Beyond the Bowling Alley: Team Development, not Teambuilding
December 01, 2008
Intentionality, sustained behavior change, and measurable results are the major differences between teambuilding and team development.
By Grayce Belvedere Young and Peter Bailey
Team development has popped up once again on corporate radar screens as critical to business success. Even in today’s down economy, organizations that have stabilized and realized growth since 9/11 crave greater team collaboration for increased effectiveness. Companies are seeking seamless interaction among their team members by sewing a common thread of language, purpose, and operating norms to increase cohesiveness and effective working relationships.
Yet there's a marked difference between the concepts of teambuilding and team development that significantly impacts their results on business success. Senior leaders may recognize the distinction but frequently choose the easier path and hope for meaningful results. This choice may indicate that team development often is seen as secondary to the business—a perception that needs to change if measurable impact on the company's strategic direction is the goal.
When the team is senior leadership or the objective is organizational alignment, it’s time to go beyond the bowling alley of "quick-hit," teambuilding events and strike a long-term commitment toward meaningful change with team development. Common efforts that leaders want to change include increased understanding of team members' roles, greater collaboration between departments and/or individuals, best practices sharing, and team members aligned with overall business strategy.
Fun Focus Differs
Teambuilding activities are usually one-time or annual events to grow relationships and camaraderie among fellow workers. They are a day at the ropes course, cooperative games, or an afternoon bowling or golf event. These activities generally focus on improving internal group dynamics and closely support the notion of building esprit de corps. This is a vitally important aspect of positive interactions among team members; however, it typically does not impact business results simply because colleagues have fun together.
Team development, conversely, is an ongoing, evolving process that requires a commitment to change behaviors for increasing competitive advantage over time. It is a journey, not a destination. It should include pre- and post-event work to prepare members on the nature of effective teams. Pre-work includes stating the purpose for team development, which may include reading books and/or articles to stimulate thinking and/or an experiential activity such as interviewing other business leaders for their insights. Creating an off-site experience tied to specific objectives is the focal point for teaching skills, defining new "operating" behaviors, and exploring better working dynamics. Post-event work asks: "Now that the team knows each other better, how do we work differently to be more effective?" Follow-up action steps realign people to the measurable objectives and cement the ongoing nature of team development.
Both approaches can be fun, but the focus is clearly different. Whereas teambuilding focuses on internal, healthy competition among peers, team development looks externally to how people and the organization can compete more effectively in the marketplace as an impactful team. Intentionality, sustained behavior change, and measurable results are the major differences between teambuilding and team development.
Key Differences
Consider two company events that offer value but have different outcomes: Company A gathers 120 employees for an afternoon experiential learning adventure to improve collaboration across business lines. Roles, responsibilities, and resources are team challenges with only two hours to solve a critical problem likened to the Exxon Valdez oil tanker spill. Company B's afternoon event challenges senior executives to build two bikes out of the box in an hour and then pass their learning onto teams of middle managers who apply that wisdom to build 10 bikes in an hour. Two hours and 100 bikes later, a school bus of inner-city children join them to receive the bikes and celebrate a new community partnership. Both used outside event facilitators. What are the differences?
The intentional difference: Intentionality gets down to understanding the intrinsic value of team effectiveness to the organization. It requires time, commitment, and deeper purpose.
Company A valued "camaraderie," and, as a result of a team-building activity, the people had fun, lots of laughter, and a sense of success for solving the team challenge. On the other hand, Company B valued "teamwork," which was identified via a strategic team development process that focused senior leaders on defining behaviors necessary for success so they could "row in the same direction."
Both of these companies provided an opportunity to have fun, laugh, and build relationships. But Company B spent months preparing the bike-building event, which tied into the organization’s vision and values developed through a strategic planning process. Thus, strategic intent applied to the event garnered longer-lasting team effectiveness and correlation with business success. The team development effort had the CEO’s direct buy-in and was intended to help its senior teams give back to the community while learning how to work more effectively together. The event was a win-win for the company and community, which will continue via follow-up experiences to reinforce behaviors for success.
Only team development can align the organization with strategic intent. And senior leaders must drive the effort, not administrative assistants or meeting planners.
The sustainable difference: Company A's stand-alone event provided a common experience for its team with fond memories. Sustainable change, however, cannot occur without follow-up reinforcement by senior leaders and one's immediate manager. Stand-alone events often have too many objectives packed into one teambuilding activity and conclude without tying back to the organization’s broader purpose, direction, or strategy.
For sustainability, it's important to focus on one or two objectives over a longer period of time. In that way, the "message"—why change is needed—can be repeated by keeping the conversation alive. Company B had three key objectives that required multiple steps in the process, which generated ripple effects throughout the organization, including creating "teaching moments" for senior leaders with the next two levels of management. The CEO's involvement spoke volumes to the importance of commitment and accountability.
The results difference: Without a planned approach, there's no way to measure the results. With Company B, the senior team wanted to understand the "pulse" of the organization. Therefore, advance surveys were conducted among Company B's employees who indicated a poor employer reputation, lack of leadership credibility, and a culture of fear were causing angst. Post surveys can provide formal measurement of change. In this case, Company B monitored the culture change through monthly performance check-ins based on strategic objectives and metrics, with bi-annual events tied to the community objective. As a result of its thoughtful effort, Company B has received positive feedback from employees, media, and community leaders about the changes, and pride in the organization is now a major result.
Barriers to Development
Why are people uncomfortable leaving the teambuilding approach and moving toward a team development process?
Numerous barriers lock organizations into limited team efforts. The No. 1 barrier is time. Most organizations want team development to occur in the teambuilding time frame and cost. Yet, sustainability isn't possible if an event has to start at 2 p.m. and end promptly at 6 p.m. And without time to prepare an event with strategic intent in mind, most organizations end up with Company A's event that isn't tied to meaningful business expectations.
Fear and cynicism are stumbling blocks as these activities are geared toward sharing oneself honestly and openly, which many see as losing control or being too vulnerable in front of their peers. Others see both approaches as "kumba-ya" experiences. How can encouraging people to work more quickly, respectfully, and efficiently together with good communication among team members be construed as "touchy-feely?"
These hurdles can be jumped when senior executives drive the development process based on a commitment to create meaningful change in support of strategic direction and greater organizational performance.
When planning the next off-site team event, ask the question: "What will people think as they drive away?" Then consider the differences to ensure the desired outcome.
Grayce Belvedere Young is president, and Peter Bailey is senior vice president, of the organizational performance practice of the Prouty Project (www.proutyproject.com), a Minneapolis-based strategic planning and organizational performance firm.
|
RSS
