Team Definition
Explores the creation of teams as distinct structures within a larger organization.
Section 1
Forming Teams
In This Section
1. How Do We Recognize a Team?
2. Is Recognition Important To Members?
3. Is Clear Membership Enough?
How Do We Recognize a Team?
Teams are created in many different ways in different situations. Once a team is created, how to people recognize it from out- side?
There are informal ways to spot a team. A few of them are observing:
• Shared work
• Increased communication between the members
• Grouping in physical or online spaces
However, those observations do not always clearly identify a team. Generally there needs to be a more formal identification of a team that is brought to the attention of non-members.
Is Recognition Important To Members?
Team members also need to be able to identify their team- mates.
In the eyes of some team members it may be obvious who is part of the team. However, very often different team members have different understandings about who is a part of their team.
People who study teams have found that as few as 10% agree. This lack of clarity negatively affects members' access to information, time, attention and materials.
Moreover, many people belong to multiple teams at the same time. A person on multiple teams can only dedicate some effort to each team. In this case teammates are likely to have different ideas about how much a person is a part of the team. Some may question if a person who only puts in a few hours a week is really a member.
Over time, part-time members are often increasingly marginal- ized, with the team losing the benefits of the person's efforts.
These considerations suggest that team membership needs to be clearly defined as much for members as for non-members.
Is Clear Membership Enough?
This chapter looks at forming a team by focusing on member- ship and boundaries. Is that enough?
The answer is no, it is not.
It is easy to see that teams need to understand their reason for being and other organizational details. It is less obvious, but not hard to see that teams need to have a name and other ways of identifying themselves. Without an identity the team will have trouble gaining the support, time allotment, and resources to be successful.
A name is the simplest form of team identity. Later in this chap- ter we will look at the value of drawing a line between what is inside and what is outside a team. But without a sense of iden- tity, starting with a name and list of members, there is no inside or outside to define.
Section 2
The Boundary
Lines
In This Section
1. What Are the Boundary Lines?
2. Do Clear Boundaries Cause Silos?
3. Boundaries Within Teams
4. When Do Boundaries Change?
What Are the Boundary Lines?
Team boundaries are both:
• A statement of membership
• An invisible barrier around the team that moderates outside influence and focuses outbound communication The word “barrier” does not mean a hard line, like a checkpoint on an international boundary. It means an understanding by the team members and other stakeholders of who is part of the effort and who does not have that standing.
People who are not team members should not have the same access to information and channels of communication as members. This is important to the smooth functioning of the team be- cause it helps channel influence through the member or members responsible for managing expectations and setting direction.
From the outside, the channeling of influence may frustrate some non-team members. However, for the identified stakeholders and the team's management this is a good thing.
The reason is that when management influence the team through a larger number of team members there is inefficiency.
Influencing a single point of team leadership is more practical and allows management to be more effective in giving direction. It also provides a single source of information into and out of the team; one that is accountable for the correctness of out- bound communications.
Do Clear Boundaries Cause Silos?
The answer is no.
A well defined team may exist within a silo, or reporting vertical, but such a team is not the cause of the silo.
Teams are typically not responsible for their context, they are a product of it. If a team is limited to individuals within a silo, or if team outbound communications are received only by manage- ment within a silo, that is a consequence of how the larger or- ganization functions, not of how the team is run.
And when team leaders run their teams to counter such an envi- ronment it is a distraction to team members performing their work.
Boundaries Within Teams
The primary boundary is team membership. However, there may be several important boundaries within a team that help it work effectively.
Inner boundaries define the members' relationships further and have many of the same practical benefits. These inner bounda- ries may include:
• Which members have which roles
• Which members, or roles, are participating in what work
• Which members are employees of which contributing organi- zation
These boundaries are important to building task and process based trust between the members. Leaders who provide poor definition of groups within the team may cause as much trouble as if they are unclear about the team's membership.
We will return to this aspect of team definition in the chapter on the GRPI model, which outlines a hierarchy of team needs.
When Do Boundaries Change?
Is team membership, or a team's internal boundaries, written in stone?
The answer is no.
It is important for membership to change as little as possible. Too much change will encourage team members to disregard the stated membership and reduce their commitment to the other members and to the team.
