2 Teams That Flatline

There is no greater agony than bearing an untold story inside you.

—Maya Angelou

Over the past few years we’ve asked hundreds of people, both younger and more senior than ourselves, as well as those in and out of management roles, this question: How many great teams have you been on in your career? (We intentionally don’t define “great,” allowing them to determine the criteria.)

Upon consideration, the clear majority of those responding answer that they have been a part of two to three great teams. Very rarely does anyone answer zero, nor five or above. And when asked why they qualified those teams as great, the plurality of answers cited two things, in relative terms: (1) the team achieved something significant and (2) they worked (choose your favorite superlative) together.

Is it good enough to get to the end of a career and claim that the number of great teams one has been a part of can be counted on one hand? It isn’t according to most of the inspired people we know. Although there are variables unaccounted for when considering the responses to this question, the fact is the answers reveal perceptions. And that’s a glimpse of the reality for a sizeable sample of people.

This is where things get crazy—and frankly, sad—from our perspective. We’ve observed a significant number of teams unknowingly be on the verge of delivering the steps outlined in the Do Big Things Framework, only to stumble and fall away. You may, for example, recall a team you were on that had tremendous promise. Armed with the DBT Framework now, you might look back, assess, and say something like, “We embodied success (step 2). We broke through certain barriers and functioned from the same reality (steps 4 and 6). But then something went wrong.”

In these cases, teams that once had their whole heart in it, where everyone was fully committed, begin to experience the opposite: flatlining. Just like the medical monitor that measures the functioning of a patient’s most vital organ, these teams arrive for the big show in arrest. Unable to shape the thinking and actions necessary to do big things, the team succumbs to the weight of the pressure they’re under. Progress stagnates. And the potential the team once possessed falls away as too many members of the team become disheartened and demonstrate behaviors even they are not proud of.

From our experience, we believe there are two primary reasons why teams flatline. First, the members of the team simply don’t know how to equip themselves with the ability to operate in a way that enables them to put their whole heart in it and do big things. Hence, the reasons for Chapters 3 through 9 of this book.

Second, teams too often unwittingly function from outdated methods, or even false beliefs, about how to best develop their team. As a result, left unaddressed, at best their resources are wasted, and at worst they destroy the potential the team possessed.

That’s why this chapter is so important: In order for the DBT Framework to enable your team to truly make an epic impact on the business, it’s critical that beliefs about how to best develop teams are checked. (The emperor who wore no clothes due to false beliefs serves as a friendly reminder.)

To set the stage, we’ll revisit Powell’s band of explorers in the early stages of their journey to do big things. The false beliefs they began with almost cost them their lives.

A Team in Trouble

They were in trouble, and they knew it. As Powell’s team of explorers descended deeper into the chasms approaching the Grand Canyon, they found themselves ill-prepared for the raging river they rode. Innocently, they had prepared to do the big thing in front of them with the thinking and behaviors that had enabled them to succeed on prior excursions. They had assumed that the actions that had proved vital in Civil War battles and previous treks into the frontier would deliver success in the future. Such an inaccurate belief was particularly poignant in one illustration: They felt secure in deploying the finest boats they could obtain. History would prove them wrong—dead wrong.

The boats Powell’s explorers used were built for the lakes and placid rivers of eastern North America. Engineered for efficiency and speed, the crafts were long and narrow, with a rounded body. Those who boat down the rivers of the west today, courageous folks known as “river runners,” would consider such vessels suicidal, and for good reason.

In their natural state, rivers in the west drop toward the ocean, and thus the speed and volume of the water generally increases—creating a force and torrent of water greater than a line of bulldozers lined up for miles. Adding to this dangerous environment, semihidden rocks, some the size of small cars or even houses, form obstacles. At many of these points, the water becomes furious. White water rapids form waves bigger than buses that crash in all directions, many of which could swallow a boat whole. It didn’t take long for the expedition to learn their trip on this river would be unlike any other boat ride they’d ever been on.

Doing big things successfully often means being able to do things differently than they’ve been done before. Major Powell’s team soon discovered that the boats they’d chosen, and skills they’d developed for efficiency and speed on waters in the east, were not what they needed now. What they had to have to succeed—survive—were vessels and capabilities that would enable them to adapt to the ever-changing conditions of the river.

