Latest / The Science of Leading / When ‘Strong Culture’ Hides Weak Teams: A Practical System to Really Measure Teamwork

Transcript

When ‘Strong Culture’ Hides Weak Teams: A Practical System to Really Measure Teamwork · The Science of Leading

• 0:00
  Welcome back to The Science of Leading.
• 0:01
  I'm Claire, and I'm here with Edwin Carrington.
• 0:04
  Today we're talking about something I hear constantly from executives:
• 0:08
  "But this team has such a strong culture... why are they still missing their
• 0:11
  targets?"I've heard that line for about forty years.
• 0:15
  The pattern is almost predictable.
• 0:17
  Leaders rave about the culture... then quietly admit the deadlines slip,
• 0:22
  rework is high, and stakeholders are frustrated.
• 0:22
  Yeah,
• 0:27
  or you see burnout.
• 0:28
  The team is "all in," they like each other,
• 0:30
  they stay late... and yet operationally they're always behind.
• 0:30
  Exactly.
• 0:35
  That's the trap.
• 0:37
  We confuse "it feels good to be on this team" with "this team is effective."
• 0:41
  And those are not the same thing.
• 0:43
  Teamwork is not personality.
• 0:45
  It's not vibes.
• 0:46
  It's a set of observable behaviors plus outcomes,
• 0:49
  inside a very specific environment.
• 0:49
  When you say "environment," what are
• 0:54
  you pointing to?
• 0:55
  Because a lot of HR leaders listening have been told,
• 0:58
  "Hire for culture, the rest will follow."Environment is: role expectations,
• 1:03
  workload, leadership style, meeting norms,
• 1:06
  incentives.
• 1:07
  You can hire warm, collaborative people and still create chaos if the
• 1:11
  structure is unclear.
• 1:13
  So if you want to know whether teamwork is working,
• 1:16
  you have to look through two lenses at the same time.
• 1:16
  Okay,
• 1:20
  let's name those, because I think this is the core idea.
• 1:20
  Lens one is outcome
• 1:24
  KPIs: what got done.
• 1:26
  Did this team reliably produce the business outcomes they actually own?
• 1:30
  Things like delivery reliability,
• 1:33
  quality metrics, stakeholder satisfaction,
• 1:36
  maybe throughput or financial impact if that's credible for the role.
• 1:36
  So,
• 1:41
  for example, percent of committed work delivered on time,
• 1:43
  defect rates, internal partner satisfaction scores... that kind of thing.
• 1:43
  Yes.
• 1:48
  Then lens two is process KPIs: how it got done.
• 1:52
  The drivers underneath.
• 1:54
  Coordination, meeting quality,
• 1:56
  handoff delays, decision cycle time,
• 1:59
  responsiveness, how often the same problems recur.
• 2:03
  Those tell you why the outcomes look the way they do.
• 2:03
  Can we ground that
• 2:07
  with a mini-scenario?
• 2:08
  Because I know some people are thinking,
• 2:10
  "We have great camaraderie, so doesn't that mean the process is fine?"Imagine
• 2:14
  a product team everyone loves being on.
• 2:16
  The Slack banter is great.
• 2:18
  People celebrate birthdays.
• 2:20
  Engagement survey comments are glowing.
• 2:23
  But... their outcome KPIs show only 60 percent of committed features ship
• 2:28
  on time, defect rates are creeping up,
• 2:31
  and customer escalations are rising.
• 2:31
  I can picture that team.
• 2:35
  I've probably been on that team.
• 2:35
  Now look at process KPIs.
• 2:39
  Handoff delays are high, decision cycle time is long because no one wants
• 2:43
  to push for closure, and meeting notes rarely capture clear owners and
• 2:47
  deadlines.
• 2:48
  So the "strong culture" is real,
• 2:50
  but it's not translating into clarity,
• 2:52
  coordination, and consistent execution.
• 2:52
  So this is where leaders slip
• 2:57
  into opinions.
• 2:58
  "They're just not accountable," or "We need more A-players."Right.
• 3:02
  Instead, you build a teamwork evaluation system that forces you to connect
• 3:07
  the dots: these outcome KPIs, plus these process KPIs,
• 3:11
  plus observable behaviors.
• 3:13
  Tools like the OAD Survey can sit underneath that,
• 3:17
  to help you understand personality tendencies without confusing them
• 3:21
  with performance-but the starting point is always,
• 3:24
  "What actually happened, and how did we get there?"And holding those
• 3:28
  lenses together is what keeps "strong culture" from becoming a story we
• 3:32
  tell ourselves instead of evidence we can act on.
• 3:32
  So let's say a CHRO listening
• 3:36
  is bought in.
• 3:37
  They're thinking, "Okay, we need to stop grading vibes." How do they
• 3:40
  translate that into something concrete for the next,
• 3:43
  say, six to twelve months?
• 3:43
  You start with the organization's priorities.
• 3:47
  Not generic "be collaborative," but the actual goals.
• 3:51
  Faster delivery, higher quality,
• 3:54
  better customer experience, innovation,
• 3:56
  lower risk-whatever's on the real agenda.
