Humans are social animals and spend much of their time working in groups and teams, yet most people don’t understand the dynamics of effective teamwork. That is not to say people do not recognize good teamwork when they see it, but many do not know what to do in order to get people to work together effectively. Some of this confusion is due to the following misunderstandings about teams and teamwork:

Myth #1: Teams always perform better than individuals. Although we like to think that groups outperform individuals, there are some tasks that are better performed by individuals. Repairing cars, setting up home theaters, and conducting sales calls illustrate this clearly. Yes, teams of mechanics can work on cars and companies can endorse eight-legged sales calls, but in many cases this would degrade the performance of the individuals doing the work. Our default action is to assign work to groups rather than individuals and this often leads to redundancies and inefficiencies. Leaders need to look at the nature of the work to be performed and determine the best way to get it done.

Myth #2: Athletic teams are good analogies for business teams. Leaders often use athletic teams as examples for creating high-performing work teams. Given the prevalence and visibility of professional sports teams, these analogies are understandable but misguided. Work teams are nothing like athletic teams. Think about 2012 Super Bowl Champions the New York Giants. Many private and public sector leaders would love their teams to perform like the Giants, but professional athletic teams differ from work teams in five important ways. First, professional athletic teams obsess over talent. Potential players must participate in combines, mini-camps, training camps, and preseason games before final hiring decisions are made. Many work team members are selected on the basis of availability and internal politics rather than skill. Second, athletic teams practice-to-play ratio is something like 100-to-1, whereas work teams spend little if any time practicing. Third, professional athletic teams have clear team goals (i.e., win a championship) and objective measures of success (win-loss records), whereas work teams often suffer from ill-defined goals and metrics. Fourth, the challenges and threats facing professional athletic teams (i.e., next week’s opponent) are clearly understood, whereas the challenges facing work teams are much harder to anticipate. Finally, athletic coaches teach their teams how to win. They are constantly teaching team members new strategies and tactics for beating competitors, whereas work leaders rarely, if ever, educate their teams. These differences do not mean work teams should not borrow some of the best practices of professional athletic teams, but mindlessly applying sports analogies to work teams is not particularly useful.

Myth #3: Corporations are team-oriented. If you look at the corporate values of any company, collaboration and teamwork usually appear near the top of the list. Although companies constantly preach the importance of teamwork many of their processes and systems encourage individualism. Most company’s performance management systems are based on individually oriented goals and accomplishments; team goals, contributions, and results typically take a back seat. Likewise, hiring and compensation systems, budgets, and support programs (i.e., IT help desks) are often slanted more towards individuals than groups. Though they often hope for teamwork, companies reward individual effort.

Myth #4: Effective teamwork is common in most organizations. Many people believe that if you put together a group of high performing individuals, they will eventually coalesce into a high performing team. Unfortunately we all know examples of work and athletic teams that had the right talent but failed to perform to expectations. Effective teamwork is actually a relatively rare occurrence. Although we have all belonged to hundreds of teams, only a few qualify as high performing teams. Because most groups and teams have ill-defined goals, use ineffective work processes, squander resources, or suffer from interpersonal conflict, they usually fall short of their goals. 

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

Western societies tend to attribute success to individuals – Hannibal is often seen as the leader who conquered much of the land surrounding the Mediterranean and it was Steve Jobs who transformed Apple into one of the world’s most valued companies. But these individuals would have failed had they worked alone. Hannibal’s success can be rightly attributed to assembling a highly effective army; Steve Jobs’ success depended on highly talented product developers and software engineers. Hannibal and Jobs not only had a knack for gathering the right cast of characters, they were also very adept at putting the right people in the right positions and getting everyone to work together effectively. More often than not, less talented individuals who work well together often accomplish more than talented individuals who play dysfunctional family feud. Despite the fact that all major human accomplishments have been the result of collective rather than individual efforts, systematic research on groups and teams is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Most of the research on teams from the late 1940s through the early 1980s was focused on the processes and dynamics associated with leaderless groups. Tuckman’s famous forming, storming, norming, and performing stages of group development was one of the more robust findings from this research and can readily be observed anytime groups of volunteers get together. Yet these four stages rarely occur in the world of work, since competitive threats, authority hierarchies, pre-assigned goals and roles, and time and task pressures profoundly affect group dynamics. Research on work teams over the past 30 years has resulted in these six major findings:

1. There are important distinctions between groups and teams. Teams have overarching goals; members do interdependent work and share common fates. Groups are collections of individuals who have individual goals, do independent work, and are rewarded or fail based on their individual efforts.
   
