Forming and Leading Powerful Teams

12


Ivan M. Rosenberg
Frontier Associates, Inc.
4804 Laurel Canyon Blvd., Suite 804
Valley Village, CA 91607
818-505-9915
irosenberg@frontier-assoc.com



1
0-7803-7231-X/01/$10.00// 2002 IEEE
2
IEEEAC paper #280, Updated December 9, 2001
Abstract Definitions and guidelines for forming and
leading teams and for structuring larger projects that
require creativity and breakthroughs are suggested, based
on the seminal work of Katzenbach and Smith, and on the
authors consulting experience with aerospace and other
types of organizations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. THE VALUE OF TEAMS
3. TYPICAL QUESTIONS
4. A DEFINITION OF TEAM
5. THE TYPES OF GROUPS
6. THE OVERHEAD OF TEAMS
7. WHEN TO USE TEAMS
8. GUIDELINES FOR CREATING TEAMS
9. PARTNERING VS. SUBCONTRACTING
10. ORGANIZING LARGE TEAMS
11. USING THESE CONCEPTS
12. SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION
The aerospace industry, like most industries, is facing
extraordinary pressures to improve efficiency, speed, and
quality. While some progress may be made using
incremental improvement methodologies, such as
additional reviews, after a certain point these approaches
have a rapidly decreasing marginal value. We suggest
that a possible source of the needed breakthroughs is in
better use of people resources, such as a more effective
use of teams. Teams are of particular interest because
they often produce results far beyond those predicted,
especially when there are significant resource limitations
or hostile environmental conditions.

However, a detriment to effective use of teams has been a
lack of understanding as to what distinguishes a true team
from a group of people with a common interest. Using
the consulting experience of the author with numerous
projects in and out of aerospace, the purpose of this paper
is to build on the seminal work of Kazenbach and Smith
[1] to provide a practical guide for management and
group leaders in the formation and leading of teams.

2. THE VALUE OF TEAMS
As the demands for exceptional organizational
performance have increased, there has been a growing
interest in teams. Some of the reasons organizations are
interested in teams include:

Teams typically outperform individuals or groups
acting independently.
Teams are particularly good in situations in which the
result requires a breakthrough and creativity, in
which the method for producing the result is not
clear, and/or in which it is not clear how to divide the
work into independent units.
Team members report a greater sense of satisfaction,
often with an experience of making a significant
difference. This is of major importance, since the
authors experience is that a fundamental driver for
human behavior is the desire to make a difference
with my life.
Team members report having more fun.
There is a feeling of mutual support, that each person
is not alone. As a result, teams and team members
are reluctant to give up because they do not want to
let the team down.
Because of the feeling of mutual support, teams are
generally willing to take bigger risks and therefore
make bigger commitments. Making bigger
commitments increases the chances of producing
needed breakthroughs.
There is often direct communication between team
members, rather that having to communicate
indirectly through a manager.
Teams are typically able to respond faster and more
flexibly to changing circumstances. Teams are able
to adjust their approach to new information and
challenges with greater speed, accuracy, and
effectiveness than can individuals caught in the web
of larger organizational connections.
Needed behavioral changes tend to occur more
rapidly and readily. There is increased feeling of
individual safety when most or all group members
change behavior simultaneously, even when those
changes challenge norms of the environment.
Teams have resilience, are more able and willing to
resolve problems and obstacles and are not so
vulnerable to one persons ability or presence, so that
they can more easily respond to changes in personnel.
Teams are natural learning organizations. They tend
to get what they need as they need it, and do not
necessarily have to figure it all out at the beginning.
Teams are particularly good when the entire plan of
how to produce the result cannot be laid out in
advance.
Independent groups and individuals tend to optimize
locally; a team can optimize globally.
Teams are beneficial when local coordinated action is
needed and global communication may be unreliable.
A local group will operate in concert with the overall
team goals without anyone telling them. An example
is a customer service group where a single policy
manual is often not sufficient to cover all situations.
During the design and build stages of a project the
group intended result is typically divided into
independent subsystems. These subsystems are then
integrated at one time near the end of the project (in a
phase often called Integration and Test) when
connection and interface problems are discovered for
the first time. With a team, integration of the
subparts of the team result tends to occur naturally
over the entire project duration, lessening last minute
assembly and interface problems.

3. TYPICAL QUESTIONS
Typical questions concerning forming and leading teams
include:

Many teams perform at an extraordinary level. Yet
the result produced by other teams is worse than if
the work was just parceled out to independent
individuals. What is the reason for this inconsistency
in team results?
Forming and maintaining a team requires significant
overhead costs. When is a team called for? When is
a different group structure more appropriate?
How can team members and leaders evaluate what is
missing for a group to be a team? How can they
provide what is missing?
What are the best ways to form a team with a large
number of people, where the difficulties of
communication often seem to get in the way?
What are the best ways to form a team when it is
composed of people from different organizations or
organizational units?