• 3:56
  So you're basically asking,
• 4:02
  "What does the business care about this year?" and then mapping teamwork
• 4:06
  to that.
• 4:06
  Exactly.
• 4:07
  If the priority is faster delivery,
• 4:10
  team-level expectations might be: fewer handoff delays,
• 4:14
  clearer task ownership, quicker decisions.
• 4:17
  If it's higher quality: better peer review habits,
• 4:20
  stronger root-cause analysis, fewer rework cycles.
• 4:24
  Once you do that translation, teamwork stops being abstract and becomes
• 4:29
  "how this team will hit its goals."And stakeholders matter here too,
• 4:33
  right?
• 4:34
  Because executives, peer teams,
• 4:35
  and customers all judge "good teamwork" differently.
• 4:35
  They do.
• 4:40
  Executives focus on business outcomes; peer teams care about handoffs
• 4:45
  and responsiveness; customers care about consistency and follow-through.
• 4:49
  A solid framework picks two to four stakeholder lenses and keeps them
• 4:54
  stable over time, so you're not chasing politics.
• 4:54
  Okay,
• 4:58
  once we've got goals and stakeholders,
• 5:00
  what are the actual dimensions you recommend leaders score?
• 5:00
  Most organizations
• 5:05
  can cover 80 to 90 percent of teamwork with six dimensions: communication,
• 5:09
  collaboration and coordination,
• 5:12
  problem solving and judgment, time management and execution,
• 5:16
  role clarity, and constructive feedback.
• 5:16
  Can we hit each of those in fast
• 5:21
  passes?
• 5:21
  Sure.
• 5:23
  Communication: message clarity,
• 5:26
  listening, responsiveness, sharing relevant information early.
• 5:30
  Collaboration and coordination: how people manage dependencies,
• 5:34
  support each other, integrate perspectives,
• 5:37
  and hand off work.
• 5:38
  Problem solving and judgment: diagnosing root causes,
• 5:42
  prioritizing effectively, making decisions with incomplete data.
• 5:42
  Then
• 5:48
  time management and execution is things like deadline adherence,
• 5:52
  prioritization, meeting hygiene,
• 5:54
  and how they handle blockers.
• 5:54
  Exactly.
• 5:57
  Role clarity is: do people actually know what they own,
• 6:01
  what decisions they can make, and how to escalate?
• 6:04
  And constructive feedback is: do they give and receive feedback in a
• 6:08
  way that changes behavior, or do issues just fester?
• 6:08
  The big concern I
• 6:12
  hear is, "Won't this just become another five-point rating scale where
• 6:16
  everyone's a four?" How do you prevent that?
• 6:16
  You anchor the scores in behaviors.
• 6:22
  Let me give a simple example for communication clarity.
• 6:25
  Suppose you have a one-to-five scale.
• 6:28
  A low score, a one, might be: "Messages are often confusing,
• 6:33
  missing context, and cause delays because people have to chase clarification."
• 6:39
  A three: "Usually clear, some context missing,
• 6:43
  occasional clarification but it doesn't derail delivery." A five: "Messages
• 6:49
  are consistently clear and structured.
• 6:51
  Context, ask, and deadline are explicit,
• 6:54
  and others can execute without guessing."So managers aren't grading who
• 6:58
  they like; they're asking, "Do I actually see this behavior,
• 7:02
  repeatedly, especially under pressure?"Precisely.
• 7:05
  Take conflict handling.
• 7:07
  A one might look like: "Conflict is avoided or goes underground.
• 7:11
  Issues resurface, and decisions get revisited because no one really aligned."
• 7:17
  A five: "People raise disagreements directly and respectfully.
• 7:21
  Different viewpoints are explored,
• 7:23
  conflicts are resolved, and once a decision is made,
• 7:26
  the team commits and moves forward."That's such a different
• 7:26
  conversation
• 7:30
  in a calibration meeting.
• 7:31
  Instead of "I just feel like she's not a team player," you're saying,
• 7:35
  "She regularly shuts down alternative viewpoints in meetings,
• 7:38
  and we see the same conflict reappearing."Exactly.
• 7:42
  And this is where science-based tools like OAD can support you.
• 7:47
  They don't replace behavioral data,
• 7:49
  but they help you understand the personality patterns behind it.
• 7:52
  For instance, if someone is naturally very forceful,
• 7:56
  OAD can help a manager coach them toward more inclusive conflict behavior,
• 8:00
  instead of simply labeling them "difficult."So we tighten the link between
• 8:06
  organizational goals, these core dimensions,
• 8:08
  and observable anchors.
• 8:10
  That's how "be better at teamwork" turns into something you can actually
• 8:13
  evaluate and develop.
• 8:13
  Alright, so now we've got dimensions and behavioral
• 8:18
  anchors.
• 8:19
  The next question is, "Where does the data come from?" Because if it's
• 8:22
  just manager opinion, we're back to the popularity contest.
• 8:22
  You want multiple
• 8:26
  lenses, without drowning in process.
