the team’s mood in the clubhouse over the six-week stretch of spring training.
Millar’s take: chemistry matters.
“People ask me all the time, ‘Is team chemistry overrated?’ Well, you tell me. You’re with 25 guys more than your family from basically end of February to October. That’s not overrated. You try to bring a team and a group together. When you get everyone pulling on the same rope, it’s exciting.”
Last year, the Cubbies signed notorious clubhouse cancer Milton Bradley and paid the price. He’s the epitome of how companies often hire. An ‘A’ player by all statistical measurements, but little mind was paid to whether he’d fit in with the rest of the guys in the clubhouse. While impossible to attribute Bradley’s antics to the Cubs 14-game decline from 2007 to 2008, it’s obvious the front office has gotten the message and is determined not to repeat that mistake. Clearly, they lay some of the blame on a chemistry experiment gone bad.
Baseball is a unique sport where every play is a series of one on one battles. Between the lines, I’d go so far to argue that chemistry matters less in baseball than in other sports. Or your company. But as Millar points out, you live with these guys. If you don’t like being around them it’s going to be harder to bring your best every day.
The Cubs are willing to spend potentially up to a million dollars to set the right mood in the clubhouse. Meanwhile, your company is probably more dependent upon teamwork than any baseball team. How much time, effort and money are spent aligning your culture, your team and getting the most out of your employees?
photo by laffy4k
After reading another comment by a seasoned HR professional on a LinkedIn group that blindly valued ‘diversity,’ I felt the need to explore the topic.
Too often our discussions on diversity in the workplace are rooted in the obvious. Our analysis is literally skin deep and from there we draw conclusions that because one is [select a color] and/or [select a gender] they must have different life experiences and think about things differently. Our teams would, therefore, be better if they were a part of them.
Stereotyping isn’t the best way to improve team performance.
While I’m a big believer in bringing together people with different expertise, I also believe you need to have a foundation upon which everyone implicitly agrees to build. People must have enough in common so that they’re willing to explore their differences.
Being able to productively dissent requires one to a) listen, b) be able to communicate in a way that gets considered and c) have the trust of the majority that you’re still working toward the greater goal.
It’s imperative then that we assemble people who have similar values and who communicate in a similar fashion.
What to accomplish and how to accomplish it are grounded in values. If we don’t share similar values then we’ll fail to agree on these fundamental starting point for any team. Likewise, you and I aren’t suddenly going to have a “you got chocolate in my peanut butter” moment if what you’re saying has no chance of getting heard because of the way it’s being said.
Evolving an idea requires both sides to be willing to move off their original position (this is different than compromising). You have to be willing to consider that you’re not 100% right. But if you don’t trust the person with the alternative approach then you’re likelihood to move from your position is slim. Sharing some common values makes it easier for us to trust one another because we can relate to what motivates the thinking. We disassociate ourselves from the conversation and begin implicitly agreeing that the ‘best answer’ revolves around satisfying the values we share.
America’s current health care debate is an unfortunate illustration of this. For the most part, both sides are a bunch of entitled white guys. About as homogeneous a group as you’ll ever find. Surely, they’d be highly susceptible to group think, right? Instead they’re guilty of not thinking. There is no willingness to move the ball down the field because their value systems are so incredibly divergent and the way they talk past each other fails to find the ears of those on the ‘opposing’ side.
I’m not advocating that we hire and assemble homogeneous teams by any means. But I am pushing for us to consider each person individually in terms of how they think and how they communicate to establish whether they have enough in common with our existing team to make a difference.
We have a long way to go to establish equality in the workplace, but valuing diversity simply by trying to assemble the 64-pack of Crayolas isn’t going to do anyone any favors.
—
This is a can of worms. Please feel free to disagree in the comments, but do so respectfully (that’s one of my values).
photo by .mw
A few days ago we saw what it means to be the leader of a team and Alberto Contador clearly wasn’t it.
