STRETCHED

The team is high output, high quality focused

Those readers who have been following this series will recall that the underpinning ‘Star Model’ is as follows (for those interested in research into the Star Model please go to www.tms.co.nz/research).

Star Performing Team Model

Broadly speaking the top half of the model maps the ‘hard’ or ‘performance’ factors necessary in teams whereas the bottom half of the model is more concerned with the ‘people’ factors.

This is the third article in a three part series on ‘Stretched’.

• The first article (Issue#13) discussed the theory and research that underpins the ‘Stretched’ concept;
• The second article was concerned with ‘Practical tips for teams and individuals on how to benefit from being ‘Stretched’ without being distressed (Issue #14);
• This article (Issue #15) will continue on the exercising analogy and is written by Nathan Birch, a key TMS facilitator. In ‘stretched’ teams there is an expectation on members to move out of a ‘safe’ performance zone, and deliver at the upper limit of capacity. In this article we look at a case study of a team that has effectively used the Star Performing Team 360 profile on two occasions to create stretch and growth.
  

Anybody who has spent time working out at the gym or in training will know the basic principles of building muscle. Apply resistance to the muscle you want to grow, give it the right food, and then allow it to rest = muscle growth. The trick to the above principle is the right amount of resistance. Too little resistance will increase stamina in the muscle but achieve no growth, too much and you are likely to break something. The right amount of resistance, i.e just enough to stretch the muscles past their current capacity, causes growth. Physiologically, resistance causes the muscle to stretch leaving small rips and tears. As the muscle rests the body repairs and strengthens the muscle, allowing it to cope with the extra resistance in the next workout.

What has this got to do with team work? The same principles in muscle growth apply in teamwork. The team is the muscle, stretch performance targets are the resistance, time to regularly reflect on performance is rest, and development support is the right food.

Stretching performance expectations often causes a bit of initial pain (rip and tears), but without stretch in teams, there will be little growth.

The teams that I work with could all fit into one of these 3 categories:

• Unfit. A few teams are just plain unfit. They lack experience, motivation, good leadership, and struggle to meet targets. If left, unfit teams are heading for a heart attack. High turnover is the norm and only adds to the problem.
• Reasonably fit. These teams are made up of experienced people, who use effective systems and processes, and deliver on performance expectations. This is great, and in most cases, it is all that is expected. These teams have stamina, but not much growth occurs. You get the same performance this year, as you did last year.
• Fit and working out. Some teams are fit and regularly workout. These teams meet targets and also recognise that they need to stretch themselves in order to realise growth. Stretch provides the resistance that the team needs to grow. Upping expectations causes a team to stop and ask ‘how do we need to change the way we work to meet these expectations?’
  

TOP

Pharmaceutical Marketing Team - 2003

The team in the case study is a small marketing team. This team fell into the second category – reasonably fit. The members were high performing and experienced individuals. They met their targets, and performed to expectations.

Over time, the manager started to get the sense that the team had reached a plateau. He was sure that the team could work more effectively together, but didn’t know quite where to begin. First off, he decided that the team needed get a better insight into their strengths and weaknesses. To provide the team with the momentum to raise expectations, and to identify areas of potential growth, the manager decided to complete a Star Performing Team Profile.

The desired outcomes of the Star Performing Team assessment were:

• Conduct a team health check
• Gain an insight into the internal perception of team performance
• Understand how the teams performance was viewed from an external viewpoint
• Benchmark the teams current performance for future reference
• Create appropriate stretch goals for the team.

The Star Performing Team assessment instrument allowed this team to measure themselves on the above ten factors of the Star Performing Team model. These are defined as:

• Led - The team is appropriately and effectively led.
• Aligned - The team is aligned internally and with other key stakeholder groups in the pursuit of clear goals and values.
• Effective - The team is effective at decision making, problem solving and recognising opportunities.
• Focused - The team is customer focused and regularly reviews the meaning of success.
• Stretched - The team is high output, high quality focused.
• Adaptive - Team members are quick learners and change-responsive.
• Empowered - People in the team take responsibility for their functional area.
• Harmonious - The team is open, co-operative, supportive and trusting.
• Balanced - The team is balanced in skills, temperament and the task achievement cycle.
• Informed - The team communicates well.
  

