CHAPTER 10
Build your Change League
The title of this book is How to be a Change Superhero, and by embracing even a handful of the behaviours and skills that we have discussed we can be pretty powerful agents of change. However, at the risk of overdoing the Superhero metaphor, we could be even more powerful by bringing together our very own Change League to deliver the change. Of course, this isn’t really about gathering a breadth of Superpowers; instead, it is celebrating the power of a diverse team and Meredith Belbin’s team-roles metaphor is one of the best ways of understanding this.
We have already discussed many types of individual difference; however, the reality is that with every strength comes a natural blind spot. If we build our very own League of Change Champions then we can plan to embrace these differences and utilize the different strengths within our team at the optimum time. In Chapter 13 we walk through Kotter’s eight-step change process and there are clear stages where certain skills are particularly useful.
The best-known model of successful teams was discovered by Meredith Belbin and his team in the 1960s and published in a book called Management Teams (Belbin, 2010). They noticed that people tended to take on certain behaviours and activities when they were in a team. Belbin grouped these into nine clusters of behaviour and called them ‘team roles’, defined as ‘a tendency to behave, contribute and interrelate with others in a particular way’. This research proposed that each team would need to have access to all nine behaviours in order to be high-performing, although not necessarily all at the same time.
Now, this might suggest that we need nine people to be an effective team, but this is not the case because most people have two or three team roles in which they are comfortable. As is the case with personality types, each role has its own strengths as well as what Belbin termed ‘allowable weaknesses’. An allowable weakness is simply the natural downside or opposite of a strength. I find this term helpful when working with others because it makes it OK to be less good at some things than others.
However, the real beauty of the team-roles model is that it explains how different skills are useful at different stages of a project. We need to understand and appreciate the pros and cons of each role to be an effective team. This knowledge helps us to understand the cause of competition rather than collaboration in a team if we have too many people with the same preference for certain team roles.
By looking across the spread of roles on a project we can predict where we may succeed or fail based on the natural composition of the team. This gives us the option to bring in additional team members with the missing strengths or to ask someone already in the team to take on a certain role instead. As outlined earlier, most of us have two or three roles that we are naturally good at. We also will have two or three roles that are manageable for us to take on if we focus our energy in those areas. While we may never be as good at that role, or perhaps enjoy it as much, as someone who has it as a natural strength, having the awareness and intention to take it on for the benefit of the overall team can make a huge difference.
Now, as is the case with any personality tool, if you want to be precise about your own team’s make-up then you can diagnose your team roles using a self-perception inventory, such as the one accessible at www.belbin.com. However, for the purpose of this chapter, all we really need to do is understand the theory of the nine different roles and when they are most useful. I have outlined them below in the order that they tend to be most useful within a project.
At the beginning of a change or project
Shaper
As the name suggests, this is quite a dominant role, usually filled by someone who is assertive, confident and outspoken. Shapers challenge the team to improve, deliver on time and provide a sense of urgency. They are good at getting started, overcoming obstacles and are goal-oriented. At the start of the change, there is often confusion; therefore, the shaper role is good at cutting through and steering a path.
Allowable weakness
A shaper’s bluntness and goal orientation can be seen as argumentative and they may be accused of offending others or hurting their feelings. So, while they are good at the start of change, it is important that they utilize other, more people-orientated strengths like listening and empathy when communicating change to others.
Resource investigator
People with this strength are optimistic, enthusiastic and naturally collaborative. They are quick to act and great at exploring options and solutions or negotiating for resources. At the start of a project or change, their enthusiasm is contagious, making them skilled at winning over cynics and influencing stakeholders.
Allowable weakness
Once their initial enthusiasm wears off, the resource investigator can lose interest or get distracted by the next project. They may forget to finish things or overlook details.
Coordinator
While both the shaper and the resource investigator are good at getting a project started, they can be more individualistic. The coordinator is the one who takes on the traditional team-leader role, agreeing specific objectives, delegating tasks and guiding the team to achieve the desired outcome. They are calm and understand the individual strengths of each team member and, as the name suggests, are good at coordinating these strengths in pursuit of a key role.
Allowable weakness
Coordinators can sometimes be seen as manipulative or be resented for excessive delegation.
During the change or project
Implementer
These are the people who get things done; they turn ideas and concepts into action. They are practical, systematic and disciplined. They are reliable and well organized and can be counted on to follow the plan and achieve their goals. While implementers may need to be won over initially in response to a change, once on board they are highly loyal and committed.
Allowable weakness
Because they like to follow a plan, implementers can be seen as inflexible or uninspiring.
Teamworker
These are people people. They are harmonious and supportive and will work cooperatively with others in the best interests of the team. They tend to be flexible, diplomatic and good at reading the emotions of others. This makes them good communicators and they display high levels of empathy. Teamworkers are useful at all stages of a project because of their flexibility. However, they will tend to avoid the conflict that can arise at the start of a project when the more dominant styles compete for control. This means they fit well in the middle and towards the end of a project when individuals are comfortable in their roles.
Allowable weakness
Their desire to get on with others can make them shy away from conflict and they may seem indecisive or unwilling to take a clear position during team discussions.
Plant
This is the person who tends to be creative and full of ideas, although they can be introverted, so may need to be encouraged to share their thoughts. They are deep thinkers and good at solving complex problems. These skills can be useful at the start of a project when brainstorming initial ideas, or in the middle of a project when obstacles may have arisen. If involved in the project at the right stage by a coordinator and focused on the requirements of the change, they may foresee issues that others have missed.
