Share this post

There is something magical about the performance of effective teams – the way the members come together, align their talents and put aside their differences, and then almost flawlessly execute to achieve a goal. What is clearly apparent is a sense of urgency – an urgency that is self-driven by an impassioned pursuit of something that matters. There also is a critical awareness within the team that persuades members to put aside their individual differences in order to achieve a success bigger than any of them singly. Effective teams, no matter their objectives, all share three vital and distinct characteristics: they are cohesive, aggressive and targeted (CAT).

There is no debate among business experts that effective teamwork delivers far superior performance than the collective, but disjointed, efforts of individuals. Teamwork, when properly directed and executed, can become a phenomenal competitive advantage, offering the potential to catapult organizations to new heights of performance.

Sadly, but also standing without debate, is the premise that although CEOs desperately need effective, game-changing teams, few have been able to consistently create them. What prevents a CEO from building effective teams is, quite simply, a lack of understanding of the basic building blocks of all teams.

The DNA of Effective Teams

Cohesiveness is the process that turns a collection of individuals into something more powerful than just the grouping of talent. It is analogous to combining cement, sand, stone and water to create concrete – a material that is superior in its physical properties than any of its ingredients. Cohesiveness is the measure of gestalt, the coming together of individuals to create a team that is superior to any of its constituents.

What drives cohesiveness is the desire of the individuals to achieve a goal that they can’t achieve singly. What sustains cohesiveness is the candor, respect and trust that the team members develop through their face-to-face interactions as they wrestle with the intellectual conflicts needed to find the best solution.

Aggressiveness is the measure of desire; how badly an individual really wants to achieve a goal. Aggressiveness is proportional to the perceived importance and scope of the objective under pursuit. Individual members engage in an aggressive pursuit because they want it, not because they need it. Con­sequently, they frequently become so immersed in the pursuit that they lose sight of time and space. The needs of the team become more important than the wants of the individual.

To an outsider, the team members appear to be making unwarranted sacrifices of personal time and energy. But to the team member, infatuated with reaching the goal, the “sacrifices” are nothing more than a means to achieving the end. Although an individual might be able to achieve the same results, time is compressed in teams, and results are achieved in a fraction of the time.

Targeting is the measure of clarity and exactness of the objective; how clearly the objective is defined and how exact is the definition of a “win” or “loss.”

Within a group, it is a natural tendency for members to diverge, each pursuing a solution based on their distinct area of expertise or even intuition. The effect of targeting is to corral the thinking such that fewer blind alleys are pursued, their being closed off by knowledge or experience available from others within the group. Targeting is the key to obtaining the best solution in the shortest period of time. Targeting provides the shortcut.

A Different Story

Theoretically, creating teams seems simple enough, but a closer look into the actual practice tells a different story. The most common teams found in organizations are the intact teams. Examples could include the executive team, the product development department or a sales team. Intact teams are typically functional by nature and focused on long-term goals or a series of them.

The other type of team found in organizations is the “ad hoc team,” assembled solely to solve a specific problem within a confined time frame. Once the ad hoc team has completed its mission, its members return to their respective departments and individual roles.

Criteria for Team Composition 

There are four criteria to be considered when forming a team. Since it is people that make the difference, it is critically important to understand how to select people for a given team. 

1. Significance of the problem– Is the problem to be solved something truly monumental in scope, or is it something far more practical or even mundane? The more significant the problem, the greater the emphasis needs to be on intellect and expertise. Conversely, do not bore extraordinary individuals with the ordinary. People must be compatible with the tasks required to solve the problem. Big problems require big minds.
2. Number of unknowns– Are we building a new office building or are we building a habitat on Mars? The first is a rather ordinary undertaking, having been done countless times before, to the point of few surprises (deterministic). The Mars objective, however, would be truly groundbreaking, facing many unknowns (non-deterministic). The more deterministic the problem, the less we need a diversity of experts, and people who can think outside this world. 
3. Time frame– How critical is time in solving the problem? The shorter the timeline, the greater the need is for a larger team. In such instances, communication among team members must be rapid, concise and easily comprehended. Select individuals – or, better yet, groups of individuals – who demonstrate excellent interpersonal and language skills as well as the mental agility to quickly absorb, update and act on new information. When time is of the essence, the last thing you need is someone who tells you how to build a clock.
4. Resource availability – Do you have the resources needed? The fewer the resources, the harder the job is going to be. When you are short on resources, you need to be long on creativity.

While it is easy to see how the criteria apply to ad hoc teams, it is vital that the same criteria be applied to intact teams. Most importantly, the CEO needs to regularly assess his or her executive team. The longer the CEO’s tenure, the more critical he or she must become in the application of the criteria if the CEO is to enjoy the benefits of a CAT team.

Whether you are planning a three-legged race for a company picnic or designing an Indy racecar, you will get the best results, in the shortest period of time, with the least cost if your teams are cohesive, aggressive and targeted. CATs do it best.