4. A DEFINITION OF TEAM
The term team is often freely used to apply to any
group of people with a common purpose.

However, there is great danger in applying the label
team to a group that has no commitment to be a real
team, a situation we will call a pseudo-team. In most
peoples minds, a team has some important
characteristics, including shared decision making, all for
one attitudes, open communication, etc. Because of
these expectations concerning how a team should operate,
a pseudo-team often goes through the motions of being a
team, e.g., frequent group meetings and the appearance of
group decision-making, thus incurring the high
operational overhead associated with teams. However,
because pseudo-teams are not really operating as a team,
they do not realize the increased payoffs, e.g.,
breakthroughs, of real team operation. Thus the results
produced by pseudo-teams are usually significantly worse
than had the label team never been applied. The failed
expectations of pseudo-team members also causes
undesirable consequences, such as interpersonal conflict
and decreased morale.

We have found the following definition to have
operational usefulness in creating and maintaining teams:

A team is a well-defined group of people with a
common commitment and common promises for
which they hold themselves mutually
accountable.

Thus, there are four important requirements to be a real
team:

Well-Defined Group

A well-defined group has characteristics, policies and
procedures that are clear, agreed on, and support
operation as a team. For example:

The number of members in the group is appropriate
for a team. The minimum team size is 2 people (the
minimum needed for a group and the diversity of
viewpoints that constitutes a primary value of a
team). Because of the logistic and communication
overhead of mutual accountability, team decision-
making, etc, the maximum size of a real team appears
to be 10-20 members.
In those cases where the project requires a larger
number of people and the benefits of team group
structures, a Team of Teams organizational
structure can be used (see Section 10).
Team members perceive themselves as a well-
defined group. For example, team members need to
know who they can count on and who has not made
the team agreements. Thus clarity regarding who is
on and not on the team is required.
Clarity is required concerning the set of skills
possessed by team members, and how that set relates
to the needs of the team in accomplishing its task.
Teams need clarity and agreement concerning how
the team works together, e.g., meetings, decision-
making, problem-solving, conflict resolution,
allocation of accountabilities, planning, socialization,
coaching, etc.

A Common Commitment
The common commitment is the why of the groups
existence, the ultimate value that drives group behavior.
A commitment is a broad statement of the groups
purposes, e.g., To produce a breakthrough in the cost and
production time of widget A, To discover life
elsewhere. It is the broader context for why the team is
producing its work-product.

A commitment is different than a goal or a promise. For
example, I have a goal (or expectation) that my children
will go to college. I also have a promise to them (in
service to that goal) that the money for their tuition will
be available when needed. However, both that goal and
that promise are in service of and subordinate to the
commitment that My children have a great life.

Characteristics of powerful team commitments include:

Each and every member of the team freely subscribes
to and owns the commitment (the meaning of
common).
The common commitment is explicit, clear, and well
understood by all team members.
The team believes that the commitment has value,
that is, it is important to the success of the larger
organization.
Common commitments are of great value when
things dont go as planned, or there is a major
disagreement. The common commitment gives the
team members a shared viewpoint from which they
can resolve the issue. Groups with only a common
promise have too small a context for powerful
problem-solving.

Common Promises (Work-Product)
Team promises are statements that the team will produce
specific measurable results by a specified time. Common
promises define the specific work-product of the team,
including specifications such as performance
requirements, delivery time, cost, etc. For example, a
common promise might be To acquire and return an
uncontaminated sample from a comet by 2007 at a cost of
$X million.

Characteristics of powerful team promises include:

Each and every member of the team freely subscribes
to and individually owns all the team promises (the
meaning of common). Owning the team promises
does not mean there is agreement on how those
promises will be produced, which may require team
decision-making.
The work product of a team must be more than the
sum of individual efforts. It must be a team product,
where the team either succeeds or fails, and
individual success is not sufficient.
The common promises (work-product) need to be
explicit, clear, and well understood by all team
members.
Teams and performance are inextricably connected.
You cant have a team without specific promised
results. Thus, there is no such thing as an advisory
team. Likewise, team-building may have limited
value until common promises have been established.
A team can have multiple promises, some of which
might relate to benefits experienced by team
members, e.g., The average work week shall not
exceed 40 hours. and All team members shall
report being on the team was a fun and satisfying
experience.

Mutual Accountability
Mutual accountability refers to the degree to which the
team members hold themselves personally accountable, as
a member of the team, for the teams promises. The
interpersonal knowledge required for mutual
accountability is a primary reason for limiting team size
to 10-20 people. Characteristics which support mutual
accountability in a group include:

All team members hold themselves equally
accountable for the team fulfilling its promises.
Either the team wins or nobody wins.
Collectively team members keep each other honest in
assessing their actual results relative to individual and
team promises.
Mutual accountability requires trust. Unfortunately,
trust is a word with many and varied
understandings as to its meaning. We have found it
useful to use the definition trust is ones confidence
in being able to predict the behavior of another in a
particular area. For a team, the required trust is a
confidence that others behavior is derived from a
desire to fulfill the team commitment and promises,
and not coming from personal hidden agendas. This
results in team members being open to the viewpoints
of others, being willing to be coached by other team
members, and having a general respect for other team
members.
Mutual accountability is supported with
transparency the ability to easily see how other
team members and the team as a whole are
performing so a member can tell when intervention is
needed. The efficiency of the communication
required for transparency can be greatly enhanced by
information systems and displays. It is remarkable to
us how few projects have visible and effective
displays of project and team member status.

