Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams

Gratton and Erickson looked at 55 large teams and found that as size grew, collaboration reduced. Team members tended to work in isolation. This was exacerbated by virtual working. Many of the teams studied had members across various sites. The diversity of the group also inhibited collaboration. The authors found that employees worked more freely with people they perceived to be similar to themselves, in experience and outlook. Within a new project, they had to work with people they did not know or had not previously established relationships with. Finally, in teams with a high level of expert workers, the authors found that work often broke down into 'non-productive conflict or stalemate.' [3] Despite having a wide range of skills, the team members found it difficult to embrace the opinions and inputs of others and consequently rejected their ideas.

The Eight Ways to Improve Collaboration

The authors identified eight practices which they felt the successfully integrated teams did well. They fell into four general categories - executive support, HR practices, the strength of the team leader, and the structure of the team itself.

The eight ways suggested by Gratton and Erickson were:

1. investing in signature practices
2. modeling collaborative behavior
3. creating a gift culture
4. ensuring the requisite skills
5. supporting a sense of community
6. assigning team leaders who are both task and relationship-orientated
7. building on heritage relationships
8. understanding role clarity and task ambiguity

The authors found that collaboration was achieved more readily in organizations where the leaders demonstrated a visible level of collaborative behavior themselves. By interacting with staff at all levels and showing an enthusiasm for successful interaction, they created a culture of collaboration by example. The first three of the eight practices come under executive support.

Executive Support

Organizations encouraged collaboration by investing in signature relationship practices. This took the form of investing in developing and maintaining social relationships throughout the organization. Gratton and Erickson found that the most collaborative companies had what they termed 'signature' practices - practices that were memorable to staff, difficult for other organizations to directly implement, and particularly well suited to their own business environment. This meant that an employee would be aware that the way their organization operated was unique to them as a business, but not to an individual team or department. There was a shared uniformity amongst the whole organization, giving them a common point of reference in any dealings, be it in the way a transaction was carried out or how a project was scoped.

Signature practices can also be achieved by creating a shared working experience. For example, when Royal Bank of Scotland created a new headquarters in 2005, it was built around a large atrium with shared facilities for the staff. This 'Main Street' allows staff of all levels to share a common experience on a day-to-day basis, again strengthening the feelings of an experience unique to the organization and shared by employees across teams and departments.

Gratton and Erickson found organizations encouraged successful collaboration by modeling collaborative behavior. In large organizations, few employees have the opportunity to work closely with senior executives on a day-to-day basis. Therefore, the leaders must demonstrate collaborative behavior in highly visible ways. By creating an organization-wide perception that the leaders were committed to collaborative behavior, leaders ensured that others saw their efforts as example behavior. At Standard Chartered Bank, the authors found that members of the general management committee frequently served as substitutes for one another. The executives had to know and understand the entire business to be able to fill in for each other easily on almost any task. This could mean 'leading a regional celebration, representing the company at a key external event, or kicking off an internal dialog with employees.' [4] They also established a practice of traveling for even relatively short meetings, thus establishing the importance and value of face-to-face communication. It meant that employees saw senior executives in charge of collaborative teams going about their business.

The third factor in executive support was creating what the authors termed a 'gift culture'. What this means is the sharing of knowledge and experience by leaders. By establishing and maintaining a strong mentoring and coaching ethic within the organization, leaders of collaborative were not only able to pass on important lessons and develop their staff, but to foster a culture of employees of all levels working closely together.

This demonstrated their commitment to collaborative behavior and helped establish this behavior as a key organizational value.

Focused HR Practices

Although leaders have an important part to play in creating a strong collaborative culture, HR can have an impact too. The first factor is in ensuring the requisite skills. Many of the factors that support collaboration relate to the underlying culture and habits of the ganisation or team. The authors noted that many teams they studied had a collaborative culture but were not sufficiently skilled in the practice of collaboration itself. They were encouraged to work collaboratively and wanted to do so effectively but they didn’t know how to work together very well in teams.

The study showed that a number of skills were crucial for teams to collaborate successfully:

• appreciating others and their input
• ability to engage in purposeful conversations
• productively and creatively resolving conficts
• program management skills

If the HR department demonstrates a strong commitment to teaching employees how to build relationships, solve conflicts creatively and communicate well, this can help ensure that the employees have the right skillset for effective collaboration.

The authors used the example of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) and its commitment to developing the above skills. 

'With responsibility for developing 140,000 employees in nearly 150 countries, PwC's training includes modules that address teamwork, emotional intelligence, networking, holding difficult conversations, coaching, corporate social responsibility, and communicating the firm's strategy and shared values. PwC also teaches employees how to influence others effectively and build healthy partnerships.' [5]

By focusing on these soft skills, PwC simultaneously developed their workers while demonstrating the importance they placed on these skills as an organization. This made their employees aware of how key these skills were and focused their outlooks accordingly. These skills mean that teams are far more able to work successfully with each other across many of the large projects the organization undertakes.