Specifically, successfully running a river’s rapids requires determining the safest route through the rocks and hydraulics. Rarely is this path a straight line; a zigzag is a better description. The boats Powell’s men had were built for speed, however. They required time to turn—time the men didn’t have amidst the turbulent and chaotic rapids. They could barely deviate from a straight course—until they smashed into an obstacle. (Think of a steel ball caroming down a pinball machine, and you can get an idea of what this team faced each time it encountered rapids.)

As it is today, so it was 150 years ago: The consequences for preparing a team to do a project the same way former jobs have been done can be severe. Just days into their first canyon, three crew members found their boat bearing down on a massive rock. They had neither the skill nor the means to adapt their course.

The rock blasted a hole in their boat. The three men leapt from the vessel and swam for shore, narrowly escaping with their lives. Powell would later memorialize this location of the river as “Disaster Falls.”¹

The End of Teamwork (As We Know It)

Consider: What does your team believe is the best way to develop the thinking and actions necessary to do big things? For certain, the end of teamwork (as we all know it) is at hand. Actually, it’s been over for quite some time. How we teamed together before isn’t effective in the turbulent times of today.

Our observations tell us these teams rarely flatline and fail because they lack technical skills. Far more often the catastrophe that occurs can be traced to outdated beliefs about what’s required to develop the team’s ability to effectively work together.

What follows are the four most common flatlining beliefs that cause teams to lose themselves in the crashing rapids ahead. We’ll also identify the new beliefs that our research shows are required for a team to do big things.

Flatlining Belief #1: If you develop the leader you develop the team. (False!)

Imagine this: A CEO sits in his office meeting with two team members when the discussion is interrupted. After a knock on the door, three workers in overalls enter the room. Fish Tank Cleaners are the words on their uniforms, and the smiles on their faces told everyone they love their job. Setting out their brushes and pads they began preparing for serious work.

The CEO says to his colleagues, “Excuse me,” then leaves the table at which they’re seated, approaches the workers, and begins pointing at select fish moving about in the wall-sized fish tank. “This one . . . that one . . . and definitely all of those with stripes . . . and the big bottom feeder there,” the CEO says.

The fish tank cleaners take careful notes. The two colleagues, still sitting at the table, however, are surprised that the cleaners could even see the fish: The water is filthy. Yellowish-gray scum floats in water that seems to glow. “Why would the CEO wait so long to clean the fish tank?” they wondered.

The CEO returns to the table, but his teammates keep their eyes on the fish tank. With tremendous care, the cleaners use micro nets to catch the fish the CEO identified. Because there are a lot of fish in the tank the job takes time as they swoop and scoop. Occasionally, they catch the wrong fish, shake their heads, drop the fish back into the grimy water, and then dip their net again in pursuit of their targets.

What happens next stops the two observing teammates. When the cleaners catch one of the CEO’s identified fish, it is removed and placed in a small glass container just bigger than the fish itself. Then, small brushes with tiny bristles are used with great care to clean the fish.

At this point the CEO’s colleagues aren’t listening to what he’s saying. They pretend to take notes as they watch the cleaners repeat the exercise of removing certain fish, bathing them, and then placing them back into the murky water of the large tank.

After an hour of work the cleaners begin to pack their belongings. The one with a clipboard approaches the table where the meeting is held. In his hand is a plastic bag filled with water and one of the fish the CEO had pointed at—the bottom feeder.

“Excuse me, sir,” he says to the CEO. “We’ve nearly finished cleaning your tank. To complete the job, we recommend you remove this bottom feeder.”

“Okay,” the CEO says. “I never liked that guy anyway.”

“We also recommend that you add several of our new X-Fish,” the cleaner states.

The CEO looks up from the papers spread on the table. “What’s an X-Fish?” he asks.

“They’re fast and agile,” the cleaner answers. “Their presentation and swimming style brighten every tank. They’re innovative little guys, as well. They find resourceful ways to extend their body energy—which is a cost savings for you because they require less food.”

“Great!” says the CEO. “Get me a bunch of those.”

The cleaner smiles, nods, and then returns to his coworkers. They pack their little brushes and mini-holding tanks, wipe up the water that spilled, wave at those sitting at the table, and leave the room.

The room is silent for a while, until the two teammates can no longer contain their curiosity. “What did they just do?” they ask the CEO.