We suggest that missing any of these four aspects would
cause a group to not be a team.

As will be seen below, for a high performance team a fifth
characteristic is:
Personal Mutual Commitment
On a real team, coaching and intervention beyond aspects
that relate to team output could be considered
inappropriate. In a high performance team, members
interest in each other goes beyond the immediate project,
and includes a commitment to the personal well-being and
growth of other team members.

5. THE TYPES OF GROUPS
Katzenbach and Smith, in their pioneering work The
Wisdom of Teams, identified five types of groups. Using
the four criteria (a well-defined group, a common
commitment, common promises, and mutual
accountability) of our similar team definition above, these
five types are:

Pseudo-Teams
A pseudo-team is a group calling itself a team but with no
intention of being or operating as one.

This group is the weakest of all groups in terms of
performance impact. They incur significant overhead
by going through the motions of being a team, e.g.,
joint meetings. However, because they are not
actually operating as a team, they lack the payoff of
extraordinary results. Because there is pretense, there
is a lack of integrity which has an additional negative
impact
3
.
Sum of the whole is less than the potential of the
individual parts.
There could be a team work-product, but they are not
trying to achieve it.

Working Groups
A working group may have a common commitment, but
there are no common promises for which they hold
themselves mutually accountable. Characteristics of this
type of group include:

Relies on the sum of individual bests for their
performance
There is typically no common team work-product.
The group result is the sum of the individual
products.
Members take responsibility only for their own
results.
Takes fewer risks than teams
Meetings are typically to share information, best
practices, and to make decisions.
Typical of senior management groups

3
See The Danger of Pseudo-Teams in the section Case Studies:
Stories from the Playing Field on the Frontier Associates website
www.frontier-assoc.com.

Potential Teams
A potential team is a group calling itself a team, where it
has not yet accomplished, but is working on, achieving all
four criteria for a real team.

Real Teams
A real team is a group that meets all four of the criteria
for being a real team, i.e., being a well-defined group and
having a common commitment and common promises
(work-product), and possessing mutual accountability.

High-Performance Teams
There have been groups whose performance dramatically
exceeded even that of the real teams. Such a group meets
all the conditions of real teams, and additionally has
members who are also committed to the personal growth
and success or each member. Characteristics include:

An attitude of If one fails, we all fail
Mutual concern for each others personal growth
More sharing of leadership

6. THE OVERHEAD OF TEAMS
Teams should be used with caution because of their
significant overhead. Paying this high overhead without
producing the extraordinary results associated with teams
is likely to be a major loss situation.

In a team, relative to a working group, there is a lot more
communication, a lot more interaction, and a lot more
whole team involvement in decisions. With working
groups individuals tend to operate inside fairly stable
boundary specifications of interaction with others, e.g.,
each individual typically operates as a black box to
others within their area of accountability.

A team typically goes through a number of developmental
stages. Most authors identify four stages, although they
may use different words and be organized slightly
differently. The most commonly used is the Tuckman
Model [2], consisting of stages named forming,
storming, norming, and performing. These stages
are briefly described as follows:

Forming Stage: the group explores the boundaries of
acceptable behavior, begins to establish norms and
roles, etc.
Storming Stage: the group addresses and resolves
issues of power, leadership and decision-making as
the conflict between individual and team needs is
resolved.
Norming Stage: the group discovers what they have
in common and builds group cohesiveness.
Performing Stage: the group operates as a team to
produce the common work-product.

A team experiences significant additional overhead (as
compared to that of a working group) during all four
developmental stages. For the purposes of the following
discussion, the first three stages will be combined
together into the forming stage and only the
performing stage will be considered separately.

The forming overhead costs of a team include:

Well-Defined Group Forming Costs
Establishing the rules of the group, including
membership, decision-making, information-sharing,
infrastructure needed, etc.
Establishing the relationship needed for trust and
coaching

Common Commitment Forming Costs
Creating, having a common understanding of, and
enrolling
5
all team members in a common
commitment. The common commitment must valued
by each team member.
As new members are added to the team, enrolling
them in owning the common commitment

Common Promises (Work-product) Forming Costs
Creating, having a common understanding of, and
enrolling all team members in making a set of one or
more common promises (work-product).
As new members are added to the team, assuring that
they make and own the common promises.
Determining how the common work-product will be
produced.

