In business, we all work in teams at one point or another, regardless of our job function or level of seniority. Whether it’s as an agent in contact-centre, managed by a team leader, or as a HR Manager as part of a cross-functional (or multinational) team.

Some teams are a pleasure to work in, because the project is exciting and/or the other team members are awesome. But, on the other hand, some teams are not a positive experience to participate in. We’ve all experienced both sorts of team.

Fast Company believe there are 3 categories of dysfunctional team dynamics:

This is when everyone in the team is more concerned about being ‘nice’.  Appearing to get along and ‘cooperate’ with one another, but at the expense of actual analysis, rigor, and results. This particular type of  dysfunction leads to an insular team that does ‘group think’, further leading to complacency and unrealistic plans or solutions. It sounds like it might be a nice experience, but it’s the sort of group dynamic that real high-performers loathe participating in and instead leave for more dynamic divisions or companies.

It might have a really cool name, but it’s not a cool experience to work in this sort of team. These are teams where competition, politics and mistrust dominate the interpersonal interactions of the group, resulting in the inability to reach agreement and to complete tasks. Its dynamics create dysfunctional silos within the team, which defeat the point and purpose of forming a team in the first place.

This is a ‘team’ only in name and is rather a group of individuals all concerned with the relationship to their direct report (or the most senior person heading the team or project). They only do ‘vertical relationships’ and don’t even pretend to bother with ‘horizontal relationships’ in the team, thereby failing to produce any real collaboration with other team members. Really, when this happens you might as well have not bothered forming a team in the first place.

In the end, the only thing that really comes from such dysfunctional teams is missed opportunity, wasted talent and frustrated employees:

So, what’s Fast Company’s answer for developing and managing good teams?

Well, if you don’t want to read the Fast Company article (see: http://www.fastcompany.com/3033275/3-types-of-dysfunctional-teams-and-how-to-fix-them) because you prefer our blog (and, especially, the Batman Vs Superman theme [And, why wouldn’t you?]), then we’re happy to oblige with a brief summary of the Fast Company ideas here.

Fast Company deploy the analogy of an ecosystem to explain how to build and lead effective teams, in an organisation.

A healthy ecosystem is one that is vibrant and filled with interdependent entities. And likewise an effective team is filled with a diverse group of vibrant people who recognize their interdependent roles in the team/project/company.

In order to ensure a ‘healthy ecosystem’ team dynamic, it helps to have structure and processes to ensure that meetings and discussions are conducted in a manner that facilitate awareness, respect, and communication amongst the team members. Done well, this allows the team to operate in a ‘safe’ environment – one where it’s ‘safe’ to let differences of opinions surface and engage in a robust dialogue to flourish.

Over and above this, the team’s structures and processes need to ensure the roles of individual team members are clear, as well as there is a process for ensuring effective decisions are reached (and executed).

In such a team, the members will act in a way that recognizes the value of differences in opinion and the unique role (or specialization) that individual team members bring to the group, rather than viewing differences as a ‘competition to be won’.

Fast Company’s advice here is easy to say, but harder to do. In order to execute on creating a ‘healthy ecosystem’ for your organisation’s teams, they suggest following 3-step process:

Set ground rules (and processes) for the team interactions to be guided by. And, then enforce them.

In doing this, you are more likely to create a ‘safe’ environment for the team to express and debate differences of opinion and reach consensus on a way forward. In this regard, it’s important that the team has a mechanism (or person ultimately responsible) for reaching a decision and the way forward after any discussion.

It’s important to recognize that each member of the team has areas of expertise and a unique perspective that adds to the sum of the parts in the team. In this way, each member of the team has a role to play and a contribution to make. If they don’t…then they probably shouldn’t be in the team in the first place!

Ensure that there’s a clear mechanism and process for providing feedback amongst the team. Ensure everyone has the opportunity to be heard and to contribute, where and when it’s appropriate to do so.

In order to avoid the team becoming to insular and isolated from the wider organisation, ensure there’s a mechanism and process for engaging with the wider organisation (or community) to brief them on the team’s work and ask for feedback. Then, when the team ‘launches’ or executes its work, it’ll be more likely to have the buy-in of the wider organisation. Think of this a mechanism that ensure frequent ‘reality checks’ for the team’s work.

What is evident from everything we talked about so far in this article is that the role of leadership and management is critical to developing effective teams.

Selecting the right person to lead a team is clearly an important decision, especially if they play a role in then selecting the team itself. How they assess the project/work to be completed by the team, what skills-sets are needed in the team and who is best to fulfill each of those roles (as well as the personal chemistry of those individuals) matters a great deal.

Also, the preparation the team leader does in the build up to the project and prior to team meetings will make or break the team’s effectiveness and success – if a team leader shows up and ‘wings it’ then they’re unlikely to create the mechanisms and processes needed to ensure a ‘safe space’ for ‘awareness, respect, robust communication’ or ‘healthy interdependence’.

A leader needs to ensure that they have a clear perspective on all these matters and clear themselves line of sight to manage all of these elements well. Then the chances of a team delivering effectively is that much greater.

So if you can’t hire Superman, Batman, or Wonder Woman, then you can apply this team-building process you’ll maximize your chances of developing your own super team of productive heroes!

If you’d like to chat to us about talent trends and best practice CLICK HERE to Contact Us.