Teams have many norms, some of which might involve safety, expected work hours, e-mail inquiry response times, or meeting attendance. Research shows that some norms are more important than others; the rules governing a team’s operating rhythm, communication, decision-making, and accountability norms have the biggest impact on team cohesiveness and performance. 

A team’s operating rhythm concerns the frequency and management of team meetings, and a surprisingly high number of leaders do not know how to run efficient team meetings. Communication may be a problem if team members complain about being in the dark, confidential conversations being shared with outsiders, or that difficult topics never get raised. Decision-making can be a problem when leaders make autocratic decisions or, conversely, groups make too many decisions by consensus. Leaders who play favorites or fail to hold members accountable for their performance or misbehavior usually have problems with team morale and performance.  

Given the issues surrounding sub-standard performance and norm violations, every group and team will need a sheriff. Although members can play the role of team disciplinarian (i.e., shop stewards, athletic team captains, and Non-Commissioned Officers), more often than not the leaders must play this role. Unlike teams populated with Slackers, Criticizers, and Brown-Nosers, leaders who set clear expectations, hold members accountable, and treat people fairly usually attract and/or retain Self-Starters. If leaders are unwilling to uphold standards and hold people accountable for their performance, they will create dysfunctional teams that fail to achieve their goals. Establishing an explicit team accountability norm is important since few things can wreck team morale more quickly than favoritism. When members detect foul play, they can be expected to spend time complaining about the situations rather than doing what is needed for their teams to succeed. A related but even more prevalent problem for groups and teams is a lack of consequences. Too many leaders are more concerned about winning popularity contests than beating other teams, and are reluctant to hold members accountable for sub-standard performance and norm violations. Leaders who play favorites or fail to maintain standards will eventually have teams full of Brown-Nosers, Slackers, and Criticizers.

Teams have many norms, some of which might involve safety, expected work hours, e-mail inquiry response times, or meeting attendance. Research shows that some norms are more important than others; the rules governing a team’s operating rhythm, communication, decision-making, and accountability norms have the biggest impact on team cohesiveness and performance.

A team’s operating rhythm concerns the frequency and management of team meetings, and a surprisingly high number of leaders do not know how to run efficient team meetings. Communication may be a problem if team members complain about being in the dark, confidential conversations being shared with outsiders, or that difficult topics never get raised. Decision-making can be a problem when leaders make autocratic decisions or, conversely, groups make too many decisions by consensus. Leaders who play favorites or fail to hold members accountable for their performance or misbehavior usually have problems with team morale and performance.

Given the issues surrounding sub-standard performance and norm violations, every group and team will need a sheriff. Although members can play the role of team disciplinarian (i.e., shop stewards, athletic team captains, and Non-Commissioned Officers), more often than not the leaders must play this role. Unlike teams populated with Slackers, Criticizers, and Brown-Nosers, leaders who set clear expectations, hold members accountable, and treat people fairly usually attract and/or retain Self-Starters. If leaders are unwilling to uphold standards and hold people accountable for their performance, they will create dysfunctional teams that fail to achieve their goals. Establishing an explicit team accountability norm is important since few things can wreck team morale more quickly than favoritism. When members detect foul play, they can be expected to spend time complaining about the situations rather than doing what is needed for their teams to succeed. A related but even more prevalent problem for groups and teams is a lack of consequences. Too many leaders are more concerned about winning popularity contests than beating other teams, and are reluctant to hold members accountable for sub-standard performance and norm violations. Leaders who play favorites or fail to maintain standards will eventually have teams full of Brown-Nosers, Slackers, and Criticizers.

Mornings aren’t my favorite thing, and the morning these events transpired was particularly early and particularly hot, which meant that I was in a particularly crappy mood.

So, on the way to work, I stopped by my neighborhood Starbucks for a venti iced mood elevator with no sweetener and no room for cream. When I went to reach for my wallet, however, all I found was an empty back pocket. Damn.