Mutual Accountability Forming Costs
Establishing a relationship of mutual accountability.
The high degree of trust required is based on each
team member knowing other members well enough
to feel confident of predicting their behavior in
circumstances relevant to fulfilling the team
commitment and promises. Time and effort is
needed to build sufficiently powerful personal
relationships, and thus the total number with whom
one can have such relationships is limited. This is
one of the reasons why mutual accountability is one
of the factors limiting the size of teams.
Knowing the individual promises of other team
members and how they fit into producing the
common work-product.
Ensuring all team members know how their and other
team members individual promises help fulfill the

5
In our definition, enroll is the process that results in someone freely
owning a commitment and/or taking an action (including making a
promise) as their own free choice.
team promises. This is required for a team member
to know how others are doing relative to their
individual accountability.
Establishing the manner in which mutual
accountability will be implemented.

The operating overhead costs of a team include:

Well-Defined Group Operating Costs
Revising the rules of the group as needed.
Handling enforcement of the group rules
Handling interpersonal conflicts.

Common Commitment Operating Costs
Maintaining ownership of the common commitment.
Using the commitment as a context in which to
resolve obstacles
Recommitting to the common commitment when
obstacles occur

Common Promises Operating Costs
Maintaining enrollment in the common promises.
Revising common promises as needed
Making decisions and working out issues together.
Making changes in the method of producing the
common work-product as needed.
Finding ways to keep the teams promises (versus de-
scoping the promises)

Mutual Accountability Operating Costs
Maintaining team relationships sufficient for mutual
accountability
Maintaining visible and objective production status
of the common work-product.
Knowing the status of other team members promises
(transparency). This and trust are major factors
limiting the size of real teams.
Knowing when and how to intervene with other team
members
Providing feedback to and coaching other team
members.
Receiving feedback from and being coached by other
team members.
Providing information to other team members

7. WHEN TO USE TEAMS
As we see from the preceding section, to form and operate
teams requires considerable overhead. Teams can also
produce extraordinary results and breakthroughs.
However, if the results to be produced do not require
breakthroughs and creativity, then it is probably not worth
paying the additional overhead of teams and a working
group form would be more appropriate.

The results to be produced and what will be needed to
produce those results determine the most appropriate type
of group to be employed. Using the appropriate group
type minimizes the wasted overhead of unneeded group
processes, and makes it more clear what needs to be done
to establish the group.

Thus, the leader should decide on the appropriate group
type, working group or team, bearing in mind the
following guidelines:

When to Use Working Groups:

Working Groups are most appropriate when one or more
of the following conditions are present.

The groups work-product is simply an integration or
summation of individual efforts.
How to produce the result is very predictable and
well-tested.
The work can be divided up into relatively
independent pieces, with only relatively minimal
coordination required.
Successful production of a portion of the result still
has value, even if the whole does not work.
The cost for establishing the close personal
relationship and communication required for a team
is much higher than the anticipated increase in
benefits over a working group.

When to Use Teams:
Teams may be appropriate when one or more of the
following conditions are present.

The work-product characteristics indicating using a
working group are not present.
There is a common work-product and the nature of
the result is such that there is only a team result, e.g.,
sports teams.
The group result is either acceptable or not: there is
no middle ground. For example, the fire
departments job is to put out the whole fire,
wherever it is burning. Putting out just part of a fire,
in a certain area, is not an acceptable result.
There is a considerable degree of risk.
There is a high degree of interdependence among
different parts of the project.
A high degree of buy-in and commitment is
needed, e.g., when there are significant oppositional
forces.
The result requires one or more breakthroughs, e.g.,
in the technology, time, or cost. This often occurs
when the result is radically different than anything
that has been produced before, and/or where others
say producing the result appears impossible.
A high degree of group creativity will be required.
New perspectives and new paradigms are needed.
Many divergent
6
problems need to be resolved.
One cannot plan how the result will be achieved.
Any fixed assignment of work accountabilities could
get in the way of producing the result. The project is
very complex and a formal organization may not be
appropriate until you learn more about the project
since you then may want to radically change the
design and the organization.
The project duration outlasts the period of tenure of
any single participant, and thus the commitment must
be maintained (by a team) despite changing team
membership.
The project will take a long time and there is danger
that peoples interest, commitment to, and priority of
the project might decrease over time. This is often
the characteristic of a project formed in response to a
specific incident, such as a product failure. If
fashioning a solution takes a long time, its
importance tends to decrease as other events call for
attention.
Vulnerability to the loss of a single person is an issue
(teams tend to almost automatically cross-train to
minimize such vulnerability).
A high urgency, tight time frame in which to produce
the results. There is no time for excessive formality,
dealing with rigid chains of command, formal
reports, or resolving turf authority issues. The time
urgency demands rapid informal communication and
rapid decision-making made possible by wide-spread
ad-hoc interactions and the mutual respect and
accountability of a team. (While autocratic
individual command and control decision making
might be faster than that of a team, we are assuming
that the work-product requires the creativity and
shared thinking characteristic of a team) In urgent
circumstances, given the higher overhead of teams
when compared to working groups, it is even more
critical that team members be knowledgeable and
experienced in quickly forming and operating teams.
Some organizations train people in these areas and
build relationships of mutual trust in advance so that
a team can be quickly formed when needed.
There are frequent changes. Teams will develop a
communication network that is typically faster than
formal communication paths. Teams can, in general,
react faster to changing circumstances than do more
formal organizations.
There is no central authority.

