Why is the teamwork buzz word not working?

Why, after all that has been written about teamwork, does it continue to be such an elusive reality for corporate communities? Chauncy Hare and Judith Wyatt reported in their book "Work Abuse" that 95 percent of the managers continue to practice autocratic, dictatorial behaviors in a world that talks teamwork. Management gurus have written for years on the benefits of eliciting teamwork interpersonal behaviors such as cooperation, altruism, helpfulness, and trust in the work place. Such behaviors are important because they enable members to work together to create novel ideas and to accomplish tasks and tackle unforeseen obstacles quickly and efficiently. Teamwork interpersonal behaviors are the crucial components for organizations to run smoothly.

The mystery deepens when we consider that almost everyone will acknowledge that people working together creates a successful organization. Without people working together, the organization has nothing except the shell of the building and equipment.

To make matters worse, Ed Lawler, management researcher and author of "From the Ground Up," states that only about 5 percent of the organizational leaders will implement the best practices pioneered at the most admired companies.

To say the least, the situation is a bit depressing and begs us to ask, "Are corporate leaders unable to learn and implement teamwork, or are there other forces operating?"

To explore the root cause of this dilemma, we've turned to the old "Ask Five Why's" technique to discover the answer.

1. Why is effective teamwork not practiced? Teamwork is forgotten. This is particularly true when the technical alligators are biting at one's posterior. In the words of Eric Broden, author of "Hitting Below the Belt," "Do you think those poor souls on the Titanic practiced good teamwork? They just wanted off the ship."

In the eyes of many, there is no time to practice teamwork. The rule is to do what is perceived necessary regardless of the effect upon the working relationships.

2. Why is teamwork forgotten? It is simply not a priority. The predominant paradigm, that the technical side of the organization is the revenue generator, remains emblazoned in the minds of leaders. Yet these same leaders also agree with the new paradigm, that people working together is the real profit maker. People working together determine the success of the organization. Unfortunately, this insight has not developed sufficient strength to cause a paradigm shift to the new reality. Let's hope the old memory cells will not have to be deleted before the new shift can occur.

3. Why is teamwork not a priority? Leaders and managers are not held accountable for implementing the lubricants of teamwork, such as communication, cooperation, trust and respect.

Accountability is simply ensuring that people do what is expected to be done. Accountability is certainly no stranger to the corporate hallways. It's used on the technical side of the business to ensure that people meet specified quality, safety and production standards as well as profitability.

4. WhY do organizations not hold people accountable for teamwork? We think the fear factor is a major contributor. First is the fear of teaching the interpersonal skills associated with teamwork. Most leaders and managers receive very little, if any, training on the interpersonal skills required for teamwork. They are uncomfortable working with such behaviors. It's as if the behaviors associated with teamwork are a mystery looming from some unknown place and time.

Second is the fear associated with the defensive reaction to protect one's ego. Making suggestions to improve one's behavior usually elicits the ego-defense mechanism. Even knowing the constructive criticism is true is not enough to prevent team members from becoming uncomfortable discussing the effect of their teamwork behavior. Some people become downright belligerent. Having to contend with defensive behaviors is certainly uncomfortable and therefore left unattended.

5. Why is anyone afraid to work with such behaviors? The presence of fear signals the need for more self-confidence. Self-confidence is acquired by doing that which is uncomfortable. But that requires facing the fear and doing it anyway.

Part of the problem is that the fear is well grounded. First, fear is based on a repeated message that working with such behaviors is difficult at best, perhaps even impossible.

Second is the absence of formalized training on how to work with such issues. The lack of training intensifies the ingrained message that working with such behaviors must be an insurmountable barrier and thus inspires fear.

Assuming our analysis is correct, then removing the fear factor is the key to unlocking the door that will allow teamwork to walk through.

The traditional method of creating teams is to define a teamwork template and force it onto the employees. The template usually looks something like defining common goals, along with a list of the roles and responsibilities of each team member and even the rules for conducting team meetings. The use of such a template is certain to guarantee teamwork, right? Wrong!

The most effective method to eradicate fear is the often quoted "keep it simple" technique. Operationalize how employees can "grease the wheel" of teamwork with such lubricants as trust and communication.

To ensure simplicity, you can turn to the literature to find the answers. For example, Developmental Dimensions published a study in March 1995 in which the authors identified the behaviors needed to create a teamwork environment of trust. These behaviors are:

1. Communicate openly and honestly.

2. Show confidence by treating others as skilled and competent.

3. Listen and value feedback from others.

4. Keep promises and commitments.

5. Cooperate and look for ways to help others.

Another option is to use employees to generate the definition. Our work with employees has identified many behavioral components for teamwork. For example, "communication" includes the following behaviors:

1. Encourage the expression of ideas without fear of reprisal.

2. Listen to and understand the ideas presented.

3. Keep everyone informed.

4. Present the facts.

5. Create a win/win environment for the discussion of different viewpoints.

Before proceeding, ask yourself if any of the behaviors above is impossible for you to do with your present level of skill. Our guess is that you can readily do each of them without any further training. Training is, therefore, not the issue. Doing is. So let's consider that subject.

Accountability is the tool to be used to make sure that what is expected to be done, gets done. When teamwork performance expectations are defined in the manner we are suggesting, the next step is to ensure that each team member understands the expectations. Once that is completed, doing becomes the rule rather than the exception.

Accountability is demonstrated when you see a member of your team behaving outside of the defined expectations and you issue a reminder "we've agreed to do...."

Recognizing that you cannot always be "on the floor" with team members, we suggest objectively measuring the extent to which the defined teamwork behaviors are occurring in the work place.

Measuring is a way to see when your eyes are not there to see!

Sticking to our "keep it simple" philosophy can dictate the use of a simple report card for your team. This procedure requires team members anonymously to give the team a grade for each of the teamwork interpersonal behaviors. Such a procedure is quick and inexpensive and provides a picture of how frequently the behavior is used in the natural work setting. And measurement is a very effective accountability tool.

Now we've removed the barriers. It's time for common-sense management to be the rule rather than the exception and to convert words describing teamwork into behaviors. Doing so will create a better place to be.

Larry Cole, Ph.D., is founder of Cole Training Consultants. Conway, Ark., and author of the book "Frustration Is Your Organization's Best Friend." He can be reached at lcole@cei.net. His son, Michael, is pursing a Ph.D. in the Department of Management at Auburn University, Auburn, Ala.

COPYRIGHT 1999 International Association of Business Communicators
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group