• 8:29
  Manager input is one source, but you combine it with peer feedback,
• 8:33
  short anonymous surveys, objective KPIs,
• 8:36
  and where it makes sense, stakeholder input from outside the team.
• 8:36
  Let's
• 8:42
  unpack that just a bit.
• 8:43
  Peer feedback-where do you see that working well,
• 8:46
  and where does it go off the rails?
• 8:46
  It works well when peers rate behaviors
• 8:50
  they directly experience: responsiveness,
• 8:52
  collaboration on shared work, sharing relevant information,
• 8:56
  constructive feedback.
• 8:58
  It goes off the rails when you ask them to rate things they can't see,
• 9:01
  like long-term strategy or private stakeholder management.
• 9:01
  And short surveys-those
• 9:07
  are more about patterns than precise scores,
• 9:09
  right?
• 9:09
  Exactly.
• 9:11
  Ten to twenty behavior-based items,
• 9:14
  plus a question like, "What one change would most improve this team's
• 9:18
  effectiveness?" You're looking for themes,
• 9:20
  not ammunition against one person.
• 9:20
  Then you tie that back to the objective
• 9:24
  side: delivery reliability, cycle time,
• 9:27
  quality, escalation volume, stakeholder satisfaction trends...Right.
• 9:33
  Those are your reality check.
• 9:35
  They tell you what happened.
• 9:37
  The qualitative inputs help explain why.
• 9:40
  And remember, you also have tools like OAD in the mix-not as a rating
• 9:45
  device, but to separate "this is who this person tends to be under pressure"
• 9:48
  from "this is what we actually observed this quarter." That distinction
• 9:53
  reduces bias.
• 9:53
  Once you have all that,
• 9:56
  now you've got a mountain of information.
• 9:58
  How do you turn it into something a busy HRBP or founder can act on?
• 9:58
  You
• 10:03
  distill.
• 10:03
  Start by scoring each teamwork dimension using your behavioral anchors,
• 10:08
  calibrated across managers.
• 10:10
  Then, look for three things: top strengths that are clearly helping
• 10:10
  outcomes,
• 10:15
  top blockers that are clearly hurting outcomes,
• 10:18
  and at least one system issue-like unclear roles or broken handoffs-that
• 10:23
  no individual can solve alone.
• 10:23
  So an example might be: strength in problem
• 10:28
  solving, blocker in time management,
• 10:30
  and system issue in role clarity because no one owns certain recurring
• 10:33
  tasks.
• 10:33
  Exactly.
• 10:35
  Then you run a decision session with the leader,
• 10:38
  a few team members, maybe HR, sometimes a key stakeholder.
• 10:42
  You confirm those strengths and blockers,
• 10:45
  pick one or two improvement actions per blocker,
• 10:48
  assign an owner, define success,
• 10:50
  and set a check-in cadence.
• 10:50
  And the actions themselves stay very practical-like,
• 10:55
  "Implement a simple ownership map for recurring work," or "Redesign weekly
• 11:00
  meetings so they end with documented decisions,
• 11:02
  owners, and deadlines."Yes.
• 11:04
  Treat those actions like any other project work.
• 11:07
  They have owners, dates, and observable definitions of done.
• 11:10
  And you revisit the outcome and process KPIs monthly to see if things
• 11:15
  are improving, instead of waiting for the next annual review to be surprised
• 11:19
  again.
• 11:19
  Where I've seen OAD be really useful in this loop is coaching.
• 11:23
  You might see that someone struggles with constructive feedback.
• 11:26
  Their OAD profile helps you understand their natural tendencies-maybe
• 11:31
  they're highly conflict-averse-and now your development plan can be very
• 11:35
  targeted instead of generic "communication training."That's right.
• 11:39
  The assessments help decode why certain behaviors persist,
• 11:43
  but you're always bringing it back to observable behavior and business
• 11:47
  impact.
• 11:47
  That's what keeps the system fair and repeatable instead of personal
• 11:52
  and political.
• 11:52
  Alright, let's land this.
• 11:55
  If you're listening and you're tired of "strong culture" teams that still
• 11:59
  miss their numbers, the move is: define your outcome and process KPIs,
• 12:04
  translate organizational goals into clear teamwork dimensions and behavioral
• 12:09
  anchors, collect data from multiple sources,
• 12:12
  and then turn the results into specific actions and development plans.
• 12:16
  And if you want help connecting the dots between who people are and how
• 12:20
  they show up in teamwork, I'd really encourage you to test OAD for free
• 12:24
  at OAD.
• 12:24
  ai.
• 12:26
  It's a simple way to connect personality tendencies to teamwork behaviors,
• 12:30
  so your evaluations are more consistent,
• 12:32
  less political, and more useful for coaching.
• 12:35
  Edwin, thanks for walking us through this.
• 12:35
  My pleasure,
• 12:39
  Claire.
• 12:39
  Always good to turn good intentions about culture into something that
• 12:43
  actually improves performance.
• 12:43
  We'll keep digging into the science side
• 12:47
  of leadership in future episodes.
• 12:49
  For now, thanks for listening,
• 12:51
  and we'll see you next time.
• 12:51
  Take care,
• 12:53
  everyone.