The use of teams and team-based structures in organizations continues to grow. Teams are associated with many benefits. One of my discussions on the benefits of teams is here (Groups vs. Teams: What’s the Difference?).
In addition to benefits, the use of teams also has challenges associated with it. We are told there is no “I” in team. Beyond individuals bringing a commitment to the team over themselves, I’d like to also share my short lists of “I’s” to remove from teams.
Ingrown: The first “I” to remove is the challenge of groups becoming ingrown. This is just another way to talk about the reality of “group think” that teams face. When individual members of teams are not willing to speak up and make their perspectives known, this passive posture of team participation can work against innovation and creativity. In contrast to the dynamic of group think, team members need to be willing to challenge one another’s ideas and pursue new insights, new discoveries, and new innovations as they seek to pursue the team mission.
Indecision: The second “I” to remove is the challenge of indecision. In contrast to the point above, sometimes groups are characterized by sharing many new perspectives and ideas, but the open-ended process of idea generation never translates into decision. This can translate into a form of creative paralysis for teams—always generating new ideas and perspectives, but not making decisions on the questions the team is facing.
Inaction: The third “I” to remove is the challenge of inaction. This “I” of inaction can be a result of several factors. Inaction can be a result of the indecision noted above. But at times inaction is not about indecision but rather lack of fortitude or conviction in moving from decisions to action as a team. Inaction can also be due to lack of role clarity. When assumptions are made and people do not bring clarity and commitment to their role in moving toward actions, these assumptions can also result in inaction. Teams must gather a broad range of perspectives as they resist group think, and then they must land on decisions, clarify team member roles in light of these decisions, and then be willing to act on these decisions as they work toward the teams mission together.
Inefficiency: The fourth “I” to remove is the challenge of inefficiency. As identified in a previous post (Groups vs. Teams: What’s the Difference?), team process often can take longer than working as an individual or in a group process that simply brings together individual work. However, teams benefit from limiting this dimension of inefficiency. Although teams can take longer, it is important to maximize efficiency as the team pursues quality in its common work.
Inequity: The fifth “I” to remove is the challenge of inequity. If you’ve ever participated in a group project over the course of your schooling process, it is common for there to either be an uneven workload distribution or an uneven effort given to the workload of the team. This is an issue of equitable workload. Teams want to have team members that are full participants—team members that fully show up and engage the team process. Removing the “I” of inequity requires that team members are willing to hold one another accountable and call underperforming members to step up in their commitment to the team’s common work.
Inconsideration: The sixth “I” to remove is the challenge of inconsideration. When people come together in group and team processes, there is significant opportunity for conflict and dissention to emerge. Some of this conflict is substantive in nature—team members disagreeing over their ideas and perspectives. Other conflict is relational in nature—team members disagreeing over personal matters related to the interpersonal dynamics. Whether substantive or relational, a key solution to such conflict is consideration among the team members. Rather than engaging with inconsideration, effective teams care for one another. They care for the ideas of other members of the team. They care about the health of relationships on the team. They understand that erosion of team cohesion due to either substantive or interpersonal conflict is a threat to the health of the team and the team’s capacity to care out their mission.
We are told “there is no I in Team.” This is a helpful reminder that team members need to primarily be about the needs of the team rather than their own self-interest. However, there are many other “I’s” that need to be removed as well. Teams need to face and remove the “I’s” on their teams—they need to remove the dynamics of tending toward the I behaviors of Ingrown, Indecision, Inaction, Inefficiency, Inequity, and Inconsideration.
How is your team doing? Are there any lingering “I’s” to remove in your team?