8. GUIDELINES FOR CREATING TEAMS
In this section guidelines are proposed for creating a team.


6
Convergent problems are those for which the solution space gets
smaller as greater understanding is achieved. Divergent problems are
those that get more complicated as you study them. Most people
problems, such as political and interpersonal problems, fall into the
divergent category.
Creating a Common Commitment
Creating a common commitment is typically best done at
the first group meeting. While a common promise (work-
product) might already be specified, it is important for
group cohesiveness and for resolving obstacles
(particularly divergent issues
7
) to identify the broader
context of why the team is producing its work-product (as
described in Section 4 above).

A process for a group to create a common commitment is:

1. Brainstorm possible commitments.
2. Analyze the suggestions for powerful phrases, words,
and ideas. Methods include seeing what is common
among the suggestions, identifying the words and
phrases that particularly speak to individuals, and
identifying the why of a particular statement, e.g.,
Why do you want to do that?
3. Keep working until a single commitment emerges
that energizes the group.

The commitment has permeated the group when every
team member can say it in their own words and can
express why fulfilling the commitment is important both
to themselves and to the organization.

Creating a Common Promise
The common promise is often established before the team
is formed. However, it is a good practice to review with
the team the precise meaning of the common promise to
ensure that everyone understands it the same way.

Everyone on the team should know, understand, and agree
on the promise, including due date, requirements for
fulfillment, who decides that the promise has been kept,
etc.

Creating a Well-Defined Group
Creating a well-defined group is typically started during
the second or subsequent team meetings. It is a step too
often skipped, endangering the ability to actually form a
team. While all the topics that could be addressed are too
many for this paper, some important topics that should be
addressed include:
Listing the topics the group feels need to be
addressed to establish a common approach.
Role definitions: team leader role (e.g., how assigned,
fixed or rotating among members), relationship of
leader to the rest of the team (e.g., facilitator or
decision-maker), other team roles, accountabilities,
and authority (e.g., for documentation, technical

7
Our experience is that having the work-product as the biggest context
more often leads to de-scoping rather than producing breakthroughs.
A team commitment gives members a common place to stand when
resolving problems, resulting in less defending of positions and more
creative thought. A problem-solving process using this approach has
been developed by the author.
expertise in various areas, public and review
presenting, writing and editing, conflict resolution,
and facilitating of problem-solving and decision-
making).
Meetings: What meetings need to be held, who
attends, when are the meetings to be held, what are
the conditions of attendance (required, optional, send
surrogate, etc.), who prepares the agenda, who leads
the meeting, what is recorded, made public, etc.
Decision-making: How decisions are made (process,
participants), how decisions can be re-examined, who
needs to participate, be consulted, and be informed
relative to specific types of decisions.
Problem-solving: What processes will be used to
resolve different types of problems.
Group membership: Who is currently on the team,
the guidelines for how membership is gained and
lost.
Social activities: An important part of teams is the
interpersonal relationship, and thus specific activities
should be planned to foster the needed connections.
Skills: What will be needed to produce the working
product, which skills the team currently has and
which need to be acquired, and how they will be
acquired.

Successfully working through the issues needed to create
a well-defined group gives the team a number of small
wins early in its formation. This experience is highly
beneficial to the team in building mutual trust and respect,
a history of successful problem-solving, and a we-can-
do feeling that will serve the team well when later
addressing the (typically) more difficult project problems.

Creating Mutual Accountability
Of all the characteristics of a team, mutual accountability
may be the most difficult to achieve. It is our experience
that, often, team leaders pay little or no attention to
establishing this characteristic, thus diminishing the
likelihood that they will actually form a real team.

Mutual accountability includes the following:

Trust: A big part of trust is establishing open
communication (i.e., no gossip, no relevant secrets,
keeping everyone informed appropriately) and
integrity (people doing what they said they would do,
and responsibly handling and resolving the
consequences, e.g., upsets, when they dont keep
their promises).
Transparency: Being able to easily see the
accountabilities of other team members, understand
how those accountabilities fit into team success,
seeing the current status of the other team members
accountabilities, quickly being able to decide who
will intervene in the case of danger, and knowing
what types of intervention may be most useful.
Coaching: Understanding what coaching is and how
to supply it. A willingness to be coached and to
provide coaching.
Communication: Providing numerous and low cost
paths for team members to communicate, both
formally and informally.
An attitude that the team is bigger than the
individual: This comes primarily from an ownership
of the team commitment and the team work-product,
and the realization that this can only be accomplished
if every team member contributes.
Clarity concerning how ones own role fits into
producing the team work-product.
Each team member personally owning the team
commitment and the team work-product.

Creating mutual accountability is a longer term
accomplishment than just a few meetings. Creating and
maintaining mutual accountability needs to be included
throughout the project duration. Supportive activities
include training, frequent reminders by the leaders,
experiential activities, and ensuring everyone is walking
the talk and not just talking about being a team.

