Team AdaptAbility
From Storming to Performing
Although there are numerous definitions of groups, and their differences between teams, work groups, family structures, associations, and other multi-people systems, we will be using the widest possible definition in this chapter.
We will not dive into the individual definition of groups versus teams, other than to say that each are composed of two or more individuals working together. When these groups or teams experience change, they not only experience it as individuals (micro point of view) but also as a unit (mesa point of view).
As we seek to lead and manage change, it is important that we understand how the group/team level experiences development and change.
The Tuckman Model (below) represents the sequential and predictable path a group/team will take in their development. It is widely researched and referenced when working to create and build effective teams in organizations. It has also been successful in working through group challenges as they deal with change as it mirrors the Change Curve.
Let’s look at Tuckman’s model and the parallels it has with how people experience change individually.
Similar to the Change Curve, where we reviewed the thoughts, behaviors, and feelings experienced at each stage, Tuckman identified three experiences that teams will go through as they move through his development model. They are:
- Content – what a team does, their work, and their performance results
- Process – how a team works together and steps they take to achieve their goals
- Feelings – the relational dynamics of the team and how members interact with each other
Tuckman’s research suggests that most teams concentrate almost exclusively on content, to the detriment of process and feelings, which explains why teams which are strong in theory often lack the effectiveness they desire.
Stage 1: Forming
The first stage of group and team development is Forming. In this stage, team members are introduced and establish initial working relationships. Processes are often formal and general information is shared between members (job title, years at company, and experience). Communication is professional and personal information is kept to a minimum.
- Content – In this stage, individuals attempt to define the job to be done. They seek to accomplish first steps to experience accomplishment in some way.
- Process – In this stage, team members will seek insight and guidance from leaders and project sponsors. They are just beginning the process, and having best practices to guide them will increase their time to Performing and minimize the performance dip experienced in Storming.
- Feelings – In this stage, team members are experiencing feelings similar to the first two stages of the Change Curve including shock, confusion, and anxiety, and are looking for safety and guidance in how best to relate with the new team. Team Development training, like RelateAbility, provides new skill building in Emotional Intelligence and better equips and empowers team members to successfully navigate from Storming to Performing.
Many groups do not move beyond the Forming stage. We call these groups Working Groups, as they are working together in some way but have little or no interdependence with each other’s work. A working group can be an effective staffing strategy, especially when individuals are being associated with a group label or location.
Stage 2: Storming
The second stage of group and team development is Storming. Just like the name infers, this is not the most pleasant stage of team or group development. Egos and emotions play a big role and the balance of power is being established. As personalities clash, priorities differ, and communication skills are tested, Storming will take some time, resources, and care to effectively resolve into Norming.
- Content – In this stage, team members seek to control actions that most align with their best interests. Actions are debated and members will resist any demands made upon them that don’t match with their desired way of doing things.
- Process – In this stage, processes are often non-existent. If there are processes established by an organizational team development guide, team members will push back and look for reasons not to do it “their way”. Often a mindset of whoever controls the process, controls the team will be seen at this stage, with members vying for power and control.
- Feelings – In this stage, people are anxious and uncomfortable. Emotions and egos are being hurt, often without intent. Unable to effectively communicate or relate with others creates further hurdles for team members to overcome. RelateAbility training in the Forming stage has shown to greatly reduce the frustration and anger often experienced in this stage of team and group development. By better understanding ourselves and others, and being given tools to better communicate and resolve conflict, organizations can see a decrease in the performance gap experienced at this stage as well as an increase in the speed to which the team reaches the Norming stage.
It should be noted that some teams and groups never leave this stage. They settle into ineffective ways of working, often adversarial and sometimes even toxic. Although they may refer to themselves as a team, they are really just teams caught in conflict and we refer to them as Pseudo-Teams. They may pretend to be working well together, but the reality of their experience is hard-fought, awkward, and stressful.
Stage 3: Norming
The third stage of group and team development is Norming. In this stage, the team reaches agreement on their mission, vision, values, and goals. They begin to process the necessary action steps and implement procedures and project plans to help keep everyone on track and timely in their roles and responsibilities. Here the team fully understands the interdependence needed by every member to fulfill the objectives the team is tasked to achieve.
