With over 25 years of research and experience, we have observed countless groups struggle with activities in our Team Building Seminars. These groups all had
same common denominators, whether they were strangers or intact work teams, that became apparent during
first activity in which they were asked to work effectively together.
At least four issues were found to inhibit these start-up groups from functioning as a team:
- Task fixation, process blindness
- Power struggles
- Fight versus flight
- Stereotyping
Task Fixation, Process Blindness Individual members justify any behavior as okay if it contributes to achieving
end-product – successful completion of
tasks needed in achieving
goal. Little or no concern was exhibited for how
group functioned during
(teambuilding) goal –
process. We were able to magnify this view by placing time limits on performance of our exercises within
team building seminar.
With this view, any means justify
end, like sacrificing team members, forming sub-groups to
exclusion of others, or not getting
commitment of all team members, are justified under
rubric of getting
task accomplished: “We had to do that to get
job done.” Who can argue with success, even if there were casualties along
way? You can, if you were one of
casualties.
In a new group that is fixated totally on task success, individuals focus on their own needs to
exclusion of
needs of others. There is no support, recognition that individual differences are a potential benefit, deferring of egos, brainstorming, seeking commitment, or flexibility. However subtle or covert, selfish competition is justified as necessary to expedite
achievement of
goal.
Power Struggles Internal conflicts generally make up part of
dynamics when establishing a new group. Leadership: do we need a leader, who is going to lead, or will we follow
appointed leader? Teams asked to perform leaderless tasks or act as a volunteer group struggle most with issues of leadership. In many of our team building seminars, groups explain that many of our exercises would have been easier if we had appointed a leader. Yet, after having experimented with appointing a leader, we observed
group’s behavior remained
same. The only difference is that one person,
leader, becomes frustrated by his/her inability to get
groups cooperation and
battle for influence and power still continues.
Dominant individuals scramble to be recognized and gain influence with others. Disagreements over ideas quickly are positioned as win-lose alternatives. Accepting my ideas mean rejecting yours. We have seen high-achieving executives’ egos keep them from “dimming their headlights” and deferring to other team members.
Who’s in and who’s out is another conflict which often exists as part of
dominant-individual struggle. Cliques, groups within groups, and “We” versus “Them” are terms used to describe this situation. In new groups this struggle is fostered by
need to find someone who will support your (teambuilding) ideas. Once found,
divisiveness of positions or lobbying for a majority vote starts. The “outs” resent
“ins” and will resist their ideas, sabotage their plans, or simply refuse to be fully functioning members of
team.
Fight or Flight Likewise, in many of our team building seminars,
following fight or flight behaviors were observed:
- Unwillingness to listen to others
- Fear of speaking up or fighting for a position
- Low trust in other members, causing withdrawal
- Taking
task too lightly - Little group planning
- Non-involvement
- Silence as preferable to vulnerability
Regardless of
behavior,
result is
same:
team loses resources, energy, and creativity. Decisions are made and plans are implemented with less than total group input and support. It is frustrating to be a team member when fight or flight behavior is exhibited. Unless
team is organizationally mandated to remain in existence, this dissatisfaction and frustration among
members will cause it to perish.
Stereotyping