Forming Meetings

Where the members have little or no prior experience
with each other, we suggest that the first two team
meetings focus primarily on forming the team. The two
day framework shown below can also be used for a
workshop to turn an established working group into a
team. A suggested framework for the meetings is:

1st Meeting: Establish Team Purpose
- Review four criteria for being a team.
- Create Common Commitment
- Create clarity on Team Work-Product
- Resolve interpersonal conflicts and issues.
Although these are typically based in pre-project
events, they must be resolved for this team to
form.
2nd Meeting: Establish Well-Defined Group
- Review a list of topics (such as that above)
needed to be resolved to be a well-defined group
- Group selects top priority issues.
- Starting with the top priority, group resolves
each issue.
3rd Meeting: Start Planning the Project

Leadership

The subject of team leadership is one that could occupy
many books. Some important tips are:

Importance of Initial Impression: It is important that
the team leader create the appropriate impression
from the very beginning, i.e., following these
guidelines at the very first meeting.
Speak Commitments: Teams typically depend on the
leader to be committed to the team commitment and
work-product, independent of circumstances or of
anyone elses doubts. Find opportunities to reference
the team commitment.
Minimize using I: It is important that the members
perceive the leader be operating only out of team
concerns, not a personal agenda.
Do not make anything, anyone, or anytime wrong: If
you invalidate people, the team members will believe
that someday they might be in the same boat.
Be brief: One can easily oversell a point. A light
touch is usually best.
Importance of actions: People will put more
importance on whether they perceive the leader
acting consistent with team norms than anything the
leader says.
Never ignore any breaking of a team rule: Any
ignored violation will call into question the validity
of all team rules, and whether members can count on
each other, a relationship critical to operating as a
team.
Spend time building relationships: Many leaders
focus exclusively on the project plan and activities.
Since relationships between team members is crucial
to operating as a team, it is important that the leader
make sure that sufficient time is spent to build the
needed interpersonal relationships, e.g., the well-
known Silicon Valley Friday afternoon beer blasts,
celebrations, informal parties.

9. PARTNERING VS. SUBCONTRACTING
Some of the above team concepts for groups of
individuals can also be applied to groups of organizations.
For example, to increase efficiency, lower costs, and
increase the services offered to their clients, many
organizations have attempted to partner with other
organizations. Often their suppliers are primary targets of
this intention, although customers, others in related
industries, and even competitors could also be included.

However, these partnerships often fail, sometimes
leaving the relationship between the organizations worse
off than before the partnering was attempted. At the very
least, the time and money that was spent having tried to
establish the failed partnering relationship is wasted. We
suggest that a major cause for such failures is a
misunderstanding of what partnering really is.

To illustrate we are going to use two extremes of a
supplier-customer relationship, which we will call
Subcontracting and Partnering. In both cases each
organization has a list of things about which it is
concerned, i.e., its goals in forming the relationship.
Typically the customer is interested in the quality of the
delivered product/service, timing, cost, and in the product
meeting the specifications laid out in the contract. The
vendor is typically interested in such goals as making a
profit, making a subsequent sale, expanding market share,
market image, and competitive advantage.

In Subcontracting, each party is primarily interested in its
own welfare, its own issues, and its own goals. There is
little or no interest in the other organization beyond the
terms of the contract or what might impact the ability of
the organization to deliver what is wanted. The intention
is that the relationship be completely defined by the terms
of a negotiated contract, in which each party gives and
receives value. When difficulties arise, the first question
people ask is What does the contract say about this?

In Partnering, each party is interested in the cumulative
list of individual concerns. That is, each party is as
committed that the other party achieves its desired results
as it is in achieving its own results. For example, the
customer is as interested in the vendor making a profit as
it is in having the delivered product meet the
specifications. The vendor is as interested in the customer
representative not looking bad to his/her peers as it is in
making profit. When difficulties arise, the first question
people ask is How can we resolve this so it works for
both of us? There is little referring to the contract since
it likely does not even mention the typical determinants of
a successful relationship, e.g., minimizing unpleasant
surprises, competitive advantage, expectations, the
vendors image.

Partnering is useful when a relationship cannot be
specified clearly, such as when two organizations are
inventing something together. However, it requires a new
way of thinking to be successful. Merely calling a
relationship partnering does not make it so.

10. ORGANIZING LARGE TEAMS
Since real teams are limited in size to 10-20 people, how
should one organize projects where a relatively large
number of people are involved, and yet the creative
aspects of a team are needed?

Team of Teams
Experiences with many major projects indicate that the
traditional hierarchical structure may not be optimal. For
example, as the design changes, the hierarchical structure
must often be changed to adapt. For example, if an
interface unit is discovered to be needed, a potential
conflict could arise if the new product does not fit nicely
within the responsibility of any existing group. Any
existing group may be reluctant to take it on without a
commensurate increase in their budget.