   
2. Teams are not always more effective than groups. The relative effectiveness of teams versus groups depends on the nature of work to be accomplished; sometimes teams are the best option and other times groups are a better way to go.
   
   
3. Highly effective groups and teams are relatively rare. People work on many groups and teams over the course of their careers, yet most fail to perform at their potential.
   
   
4. There is no widely accepted model for building high performing groups and teams. Several models for building teams have been offered but none have been widely adopted.
   
   
5. Effective leaders are the exception rather than the rule. Somewhere between 65-75 percent of people in positions of authority are unable to build teams or get results.
   
   
6. Leadership matters. It is true that leaders cannot do it alone and may get a disproportionate amount of credit or blame for team outcomes, but who is in charge does matter. Dysfunctional leaders beget dysfunctional teams.

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

Bosses from Hell

Bad bosses make for good comedy, as movies like “The Devil Wears Prada” attest. But for workers and the companies that hire them, subpar superiors are no laughing matter.

According to Dr. Robert Hogan, poor managers – who range from incompetent to tyrannical – do more than make workers’ lives miserable. They also lose money. Research shows that ill-managed companies earn far fewer profits than well-managed ones, says Hogan, who is president of Hogan Assessment Systems, an international distributor of psychological assessments.

Worse, they cost people their health. Sixty-five percent to seventy-five percent of workers say the most stressful aspect of their job is their immediate supervisor, find studies by Hogan and others.

“So these guys aren’t just bad for business --- they’re killing people,” Hogan asserts.

What’s to be done? Psychological researchers need to pinpoint the best leadership qualities and interventions. In the field, practitioners need to use good assessment tools, develop training programs and suggest hiring practices based on these interventions. Many people fall into management jobs based on seniority, hierarchy or technical ability rather than personality and talent. Good leadership must be nurtured, and “bad leaders need to be confronted with their flaws,” Hogan says.

From Monitor on Psychology May 2012

Leadership is one of the most important topics in the social, behavioral, and organizational sciences. When good leadership prevails, organizations and people prosper. Bad leadership is almost always accompanied by inevitable bankruptcies, corporate corruption, and business disasters. Yet, according to Dr. Robert Hogan, the keys to effective leadership are still largely misunderstood. In the following interview, Hogan, answers several common questions regarding effective leadership.

What is leadership?
Leadership is not being in charge; many people who are in charge of teams and organizations are either lucky or are good politicians and have no talent for leadership. Leadership should be defined as the ability to build and maintain a high-performing team that bests the competition. In turn, leadership should be evaluated in relation to the performance of the team.

What influences good leadership?
Being able to evaluate the talents of the team members to be sure the right people are on the team, the wrong people are off the team, and the right people are in the right positions. Good leadership also involves developing a good strategy for the team, so that it can outperform the competition.

How can we measure corporate leadership?
The best way to measure leadership in corporations is in terms of the performance of the team or unit of which the leader is in charge. The second best way to measure leadership is to ask the members of the team to evaluate the performance of their leader. Subordinates’ evaluations of leaders are a good proxy or substitute for measures of overall team performance.

How can we identify and grow corporate leaders?
The wrong way to identify leaders is to ask the senior people which junior leaders they like. The typical high potential program is more about politics than talent. The quickest, most cost effective and most objective way to identify and grow leaders is by using a systematic assessment process. Well-validated assessments can be used to identify leadership potential and to give the potential leaders feedback regarding their strengths and developmental needs.

Are men better leaders than women?
Men are not better leaders than women. There are as many incompetent male leaders as there are incompetent female leaders. When women are good, they are just as good as men; when they are bad, they are just as bad as men.

Is there any shift in managing younger leaders? Are their values different from their bosses?
Good values are good for business; bad values are bad for business. Some older people have good values, some have bad values. Some younger people have good values, some have bad values. Working hard and wanting to do a good job is important for young people and older people. Everyone, young and old, needs to understand customer service. Integrity is as important for younger people as it is for older people. Being a good colleague and good team player is as important for younger workers as it is for older workers. The strange haircuts, tattoos, and clothing styles that young people prefer are irrelevant to job performance.