Likewise, if roles change too frequently members will lose faith in their position within the team and the likelihood of being rec- ognized for their skills and contributions.
However, that does not mean change cannot happen. If change is predictable, reasonable and is not too frequent it is typically accepted as part of the rhythm of teamwork. Change that is ac- cepted as normal costs less in terms of productivity.
For example, project teams usually recognize that new phases of the project are appropriate points of evaluation and change. In the same way, a significant organizational change, for in- stance by acquisition or new executive leadership, is typically accepted as a reason for a team to be changed from outside.
Obviously there will be exceptions to that guideline. But control- ling and moderating change should be a goal of the team.
Section 3
The Benefits
In This Section
The Benefits
The benefits of clearly demarcating a team go first and fore- most to the team members. These benefits often include:
• More rapid progress
• More successful efforts
• Improved morale
This section outlines some of the most valuable results of a clear definition of a team's membership. It is these results that drive the overall benefits.
1. The Benefits
2. Cohesion and Commitment
3. Shared Responsibility For Outcomes
4. Finding Information and Resources
5. The Cost of Coordination
6. Change Management
7. Control Vs. Collaboration
Cohesion and Commitment
Clearly defined team membership is a signal of commitment by management. Team members who know they belong to a con– sidered group are better able to contribute, more likely to self– identify as members, and typically have greater commitment to their goals.
In a sense, team creators recruit the membership. Essentially everyone who could dedicate energy a team could also put at least some of that energy into something else. The team that values a member's input enough to request or require it is mak- ing it clear to the member that they are in demand.
All else being equal, being in demand is a good thing. It is a kind of recognition of merit. Being recognized encourages a per- son to participate and commit, despite other claims on their time.
Likewise, team members see the recognition of their team- mates. By seeing their teammates respond to that recognition they have a way to measure their own time and energy contributions against those of the other members.
In a sense, with a clear understanding of who is on the team you know who you are working for and who is working for you. Of course, different people will respond to that information in different ways. But making membership clear is a good first step.
There is no question that making a team's membership clear is not going to magically generate participation on its own. How- ever, it does increase the likelihood that the members will see the value in committing their time and energy.
Shared Responsibility For Outcomes
Success is widely claimed, lack of success is not. Where team membership is clear the team members own the outcomes. It is easy to see how the clear assignment of members to the team raises the stakes for the team members in a way that is likely to increase productivity.
Finding Information and Resources
Clear membership in the team, as well as clear internal boundaries, lowers the cost of finding information and obtaining re- sources.
One of the key operational efforts of running a team is making sure the members have what they need to do their work. How- ever, it is impractical for a team's leadership to obtain and direct all resources required by team members.
In order for team members to find needed information and re- sources themselves they need to know who they can turn to. Which is to say, they need to know who is most accountable for helping them. Most broadly, those people are their teammates.
If team members are not clear who is a member of the team they may waste productive time during their search for re- sources. The types of waste include:
• Spending time identifying team members, or others, with the skills or knowledge to help
• Confirming that they are allowed to take the persons time
• Asking the wrong person because they are unaware of a bet- ter option
• Not seeking help because they assume there is none avail- able
Moreover, all of these problems do not just waste time, they also weaken commitment to the team by suggesting to the member affected that they will be less successful in their team- work.
The Cost of Coordination
The cost of communicating with team members is a big part of the time spent by a team leader. Team members also need to communicate within the team, again at some cost.
A well defined membership puts an upper limit on these internal coordination costs. Clear membership also makes certain that all members receive needed communications, lowering the cost of missed or catch-up coordination.
The cost of team coordination is covered in more detail in the chapter on organizational networks.
Change Management
Scope creep, and other change issues, is harder to manage when the boundaries of a team are fuzzy.
The reason is that every person involved is a potential source of changes. Each person brings not only their own perspectives and interests, but also those of the people who influence them.
In a sense, the people who influence the members of a team be- come unacknowledged stakeholders.
Who are these influencers? Some examples include:
• The manager a team member reports to
• The friends of the team member
• People the team member wants to impress
All of these people, and more, may otherwise have no impact on the team's work. Limiting the number of people on a team helps limit these outside influencers, and makes monitoring distracting influences easier.
