Leading Teams with Care - Lesson 13

Dr. Rick Sessoms Leading Teams with Care MC611-13 Discussion of Team Z Process Case Study Lesson Transcript [00:00:00] So let's talk. I'd like you just to talk among yourselves. And I kind of like to listen in. Who represented what dimension on the team? Is it clear enough? What do you think? You all say that? We'll tell you when you're wrong again. And quote Karl as the creator. We had a lot of ideas almost on the show. George with stifled adventure. Stifled adventure. You guys agree with that? We said that we saw him as it means a bit that we also could be with him in terms of because he is recognizing that proteins we have he could be a frustrated boxer in the sense of just he's noticing that. In terms of the great. We have a little storming. That's all right. I spent a flex there, though. I thought Tony fit that category a little bit better just because he saw the point of view that everybody kind of had. Whereas George, at least from this paragraph, is mostly noticing the creator potential, you know, not speaking up. I just think that's life. And we know that, you know, case studies, every person has to be. That's right. Of course. Throughout Ruth. You think you guys agree with that? And Rex. Rex the refinery that fits the. So what's the problem? Let's talk. What's the problem here? Or what are the problems with things that they didn't know? The rules. The rules. They didn't. They didn't even realize that there is never an appreciation for each other and the process that good decision should go through. And so they were frustrated by others doing what they do, and they were frustrated that other people weren't actually doing what they were good at. It was kind of ironic, you know, there was nothing everyone to be concerned with the details, but that's not necessarily everyone's role. [00:02:33] And so I think they began task focused rather than relationship focused. And so they never got to that relationship formation. So they all had frustrated. They didn't leave with any sense of redeeming anyone say, Oh, that was a fun experience, or I was appreciated with someone so sad. They all left frustrated because they didn't accomplish the task. So you I think you said that didn't even have donuts and it was a three hour meeting, so what a shame. Yeah. One this. I mean, with that there was a lack of the forming process. I think if there had been more of that, especially when you have a shy creator, she could you know, once the relationship was built, she could have spoken up and maybe like started that process, maybe. But because there was no relationship building, she is very shy and then just, you know, it didn't start. And do you think that let's go all the way back to our first factor purpose? Clear, common and compelling. Do you see that? Is that clear, common and compelling? You see a purposefulness coming out of that? Case study doesn't just focus on one thing. That scribe that we just see different roles kind of being played out clueless instead of like they were certainly less focused on themselves, not on what the agenda of purpose was. Yeah. And when you when you leave everybody, each individual person feeling unfulfilled, unsatisfied, then they lose that really cool. They were lacking purpose. Yeah, well, I'm sorry. I think togetherness and the unity were missing. Yeah, I think that's what we were saying last time. If you don't get that purpose clear and it's not compelling, then the focus is on the tower and how to build the tower. [00:04:33] You know, it's on us and where we fit and all that kind of stuff becomes the dominant theme. What are the problems that you see potentially arising here? Lack of leadership seems pretty obvious, doesn't it? If they lose their team, they don't get some relationships started. You think they'll lose the team? And these people won't be one thing. If you met for an hour and a half and everybody feeling satisfied. Meaning 3 hours. Yeah. Yeah. There's. Somebody new. It's easy to come up with excuses for not going in for the next three-hour meeting after a three-hour meeting of frustrations and disappointment, especially with no team, no purpose, no leadership, no nothing. No food with no donuts. Yeah. You kind of joke about having no food, but does the food help the foreign? I mean, is that real? I mean, we think of food and breaking bread together. Does that help the community to have something as simple as that part of it? I think it certainly can just throw that out there. Yeah. You know, all kinds of things can affect that location where you need to get, you know, home in a person's home rather than an office structure. And it just creates a new perspective on, for me, all kinds of things, how the rooms are arranged, how the chairs are set up, how hard the chairs are. Yeah, I think. So it's all about creating an environment where people are rallying around purpose and feeling valued in that process. Specifically valued. So. If these problems aren't addressed, you feel like this team's either going to going to basically languish or. Just disappear. Go away. So let's talk about some specific steps then. What are some specific steps that can be taken? To address the problem. [00:07:02] What? What can be done? If you are sitting outside this or going to someone say, advisers, what do we do? They come to you the next morning, one of these people. What in the world are we going to do with this group? What would you tell them? Yeah, that was their team building retreat. I think they're going to retreat, so we need to. Two grand budget, Right? Okay. Within our group. We said that the first step is to acknowledge that we messed up and then, you know, bring everybody back together and say, Hey, let's do this and bring. Yeah, maybe have some food and then work on relationship building momentum. Now, that's a powerful thing. What you started with is the acknowledgment that it hasn't gone as we wished it would because everybody left frustrated. Yeah, that's a good thing. And until you acknowledge that, everybody's going, that's going to be a ghost in the room. And partly because you're going to sit there, everybody's going to sit there. Well, when is this going to fall apart again? It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But if you put it on the table, then you can kind of let it go and then build the relationship. I mean, I don't mean like, yeah, that really terrible, you know. Okay, so we've said it's a turn. It was a terrible meeting. We don't want to do that again. We've, we've eaten the donuts. Now what? Specifics. I would say point George to be the leader because he's an acute observer and he's got he recognizes that Karl Rove has certain gifts he can propose. Everybody write out what you think is the problem and what you think are some solutions. He