HR departments can also help in supporting a sense of community. Although most organizations look to foster this, it is rare (though not impossible) for it to occur naturally. An organization cannot simply expect a diverse range of workers across various locations and disciplines to have the same outlooks. If an HR department takes a proactive role in developing a shared sense of purpose, through group events and shared experiences, it can help instill a greater sense of community among employees. 'When employees feel a sense of community, they are more comfortable reaching out to others and sharing knowledge.' [6]

The authors used the example of the Marriott Group as a company which invested heavily in supporting a sense of community by recognizing the importance of informal groups. A range of 'pop-up events - spontaneous activities - create a sense of fun and community. 'For example, the cafeteria might roll back to the 1950s, hold a twist dance contest, and in doing so, recognize the anniversary of the company’s first hotel opening.' [7] Although these initiatives may seem simple, by regularly creating opportunities for staff to liase in a less formal atmosphere, the organization fostered a sense of community in the workplace.

The Right Team Leaders

Gratton and Erickson argue that assigning team leaders who are both task and relationship-orientated is crucial for teams to collaborate successfully. When a team is undertaking a complex task, if a team leader cannot demonstrate strong task knowledge, it will impact on the teams belief in the leader’s ability to complete the tasks successfully. By putting team leaders in place who can establish and develop strong relationships while still maintaining an overview of the task, the organization can help to facilitate a strong collaborative environment.

The authors also found that having team leaders who had the ability to switch between outlooks was beneficial. At the start of projects, team leaders tended to be more task-orientated. As the work developed, they would concentrate on more relationship-focused method. This 'ambidextrous' approach enabled them to adapt to their team as individuals. The authors again used Marriott as an example, noting the company’s performance appraisal plan which focused equally on both approaches and looked to develop team leaders in whichever area they were weaker in. 'The development plans that follow these conversations explicitly map out how the managers can improve specific elements of their social relationships and networks.' [8]

Team Formation and Structure

Getting the right structure and team formation is an important stage in encouraging collaborative working between teams. Trust is also an important factor in developing the right environment for collaboration to flourish, but it cannot be forced. Gratton and Erickson's studies suggest that a leader can help to encourage trust to develop more quickly by building on heritage relationships. This means capitalizing on pre-existing relationships within the team. Teams where most participants are strangers will take time to establish strong relationships. However, when “some team members already know and trust one another from previously working together, they can act as a collaborative example which encourages other group members to collaborate more quickly and free. The authors discovered that when 20% to 40% of the team members were already known to one another, the team had strong collaboration right from the start. Although it is not always possible to have this factor in place, if a leader is aware of any pre-existing relationships and can capitalize on them, it can significantly speed up the collaborative process.

The authors use the example of Nokia and their extensive orientation program. This means that people from completely different areas of the organization come into contact with each other and are therefore well placed to make introductions if they find themselves together in a project. Nokia also developed an organizational architecture designed to make good use of heritage relationships. When it needs to transfer skills across business functions or units, Nokia moves entire small teams instead of moving individual people into new positions. This increases heritage relationships and the possibility for employees to act as links between new and old teams.

It is important to be aware that heritage relationships can also hinder team development – if a team is too insular, they may not reach out to other teams. Therefore, a leader has to ensure that heritage relationships help develop collaboration rather than prevent it. By making sure that those in existing relationships do not simply group together and exclude others, a team leader can help minimize this risk.

Lynda Gratton also used Nokia as an example of cooperation in her book Hot Spots where she noted that they encouraged cooperation and rewarded successful collaboration through team and company incentives. [9]

The authors also found that collaboration increases when an organization is aware of the importance of understanding role clarity and task ambiguity. Collaboration improves when the roles of individual team members are 'clearly defined and well understood' - when individuals are aware of their specific role and responsibilities. However, the converse is true when it comes to team goals – collaboration flourishes when the goal is set and clearly understood, but there is freedom built into the structure on how the team will achieve this. By knowing what they want to achieve, but having room to create the best method to do so, teams will be more likely to work creatively with each other and freely share ideas.

Gratton and Erickson cite the example of the BBC and coverage of the 2006 World Cup. The organization had 66 members with a wide range of skills and from many disciplines. They ranged from on-screen presenters to camera operators to directors. Many of the staff did not have a full understanding of the skills required for other team members to successfully fulfill their role, but were aware of the importance of group collaboration in making sure that the goal – successful broadcasts of the matches played – was achieved. However, the staff were aware of exactly what their responsibilities were and were thus free from any confusion and able to focus on the common goal.

Conclusion

Gratton and Erickson's study recognizes that collaboration in teams is essential but not automatic. It requires a commitment to long-term measures such as training, relationship-building and growing an organizational community alongside short-term decisions such as team structure and team leaders. However, by fostering the right culture, an organization can create a healthy environment in which strong collaboration in teams can be established and allowed to grow, helping the organization to achieve its wider goals.