By extending the team/working group concepts to a multi-
group situation, an effective structure built on a
combination of Partnering (equivalent to the team
concept) and Subcontracting (equivalent to a working
group) relationships between groups can be developed.
This structure is often called a Team of Teams,
although the groups may be a mixture of team and
working groups, and the relationships between the groups
may be characterized as a mixture of Partnering (teams)
and Subcontracting (working groups).

Our experience indicates that a Team of Teams should
always have a Core Group. The Core Group is almost
always a team, and is often a high performance team. It
has the following characteristics:

Relates to the other groups of the project as a team
leader relates to the members of a team.
As an organization lasts the life of the project
Its membership might change, but probably not
drastically at any one time (since that would make it
harder to reconstitute the team, which would need to
be done to some degree each time a new person is
added or leaves).
Holds itself ultimately accountable for the success of
the project, i.e., is the keeper of the team commitment
(believes in it even if all others drop by the wayside
or the circumstances dont look good) and the team
promise (holds itself ultimately accountable for the
production of the work-product, i.e., is where the
buck stops).

To design a Team of Teams structure, start with the final
result to be produced. Working backwards from this
result, create the product breakdown structure (PBS).
The PBS defines the flow of products and services that
are created and delivered in the process of producing the
result. For example, first define the set of products and
services that are produced immediately before the final
result is produced. Then define the set of products and
services needed to deliver this new set, and so on, back to
the products and services considered inputs to the Team
of Teams. The techniques of organizational design for
process based organizations may be useful.

A unique group entity is then specified for each work-
product (services, parts and subparts) that needs to be
produced in the PBS. Even though multiple group entities
may actually consist of the same people, we have found it
useful for the purposes of the Team of Teams structure to
identify them separately with the separate products they
produce. That is, if a group produces two different
products, they are considered two different group entities
since they might operate as different group types and
might have different relationships with other groups for
the different products. For example, a group might
operate as a team for one product and as a working group
for another product.

Depending on their individual group work-product, each
group is constituted as a working group, real team, or high
performance team.

The PBS indicates what groups are delivering what to
what groups. That there is a delivery indicates a group
to group relationship. As defined above, there are two
types of relationships between groups: Subcontracting
(analogous to working groups) and Partnering (analogous
to teams). Because of the close personal relationships
required, there is not a group-group relationship
analogous to high performance teams. Where one group
delivers a product to another that meets pre-specified
requirements, a Subcontracting relationship is usually
sufficient. A Partnering relationship is probably indicated
when the work-product characteristics include lack of
clear definition, numerous trade-offs among customer
requirements, and other situations where there is a need
for creativity, breakthroughs, and a high degree of closely
working together of the groups. Consistent with mutual
accountability, each and every group in a Partnership
holds itself 100% accountable for the delivery of the
common work-product, even though one group (as
vendor) may be formally accountable for delivering the
product to another group in the Partnership (the
customer).

See Figure 1 for an illustration of a Team of Teams
structure. The entire project team is represented by the
big circle. Each group within the Team of Teams is
represented by a smaller circle. Relationships between
groups are represented by arrows. For example, Working
Group B delivers Product 1 to Team D as a subcontractor.
Team B and Team C are in a partnership relationship to
deliver Product 4 to the Core Group. The base of the
arrow indicates that Team B is officially the deliverer to
the Core Team of Product 4. Team D and Team A are in
a partnership relationship for the delivery of Product 2 to
Team A.

Guidelines
It may be difficult to establish a partnership relationship
when one or more of the member groups are working
groups. If the work-product of the team of teams requires
a partnership, then one might look at having all
constituent groups be teams, even if not indicated by their
individual group work-products.

To establish a partnership, a common work-product of the
two (or more) groups is required. An example from
sports might be the offensive and defensive teams of a
football team who jointly deliver the game score.

There are a number of ways to implement these
relationships, although this is where significant research is
currently focused. In addition to the guidelines suggested
for forming working groups and teams, some of these
methods include:


Figure 1 Team of Teams

CORE
TEAM
TEAM
A
TEAM
B
TEAM
C
WORKING
GROUP A
WORKING
GROUP B
TEAM
D
Partnership
Subcontractor
Product 1
Product 2
Product 3
Product 4
Product 5
Representatives from each group meet, serving as
communication links.
Cumulative group meetings, where all members of all
groups in a partnership work and/or socialize
together.
Form subgroups made up of members of all partner
groups. Such subgroups typically report back to the
partnership for final approval (so all group members
can own the result).
Group member exchange

Issues
There are a number of issues associated with forming a
Team of Teams. Some of the more frequently faced are:

Geographic dispersion: The use of electronic media,
such as videoconferencing, can be effective [3].
Establishing common commitment over the entire
project group: This needs to be accomplished early in
the formation of the organization. The commitment
and the major work-product need to be kept visible.
For example, one might have a model of the product
in the middle of the table during a project staff
meeting.
Establishing subcontractor relationships between
groups: Some of the techniques used to establish a
team (Section 8) may be adopted to forming
subcontractor relationships between groups.
Issues of different cultures among groups from
different organizations and countries: A major issue
of multi-cultural organizations is the tendency by
individuals to invalidate the cultural practices of
others that differ from the practices of their own
culture. For example, Americans often regard the
British as cold and aloof because of the cultural
practice of saying Sir, Maam, Please, and
Thank You. The long process of building
relationships prior to conducting business common in
the Orient may be evaluated as wrong by cultures
used to getting right down to business. One way of
handling such issues is a preliminary training to
sensitize group members to cultural differences, e.g.,
learning the specific cultural practices of the other
groups and learning how to appreciate and value the
differences. Exchanging members between groups
for long-term residential participation also can
greatly contribute to cross-cultural cooperation. For
example, companies in Partnerships often exchange
employees on a long-term basis, ideally making it
difficult on a daily basis to tell which company
actually employs any individual team member.