The above ten factors provide any team with a model answer as to what a Star Performing Team looks like. Through completing this assessment any team can very quickly review performance, and identify where their biggest stretch needs are.

The first assessment in this case study occurred as part of TMS Advanced Team Leadership Programme in September 2003. The following graph shows an overview of the results that were achieved. The yellow bar shows the leaders view, the red bar shows the ‘internal’ teams view (internal – those people within the marketing team), and the blue bar shows the ‘external’ view (external - those people who interact with, but are not in the marketing team). There are 6 questions related to each factor which are scored on a scale from 1-10. Therefore the maximum score per factor is 60.

The assessment also allows for comments, which provides a workplace context, and reasons behind the scores that are given.

TOP

You can see from the graph that there was a mismatch of perceptions between the leader, the internal team, and the external raters.

The leader and the external raters assessed the team as performing in the top 15% on over half the factors when compared to other teams. From the leaders perspective only two factors were below average: Led, and Balanced. This outcome is what would be expected of a ‘fit’ team that were delivering on performance expectations.

Surprisingly, then the team rated themselves less favourably. The internal rating suggested all of the factors as being about average, or below average. Although the team was delivering on performance expectations, there was room for stretch and growth. From the outside looking in, this team looked like a Star Performing Team, however, the team members perspective showed that the teams systems and processes could be improved.
Further analysis of this assessment identified the following strengths and stretch areas:

Strengths:

• The team is made up of very capable, experienced individuals.
• We communicate well together through formal meetings and informal catch ups.
• Communicate well to other teams and externally to customers and suppliers.
• We enjoy working in the marketing team and take time to have fun together.
• Able to confront and debate issues to reach agreed outcomes/decisions.
• Good at identifying new opportunities.
  

Opportunities for Improvement:

• The team would like more help from the leader in terms of development.
• The team would like the leader to provide regular positive feedback of performance.
• Review customer’s satisfaction – are customers happy with what we deliver?
• Team members to recognise who their internal customers are.
• Team to review strengths and weaknesses in terms of job skills.
• Team to review strengths and weaknesses in terms of people styles.
• Conduct team meeting review – How many, when, what for, who should attend, agenda?
• Team to spend some time questioning the way the team operates - review.
• Team needs to adopt an agreed team problem solving method.
• Our team needs to challenge the accepted process.
• Team members would like to better understand within their decision-making boundaries.
• Team members need to get down to the root of their differences.
• Team members would like to be clearer on where they are going – team vision.
  

TOP

Following the leadership programme, the manager organised an offsite day with the team to review the assessment results. Involving the team in the solution finding for the above areas caused a creative buzz and renewed enthusiasm in the team.

As part of this day actions were developed to address the opportunities for improvement. Actions were recorded in the form of an action matrix (see article 14 for example action matrix), recording who was going to do what, and when it was going to be to ensure accountability in the team. Individual development actions were also captured in the organisations performance management process. Taking this step ensured there was alignment between team and individual goals. The leader agreed to provide support personally and organisationally to the team’s individual development goals.

Regular updates from the team informed me that clarifying and streamlining a number of internal processes led to an increase in effectiveness and efficiency in the team.

The team had learnt that in order to grow it had to stretch its targets beyond where it was currently performing. This stretch was driven by regular reviews of performance (the feedback loop). Targets were stretched past what was expected and in most cases the targets were met. These regular team ‘workouts’ led to a fit and healthy team.

The team leader noted that the hardest part of the process was ensuring that regular reviews of performance took place. Reviews required the team to find time in their busy schedule to stop what they were doing, and reflect on what was working and what wasn’t working. An attitude change was needed here. The review time was seen as a cost to productivity; this had to be changed to seeing the review time as an investment into future increased productivity.

Also noted, was the observed motivational change in the team. People rose to the challenge of an expectation of increased results. It was as if raising expectations led to an increased value of each team member’s contribution. Being treated as above average, led to the team acting above average, which led to above average results.