Allowable weakness
They may be poor communicators or too quiet to speak up. Sometimes, their ideas may be impractical or too abstract to use.
Specialist
This team role was added later by Belbin, as originally he outlined just eight roles. The idea of the specialist is the role of technical expert and this may be required at any stage during a change. As alluded to in the following chapters, many changes can fail due to poor information-gathering during the planning stages. Bringing in a specialist at the right time can help to avoid this.
Allowable weakness
Because of their specialism, these individuals may appear hung up on technicalities or may be considered intimidating. Depending on their other team roles they can seem less committed to the overall team.
At the end of the change or project
Monitor evaluator
These people are great at analyzing and evaluating ideas that others have come up with and will often spot problems before they arise. Clearly, this skill makes them useful during a change or project, not just at the end. However, because they are critical thinkers and think hard before they act, they are often more visible towards the end of a project. They also have a keen eye for quality so come into their own when the shapers and resource investigators try to cut corners or lose interest. They are shrewd and objective and can prevent mistakes from arising.
Allowable weakness
Sometimes accused of ‘analysis paralysis’, they can get bogged down in small details or be accused of slowing things down.
Completer finisher
This is now a pretty well-known term and, as the name suggests, is the role that ensures the project is seen through to the end. They will dot the ‘i’s and cross the ‘t’s and ensure that there have been no errors or omissions. They are very focused on meeting deadlines, so if a project has been well structured with regular milestones, they will also keep the team on track along the way. They are conscientious, orderly and thorough.
Allowable weakness
Because of the focus on perfectionism, this role may be seen as overly critical and a bit of a worrier.
So, although each role has been described rather like a person, it is important to remember that we are all able to take on any role if we choose, and we will all have at least two roles that come quite naturally to us. However, as is always the case with people, there are some roles that we are better at than others in certain situations. Therefore, it is always better to bring in someone with a natural strength rather than force someone to take on a role that they find difficult. In my experience, certain roles are very rarely found together as strengths in the same person, e.g., a resource investigator is rarely a completer finisher, probably because the natural strength of one is the allowable weakness of the other and hence they fit well at either end of a change project.
Combinations of roles within a certain person are interesting as well; someone who is a shaper as well as a resource investigator or teamworker may have their rough edges softened, making them less likely to offend. On the other hand, a shaper as an implementer or completer finisher could be a highly effective task master.
If you are setting up your own Change Team then I recommend that you share these roles with them. You can download a summary document from our online toolkit to help. This will allow you to explain the different roles in the team and when they are needed. People will naturally know their most and least preferred team role and this will give you the opportunity to consider whether to bring in additional team members and what roles they need to take on.
Remember to look for and celebrate differences here. We tend to be drawn to and like people who are similar to us, but that will not build a balanced team with good representation across all nine roles. Not only that; even if you are the most senior person in the team or the person officially tasked with leading the change, you don’t have to take on the role of team leader if your natural strength isn’t that of a coordinator. It is perfectly fine to give someone else the role of team leader for the purpose of delivering the project. Building a well-balanced team and allowing everyone to play to their strengths will result in a far better outcome than having a team of clones with people playing roles that are outside of their comfort zone.
The stages of building a high-performing team
Now you have identified the right people for your Change League, it is worth being aware of the different stages that each team goes through in the process of building towards high performance. Tuckman’s team development theory (1965) explains this, often being referred to simply as: forming, storming, norming and performing. This describes the visible stages that teams go through before performing at the optimum level.
Forming
The team has been assembled (ideally with a good spread of Belbin team roles) and the task is allocated. At this stage there is no real sense of ‘team’, so although goodwill may exist, team members do not know each other well enough to unconditionally trust each other. If time is spent planning the task and getting to know each other, including natural team roles and allowable weaknesses, then this will set an excellent foundation to accelerate through the next, more challenging, stage of storming.
Storming
The team has started to focus on delivering against the task, generating different ideas and solutions. At this stage it is entirely natural for differences of opinion and conflict to arise. If the team is prepared for this and it is managed well then this is a powerful and bonding stage as the team resolves its differences and moves towards consensus. On the other hand, if conflict is allowed to become personal, get out of hand and/or is not resolved constructively the team may never trust one another and may become dysfunctional.
Norming
Assuming a positive outcome to the previous stage, then the team starts to move towards established processes and harmonious working practices. Each team member feels confident to take on their own role and deliver their part. As they become more established, build trust and continue to improve, the team reaches the optimum stage of performing.
Performing
This is a synergistic, high-trust level of teamwork where results are delivered and team members rely on each other and value their contribution. Unfortunately, some teams never reach the level of performing, probably due to meeting challenges along the way as the other stages can feel difficult. Again, awareness is the key to a smooth journey and transition from forming to performing.
Of course, team members leave and change projects are completed, so Tuckman added on additional phases known as adjourning and transforming to cover these stages. Others have also used the term ‘reforming’.
Using and sharing our knowledge about the stages of team development and team roles can be a really effective way of setting our Change Team up for success. It is important to disseminate this knowledge so that our Change League can operate independently and set up other teams throughout the organization with equally positive chances of success.
|
Quick recap on building your Change League • We all have two or three preferred team roles that will be effective at different phases of a project. • Identify and value differences when building your Change League. • Just because you are responsible for delivering the change, that doesn’t mean you have to lead the team. • Conflict is a natural and positive stage of building a high-performing team, if managed well. • Sharing knowledge about team roles and stages will help you to deliver change more widely and effectively. |
|
Online toolkit The following free change resources can be downloaded via: www.changesuperhero.com • Belbin team roles summary |