Control Vs. Collaboration
Being under control is a requirement for an effective team. Like- wise, free collaboration is required for success. The appropriate degrees of control and freedom will, of course, vary according to circumstances and goals.
Clear definition of the membership of a team helps focus both control and collaboration. It is easy to see how a team with fuzzy boundaries will be less controllable. The reasons include:
• A greater degree of divided loyalty on the part of some mem- bers
• Greater difficulty in identifying who's efforts must be under team control
• The increased influence of non-team members, as discussed earlier Collaboration also becomes more challenging with unclear membership. Reasons team members collaborate less easily under those circumstances include:
• Uncertainty in who is participating
• Risk that a collaborator will be pulled away to other work
• Possible collaborators having an unpredictable amount of in- terest in the effort
• Concern that information might be transmitted beyond team members in a way that would not be approved
Section 4
Implementation
In This Section
1. Some Suggestions
2. Privilege of Membership
3. Shared Responsibility
4. Recognition
5. Brand Your Team
6. Internal Vs. External Communication
7. Alignment Generates Collaboration
8. Using MetaTeam
Some Suggestions
This chapter looked at how teams are defined in terms of membership and the boundary between inside and outside. We out- lined benefits that can be grouped under three headings:
• Shared commitment
• Lower coordination costs
• Collaboration and change control
In this last section we offer a few quick suggestions.
Privilege of Membership
As we have said, and will say again, membership should be a meaningful recognition of value. But it should also be an exclusive opportunity. Team members should have access to tools, information, access to people and other privileges that are clearly not available to non-members.
Make your teams' membership limited. Keep the number of concurrent teams a person can participate low. Find ways to say, the success of your work is important so we want you to have the tools you think you need to make that happen.
Privileges cost money. Failed teams typically cost more. High performance teams usually save money.
Shared Responsibility
After you have defined the team membership the next step in further defining the team structure is to outline roles.
Role boundaries have a similar function to team boundaries. It is important that every team member have at least one role. It is also important that all the members have some role in maintaining the team operations and performance in order for every- one to take some responsibility for making the team successful as a team.
It may help for some of the roles to be less formal and, most likely, assigned for internal consumption only. Management doesn't need to know who has the Lunch Coordinator role, but that kind of role is a useful way to make the concept of roles have practical day-to-day implications.
We will discuss roles more in a later chapter.
Recognition
Recognition comes in many forms and at various times.
In this chapter we are only looking at big picture team structures. In that context we want people to see membership as rec- ognition by management of their ability to contribute. Then following that, for their membership to be recognized as meaningful more widely in the organization.
If that happens the team member becomes highly aligned with team success, with the usual effect being commitment to giving a strong performance.
In short, make it easy to find people, see their teams, and the roles they are assigned.
Brand Your Team
Continuing further with recognition, consider branding your team in some way. Your team brand may just be a name, or it may also include a mascot, newsletter, Twitter feed, or other way of attracting interest and keeping people's attention.
Why do this? Because for team members to get access to exter- nal resources requires interest and attention on the part of non- team members.
Many teams feel they have their organization's attention be- cause their work is critical. However, even then, spending a rela- tively tiny amount of thought and effort on the team brand might make a meaningful, if marginal, difference in levels of support when it counts.
Internal Vs. External Communication
Promote an internal communications style and rhythm that is distinct from the team's external communications.
Communications is often the most available way of creating a space and identity for the team. Even if you are lucky enough to be able to create a physical space for the team extending that to internal communications will help team members focus on their teammates and lessen outside influences.
Alignment Generates Collaboration
Once you have defined the team membership and the member- ship of the team roles you have created an opportunity to use role alignment to increase collaboration. If you habitually align multi-person roles with multirole work you are laying out the collaboration landscape in a way that scaffolds further less formal collaboration.
We will look at role alignment more in the chapter on RACI ma- trixes.
Using MetaTeam
To use MetaTeam to define your teams membership and roles do the following:
• Log in
• Create a team from your My Teams page. Your new team will be selected as your current team.
• Click the Roles button in the top nav bar
• Enter roles using the Add link at the bottom of the page
For more suggestions, tips and screenshots look in the MetaTeam blog. The Team Organization and Organizational De- velopment labels are good places to start.
Teams shown in an organization’s directory within MetaTeam