Just as I was about to admit total defeat, turn my car around and crawl back into bed, the dear, sweet barista behind the counter smiled, handed me my drink, and said, “It’s on us.”

I walked out smiling.

Altruism, as measured by the Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory, is defined as a desire to serve others, improve society, help the less fortunate, and make the world a better place to live. Does that describe every dreadlock-sporting hippy you met in college? Probably. But it also describes a customer service superstar.

Consider this: that barista could have let me cancel my order and walk out the door. It wouldn’t have stopped me from going back to Starbucks in the future. Instead, she recognized that I was having a bad day, made a kind gesture, and now I’m here telling you about it.

Norms are unwritten rules that guide human behavior. Examples include elevator and airport security line etiquette. Most people “know” what to do when entering an elevator full of strangers: enter the elevator, face the door, don’t make eye contact or engage in conversation, and leave quickly when reaching the desired floor. In airport security lines: take a bin; quickly fill it with shoes, jackets, laptops, liquids, etc.; put the bin and any luggage on the conveyor belt; walk through the body scanner; and then like Lucille Ball in the candy factory, reassemble everything as quickly as possible. Like all norms, those governing elevator and security line behavior are not written down but everyone is expected to abide by them. Those who don’t observe the norms are considered aberrant.

How do norms relate to building teams? Context describes what situations face the team; Mission, what the team is to accomplish; Talent, what roles team members’ play; and Norms, how the team gets things done. Norms develop as soon as a group of people gets together. Within an hour or so of first meeting, groups will develop rules for greeting and communicating, making decisions, and setting follow-up meetings. The longer a group has been together, the more entrenched its norms become. Some groups even develop their own language in the form of TLAs (three letter acronyms). Seating arrangements, pecking orders, meeting schedules and behaviors, dress codes, presentation formats and styles, decision-making processes, work hand-offs, and performance standards are all common team norms.  Norms are typically obvious to outsiders but often invisible to insiders. Unfortunately a team’s “rules of the road” are usually implicit, leading newbies to annoy more seasoned team members by wearing the “wrong” clothes, sitting in the “wrong” seats, or raising “forbidden” topics. 

Although they are implicit, norms potently affect team member behavior and represent a powerful lever that leaders can use to change team and group dynamics. Surprisingly, we find that Norms are often one of the lowest scoring components in the Rocket Model©, and many leaders are either oblivious to the norms that are in effect, or unaware of how to change them. It is critically important that leaders create explicit team norms that are aligned with team goals and roles.

Norms are unwritten rules that guide human behavior. Examples include elevator and airport security line etiquette. Most people “know” what to do when entering an elevator full of strangers: enter the elevator, face the door, don’t make eye contact or engage in conversation, and leave quickly when reaching the desired floor. In airport security lines: take a bin; quickly fill it with shoes, jackets, laptops, liquids, etc.; put the bin and any luggage on the conveyor belt; walk through the body scanner; and then like Lucille Ball in the candy factory, reassemble everything as quickly as possible. Like all norms, those governing elevator and security line behavior are not written down but everyone is expected to abide by them. Those who don’t observe the norms are considered aberrant.

How do norms relate to building teams? Context describes what situations face the team; Mission, what the team is to accomplish; Talent, what roles team members’ play; and Norms, how the team gets things done. Norms develop as soon as a group of people gets together. Within an hour or so of first meeting, groups will develop rules for greeting and communicating, making decisions, and setting follow-up meetings. The longer a group has been together, the more entrenched its norms become. Some groups even develop their own language in the form of TLAs (three letter acronyms). Seating arrangements, pecking orders, meeting schedules and behaviors, dress codes, presentation formats and styles, decision-making processes, work hand-offs, and performance standards are all common team norms.  Norms are typically obvious to outsiders but often invisible to insiders. Unfortunately a team’s “rules of the road” are usually implicit, leading newbies to annoy more seasoned team members by wearing the “wrong” clothes, sitting in the “wrong” seats, or raising “forbidden” topics. 