“What?” he responds, a bit perturbed that they would ask a question that seemingly had an obvious answer.

“The cleaners, the guys handling your fish . . . what were they attempting to accomplish?”

The CEO takes off his glasses, tilts his head, and squints at the other two. “Haven’t you ever seen a fish tank get cleaned before?”

The Dirty Fish Tank Training Model

Despite overwhelming evidence that it’s ineffective, the standard for developing leaders and teams today involves extracting employees away from the people and teams (their culture) with which they do their work. Isolated, they are trained with the expectation that they will change their thinking and behaviors. Then they are reimmersed back into unchanged dynamics. The result: little or no change is accomplished in the individual or the group. We call this the Dirty Fish Tank Training Model (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1 Dirty Fish Tank Training Model

There is no doubt that the talent of the team leader affects the results of the team. We’re not suggesting that teams don’t gain some benefit from leaders and individuals being sent away to trainings. We’re saying that teams don’t benefit enough. It’s not even close. A growing body of research makes this clear. American Society of Training and Development (now known as the Association of Talent Development), in their state of the industry report of 2013, reported the United States alone spent $164.2 billion on learning and development programs.² Forbes found that $12 billion annually is specifically spent on leadership development. Yet both organizations report that only 20 percent of these dollars result in a transfer of learning or directly impact the company’s bottom line.³

We believe the waste and poor outcomes are grossly underestimated. These numbers only reflect the money spent on training that doesn’t work. What must be included as well are the exponential costs of disillusioned team members who see their bosses and teammates leave for development, only to return and demonstrate little or no improvements. (You didn’t change last time. Why would anyone expect you to change this time?) Employees who roll their cynical eyes can hardly be blamed for succumbing to the belief that there’s no hope for the team and then disengaging.

The costs don’t stop here. When organizations don’t see the thinking and behaviors of a team change, the blame often settles on the leader. (Hey! You’re in charge and were sent to training!) Consequently, untold costs mount as leaders are removed, sent to other teams, or swapped for others. A churn-and-burn approach to talent ensues. Just as the fish who gets a bath and then is put back in the dirty tank can’t be blamed for failure to clean the water, nor can an isolated leader bear the entire burden of failure when their team doesn’t improve.

There’s little mystery why the Dirty Fish Tank Training Model doesn’t work. It is irresponsible to attempt to change the thinking and actions of a person outside the cultural system of their natural habitat and then expect them to make changes of any significance. It is a false and misguided belief to think that the team will improve by merely developing the leader.

Flatlining Belief #2: To succeed, you must primarily develop the team for speed and efficiency. (False!)

Today, business as usual means plans are developed within organizations from an increasingly outdated paradigm: Identify what needs to be done, that is, what resources are needed, who are the stakeholders, building communication and contingency plans; then build a course of action to achieve the objective as efficiently and effectively as possible. This is what Powell’s team did as they prepared to go downriver; it’s what many team leaders still do as they prepare to launch a big initiative.

Speed and efficiency remain important. But today, the moment plans are made, conditions and circumstances shift. The rapidly changing world doesn’t only drown a team because they’re moving too slow. It devours them because team members can’t adapt to the new world together.

Too often, companies attempt to solve this team-adaptability issue by changing personnel or restructuring. While such efforts can deliver incremental improvements, they usually mask what needs to be done to do big things. Where a person is placed in the organization still doesn’t solve how they need to better think and act as an individual in relationship to others.

Flatlining Belief #3: Plans for growth automatically motivate the team to a higher level of performance. (False!)

As authors, we gain our greatest wisdom as gifts from the leaders and teams we serve. This particular client team meeting was no exception as we gained a deeper insight into what’s necessary to advance a team.

“We’ve got to be careful,” John, the senior vice president, said. “Our company has had a tough couple of years. Our division is the bright spot of our organization. We need to capitalize on the momentum we have. But we need to reconsider how we do that.”

The general manager and others on the phone were silent. The engineering company was facing a critical juncture: Could the strength of their teams meet the rising demands of their customers?

“We’ve added new people, moved people to new locations, all while our customers continue to up their game,” John said. “Every day it seems there are more requirements. And I’m starting to hear people say, ‘Schedule and cost are now more important than what we were once known for: quality.’