What is leadership failure?
If a leader gets fired, that is failure. If the team performs poorly, that is failure. If the team members hate their leader and refuse to work for him/her, that is failure. If the team has high rates of absenteeism, turnover, and accidents, and low levels of productivity and morale, and poor ratings for customer service, that is failure.

What causes leadership failure?
Leadership failure results from a leader being unable to build and maintain a high performing team. This is usually because the leader: (a) is untrustworthy; (b) makes bad decisions; (c) lacks competence in and knowledge of the business; (d) has no vision for the team. Leaders who lie, steal, cheat, play favorites, bully their subordinates, and are unable to control their emotions are usually seen as untrustworthy, the most important factor contributing to leadership failure.

Can leadership failure be prevented?
The best way to prevent leadership failure is to promote people into leadership positions who have some talent for leadership in the first place. The best way to evaluate leadership potential is to ask people who have worked for the person in question. The most cost-effective, quickest, and most objective way to evaluate leadership potential is with well validated psychological assessments.

Ron Ashkenas recently posted an interesting blog on Harvard Business Review positing two common failures of high potential development programs: (1) employers are uncomfortable tapping some employees for development over others, and (2) managers are uncomfortable maintaining the complex coaching dialogue needed to develop these high potential employees. Ashkenas writes:

Taken together, the twin discomforts of differentiation and dialogue hinder high-potential programs, even when senior line and HR executives do a good job of centrally structuring assessments, rotations, and training. This may at least partly explain why so many company-identified high potentials don't remain with their firms.

Ashkenas places much of the blame on squeamish managers:

… most managers hate to differentiate. They would prefer to treat everyone the same, avoiding the uncomfortable process of sorting people by levels of performance … engaging in … developmental dialogue is foreign to many managers and can cause just as much anxiety as the need to differentiate.

This is where I disagree, at least in part. Yes, managers are uncomfortable ranking their employees. However, this discomfort with differentiation likely exists because, in many cases, being selected for development has more to do with politics than potential. Good personality assessment provides a fair, accurate way to identify employees who have the potential to become strong leaders, which effectively absolves managers of accusations that they play favorites.

Similarly, managers are often uncomfortable mentoring their high potential employees because without the data-driven development framework provided by personality assessment, feedback can be unfocused, and performance critiques taken as a personal attack.

For more information on high potential development, check out our recent whitepaper, “From Potential to Performance,” in which we examine how these and other common talent management problems can be solved by making personality assessment the cornerstone of any high potential selection and development program.

Competent leadership is crucial for a company’s success. Recent studies indicate that businesses with strong leadership are 13 times more likely to outperform their competition, and three times more likely to retain their most talented employees.

Yet, only 44% of HR professionals report having formal processes for identifying employees with leadership potential, and only 18% report having enough bench strength to meet the future requirements of the company.

“From Potential to Performance” examines how organizations can use personality assessment to identify, develop, and retain talented employees.

Companies invest billions of dollars every year in pursuit of the next big idea. But what separates successful companies from competitors is execution – the ability to move from idea to implementation. Aaron Tracy, Hogan COO, discusses execution below.

What is execution?
Put simply, execution is the ability to get stuff done – the link between ideas and results. The best plans in the world are worthless if you can’t pull them off.

What are some important considerations for setting goals?
•    Start with a vision and a mission – goals are how you get there.
•    Goals must support realization of the vision and mission, this seems like a no-brainer, but a lot of people get off track when they’re setting goals.
•    Engage your employees – engaged employees believe in the vision and mission as long as the goals make sense in terms of your company’s culture and values.
•    Goals should be realistic and achievable, and there should be some reward for getting them done.
•    Strategic plans need to reflect the real world (realities of the marketplace, competition and economy) and link to operational plans.
•    Pay attention to feasibility – is your goal realistic in the context of the organization's capabilities?

How do you create buy-in and excitement?
•    Select the right people, put them in the right job, and empower them to execute.
•    Foster an environment of engagement – keep employees apprised of your mission and vision, your goals, and how progress is coming along.
•    Preach the beauty and benefit of the end result.
•    Understand the importance of culture – if your company is committed to doing things the way they’ve always been done, execution is going to be difficult. 