Although they are implicit, norms potently affect team member behavior and represent a powerful lever that leaders can use to change team and group dynamics. Surprisingly, we find that Norms are often one of the lowest scoring components in the Rocket Model©, and many leaders are either oblivious to the norms that are in effect, or unaware of how to change them. It is critically important that leaders create explicit team norms that are aligned with team goals and roles.

She’s the idea woman, the visionary, the one with incense in her office and flowers in her hair. She doesn’t just think outside the box, she lives her life outside the box. Sure, her methods may be a bit unorthodox, but you have to dream big things to do big things.

On the climb up the corporate ladder, the line between strength and weakness isn’t always clear. Although her unique approach to problems may be an asset early in her career, it can result in a reputation as a bit of an eccentric.

Watch this video to see the dreamer at work, or visit www.howdoyouderail.com to view the entire HDS video series. Follow on Twitter @ImHiImaginative #howdoyouderail

She’s the idea woman, the visionary, the one with incense in her office and flowers in her hair. She doesn’t just think outside the box, she lives her life outside the box. Sure, her methods may be a bit unorthodox, but you have to dream big things to do big things.

On the climb up the corporate ladder, the line between strength and weakness isn’t always clear. Although her unique approach to problems may be an asset early in her career, it can result in a reputation as a bit of an eccentric.

Watch this video to see the dreamer at work, or visit www.howdoyouderail.com to view the entire HDS video series. Follow on Twitter @ImHiImaginative #howdoyouderail

Here in the Hogan marketing department, we spend quite a bit of time talking about the dark side of personality – the way people experience us when we are at our worst.

There are three reasons for this:

First, we were the first, and remain the only personality assessment provider that deals with dark side personality characteristics.

Second, derailment, the often-disastrous, sometimes headline-worthy result of succumbing to your dark side tendencies, is the most demonstrable example of personality’s effect on our lives.

Finally, every now and then, the particular manner in which someone derails is downright hilarious. Like in the case of the Winnebago Man.

Winnebago Man is a (sort of) censored version of an outtake reel from a 1980s Winnebago infomercial. The seven-plus-minute clip features RV salesman Jack Rebney having a profanity-laden on-the-job meltdown that became so famous, it inspired an award-winning documentary.

Watch at your own risk.

Yahoo recently announced the hiring of Marissa Mayer – employee number 20 at Google – as its new CEO. Her appointment is noteworthy for a few reasons; she has been appointed CEO in a notoriously male‑dominated industry, she is the youngest CEO of a Fortune 500 company, and as has been widely reported, Ms. Mayer is pregnant and expecting her first child in October. The vast majority of press concerning her appointment to date has centered on this last bit of news, inciting discussion and debates about balancing careers and personal lives, and how she will manage through late-term pregnancy and her maternity leave. While this will certainly be an adjustment, Ms. Mayer will enjoy an army of help and plethora of resources that most new parents have never dreamed of. She will be able to manage this transition just fine.

In all the excitement concerning her pregnancy, few are writing about the real challenges that await Ms. Mayer as the new chief of Yahoo. For 13 years she has been with Google, leading the charge as the company grew from the tech nerd’s search engine of choice with a funny name, to the dominant search, cloud, mobile, and advertising giant we know today. Fortune has named Google the top company to work for in 3 of the past 6 years, allowing them to attract top talent in the industry. Google has developed a culture of success.

On the other hand, Yahoo has been a steady state of decline during the same period. An early internet darling in the late 20^th century, Yahoo has gradually ceded ground to others in areas such as search, content, mail, and advertising, all areas where they were formally leaders. Ms. Mayer is Yahoo’s 4^th CEO in as many years (not including interim CEOs), and former leadership has been criticized for failing to provide any direction or strategic leadership. Yahoo’s sales peaked at over $7 billion in 2008, and have steadily fallen to less than $5 billion in 2011.

