Teams Task Forces Committees
1
ELECTRONICALLY REPRINTED FROM JUNE 2011 SMARTBUSINESS INSIGHT. ADVICE. STRATEGY: PITTSBURGH _ Leslie W. Braksick, Ph.D. I TEAMS, TASK FORCES AND COMMITTEES How to tell if and when you need them Companies often launch special project teams, task forces and committees to get important work done. Often it makes great sense: charter a small group with a distinct purpose, let them work quickly, and get their findings/ recommendations. These special teams offer tremendous advantages. They give executives the chance to observe different people's performance. Special groups can bypass the bureaucracy and avoid organizational churn that mainstream efforts can stir up. There are all kinds of benefits for using special teams. However, lurking behind the launch of special project teams may be an unacknowledged dissatisfaction with those accountable for that work. Rarely are there honest conversations with them about why the project team is being launched instead of asking them to either perform or oversee the work. Rarely are they given such caring feedback, which might help them to actually get better. Let's consider a few real-life examples: A team is formed to evaluate a potential joint venture in China. (The head of strategy and business development group were bypassed for this important work.) A small group is assigned to evaluate the organization's culture change needs. (The CEO lacked confidence in the human resources organization but that feedback was never shared directly with HR. It was, however, shared obliquely with others when they asked why HR was not leading this effort.) A team is pulled together to determine if a new product line, targeting a growing demographic, makes sense. (Corporate's new product development group and head of innovation were both bypassed when this project was launched. And the special team was told to keep its work confidential until they were told otherwise.) You have to stop and ask: was a special project team really necessary in each of these situations? Or did the executives opt for special teams because they lacked confidence that those who would normally be responsible could perform the quality of work they were seeking? And if they lacked such confidence, did they give the individuals who hold those jobs the respect of telling them, which would have been a step toward helping them get better? I would say this: If, in fact, the special project teams are a workaround, then the first one who needs to change behaviors is the executive in charge. Delaying the dealing with a performance issue or competency gap only perpetuates mediocrity in the organization and weakens the leader's effectiveness. Imagine if the whole organization did that same thing. Another issue to watch for is how implementation of project team recommendations are handled. Because the team was structured from the outset to work in parallel to the core organization, there is no "permanent horne" or ownership for what is recommended, let alone what is implemented. This is a serious problem, because the game is won or lost on execution, not on the greatness of the ideas. So what should your takeaways be? First, sometimes using special project teams is exactly the right thing to do. However, before you launch a special project team, task force or committee, ask yourself: are you working around a capability or performance gap in your own organization? If so, have you dealt with the people/ performance concerns directly - in a caring, yet clear and constructive way? And second, if you want to be a respected leader whom others look up to and if you want others to freely discuss the "real issues" and to address performance issues, you need to be the first in line to model the right behavior. As a leader, people are watching you for cues all of the time. Be the leader you want and expect others to be. « LESLIE W. BRAKSICK, PH.D., is the co-founder of CLG Inc. (www.clg.com) and author of "Preparing CEOs for Success: What I Wish I Knew" (2010) and "Unlock Behavior, Unleash Profits" (2000,2006). Braksick coaches and consults with top executives and their boards on issues of leader- ship effectiveness, succession and strategy execution. She can be reached at [email protected]. © 2011 Smart Business Network, Inc. Posted with permission from Smart Business Pittsburgh www.sbnonline.com. All rights reserved. For more information on use of tills content, contact Wrights Media at 877-652-5295. 78456
Transcript of Teams Task Forces Committees
ELECTRONICALLY REPRINTED FROM JUNE 2011
SMARTBUSINESSINSIGHT. ADVICE. STRATEGY: PITTSBURGH
_ Leslie W. Braksick, Ph.D. I
TEAMS, TASK FORCES AND COMMITTEESHow to tell if and when you need them
Companiesoften launch special projectteams, task forces andcommittees to get importantwork done. Often it makesgreat sense: charter asmall group with a distinctpurpose, let them workquickly, and get their findings/recommendations.These special teams offer
tremendous advantages. Theygive executives the chanceto observe different people'sperformance. Special groups
can bypass thebureaucracy andavoid organizationalchurn thatmainstream effortscan stir up. Thereare all kinds ofbenefits for usingspecial teams.
However, lurkingbehind the launchof special projectteams may be anunacknowledgeddissatisfaction withthose accountablefor that work. Rarelyare there honestconversations withthem about why theproject team is being
launched instead of asking themto either perform or oversee thework. Rarely are they given suchcaring feedback, which mighthelp them to actually get better.
Let's consider a few real-lifeexamples:
A team is formed to evaluatea potential joint venture inChina. (The head of strategyand business developmentgroup were bypassed for thisimportant work.)
A small group is assignedto evaluate the organization'sculture change needs. (The
CEO lacked confidence in thehuman resources organizationbut that feedback was nevershared directly with HR. It was,however, shared obliquely withothers when they asked whyHR was not leading this effort.)
A team is pulled together todetermine if a new productline, targeting a growingdemographic, makes sense.(Corporate's new productdevelopment group and headof innovation were bothbypassed when this projectwas launched. And the specialteam was told to keep its workconfidential until they weretold otherwise.)
You have to stop and ask:was a special project teamreally necessary in each ofthese situations? Or did theexecutives opt for specialteams because they lackedconfidence that those whowould normally be responsiblecould perform the quality ofwork they were seeking? Andif they lacked such confidence,did they give the individualswho hold those jobs therespect of telling them, whichwould have been a step towardhelping them get better?
I would say this: If, in fact,the special project teams area workaround, then the firstone who needs to changebehaviors is the executive incharge. Delaying the dealingwith a performance issueor competency gap onlyperpetuates mediocrity in theorganization and weakens theleader's effectiveness. Imagineif the whole organization did
that same thing.Another issue to watch for
is how implementation ofproject team recommendationsare handled. Because theteam was structured from theoutset to work in parallel tothe core organization, thereis no "permanent horne"or ownership for what isrecommended, let alonewhat is implemented. This isa serious problem, becausethe game is won or lost onexecution, not on the greatnessof the ideas.
So what should yourtakeaways be? First, sometimesusing special project teams isexactly the right thing to do.However, before you launch aspecial project team, task forceor committee, ask yourself:are you working around acapability or performance gapin your own organization? If so,have you dealt with the people/performance concerns directly- in a caring, yet clear andconstructive way?And second, if you want to
be a respected leader whomothers look up to and if youwant others to freely discussthe "real issues" and to addressperformance issues, you needto be the first in line to modelthe right behavior. As a leader,people are watching you forcues all of the time. Be theleader you want and expectothers to be. «
LESLIE W. BRAKSICK, PH.D., is the co-founder of CLG Inc. (www.clg.com) and author of"Preparing CEOs for Success: What I Wish I Knew" (2010) and "Unlock Behavior, Unleash Profits"(2000,2006). Braksick coaches and consults with top executives and their boards on issues of leader-ship effectiveness, succession and strategy execution. She can be reached at [email protected].
© 2011 Smart Business Network, Inc. Posted with permission from Smart Business Pittsburgh www.sbnonline.com. All rights reserved.For more information on use of tills content, contact Wrights Media at 877-652-5295. 78456
