This is a question that I’ve been obsessed with for most of my career. When a vision is strong, a clear strategy is in place, and a talented group of individuals are carefully assembled . . . . Why is it that a team can still struggle to perform and the project outcome can fall flat? 

Are you surprised if it can be deduced by a few simple factors?

Communication, mutual respect and motivation are for starters

In my experience, teams with a single dominant leader and highly talented individuals can fall short, while others with a charismatic leader and spirited individuals appear to nail it. Research shows that it’s the communication patterns, the ability to trust and rely on each other, and the incentives that are put in place that drive success.

An in-person, face-to-face exchange is unsurprisingly the best form of communication for teams, followed by video conferencing capabilities. After more than two years of being forced to conduct most of our exchanges online and with Zoom fatigue well and truly setting in, you might start to question this. But compared to email and text it is unquestionably superior. I have seen some facilitators promoting communication with the early use of the chat function, calling out individuals to contribute, and establishing breakout rooms to make conversations easier. The number of people involved is clearly another determining factor in its success. Again, perfectly logical. 

Big groups are hard to communicate to because you need to generate interest to meet a diverse spectrum of agendas across your team. In doing so you may dilute your message and reach no-one. Inviting feedback and contributions within large groups is also challenging if people fear judgement or momentarily being in the spotlight. 

Knowing how poor it is to communicate via email or in text form is one thing, but it does have its place. Putting something in writing rather than speaking off the cuff – and perhaps with lots of emotion – can be the best thing to do. Also giving a team member, especially someone outside of your organisation, a heads up about something in advance of a scheduled meeting can be a smart move.

Sometimes the only way to reach someone is by text. If this is the case – use it.

It can obviously be taken too far. I have worked in teams where individuals would sit at their computer all day with headphones on and email the person next to them or on the opposite desk. Crazy. I have also had nasty exchanges where a colleague has put something petty and misguided in an email and copied the world in – just to make a point. I would often feel the need to respond to such emails to set the record straight. But in all honesty, it just perpetuates the problem.

Be bold and stop this kind of energy-draining behaviour in its tracks.

Let’s just call this what it is. A proxy for a much bigger problem to do with culture, collaboration, and poor judgement. It’s the beginning of an unhealthy and poor-performing team. If there’s a chance to spot and rectify it before it does too much damage, it is worth doing don’t you think?.

Level of engagement and interest is another important factor

Smaller teams simplify the relationships and make it easier to spot when individuals are engaged and actively contributing and when they’re not. To put this into context, it’s possible to have a four-person team that doesn’t perform well just as it’s plausible to have a forty-strong team that performs beautifully. Whilst size is a factor it is mostly about the collaborative environment that’s established and how this influences participation and meaningful engagement. And of course, its leadership.

Recently I was part of an innovative online challenge with more than 900,000 participants. The energy and level of engagement was electric. The chief instigator was a phenomenal motivator and communicator. He understood the power of speaking to the audience as if he was reaching out to us all individually. He had mastered the art of unraveling a story so that at least one aspect of it always resonated with someone in the audience. But crucially he made it a conversation rather than a lecture. He regularly invited participation to the point of it being exhaustive. Which was no mean feat for an online event.

Curiosity and trust complete the trifecta

Research conducted on high-performing teams by Daniel Coyle, author of The Talent Code adds the importance of psychological safety and healthy disagreement. When people in a team feel psychologically safe, this allows a level of vulnerability that is conducive to building trust. It enables team members to feel more comfortable to discuss their worries and fears about the project or their ability to perform their role.

I’m a champion for inviting quieter voices into the conversation. Diversity of opinion is both healthy and needed to inform good decision-making. Sometimes the focus needs to be on elevating the confidence of individuals who might be introverts or in a situation out of their comfort zone. Other times it needs to be on curbing the airtime of extroverts or people who are completely comfortable in that space if it isn’t helping to move the discussion forward.

Reward good arguments being introduced – not just the quest for the right answer, or fully resolved solutions. It’s often in the exploration of these arguments that interesting facts and opportunities emerge. 

I appreciate this is a fine line and your best judgement will be required. Above all, it requires great leadership skills and really knowing your team members. 

I am keen to spark conversations for leaders within the built environment so that they can share their experiences and lighten their load. I have written a book that is intended as a pragmatic blueprint to support courageous leaders in pursuit of high-quality project outcomes.

Our industry has some amazing opportunities and challenges ahead, that can use collective wisdom. You can check out my new book BUILD SUCCESS or follow me with the links below. 

Enabling your success!