All of this points to the biggest challenge; changing the culture at Yahoo. Where Google was a confident culture that expected to succeed, Yahoo’s culture is one that has been continually losing ground and lacks confidence in leadership. Yahoo has been losing out in the talent war to organizations like Google, Facebook, or promising start-ups in Silicon Valley. Ms. Mayer will need to convince Yahooers that they can be successful, and that they can trust her vision. She will need to put in place a strategy to recruit, develop, and retain the highly-prized talent that helped Google be so successful.

We know that leadership is not about the individual, and Ms. Mayer cannot expect to single-handedly rescue Yahoo from its recent woes simply by decreeing a new strategy or direction. Leadership is about facilitating the performance of others, about building and maintaining high-performing teams, and about winning and beating the competition. The biggest challenge that Ms. Mayer will face is building a company culture that, after years of losing ground and churning through leadership, believes it can compete and win against the Googles of the world.

Bad followership can destroy team performance. Followership concerns the level of engagement and critical thinking skills demonstrated by team and group members. A group member may have all the right skills and be in the right role, yet sit in the corner and pout rather than perform. Other members may have fewer skills but work hard and offer good ideas for improving processes which, ultimately, improves team functioning. 

As seen in the diagram, engagement and critical thinking are independent dimensions of followership. These two dimensions can be divided into four followership types: Self-Starters, Brown-Nosers, Slackers, and Criticizers. The power of the model becomes obvious when leaders use it to assess the follower types on their team or group. Knowing members’ types will provide leaders with insights on how best to manage them since each type should be approached differently. . 

Self-Starters, such as Bob and Vonda, are individuals who are passionate about working on the team and will try to make it successful. They constantly think of ways to improve team performance by raising issues, developing solutions, and showing enthusiasm. When they encounter problems, they resolve issues and then tell their leaders what they have done rather than waiting to be told what to do. This follower type will improve their leaders’ performance by offering opinions before, and providing constructive feedback after, bad decisions. Self-Starters are critical to the performance of teams and are the most effective follower type.

Brown-Nosers such as Ken and Sharon have a strong work ethic but lack critical thinking skills. Brown-Nosers are dutiful and conscientious, rarely point out problems, raise objections, or make waves, and do whatever they can to please their boss. Brown-Nosers constantly check with their leaders and operate by seeking permission rather than forgiveness. Leaders who feel entitled, think they are hot, or think they are the only ones capable of developing solutions, often surround themselves with Brown-Nosers because suck-ups constantly flatter their great bosses. Brown-Nosers often go far in organizations, particularly in those that lack objective performance metrics. Organizations lacking clear measures of performance often make personnel decisions based on politics, and Brown-Nosers play politics very well.

Slackers don’t work very hard, think they deserve a paycheck for just showing up, and believe it is the leader’s job to solve problems. Slackers are clever at avoiding work, often disappear for hours, look busy but get little done, have good excuses for not completing projects, and spend more effort finding ways to avoid finishing tasks than they would by just doing them. Slackers are “stealth employees” who are happy to spend their time surfing the Internet, shopping online, gossiping with co-workers, and taking breaks with no concern for their jobs.

Criticizers are followers with strong thinking skills who are disengaged. Rather than directing their analytical skills to productive outcomes, they find fault in anything their leaders and organizations do. Criticizers educate co-workers about their leaders’ shortcomings, how change efforts will fail, how poorly their organizations compare to the competition, and how management ignores their suggestions. In terms of their impact on team and organizational performance, they are the most dangerous of the four types because their personal mission is to create dissent. If not managed properly, these team killers can take over teams and entire departments!

Leaders can use the followership model to understand group dynamics and what they need to do to improve team talent within any team or group. These four follower types are dynamic—they can and do change over time. Members who were once Self-Starters can become Criticizers and vice-versa. Because follower types are dynamic, leaders should periodically assess their own behavior and use the followership model to evaluate the impact it is having on the people in their groups.

By Gordon Curphy
Curphy Consulting Corporation
Guest blogger and co-author of The Rocket Model