- Content – In this stage, there is open exchange of ideas about the matters at hand. This is the phase where “working meetings” are most frequent as there is much to discuss and debate. Later in this Norming stage, team meetings become update or status meetings to keep the team aligned and on task.
- Process – In this stage, the team establishes their Team Charter, SMART Goals, Decision Matrix, and other formal policies and procedures. These are documented and form the foundation for how the team will address upcoming issues, problems, decision, and resource allocation.
- Feelings – In this stage, team members see each other as interconnected and begin to have a more open and accepting view of team member differences. Trust and respect of each other is building in this stage and patterns of behavior are beginning to feel “normal” when working together. It is important to note that Norming does not require team members to all be friends or socialize outside of the workplace. Many teams successfully norm and perform while maintaining only professional relationships. However, these professional relationships do require a level of trust, understanding, and openness in order to be effective.
Many teams are “effective enough” at the Norming stage that they don’t pursue further development. Short-term project teams or event-based teams that seek to effectively norm and reach time-bound objectives find this stage to be an effective base of operations. Like people development, some are content and happy to be individual contributors and not manage other people. This does not negate them as employees, but rather provides insight as to how they are motivated and experience their work life. In this case, pushing someone to become a people manager when they have no desire to do so, would be unwise. Similarly, if a team is effective in its basic functions, placing formal pressure to further develop may not be in the team’s best interest.
Stage 4: Performing
The fourth stage of group and team development is Performing. This is the easiest stage to observe, but the most difficult to attain. Performing requires the team to be working like a well-oiled machine. Roles and responsibilities are clear, there is a high level of trust and accountability, and performance is meeting and often exceeding expectations.
- Content – In this stage, actions are consistent and the team has a reputation for achievement and follow-through.
- Process – In this stage, the team seems to have mastered the process of decision-making, prioritization, planning, and delivering on expectations. It is important to note that performing teams will sometimes need to return to Norming if there are changes in timelines, deliverable expectations, or resource allocation.
- Feelings – In this stage, the team is more an experience of a family than of a work team. Individually there is trust between members and there is a group trust in the team competence and capability to meet expectations. Communication is now more informal and the team leverages the different viewpoints and the diversity of membership. It is important to note that, depending on the make up of the group, having members leave or new members join will reduce effectiveness as the team re-Norms. There is even the possibility that the team will re-enter the Storming phase if the balance of power on the team is impacted. For example, a larger percentage of the team membership is changed, either purposefully or ad-hoc.
Some teams will further develop and seem to have the magic or synergy to consistently operate beyond expectations. These teams are rare, but they are incredibly effective and the holy grail of team development. When a person has been on one of these magic teams, they are forever changed. We refer to these ideal teams as having reached the stage of High-Performing.
Stage 5: Adjourning
The final stage of group and team development is Adjourning. This stage was added years after Tuckman published his original work on team and group development. As project teams began to trend, there was a need to further extend the model to include the process needed for Psychological Closure.
Whether it be an individual team member leaving the team to pursue an important initiative, or the entire team reaching the completion of a year-long team project, this is a moment of change. It is here that the Change Curve begins again, with team members experiencing a sense of loss and, again in need of Psychological Safety.
There are ways to plan for this Adjourning stage of team and group development. For instance, celebrating victories and accomplishments, showing gratitude to those that helped make the effort better, and giving credit where credit is due. When people have a positive experience on a project team, we don’t want their last experience to be one of loss, doubt, and discomfort. If the last team experience is not managed, team members may not be willing to participate in another team initiative. Planning for Psychological Closure also promotes the positive experience for those looking in from the outside and those wanting to continue working on team projects.
Tuckman highlighted a number of important observations from his research on teams and teamwork which still have resonance today:
A team will not be fully effective unless it reaches the stage of performing/ interdependence.
Many teams will not get beyond Forming and be effective Working Groups.
Some teams accept Storming as a normal way of operating, which I refer to as Toxic Teams.
Unless the team transitions fully into Norming they may revert back to Storming.
