Two Things to Stop Doing with Teams that Will Dramatically Improve Performance in Complex Organisations.

Before introducing the two things to stop doing with teams, it's important to understand the role that teams play in organisations and what a complex organisation is.

Traditional organisations (bureaucracies and industrial/manufacturing) are predominately "complicated systems", where the principles of cause and effect with root causes, are expected to apply. If managers set actionable targets for the organisation, then managers expect people to achieve these targeted outcomes. This the logic behind setting performance targets for people, teams etc and holding people accountable for meeting or not meeting these targets.

Modern service and knowledge intensive / knowledge-work organisations are complex and stochastic, in other words the state of the organisation, process or "system" cannot be precisely predicted given its current state, even with a full knowledge of all the factors affecting the system.

In other words cause and effect are more likely not to work as expected. This challenges much of the science of "complicatedness" that underpins current management science, which hasn't yet evolved to cope with complexity.

In complex systems (service and knowledge intensive / knowledge-work organisations), influencing performance is more about understanding the systems (organisations) capabilities and monitoring its performance over time. From there it is possible to "manage" or more accurately, nudge the system in the desired direction and see what happens. See Dave Snowden and Cynefin for the best information on complex and complicated systems.

Personally, I find that comparing teams in organisation's to cells in bodies, is a helpful comparison. What follows relates to what modern teams should/can do rather what they actually do.

Cells and Teams

Cells are the basic building blocks of all living organisms. They provide structure for the body, take in nutrients from food, convert those nutrients into energy, and carry out specialised functions. Cells also contain the body's hereditary material and can make copies of themselves.

Teams in organisations function similarly as fundamental units that collectively contribute to the achievement of organisational objectives. Each team, like a cell, performs specific roles, processes inputs (information, instructions, and resources), and produces outputs (products, services, and decisions). Teams also adapt to changes in the organisational environment and can evolve or scale according to needs.

Specialisation and Diversity

Cells specialise to perform distinct functions. For example, nerve cells have different structures and functions compared to muscle cells or blood cells. This specialisation allows for the efficient functioning of each cell type within its specific context in the body.

Similarly, in organisations, teams are often formed with specific functions in mind. Sales teams, HR teams, IT teams, and others have specialised skills and responsibilities that contribute uniquely to the organisation's goals. Diversity in team composition can enhance problem-solving capabilities and innovation.

Communication and Signalling

Cells communicate with each other through signalling molecules. These molecules can instruct a cell to change what it is doing. The entire system is interconnected, with feedback loops and mechanisms that maintain homeostasis, the self-regulating process by which living organisms maintain internal stability while adjusting to changing external conditions.

Effective communication within and between teams is crucial for organisational success. Teams use various tools and protocols to share information, align on goals, and coordinate efforts. Feedback mechanisms, such as performance reviews and strategy meetings, help maintain alignment with broader organisational objectives.

Adaptability and Growth

Cells can respond to their environment. When a threat is detected, such as an infection, cells can react accordingly. They also have the ability to proliferate or die off to meet the needs of the organism.

Teams must be adaptable, scaling up or down based on project requirements and market conditions. This flexibility can involve adjusting team size, reallocating resources, or shifting focus quickly in response to external or internal changes.

Survival and Health

The health of an organism depends on the health and functionality of its cells. Damaged or dysfunctional cells can lead to disease. Therefore, maintaining cellular health is crucial for the overall well-being of the organism.

The health of an organisation similarly depends on the functionality and well-being of its teams. Dysfunctional teams can lead to inefficiencies, decreased morale, and a decline in productivity. Thus, nurturing team health through supportive leadership, clear communication, and professional development is essential.

In summary, both cells-in-bodies and teams-in-organisations serve as the basic building blocks that execute critical functions, adapt to changes, and sustain the overall system's health.

#1: Stop Setting Targets, Establish Reasonable Expectations.

Targets assume some level of predictability (cause and effect). For example, applying a target to things like how many "calls per day" should be answered, or "rooms per hour" cleaned etc. assume a level of predictability that is just not achievable without negative consequences. Of course it is important to establish performance metrics but a more successful and useful approach is to establish (not set) reasonable expectations. So what's the difference?

Targets are usually set by other people, reasonable expectations are set by the team.

A target is an expectation that a number can always be met or exceeded, A reasonable expectation implies that there is science behind the number aspired to, and that the team accept the logic and underlying assumptions in the calculation of the number. However, calculations/estimates in complex environments always come with caveats, often implicit but that need to be made explicit. These caveats are often reflected in the saying, "all things being equal".

