When two rights get it wrong in leading a team

Building trust in diverse teams

There are times in life when your good ideas just don't get the results you need. Your best people skills, no longer bring out the best in them. And you begin to recognise your need for new skills, only after you’ve already started a project.

In this article

Taking the driver's seat

When I was first learning to drive a manual transmission car as a teen, there came a time when I needed to have already mastered two key motoring skills;

• performing a handbrake assisted hill start, and
• changing gears going uphill.

Historically, each of these two vehicle management procedures did not rate naturally high in my slow to develop skillset.

My appreciation for their joint importance (and dedication to mastering both skills) was not overly front of mind. Then one day, during my on-road driving test as a naïve and distracted teenager, I suddenly found myself stopped in heavy traffic; in the rain, on a hill, behind a rather small car towing a very big caravan, to which I had stopped far too close behind.

(Did I mention, it was a very steep hill? And it was raining?)

Stressful situation? Yes.

But the level of stress at that moment was significantly less than the stress levels I've experienced leading teams of diverse creative introverts mixed with competitive type A individuals.

Both situations call for the right approach before you know the one you need and when.

Business runs on teamwork

It's no secret, business relies upon teams of people working well together.

Solutions to the most complex of problems, usually only come from teams of people with diverse genders and skillsets - often from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds - all sharing their knowledge and insights.

Business runs on trust

So how do we build trust within teams of people with different backgrounds?

When it comes to trust we’re really talking about the behaviour of people and usually the behaviour of people in groups. Given diverse teams have fewer natural similarities to connect over and often measure levels of trust differently, the need for establishing team trust early is a key priority.

Because diverse teams have fewer natural similarities to connect over…the need for establishing team trust early is a key priority.

Leading teams (and herding cats)

A quick read of many business books and blogs could leave you thinking managing a diverse team is simply just focusing on one of two, possible leadership styles.

Leaders are encouraged to either be

1. a Task-focused Leader, focusing on detailed job descriptions and lists of things to do by a particular date, or
2. a Relationship-focused Leader, focusing on getting your new team together socially so they can learn more about each others’ personal shared interests outside the work environment.

As to which particular type of leadership approach is actually best, is usually left to the default leadership style of the team leader.

Why both default leadership styles fail - overtime

Bad news. The consistent outcome of both of these leadership styles over time is bleak. Many teams appear to lose their initial impact and their ability to collaborate dilutes.

Over time, the natural fault-lines in the group begin to show as team members separate into subgroups, usually based upon shared demographics, social or educational similarities. In a pressured environment, these natural divisions between team members appear more quickly.

It's actually hard to lead a high-performing team of diverse people.

Paradoxically the same traits that create team diversity can become traits that fuel a decline in team innovation and effectiveness.

Behind the failings of both leadership styles (and what to do about it)

In long term teams, two common failings can emerge:

• A failing of collaboration, where the team members do not develop trust and goodwill between themselves.
• A failing of knowledge sharing, where team members withhold their individual knowledge, expertise, and insights from other team members.

Understand why this happens

In some cases, these dual team failings are the direct outcome of the leader’s bullying behaviour where team members protect themselves and withdraw from sharing their skills, in silent protest.

In more functional teams, these same team failings appear as a direct result of the fault lines and formation of subgroups (or perhaps warring factions) that can naturally emerge within team environments.

Defensive subgroups rarely collaborate with each other, instead preferring to only share their inside knowledge with the inside group.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results

How you first start is not always an indication of how you'll finish, but ultimately success will depend upon the leadership flexibility of the team leader.

• If you start with a task-oriented approach, your team may meet deadlines and perform well initially, but then their results may wain as they begin to repel new ways and suggestions for innovation.
• If you start with a socialisation approach, you risk creating an atmosphere where people look for ways to bond around what's already shared most between them. This can be gender, age, sports, family size etc. This increased socialisation from the outset actually fractures the team and accelerates the formation of group fault lines.

This increased socialisation from the outset actually fractures the team and accelerates the formation of group fault lines.

Counterintuitive leadership

When establishing your team, focus first on task-oriented leadership and getting people to complete basic jobs, and meeting basic deadlines together. This is particularly important where there's a high probability of a subgroup emerging from the outset.

• Create the team energy around the task itself.
• Give your new team detailed job descriptions, set realistic performance goals, and provide a direct line of who to ask for what. Focus on providing the resources and coordinating your team members' activities.

Result: This allows subgroups to emerge but their divisions will be around task-oriented responsibilities, experience level, and product or procedure education, rather than personality differences.

Then change gears

After beginning with a task-oriented leadership style, plan the right time to switch leadership styles from task-oriented to relational-oriented. When team members start to feel united in their common work goals more than in the differences of the subgroup, change gears.

• Now the team will have developed a basis for relating and subgroup creation around shared work skills, shared work goals, and shared workability - rather than personal similarities.
• When switching to a relational-leadership style, team members will be now already be pre-equipped with immediately relatable (and perhaps now 'braggable') work and group skills, which can then be further strengthened with their relating around individual and personal interests.

Result: Team members have the opportunity to learn about each other's skills and competencies first, rather than through the lens of their personal lives. Simply put, natural differences in personalities can now be bridged by a clear sense of a shared task and goal created by the team leader.

The last word

When you're leading a team not only will you need to manage complex personalities but you’ll also need to learn which leadership style to start with - and then when to change gears and select which leadership style to finish with.

And if this sounds stressful, it is. It's actually worse than learning to perform a hill start while changing gears in a manual car, in the rain, behind a caravan.

Did I tell you it was a very very steep hill?