Team Dynamixxx 3 : High Performing Teams
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•25 views
This document discusses the characteristics of high performing teams and addresses five dysfunctions that can undermine team performance: lack of trust, avoidance of conflict, lack of commitment, avoidance of accountability, and inattention to results. Exercises are provided to help teams build trust, have constructive conflict, make decisions, hold each other accountable, and identify their most significant dysfunction.
More Related Content
More from Holly Mae Haddock
More from Holly Mae Haddock (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (10)
Team Dynamixxx 3 : High Performing Teams
- 1. team dynamixxx 3 HIGH PERFORMING TEAMS
- 2. *warmup: share your definition of a high performing team*
- 4. *exercise: how to kill a team*
- 5. five dysfunctions of a team (patrick lencioni)
- 6. trust
- 7. *exercise: team trust and fear game*
- 8. conflict
- 9. *exercise: questioning worst case scenarios*
- 10. commitment
- 11. *exercise: core protocols - decider*
- 12. accountability
- 14. *exercise: if you had to choose one, which dysfunction is most likely a problem in your team?* 1. low trust 2. low conflict 3. low commitment 4. low accountability 5. low quality
Editor's Notes
- Intro round – talking point: what stuck with you the most from last week – what did you find yourself thinking about, or applying in your work? Reminder: what’s said here stays here Reminder: questions are more important than answers, take what you like and leave the rest
- Write out the opposites
- Teams that are HIGHLY focused on their goals, and which achieve SUPERIOR BUSINESS RESULTS. They outperform similar teams and outperform expectations given their composition.
- Exercise: read Marble Mash description Write down ways to kill the marble mash team on post-its In group round – put them up Why does that kill the team? (insight & reflection) Write out the opposites
- These build on each other http://slooowdown.wordpress.com/2011/10/08/a-summary-of-the-five-dysfunctions-of-a-team-by-patrick-lencioni/
- A team with no trust will: -conceal weaknesses & mistakes -hesitate to give constructive feedback -hesitate to offer help outside their area of expertise -fail to tap into the skills of others in the team A team with trust will: -quickly & genuinely apologize when they say or do something that could damage team -accept challenges from other members for the greater good of the team -take risks in offering feedback & assistance -ask for help & openly admit mistakes & weaknesses How to encourage trust? -time together (forming stage bonding!) -address behaviors that demo lack of trust -understand personal history -Leader leads by example
- Trust Chess Instructions: Divide in 3 groups. Team Fear, Team Trust and the Jury. Moderator suggests setting: brainstorming a new feature, retrospective, sprint planning meeting, team event, etc. It has to be relatively subtle and within the realms of “normal” Team Lead behavior. For example, no throwing chairs to induce fear, but rather something subtle like, I would ask them “Where did you go to school again?” Just after they submit an idea. One team goes first, suggesting a Team Trust Building or a Team Fear Building response. If the jury isn’t convinced this is good enough, to restore Team Fear or Team Trust, the team has to go again. Example: Setting is Brainstorming meeting Team Fear goes first: I would look at my watch whenever people were putting up their ideas on the board to give them the sense that they should rush and that their ideas are not so interesting. Team Trust: Assuming that has happened – I would ask the guy looking at his watch – is there somewhere you need to be? To call it out. Jury check: is that enough? Or more. If more, Team Trust goes again: I would say acknowledging, recognizing & positive things out loud – “that’s a great idea!” Or, I would be transparent about my own anxiety about time – “I think I need a bit more time to brainstorm, this setting doesn’t feel right for me” Etc. When the jury feels that it REALLY feels corrected, safety restored, then it says, ok. Then flip. Team trust does pro-trust action in a different setting, and Team Fear has chance to destroy.
- Fear of conflict looks like: -back channel politics & personal attacks -ignore controversial topics -fail to tap into diverging opinions There is no such thing as no conflict – there is only hidden conflict. Teams with no fear of conflict: -passionate & open in discussion of issues -discuss the right issues (important and difficult ones) – some teams seem ok with conflict but are actually diverting -minimize politics -actively extract & exploit ideas from all members Strategies: How? –model that conflict is good & necessary for excellence (get the most ideas into the room, avoid group think, etc) -highlight autonomy -teach them how to fight fair -address conflict avoidance -leader leads -deepen dissonance, coach about the importance of conflict
- Danger vs opportunity Write down all the things that you might fear when it comes to conflict in a team -I’m afraid that I will be seen as aggressive, loss of social status – translated to: maybe I will be seen as more powerful, influential and worth listening to -I’m afraid that I will scare other people and they will withhold themselves – maybe other people will see that conflict is survivable and be encouraged to bring more of their real self into the room Each person: writes down their personal fears of conflict, then the person next to them gets their cards, and transforms them into potential positive outcomes
- Important for commitment: CLARITY Chance to DECIDE EXPLICITLY Say I’m IN, or I’m OUT Lack of commitment looks like: Verbally agree but don’t support -people often feel unheard -indifference -ambiguity around direction & priorities -2nd guessing leadership, & revisiting discussions again & again Committed team will: -aligned toward 1 goal -listen to everyone -learn from mistakes -know (and care) what their peers are working on & how they contribute to the collective good of the team -make decisions without hesitation -end discussions with clear & specific resolutions Strategies: -address behaviors that look like lack of commitment -summarize decisions made in meetings (give people a chance to sign off or make corrections) -use some kind of decision protocol for group decisions (like core protocol) -time-box decisions -involve people more – give more ownership (eg give them a “puppy” to increase responsibility)
- Use Decider Protocols for a group decision where it would be important Plan: a trip around the world. I propose that we first fly to India and spend 2 weeks there in a monastery. Absolute no -= withdraw proposal Yes Support is – ok, but may need more info, etc, will go with it No – what will it take to get you in – we would need to spend 2 weeks in a hotel instead of a monastery – Ok OR withdraw proposal SITUATION: we have an around the world ticket If we plan it in the next day, we can use it But everyone will need to come along
- Require respect How to hold people accountable: Share dissonance, using facts: “we have this working agreement in the team to do x, but you have been doing y a lot lately, for example this Monday” Allow them to speak Mirror that you understand what they have said (empathize) Share your problem with them “the problem this creates for me is x” Brainstorm a solution together “what do you think could be a solution for us?” Agree on implementation & follow up Iterate, don’t reiterate – (don’t go over the same ground – if same thing happens again, intensify, or try different approach – sometimes escalation is necessary (get help from HR and/or your boss) Have the group care about accountability whenever possible (drives up passion) Revisit the agreements with the team, and make it their problem: what should we do about this – change the agreement? Help person X with their load? Change how we work on topic X? Explain how low accountability means low quality, low passion, mediocrity, we don’t create anything to be proud of, etc If we don’t care about that – why not? Low accountability team: Resentment among team members with different standards -encourages mediocrity -miss deadlines & key deliverables -place undue burden on team lead as sole source of discipline High accountability team: -addresses behaviors that demo avoidance of accountability -open publication of goals, standards and metrics -regular progress reviews
- Using the simple working agreements of the Marble Mash Team, which are: Attack a problem, not a person Listen to other’s points of view without prejudice Do not take comments personally Show up on time, and if you cannot, contact the group Be prepared for meetings Be willing to take risks Be committed to ending on time if possible Practice holding each other accountable using the template: I noticed x It is a problem because y What I want is z What about you/how do you see it
- Write on notecards & turn over, put them all in the middle & scramble, then turn over, look at it as a group What does this say about Wooga culture? Discussion round