knows that Karl Rove reticent to talk. [00:08:47] He can. Or if she is distracted, she can write things down, others can to everyone or for them to make or one. We talked about that to a leader. Go ahead. On one hand by the mouth of insensitive each person with their concerns firmly against. Even though I'm on the team. So if I hear you right, what would I mean? It's important, I think. I think there's an important element here to identify leadership. But you're saying what does that leadership need to do? You're saying couple of things. Saying a leader needs to acknowledge what? Um. Unpack that a little bit of just acknowledge the gifts in the room and what people's roles are. Okay. Okay. Best suited to serve. Okay. Or maybe even ask them. Where do you feel best suited to serve? Okay. Good. What else? I think part of the thing was just like recognizing that maybe Carla in particular, because she's she is the creator, but she is hesitant to share. Even if they do a better job, you know, forming and get to know each other, she still might not share her ideas as freely as would benefit the group. And so maybe the leader will be with her, you know, before the meeting. And so he is going to pull it through, talking about some of his ideas. And if you if you had a trained leader enter that group where she could come in and propose process and then invite input from people into that process, that team process, I might even be the seed that's good. Might even might even describe that and then invite people to say, what do you think about this? Do you think this would be something we want to do? How we need to refine this as people. [00:11:06] So you get input into which may actually improve the process or or at least buy into it. So what you're saying is that there needs somebody somehow needs to provide the landscape. What does this landscape look like? Where are we going? What what might be the process for getting there? Uh, very helpful. Other thoughts. One of the things that I found helpful in teams is to, even if as excellent as that is what we just talked about, kind of getting group agreement on a process to begin with right from the beginning. It's also a lot of role. But as you're into, you know, three or four or five meetings into it to pause and say, okay, now today for a 15, 20 minutes or half an hour, we're going to pause and we're going to look at our past the last three or four or five meetings and ask ourselves what we want to stop or we will start and what do we want to continue and figure out how we need to revise. So in other words, take those checks along the way to say, how are we doing? Excellent. And, you know, want to talk about content. You're talking about the process itself. So let's talk practical a second. Let's suppose that you're appointed to lead this team. And the refiner on a team like this is a strong personality. And you have some people that aren't nearly as strong in terms of their personalities that are creators and advancers and executors. What is the solution to that? What do you do with that? And this is the very beginning. What do you do? But we can't do clarify a process. Just generically know if you're brainstorming, brainstorming now and we'll get to critiquing all that later, that we need to get to that point where you can be more specific with this process. [00:13:22] But the leader needs to create a buffer zone for. And how do we make it better? You know, part of this to recognize like you're ready to go on some of the strategies here. Let's make sure that we've got the roadmap before we get there. So every bookmark that goes in has come back to. And then start coming back to the ideas, to the concepts where we're going with it. Get some flesh into that. So part of it is affirming what the refine is wanting to do, but bookmark. Very good. Stifle creativity pretty quickly. It's fine to shoot down all the ideas. It's that kind of make the creator shut up if they're not also allowed, you know, person well. And so you kind of have that sort of like saying it's kind of right, you know, we're brainstorming now or we'll hold our thoughts, you know? No, no idea is a bad idea right now. It's just to kind of get them all out there. And that's actually it's very important to and this may be obvious to all of you, but it's very important to continue to revisit where are we in the process. That's one. Secondly, it's if you have people in the group that are that tend to be not as strong in terms of their personality in order to draw them out, it's usually appropriate to call them by name and request feedback from them because if you just give an open thing, are there any ideas that they will typically not offer? But it's it would be as simple as saying, Tammy, share with us what you think about this, this, this, this purpose or what ideas do you have? Give us an idea and be specific about the person. [00:15:25] Pull it out that way because that tends to allow that person the to come out. And also it discretely communicates to the strong personality that this is their time to have the floor. So that again may seem a very obvious thing, but it's a very practical device that works quite well. Show should to the person who's the leader shouldn't that you're trying to create a culture where everyone is equally valued. Yes. Even if it's not if it's just one person that shame, it's still you should be you know, you think you making sure that everybody you're getting the right kind of balance out. So then I would think that the really strong response to the kind of start see start seeing it maybe. Couple of strategies. If you can build on what Tammy said earlier, Say, Tammy. I want to hear what you have to say about this, because I like earlier what you were saying about this concept. And I think we connected. And so what you're doing is, is you're building your credibility, but you're also giving her a time to think on that process. So rather than just kind of calling her by name. And if you can also make connections. Tammy, you and Brant were where it seems like you have similar ideas. You're making connections, which I think can be really helpful for helping the team strategize and go on. Well, obviously, many of you in the room here and I'm delighted about that, are quite seasoned. You're experienced in working on teams and that's a great thing. Hopefully this kind of understanding of team dimensions in this process that we've been describing gives some framework that that as we go back in and as we move forward in working on teams, we will have some hangers to hang our thoughts and our experience on. [00:17:37] It gives us language and can even give other people in the team that you work with language in order to work through some of these tough spaces, because this is these are things that tend to plague most teams.