Who do you put in charge?
There are a few questions you should ask when you’re choosing a leader:
•    Do they understand and support the vision?
•    Do they have integrity?
•    Do they have good judgment?
•    Do they have the competence required? Some people are more capable of getting things down than others – they should be the ones in position of authority.

How do you keep people on task?
•    Empower them to analyze, plan, and execute the goal so they own the delivery schedule – as opposed to barking down unrealistic timelines.
•    Understand the team’s values and reward their success throughout the process.
•    Establish clear lines of accountability.

How do you motivate project leaders and employees?
Any standard motivational tool will have short-lived, if any, effect if the team is not bought into the vision and mission and engaged in the project. Motivation is all about engagement, which is all about leadership.

What are typical roadblocks?
•    Dumb goals
•    Bad leadership
•    Flavor of the day influence in setting goals
•    Personal agendas interfering with organizational agendas
•    Accepting poor work or behavior

Do you reward failure? Is there good failure and bad failure?
Successful execution is the result of planning, preparation, hard work, and learning from failure. I’m not sure you reward failure, but you have to be willing to take risks and, therefore, have a tolerance for failure. If you don’t learn anything from failing, then failure is a bigger problem.

From casual Fridays to corporate retreats, companies spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars to develop passionate, committed employees. Yet, according to a recent Gallup poll, more than 71% of employed adults aren’t engaged at work.

In the following Q&A, Dr. Robert Hogan discusses why companies are getting it wrong, and what they can do to improve engagement.

What is engagement?

Employee engagement is a psychological state that is associated with behaviors beneficial to an organization. The psychological opposite of engagement is alienation.

Engagement has four components:
1.    Employees see their job as consistent with their self image – they like themselves when they are at their job;
2.    Employees like the job itself;
3.    Employees work hard at their job;
4.    The job gives employees a sense of meaning and purpose.

Engagement is an ideal state that is rarely ever fully realized.

Why does engagement matter for (a) individuals and (b) companies?

When employees are engaged, they work hard and take pride in their jobs. When they are alienated, they won’t and don’t.

When employees are engaged, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go down, and productivity and customer satisfaction go up. When employees are alienated, absenteeism, turnover, and theft go up, and productivity and customer satisfaction go down.

Measures of engagement are correlated with every important organizational outcome, at both the individual and team level.

A recent Gallup report indicated that 71% of employees in America aren’t engaged at work. How did engagement become such a widespread problem?

Engagement reflects how employees are treated by their immediate bosses. Because 60% to 70% of existing managers don’t understand leadership, they alienate their direct reports and staff.

What is the impact of managers’ derailers on employee engagement?

The term derailer refers to inappropriate interpersonal behavior; managers’ derailers are the principal cause of employee alienation.

Do some derailers have a greater impact on engagement than others?

The 11 derailers identified by the HDS are all associated with different forms of poor leadership, but they all have the effect of destroying employees’ trust in their boss, which then leads to alienation.

How does culture affect engagement?

Cultures that encourage trust in leadership and employee empowerment create engagement; cultures that focus exclusively on the bottom line tend to erode engagement.

What can companies do to drive employee engagement?

There are three steps to driving engagement:
1.    Conduct an engagement survey to determine where things are.
2.    Identify the managers who are killing engagement and give them some training.
3.    Tell the managers who are killing engagement that they will be evaluated in terms of their ability to create engagement.

I worked with an organization several years ago to develop a leadership coaching program. When I asked my client what the problem was, he said, “It is okay to be a jerk as long as you’re hitting your numbers.”

The organization’s sales leaders were operating in an alienating manner, but this behavior was excused because they were meeting their goals. When those sales dipped, they didn’t have trusted confidants to point out industry and competitive shifts that led to the decrease.

I liken this to the feedback some people receive regarding the things they say and the way they say them. It’s one thing to be right, and quite another to be rude about it. For a leader, being right is driving successful business results. Saying those things in the right way demonstrates the humility necessary to build relationships. Both factors must be present for individuals to attain leadership excellence.