In 2005 the organisation went through a major restructure. After the dust had settled the manager found himself with a very different team. As a result of the restructure the team had gone into ‘survival’ mode. They became very internally focused, and had picked up some bad habits. The teams’ fitness level had taken a dive. To change this situation he decided to repeat the Star Performing Team process.

The team achieved the following results:

TOP

On this occasion the leader and the team both recognised that they were performing under average in half of the ten factors. The external raters perceived that the team was performing OK, but also indicated a number of areas that could be improved.

Analysis of these results identified the following improvement opportunities:

• Invest more time in team meetings and sharing info between our team and other internal stakeholders.
• Need to become more open to other internal teams – adopt team open door policy.
• Formalise review process and tell others the outcome.
• Undertake assigned tasks – ensure that what we agree to we are able to deliver.
• Improve outputs by using skills of people outside of the team and inside team.
• Really understand customer requirements – internal and external.
• Involve wider organisation.
• Challenge accepted process
  - is this the best we can do?
  - is it 2005 thinking or 1995?
• Work on increasing empowerment – provide clear accountabilities to team members and delegate authority where appropriate.
• Work on open and honest feedback to each other after 360° feedback.
• Distinct personalities – ensure balanced.
• Work better as a team – utilise the different strengths we have available to us.
• Review Strengths and Weaknesses in terms of job skills.
• Struggle with work load – as a team create workload priority list – understand our must do’s.
• Increase interaction with other teams.
• Share experience / help proactive.
• Balanced / work / fun / acknowledgement.

As the previous offsite meeting was so successful this team once again put aside a day to work through the results of the assessment. Together, actions were created to address the improvement areas and set stretch goals for the team. In addition the team charted where they were now, and created word pictures to describe where the team wanted to be in 12 months time. Creating a tangible picture of what the team would look like when the stretch goals were reached helped to solidify what needed to be done to get there.

In February 2006 I bumped into a leader of another team within the same pharmaceutical company. She had given feedback to the marketing team as an external rater. Without any prompting she said: “I have been so pleased with the marketing team lately. Whatever they have done, it is really working. They are now a great team to work with.”

TOP

The above two scenarios reinforces some important lessons for teams wanting to achieve growth in performance.

• Growth requires a stretch in targets.
• Achieving stretch targets requires a stretch in performance (often in terms of internal systems and processes).
• It is just as important to consider stretch targets in internal systems and processes, and people development, as it is in bottom line measures.
• Conducting regular reviews of performance helps to identify areas where stretch targets should be applied.
• Teams that develop and agree their own stretch targets are more likely to support and achieve the targets that those teams who have stretch targets imposed on them.
• Teams who are not involved in the process of setting stretch targets for themselves accuse management of ‘moving the goal posts’.
• Any stretch target needs to be associated with an expectancy that the target is possible to achieve with appropriate effort.

Perhaps the most important lesson is that in most cases, providing the expectations are achievable, and that people are given the tools and parameters to succeed, team members will behave and act in accordance with the expectations that are placed on them.

Poor expectations = poor performance
Average expectations = average performance
Great expectations = great performance

Also of note is that it is extra important to conduct regular health checks in teams that are going through changes in structure, technology, markets, geography etc.

This case study and the previous two articles have endeavoured to provide the theory behind the ‘Stretched’ factor of the Star Performing Team model, and to also provide some useful tips and tools to achieve stretch in workplace teams.

If you would like to conduct a health check for your team and set stretch targets, a Star Performing Team assessment is a good place to start. Contact TMS to find out how.

For more information on the Star performing Team Profile, or the TMS leadership programmes please contact Nathan Birch, on Ph 64-9- 836-5317, or nathan@tms.co.nz.

The next three articles will be covering the Star concept ‘Adaptive’: Team members are quick learners and change-responsive.

TOP

Peter Robinson
Chief Executive Officer
Team Management Services Ltd.

P.O. Box 21-194, Henderson, Waitakere 0650, New Zealand
Tel: 64-9-836-5317 Fax 64-9-836-5318
email: peter@tms.co.nz
Website: www.tms.co.nz

© 2006 Team Management Services Lt