“To tell the truth, all our focus on growth doesn’t mean what it used to. Now, when we talk about growth, employees go, ‘No thanks!’ It means 90-hour workweeks, with a faster pace, and fewer resources.”

No one disagreed. The silence on the phone reflected the depth of the team’s fatigue. Then John finished by saying, “Growth for growth’s sake doesn’t work. It only matters when each team member feels personally rewarded.”

The human spirit is built for expansion. Achieving professionals want to live large. They want to seize opportunities that take them closer to realizing their potential. This is why the rallying cry of “Growth!” as John’s team experienced, once motivated teams to new levels of performance, just like sugar can provide a spike in energy.

Too much sugar provided too often, however, sends all of us plummeting into fatigue. The constant chant of “Grow! Grow!” increasingly has a numbing or demotivating effect on teams and the culture.

It doesn’t have to be this way. This outdated and inaccurate belief must be replaced by thinking that authentically activates the heart of many.

Flatlining Belief #4: Team is defined by the group of people who have the same functional responsibilities. (False!)

A key moment in Powell’s crew’s journey occurred where the Green and Colorado Rivers merged. It was a beautiful location, inviting an extended rest.

In addition, Powell wanted to explore. You may recall his priority: notoriety as a scientist. But a new risk to the team had developed: starvation. Their food supply was being reduced to little more than soggy, moldy flour, yet they had weeks remaining in their journey.

At this moment, pretend that all members of the crew have a cell phone. Powell picks up his phone and calls his boss in Washington, D.C., and asks, “Do we stay here or move downstream?”

The boss laughs. That’s the easiest question he’s been asked all day! “Stay and get your job done,” he shouts. “Explore. Do serious science stuff! That’s what we’re paying you to do.”

In the meantime, two crew members, who were hired as hunters for the trip, grab their phones and text their supervisor in Denver. They ask: “Should we stay or go?”

Their boss also laughs. “Stay! Hunt!” he texts in response. “That’s how your performance is being evaluated.”

Meanwhile, the men responsible for rowing safely down the river have a different discussion with their manager. As you’d likely predict, they received a clear command: “Get downriver now!”

After the phone calls and texts, the 10 crew members convene to discuss their next steps. An argument ensues as members point fingers and ask heatedly, “Wait, who’s in charge? Where did you get the authority? And how come we were never informed of their decision before now?”

At this point the team doesn’t need roaring rapids or external force to rip a boat apart. Competing priorities within the team have the same effect: The team, along with its chances of success, is doomed.

Too often, cross-functional teams are really just two groups responsible for different aspects of the business sharing the same conference number to conduct business. Serious gaps in execution occur when anyone moves from reporting to one boss to having other leaders to answer to because accountability drops. When we are responsible to everyone, we’re ineffective at delivering to anyone.

Worse, when team members choose to be loyal to a person (for example, the boss who conducts their performance review) instead of loyal to the mission of the larger team, no amount of rhetoric will make a difference. In fact, it’s not uncommon to see people begin to despise others, despite the fact that they all have the same logo on their shirts. Left unprepared to overcome these dynamics, team members retreat to minimalist thinking: I’m okay if my function wins and the cross-functional team fails.

A Big Story to Tell

“Don’t believe everything you think.”

(BUMPER STICKER SEEN ON A CAR INDENVER, CO)

The realities of a changing world require an exciting new reality about effective teamwork. Every team can create a powerful heartbeat, a rhythm, a cadence of synergy. But all can be slowed or stopped by choosing to believe what is no longer true about how the team should be developed. Flatlining beliefs diminish the power of who you are as a team, because they reduce who you are innately as a human being.

Flatlining, however, is not a permanent state (at least for teams). You can choose to communicate a grander narrative formed in beliefs that are true and best in today’s world.

Your team has a story to tell. And it can be a big one, if allowed. Anything worth achieving often appears unachievable at first. By using the seven steps of the Do Big Things Framework (starting with the first of the seven in Chapter 3) you can turn hearts and talents from doubt to confidence. Doing so means you get the thrill of telling the story your team was meant to tell.

As you begin, be cautioned: You will be watched by others who aren’tapart of your story. The cynics will jeer. The jealous may attack. The skeptics will doubt. And when you arrive where you are determined to go, you’ll look at your teammates, nod, and say that you believed all along.

And the others will wish they had been on your team.