Today provided us another good lesson, compliments of Messr. Contador. He was riding comfortably behind two rival challengers and one of his teammates who also happened to be contending for a podium finish. In the next frame, Contador stands on his pedals and tries to break away. The two rival contenders chased him down, but his teammate did not.
Ultimately, Contador may have knocked his teammate out of a top three result and may have cost his team a chance at sweeping the podium for the first time in 85 years. All for a shot at proving his strength (though he was chased down) or to gain an additional ten seconds, at best, on his rivals over the course of the final of the mile climb (this would have been easily made up downhill).
There was no point.
This is a clear example of when having an ‘A’ player on your team actually makes your team weaker. In a business setting this may be the star who doesn’t communicate, doesn’t allow others the opportunity to shine or throws his teammates under the bus in external situations.
His results may be stellar, but the team’s cumulative results decrease when he’s added to the team.
Don’t get so blinded by the seemingly shooting star that you lose sight of your collective team’s performance. We often start to blame the others for being inferior. In reality, we’re promoting bad behaviors, poor values and deteriorating the morale on our team.
‘Stars’ are great and we should all be so lucky to have them, but if they don’t play well with others then what good are they?
—
Note: I believe we oversimplify when we see business people in a caste view. The rankings are fluid. ‘A’ players don’t exist independently of an organization. And who you’d view as a ‘B’ or a ‘C’ player on paper could be enormously valuable and raise a level or two on your team. More on that here.
Lance Armstrong’s reemergence at the Tour de France has created an interesting plot line. Namely, who leads a team with two leaders?
Believe it or not, cycling is a team sport. It takes several unselfish teammates, called domestiques, who are willing to do more than their fair share of work in order to help someone else get the glory.
Most teams, therefore, are set up to have one acknowledged leader who has an opportunity to win the race and for whom everyone else protects and works. Lance, however, joined a team that had the winner of the 2006 Tour de France and arguably the strongest rider in the world today, Alberto Contador.
Last Friday was a day the rift in the team became publicly known. The team’s game plan had been to control the tempo of the first big climbs by riding out in front and doing the hard work. Then with a couple miles to go Contador attacked Lance and his teammates to recapture a few seconds and leapfrog Lance by two seconds in the overall standings.
After the race everyone from Lance to the other Astana teammates to the race director agreed that Contador’s attack wasn’t part of the plan. Lance, to his credit, said that his job right now was to the team and he stayed with the pack to ensure that no attacks from major competitors were forthcoming.
photo by ._SantiMB.
While arguments can be made that it was a shrewd move from a strong rider, it’s a team sport and a repeated game. There are two weeks left and Contador will need his team to help him if he stands any shot of winning.
So to break from the team plan in order to put himself in a better position made it known where his priorities lie. It’s all about him, not the team.
A leader and a team make one another better. It’s a symbiotic relationship where both fail without the other.
Sometimes in order to lead you have to hold yourself back and pull your teammates with you. Other times they will be pulling you. But you can be sure that when your motivation is individual glory and you pay no heed to the effort they’ve put in on your behalf that they will find it far more difficult to go to that well again. They will start asking themselves what’s in it for them? They’ll need to know that you have their back just as they always have theirs.
To lead a team give your team what you want in return. You’re not a team leader after all if nobody is following.
photo by robert francis
An excellent post at PsyBlog on the effects of group dynamics on productivity. Basically, the more people you add to a group the less effective the group becomes when the workload is additive. One interesting study showed that when people were asked to clap or yell as loud as they could their output in a group of six or larger was 1/3rd of what it was on their own.
As the author notes, “… a group problem-solving session relies on the brains of the best people in the group - social loafing wouldn’t necessarily reduce productivity in this group as markedly.” So this doesn’t wholly apply to our knowledge businesses, but I think we can all remember times when we were guilty of this or saw it in others in a group.
The post recommends several ways to minimize the effects of social loafing, including:
All good, but there are a few worth adding.
If other solutions have worked for you please leave them in the comments for others to see.
Copyright ©2008-2009 RoundPegg Inc.