Like the Change Curve, the amount of time (duration) and intensity that each team takes to transition from one stage to another will vary depending on the team composition. Composition will ultimately determine how quickly a team will transition from Storming to Performing. These factors include its size, location of team members, the length and frequency of meetings, how the team members relate with one another, stability of team membership, external influences, and the natural pressures that occur with deadlines and prioritization of goals and objectives.
Managing Team Change
Richard Hackman of Harvard University conducted research and discovered that less than 10% of team members agreed on who were members of their team! This hinders AdaptAbility.
Not having clarity in why the team exists, what the team is expected to accomplish, or even who is on the team are hallmarks of a team or group in crisis. If team members can’t agree on who they need to work with, what they are to do, or how they will validate success, there is little chance the team will reach the Norming Stage, let alone the Performing Stage of development.
As such, we will focus on these three areas in helping teams manage the changes they experience.
For a group or team to have any chance of success, they must have the following 3M’s:
- Mission. Every member must be aware of what success looks like to the team and why it’s important. Having a clear sense of urgency for why the team was created and answering “why now?” is critical to the clear understanding of the team mission. Additionally, every member should be able to articulate the priorities and how each priority contributes to the success of the larger team missing an initiative. If members don’t understand the bigger picture then they’re limited in their judgment. With impaired judgment comes poor decision-making.
- Membership. Effective and performing teams exceed expectations because they set the conditions and proactively define their work for optimal performance. They’re clear on roles, responsibilities, and expectations of each person, and they hold members accountable for their actions. Strong teams believe that producing results is the price of membership.
- Metrics. Part of being accountable and responsible is knowing what each member is accountable and responsible for. Metrics outline the expectations of the team results and should clearly align with the priorities set forth in the mission. Metrics should be the logical conclusion for decision making authority and articulate what success looks like. As such, everyone will be on the same page and working towards the results and timeline.
For a team to manage change effectively, they need to be the right solution for the right problem. If they lack Mission, Membership, and Metrics, they will not adapt and become irrelevant, regardless of their formal title or power of the participants.
Building Team Effectiveness
What makes a great team also contributes to effective change teams (those leading a change). In 2016, Google released their findings from a multi-year research project on team effectiveness. The project was called “Project Aristotle” based on the quote: “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” as the Google researchers believed employees can do more working together than alone.
I encourage any research junkies to take a look at the project in detail – global participants, double-blind interviews, testing on team composition (personality, skills, demographics), testing on team dynamics (emotional intelligence, development processes), almost 200 teams, and over 250 correlated items from their longitudinal engagement study on work and life – then using over 35 different statistical models on hundreds of variables, they sought to identify factors that:
- Impacted multiple outcome metrics, both qualitative and quantitative
- Surfaced for different kinds of teams across the organization
- Showed consistent, robust statistical significance
The researchers found that what really mattered was less about who is on the team, and more about how the team worked together. They prioritized the findings and here is their list in order of importance:
Psychological Safety
Psychological safety refers to the level of safety a team member believes that the team is a safe place for risk taking. They believe that, in taking risk, they will not be seen as ignorant, incompetent, negative, or disruptive. In a team with high psychological safety, teammates feel confident that no one on the team will embarrass or punish them for admitting a mistake, asking a question, or offering a new idea.
Psychological safety aligns with the Change Curve as safety is the primary need to be met to transition from Denial (stage 1) to Doubt (stage 2). This same sense of safety is also needed to effectively transition through the Storming phase in Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development. Google’s research further validates the feeling of psychological safety as being such a critical component of individual and team development.
To assist in evaluating whether a team member has Psychological Safety, Google created this test statement:
If I make a mistake on my team,
it is not held against me.
If you strongly agree with this statement, then you are experiencing a high level of Psychological Safety. If you strongly disagree with this statement, then there are concerns that need to be addressed in how safe it is to risk new ideas or make mistakes with your team.
Dependability
Credibility and dependability are closely related. Credibility is doing what you said you would do, whereas dependability refers to the consistency of your behavior. Dependability is determined when team members can rely on the quality of work you provide. Both dependability and credibility are essential to building and maintaining trust. Research has shown that the largest determining factor on whether a team is effective in meeting their goals has to do with trust – trust that there is Psychological Safety and trust that the team members are Dependable and can be counted on to meet their commitments.