For example, a target for a hotel cleaner may be that they should clean 3 rooms in an hour (20 mins each). What's often not stated is that this target comes with the implicit assumption / caveat that the room is left in a "normal" standard of untidiness or that there is sufficient replacement linens in the nearby cupboard's etc.

Similarly with a mortgage advisor whose target may be to process 14 mortgage applications a day (30 mins each). Implicit but often unsated is that the target presumes the application is completed to a "normal" level of completeness or from a married couple .

What happens if a cleaner comes across a room where a glass of red wine has been spilled on a carpet? Or a mortgage adviser who comes across an application from someone who has dyslexia or two people who have no relationship other than they want to buy a house together for economic reasons?

In a target driven team, the cleaner usually prioritises meeting the targets set and may try and hide the stain rather than spend the time necessary to clean the room to the expected standard. The mortgage advisor, if target driven, will similarly struggle and so may return the application if poorly completed or rush through the joint application, making mistakes and it being rejected by the underwriters.

A team who manage by reasonable expectations however, self manage. They establish for themselves, the reasonable expectations they plan to use and that take into account, the common anomalies that their combined experience tell them may happen.

In the case of the cleaners, the historical data gathered by the team may indicate that 1 in 20 rooms (5%), have issues such as spilled wine. If cleaned to the expected standard expected, this may mean a longer (2x) cleaning time of, say 40 minutes. If the cleaners priority is to clean the room to the expected standard, then the reasonable expectation is no longer reasonable but it is understandable.

If the cleaner has the freedom ( see Amy Edmondson on Psychological Safety) to self manage, then they will clean the room properly but not meet the now unreasonable expectation of cleaning 3 rooms an hour, because the underlying expectations for that room cleaning process, have changed.

If we assume that there is a team of 20 cleaners cleaning rooms, then the reasonable expectation for the cleaning team is that 95% of the time, cleaners will clean 3 rooms an hour but 5% of the time they will only do 2, 1 x 20 mins "normal" room and 1 x 40 minutes "messy" room.

#2: Stop Measuring People, Monitor Team Performance.

In the cleaning example above, supposing that 1 cleaner happened to come across a sequence of 5 rooms occupied by guests that had come from a party. Unluckily for that cleaner, their rooms are a mess and will take 40 minutes each ( the reasonable expectation set by the team for cleaning a "messy" room.)

Providing that only 5% of rooms are messy, then the reasonable expectation for the team holds, even though one unfortunate cleaner ends up with the 5 messy rooms that will take 40 minutes each. Had that cleaner been set a target of 3 rooms an hour, they would have been unable to do a good job, if they feel under pressure to meet a target.

In a self-managed team using reasonable expectations and a psychologically safe environment, the cleaner would be empowered to take whatever time it takes to clean the room to the standard expected. However, knowing that the reasonable expectation exists, and that their 3 x hour reasonable expectation, will not be met, given the situation encountered, they would inform their manager of the anomaly so that the manager could make adjustments to the overall cleaning plan.

What's more, the cleaner would monitor the reasonable expectation that a "messy" room takes 40 minutes to clean, and if that holds for these rooms, then all is "normal" at the level, of the cleaner. At the level of the manager, providing the number of "messy" rooms doesn't exceed 5% across the team, then all is "normal" at the manager level.

If these reasonable expectations are not holding over the time (occasional blips are "natural variation", then the team and the manager will need to regroup. Figuring out what has changed in the "system" that has been under control for some period of time at 5% "messy" rooms, is now exhibiting a new behaviour of more (or less) "messy" rooms. Perhaps marketing/sales have begun/stopped targeting "parties" and so the 5% may now no longer apply.

This is one example of variety of "weak signals" that traditional management methods usually miss. By the time they grow and mature to become strong/obvious signals, they are badly hurting the organisation.

This approach builds on W. Edwards Deming 94-6 rule that 94% of problems within an organisation are caused by the "system", while only 6% are attributable to individual employees. Consequently improving the system pays far better returns and has less harmful side effects, than chasing the 6% although for reasons such as disruption, fairness etc, the 6% shouldn't be ignored.

___________________________________________________________________________________

This is one of several articles on "Structured Collaboration?", an advanced management system for "managing" complex organisations with a modern, well educated workforce. Because their intellect is underused and even snubbed the modern workforce is becoming increasingly sad and "structured collaboration?" is part of the solution that bridges traditional and modern management methods.

?2024: Alex McDonnell, CEO & Co-Founder, Expertivity Technologies