Now consider NBA basketball star LeBron James. In the 2010 offseason, James signed as a free agent with the Miami Heat and faced a storm of criticism as the result. Why was he vilified when so many players in the sports world today opt to go the free agent route? It all goes back to what you say, and how you say it.

LeBron could have chosen a team to sign with and demonstrated professional courtesy to the other teams under consideration by informing them of this move in advance of holding a press conference. Instead, he strung teams along, including Cleveland, and announced his decision in a highly publicized and criticized ESPN live special entitled “The Decision.” LeBron and his Miami Heat teammates then hosted what appeared to be a post-championship celebration in their home arena before the season had even begun. Rather than a confident showman focused on the new goal ahead, many fans and media members saw arrogance and over-the-top flamboyance. The most notorious moment came when LeBron discussed his new team winning multiple championships as if it was a foregone conclusion.

LeBron was now firmly cast as a bad guy, yet even in this new role and on a new team he came up short yet again in the NBA championship series. The sports media criticized LeBron for not performing up to the level expected during crunch time moments of the 4th quarter. Unlike the last time he lost the big game, he was not given a pass.

This is the essence of leadership derailment. Derailing behaviors tend to emerge as coping mechanisms when we face stress or adversity. Over time these behaviors erode relationships. In the grand scheme of things, our positive achievements may outweigh our derailing moments in terms of sheer number. Regardless, the magnitude and weight of those derailing actions when we are at our worst tend to overshadow much of the good work we have done. 
LeBron was likely coping with stress and adversity. He had always lived and played basketball in Ohio up to that point, and last season was clearly a time of stressful decisions and transitions. His charisma, showmanship, and confidence allowed him to harness his talents and become an MVP. These same characteristics became strengths overused and the negative moments are quickly becoming the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of LeBron. The 2012 season appeared to be the year of a humble King James until a recent altercation with a fan during a game has further perpetuated his bad guy image.

On my way to the airport this week, I heard a sports talk radio personality characterize LeBron as a good guy who tends to say or do things in big moments that rub people the wrong way or bring into question his ability to deliver in the clutch. These derailing moments will likely permeate his legacy and overshadow his multitude of great on-the-court achievements unless he is able to win multiple championships. Like those sales leaders I worked with years ago, it’s okay to be a jerk as long as you are hitting your numbers; however, true greatness is likely achieved through equal doses of driving results and demonstrating humility. 

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by disregard for the rights of others, lack of empathy or remorse, and grandiosity. Although the world’s prisons are full of people who fit this description, not all psychopaths are in jail. In fact, a surprising number can be found in the corner office.

Q: For most people, the word psychopath brings to mind criminals like Charles Manson. How does this term apply in the business world?
A: In the business world, a better term for psychopath is swindler or confidence man – a person who is bright, charming, flirtatious, and fun, but utterly ruthless and with no capacity for guilt.

Q: How have changes in the typical career, specifically the frequency with which people change jobs, affected the rate of occurrence of psychopaths in leadership positions?
A: Psychopaths are very clever, and usually get caught when former victims begin to compare notes. In high mobility careers, it is hard to catch them because there is almost never a critical mass of former victims who can compare notes.

Q: When people describe the characteristics of a great leader, charisma often makes the list. Why do we find charismatic people so alluring?
A: What’s one person’s charisma is another person’s poison. Many liberals find Obama charismatic; conservatives tend to find him incompetent. The French thought Napoleon was charismatic; the English thought he was a worm. The Germans thought Hitler was charismatic; others had different opinions.

Q: Are women charismatic in different ways than men? Do they carry equal risk?
A: I don’t like to get involved in discussions of sex differences because they usually result in trouble. But my sense is that men equate female charisma with sex appeal. You would have to ask women what they think charisma is in other women. My sense is that women don’t find other women charismatic. Women are more competitive than men.

Q: What is the dark side of charisma?
A: Selfishness and betrayal – when the charismatic person works his or her magic for personal and selfish reasons.

Q: What kind of impact can these leaders have on business?
A: The data suggest that, in business, charisma is equal to narcissism, and that narcissistic CEOs are almost always bad for business.

Q: What can companies do to prevent putting a psychopath in charge?
A: Ask the people who used to work for the person to evaluate him or her. Subordinates always see through these people; senior people are always charmed by them.