To assist in evaluating whether a team member has Dependability, Google created this test statement:
When my teammates say they’ll do something, they follow through with it.
If you strongly agree with this statement, then you are experiencing a high level of Dependability. If you strongly disagree with this statement, then there are concerns that need to be addressed around trust, credibility, and the consistency of team members fulfilling their responsibilities to the team.
Structure and Clarity
People often leave jobs because they lack a real understanding of what is expected of them, and how their job responsibilities impact the overall mission of the organization. This is the same for teams. Clear roles and responsibilities, job expectations, expected processes to be followed, and the consequences of performance are important to team effectiveness.
Goals can be set at the individual or group level, and must be SMART (Specific, Measurable, Actionable, Relevant, and Timebound). Also, critical for this component is a clear decision-making process. One of my favorite decision making acronyms is RAPID. It stands for Recommend, Agree, Perform, Input, and Decide.
For each decision, determine what letter is assigned to those involved. This also helps create clarity for those who think they have Decision authority, but really are only being involved to have their support or recommendation.
Without Structures and Clarity in place, teams cannot fully reach the Norming phase of development. Much of the Storming phase is coming to alignment and agreement on the structure, roles, responsibilities, and expectations. Additionally, having clear understanding and readily available information around expectations are critical for moving through Stage 2 (Doubt) in the Change Curve. Without this component, team members are left confused and anxious, or worse, confidently incorrect in their understanding.
To assist in evaluating whether a team member has Structure and Clarity, Google created this test statement:
Our team has an effective
decision-making process.
If you strongly agree with this statement, then you are experiencing a high level of Structure and Clarity. If you strongly disagree with this statement, then there are concerns that need to be addressed on the expectations, roles, responsibilities, mission, vision, and performance of each member, and the team as a whole.
Meaning
Every person wants their work to have meaning, to invest their time and efforts into something that makes a difference. Gallup conducted research on employee engagement, and they found the single most influential factor in employee engagement was if people had made relationship connections, or a best friend at work.
Finding meaning doesn’t have to connect to just the product, it could also connect with the people you work with. As I have mentioned before, humans are hardwired for connection. We each desire to belong, to be valued, and to be part of a tribe. We spend over half our waking hours in the workplace – often more time with our co-worker tribe than our family tribe.
Having meaning individually, and as a member of a team is critical to team effectiveness and working through change as a team. Finding a sense of purpose can be found in the relationships, the work itself, or the output of the work. Regardless of where meaning is found, it is important to realize that our actions impact others. When we move from Discomfort to Discovery, or from Storming to Norming, we are often not doing this alone.
To assist in evaluating whether a team member has Meaning, Google created this test statement:
The work I do for our team
is meaningful to me.
If you strongly agree with this statement, then you are experiencing a high level of meaning and connection with your team. If you strongly disagree with this statement, then there are concerns that need to be addressed relating to team purpose, communication, trust, relationships between team members, and team identity.
Impact
All work is evaluated. All teams are evaluated. This should not be a surprise to anyone. The results attained by the team create a sense of accomplishment, especially when those impacts are of high priority and value. When individuals on a team are unclear on that impact, or the team itself has confusion on how they contribute to the greater good, effectiveness is negatively impacted.
To help build Impact means understanding how your role and function directly or indirectly align with and support the Mission, Vision, and Values of the organization. For example, if an organization has a Value on Customer Service, then every person’s role should have a direct or indirect impact on the customer experience. Similarly, a team should be able to connect their team mission, vision, and performance goals with enabling the organization to better perform and reach organizational goals.
To assist in evaluating whether a team has Impact, Google created this test statement:
I understand how our team’s work
contributes to the organization’s goals.
If you strongly agree with this statement, then you are experiencing a high level of impact as a member of the team and/or as a team together. If you strongly disagree with this statement, then there are concerns that need to be addressed relating to your team’s understanding of its purpose, mission, vision, and the value they bring to the organization.
Whether you are looking to be a change agent within a team, or be a team that leads change, understanding both the Change Curve and the Team Development Curve will form a foundation for successful teaming. By further understanding and applying the team effectiveness tools mentioned in this chapter, you increase your odds of becoming an ideal team member and being a part of a truly effective and highly performing team.