COLLABORATION

When Is Teamwork Really

Necessary?
by Michael D. Watkins
AUGUST 16, 2018

CASPAR BENSON/GETTY IMAGES

Most leaders assume that they need to foster teamwork among the people whom directly and
indirectly report to them. Teaming is now seen as the workplace equivalent of motherhood and
apple pie — invariably good. The problem is when leaders try to drive the wrong kind of
collaboration on their particular teams. The result: wasted time and unnecessary frustration.

Consider the example of Nicolas, a regional sales vice president at a medical devices company.
When promoted to his new role, he inherited a group of district sales managers responsible for
selling to hospital systems in their respective geographies. Although his one-on-one meetings
with these reports, which involved progress reviews, motivation, and coaching, were highly
productive, his monthly team meetings weren’t. While the group liked getting together and
engaging in some joint activities — such as goal setting, best-practice sharing, and talent
development — people often wondered why they were in the room.

Catherine, a senior marketing director leading a cross-functional product development team at

the same company, provides a contrasting case study. Although she sometimes needed to work
with team members individually, most productive work happened in weekly meetings, to which
she brought focused agendas and effectively facilitated discussions about key issues. The
participants rarely felt they were wasting their time.

The biggest difference between these two situations lies, of course, in the amount of
interdependency among group members and the resulting teamwork necessary. Before
embarking on any team-building activities or even setting up team meetings, leaders must ask
themselves one question: Am I managing a high-performing group of individuals or a high-
performing team?

In Nicolas’s case, it was the former. So what he mostly needed was hub-and-spoke, one-on-one
leadership, through weekly individual meetings, supplemented by periodic group get-togethers.
After realizing this, he moved from monthly to quarterly team meetings and addressed only those
issues that actually required teamwork. Perceptions about his overall efficiency and effectiveness
rose dramatically.

Catherine, meanwhile, had rightly determined that she was leading, even building, a high-
performing team. That meant having intensive, two-hour weekly team meetings supplemented
with as-needed, one-on-one interactions.

Having evaluated the extent to which your reports need to work collectively, the next step is to
identify what focus of that teamwork should be and how the work will be accomplished. Here are
eight common roles that your reports may need to play together.

1. Agenda Setters: define and communicate strategic direction and priorities

2. Integrators: ensure integration and make tradeoffs across units
3. Execution Drivers: drive planning, execution, and accountability
4. Talent Developers: attract, assess, develop, and retain talent
5. Diplomats: build alliances internally and shape the external environment
6. Role Models: shape the values, behavior, and culture of the organization
7. Architects: design and transform the organization
8. Trailblazers: foster organizational learning, innovation, and adaptation

For example, Nicolas’s reports needed to be Agenda Setters (setting and communicating goals),
Talent Developers (selecting, assessing, and developing people), and Trailblazers (determining
and sharing best practices). The members of Catherine’s product development team, by contrast,
had to be Integrators (ensuring integration across the functions), Execution Drivers (committing
to and achieving goals within their functions) and Diplomats (communicating, securing
resources, and building support with external constituencies).

Groups of executives who lead companies or divisions or major functions need to balance leading
their own teams and leading the enterprise together. Often, they must play all eight roles to some
degree. However, it’s important to clarify which need the most emphasis, given the specifics of
the situation. In turnaround situations, for example, the most important roles for the team often
are Agenda Setters, Execution Drivers, and Architects (leading required organizational
transformation).

The table below provides a straightforward way to assess the roles your direct and indirect
reports most need to play as a team. Regardless of the amount of time that needs to be devoted to
teaming (which, as discussed, is a function of the extent of interdependency), how should that
time best be used?

Team Roles % of Overall Teaming Effort

Agenda setters

Integrators

Execution drivers

Talent developers

Diplomats

Role models

Architects

Trailblazers

SOURCE MICHAEL WATKINS © HBR.ORG

Recognize, too, that the roles the group most needs to play together may shift over time. As an
organization moves successfully from turnaround into more-stable growth, for example, the
collective focus of senior executives could shift toward being Role Models (shaping behaviors and
culture), Talent Developers, and Diplomats.

As a team leader, you can certainly start this process by making your own assessment of the
required extent and focus of teamwork you need. But then plan to have people give their own
opinions on both issues and engage in a group discussion to make sure everyone is on the same
page.

Teamwork efforts must be tailored to each group and situation. By taking a more limited, focused
approach to collaboration, you’ll be able to lead your people much more effectively.

Michael D. Watkins is a professor at IMD, a cofounder of Genesis Advisers, and the author of The First 90 Days
(Harvard Business Review Press, 2013).

This article is about COLLABORATION

 FOLLOW THIS TOPIC

Comments
Leave a Comment

POST

2 COMMENTS

Gregory Miller a day ago

Oh good grief, I would expect an author at the HBR to know the difference between "who" and "whom," in the very
rst sentence of the article, no less.

REPLY

 00

 JOIN THE CONVERSATION

POSTING GUIDELINES
We hope the conversations that take place on HBR.org will be energetic, constructive, and thought-provoking. To comment, readers must sign in or
register. And to ensure the quality of the discussion, our moderating team will review all comments and may edit them for clarity, length, and
relevance. Comments that are overly promotional, mean-spirited, or off-topic may be deleted per the moderators' judgment. All postings become
the property of Harvard Business Publishing.