11. USING THESE CONCEPTS

What does it take to implement these concepts? Is it
something that can be done by a typical manager, or does
it require the support of a consultant? The answers, as
with most things concerning human performance, are not
simple. We will look at some of the issues in terms of the
five fundamental types of structures: the group structures
of working groups and teams, and the organizational
structures of subcontracting, partnering, and Team of
Teams.

Implementing Work Groups
This is the easiest group structure to establish and should
not require consulting assistance. It is often useful to
have a common commitment of the group, and to clearly
establish the purpose or work-products of the group, e.g.,
Provide advice to senior management concerning trends
in our industry.

Implementing Teams
Establishing teams is typically more difficult and complex
than forming working groups. Team leaders who are
experienced with team concepts and techniques, and who
have a strong commitment to operating as a team can
often form a team without outside aid. However, if the
team has been operating for a significant period of time
the team leader may not be seen as sufficiently neutral,
and thus it is usually advantageous to bring in an outside
facilitator for any further team-building work. For new
team leaders, a coach or consultant is highly
recommended as a guide through the first few team-
building experiences.

In our experience, a one or two-day retreat during which
the teams common commitment, common work-
products, and the major components of a well-defined
group are established, is a good start (or mid-course
correction) for most teams. The format of the retreat
itself can create a strong foundation for mutual
accountability. However, it is critical that team-building
be an activity that lasts the life of the team.

Implementing Subcontracting Relationships
Subcontracting relationships are very common in most
organizations. Given todays increasing customer
demands for more for less, even in subcontracting there is
often value in enrolling the subcontractor into a common
commitment and work-product of the larger group, even
though there is no mutual accountability.

Implementing Partnerships
Partnering relationships can be the most difficult types of
organizational structures to form, and thus usually require
a consultant for successful implementation, particularly
since there appears to be relatively little experience in
many industries in forming true partnerships. Sometimes
organizations simply use the term partnership for a
relationship that is really operating as a subcontracting
relationship. This situation will not yield the benefits of
partnering and, as with pseudo-teams, can cause more
problems than if the proper term were used.

Implementing Teams of Teams
The issues associated with forming the individual groups
for a Team of Teams is the same as that for forming
working groups and teams. However, designing and
implementing the overall Team of Teams structure is
usually one that requires the help of an experienced
consultant. For example, there is a tendency to design
based on traditional hierarchies, rather than on the process
and product flow that is needed. In such a structure, it is
even more critical that there be clarity and enrollment
regarding the common commitment and common work-
product, and that the implementation of the various
relationships between the groups be well established.


12. SUMMARY

Teams are a potentially fruitful source of the needed
breakthroughs in efficiency, speed and quality required by
the aerospace industry. An operational definition of a
team was proposed: A team is a well-defined group of
people with a common commitment and common
promises for which they hold themselves mutually
accountable. Using this definition we distinguished four
types of groups, focusing on working groups and real
teams.

We then cautioned that the use of the term team itself
causes significant operational overhead costs as a group
goes through the processes of forming and operating.
The decision to use a working group or team is a function
of the characteristics of the group work-product.

Finally, we suggested some guidelines for forming teams
in general, and in two special cases of relationships
between organizations and forming a Team of Teams for
large projects. We concluded by addressing a few
implementation issues, including when the use of an
outside consultant may be indicated.




REFERENCES
[1] Katzenbach, Jon R., and Douglas K. Smith, The
Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance
Organization, New York, Harper Business, 1993.

[2] Reddy, W., and K. Jamison, Team Building, NTL and
University Associates, San Diego, CA, 1988

[3] Duarte, Deborah L., and Nancy Tennant Snyder,
Mastering Virtual Teams, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1999.




Ivan Rosenberg is a consultant specializing in helping
organizations produce performance breakthroughs and is
currently the President and CEO of Frontier Associates.
He has been a university professor, the founder of four
companies, including a leading national software firm,
and vice-president of an international franchisor. Client
engagements have included team, partnership and
strategic alliance building, organizational culture
changes, helping organizations thrive through radical
changes, executive coaching, and strategic planning. His
client list includes internationally known government
agencies and Fortune 500 companies, as well as a
number of middle-market and smaller firms. He has a
BEE, MEE, and MS (Computer Science) from Cornell
University, and a MS (Management) and Ph.D.
(Management) from the University of Rochester.