In my last newsletter, I delved into the argument that “good teamwork is a competitive edge”. I presented the five characteristics of an efficient team, as proposed by Patrick Lencioni: trust, ability to deal with conflicts, commitment, accountability and attention to results. While I elaborated in more detail primarily on the aspect of trust based on vulnerability two weeks ago, I would now like to shed more light on the topic of “accountability as a team”.
Is this possible at all? Can a team assume accountability? In Agile theory, this question was already answered in the affirmative decades ago.
Team accountability works because the accountability conferred generates some form of group pressure and hence also the wish not to let down the other team members. The group pressure effect is, in my experience, significantly stronger than potential praise or possible penalties by the manager.
In order to deliver high-quality work together, the team members automatically (sometimes also unconsciously) watch each other. This means that anything that doesn’t go as planned is immediately spotted. However, something that doesn’t happen automatically is to give constructive feedback to each other on what has been observed or to bring up disruptions timely. I believe that managers or agile coaches have the duty to empower employees to provide constructive feedback to each other. Of course, coaches – and by that, I also mean managers – should be a role model and they themselves should be providing feedback regularly. They must openly address behavior that is to the detriment of the team’s result. If you, in this context, first and foremost recognize the help offered to the employee to improve oneself, rather than the critique that is expressed in this way, it will become far more easier to address any detrimental behavior identified.
The underlying idea is that a team can only assume accountability as a group when it is able to deal with conflicts. The ability to manage conflicts refers to two levels, in my view:
- The timely clarification of disruptions on a relationship level, triggered by individual behavior.
- Constructive debating on a factual level, with the aim of finding the best solution to the issue, without being influenced by personal agendas.
For the sake of completeness, I would like to list further requirements that must be met for a team to be able to assume accountability:
- Transparency with regard to shared work
- Access to all (relevant) information
- Skills and expertise required to do the work
- Knowledge of group decision-making procedures above and beyond majority voting. Because it is important that all team members can support the decisions made; otherwise that thing called shared accountability will not happen
- The team must be able to organize its workflows itself – via agile boards, role definitions, coordination meetings or other tools.
The latter aspects are normally a matter of course for agile teams, while this is not always the case for the abovementioned ability to handle conflicts. Therefore, managers and agile coaches should put extra focus on this aspect.
In a nutshell: In order to bring an efficient team to life, you must confer accountability to the team. A team needs support, above all, in strengthening its ability to manage conflicts. Because exaggerated harmony and uniformity has never led to innovation!
This text first appeared in my newsletter 'Innovation on Wednesday'. It is published every other Wednesday. For subscription click here