|
Diverse
teams are prone to dysfunction because the very
differences that feed creativity and high performance
can also create communication barriers. Conventional
team-building activities are unreliable for such groups,
because their one-size-fits-all approach to building
cohesion fails to recognize team members’ idiosyncratic
strengths and weaknesses and how they can be combined to
make the whole greater than the sum of its parts.
Getting 360-degree feedback can help.
My research with Bill Swann, of the
University of Texas, and Laurie Milton, of the
University of Calgary, examines the fit among team
members and how to optimize it. We define “fit” as
interpersonal congruence—the degree to which members’
appraisals of one another are similar to their
self-assessments on dimensions relevant to team
functioning. For example, if a team member sees himself
as a creative leader, do others see him the same way?
Our research has shown that high congruence improves the
performance of diverse teams.
Unfortunately, team members often cloak
their weaknesses, disclose their true self-assessments
reluctantly or not at all, feel threatened when others
challenge their expertise and act defensively in the
face of such challenges. At the same time, they may be
quick to form biased impressions of others, often based
on stereotypes that obscure unique talents.
Sharing honest self-assessments and
appraisals of one another through 360-degree feedback
can help members achieve interpersonal congruence. When
thoughtfully gathered and exchanged, such information
can open the lines of communication on topics that are
usually off-limits precisely because they are
uncomfortable to discuss. Members can correct
colleagues’ inaccurate perceptions, learn where their
own judgments of others may be skewed and adjust their
behaviors and self-assessments.
Consider the experiences of a management
team I studied in Bangalore. Ashok Kumar, who in 2003
was the director of National Semiconductor’s India
Design Center, knew that the members of his
cross-functional management team needed to collaborate
better. With Kumar’s encouragement, Sonali De Sarker,
the HR manager in Bangalore, and Joe Neipp, an HR
trainer in Santa Clara, California, gathered 360-degree
feedback about Kumar and each team member from the
members themselves, their subordinates and other
colleagues.
When Neipp flew to Bangalore to
facilitate individual feedback sessions, he and Kumar
took the additional step of discussing the feedback in a
full team meeting. After Kumar began by disclosing some
of the key things he had learned from receiving feedback
about himself, other members of the group slowly opened
up and began discussing what they could do differently
to help the team function more effectively. For example,
Sanjay Sood, the finance manager, learned that because
others viewed him as inflexible, they worked around him
to solve their budgeting problems. In contrast, he
viewed himself as highly flexible within the constraints
of his responsibilities.
To close the gap in perceptions, he
invited people to come to him directly with their budget
problems. As a result, others began to see him as more
flexible, and together they started to collaborate more
effectively when allocating funds to the team’s various
projects. Discussing feedback as a team increased
members’ trust in one another, allowing them to raise
potentially awkward issues relating to perceptions and
performance. As a result of the 360, the team’s
communication and problem-solving markedly improved.
Members began talking directly with one another, rather
than through their boss, and took greater ownership of
the team’s solutions, which led to smoother
implementation.
Before managers try this approach, they
should assess whether their teams are ready for such an
intervention and have the right tools. Receiving and
sharing 360-degree feedback can be a powerful,
productive experience; but if it’s done poorly, it can
open new wounds and amplify the very problems it is
intended to solve. Teams are more likely to benefit from
feedback when the team leader is open to receiving it
and models appropriate responses to it; when team
members have at least a modicum of respect for and trust
in one another and are motivated to improve in order to
achieve a shared goal; when the data are gathered by
established methods and are used for development rather
than evaluation; and when a qualified and trusted
facilitator guides the team discussion and helps design
follow-up steps for improvement.
 |
