Effective team work and collaboration

Recently I have been researching collaborative approaches to team work in connection with not only my role as Principal Lecturer but also in preparation for delivery of interdisciplinary courses that cross three schools (Visual Arts, Creative Writing and Performing Arts) in our faculty.  A key aspect in this, of course, is development of good communication within a team.


Attached here is a link to a you tube clip that I found recently.  I will use this as a resource with students and in a team teaching situation. As well as talking about the benefits of interdisciplinary collaborations to promote inventive thinking and to solve problems, there is a section where people are seated around the table that illustrates potential team dynamics (and obstacles) and promotes the idea of an enabler being a crucial element to channel communication.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsndhCQ5hRY&feature=related

 While I find that term a bit odd, preferring facilitator I often see myself in that role.   The clip will be a resource that begins discussions around how we all operate within a group - with the view to creating an environment where discussion on this topic will build peer relationships and provide opportunities to build a culture of inquiry and reflection.  The beauty of this as a resource is that the animation style and content of speech bubbles provide a fairly light hearted and fun method to generate discussion around a topic that for some is difficult and encroaches on personal inhibitions/space.


Attached also is an excerpt from mindtools.com, a site I visit a lot for leadership inspiration.  This excerpt discusses Belbin's definitions of how people operate in a team.  Primarily I sit in the people orientated roles section, however flip in and out of others as required.  This people focus concurs with some work I have done around Edgar Schein's Career Anchors - where I  sit in the Service to a Cause (see below) grouping.

http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_83.htm

Service and Dedication to a Cause

A high score in this area suggests you would not like to give up to pursue work that achieve something of value, such as making the world a better place to live, solving environmental problems, improving harmony among people, helping others, improving people’s safety, curing diseases through new products, and so on. You pursue such opportunities even if it means changing organisations, and you do not accept transfers or promotions that would take you out of work that fulfils those values. 

From Edgar Schein's Career Anchors

Generally I see part of my role within the School of Visual Arts as one that encourages discussion about communication, leadership and how we operate in groups - both for students and staff - in the hope of cultivating an open minded, mutually supportive and reflective creative space. 

Can we lead successfully from only a transformative or transactional perspective?

Question from Kate Slattery’s 21 Sept session on Leading Academic Excellence:

Can we lead successfully from only a transformative or transactional perspective?

I see basic definitions of these terms as the following:

Transformational leadership emphasises qualities such as vision and the ability to motivate and inspire loyalty and commitment. It is more open and organic than transactional leadership and can be said to leave room for mistakes.

Transactional leadership is more task focused, based on achievement of established goals, rewards, punishment and sanctions for set jobs.

Generally if I were to visualise these two types of leadership I would see transactional leadership as a structured, hard framework (imagine scaffolding) with predetermined boundaries and some boxed in sections.  Transformational leadership would be a much looser, fluid form with frayed edges, perhaps made of elastic that could be moulded, stretched and reformed.

So.. Can we lead successfully from only a transformative or transactional perspective?

I see no value in selection between these types of leadership, opting for one mode over another. Exclusion of one or the other would seem to lessen what’s in my toolbox.  I think one disposition may be better for a given situation and the other for something else and maybe even a combination works well.  From observing my own leadership style I notice I flip from one approach to the other. I tend to prefer working for a leader who is more transformative rather than transactional, however I do also respond well to clear, goal orientated projects. The question I have is Can transformative leadership contain elements of transactional leadership and vice versa or do I just want my cake, and to eat it too?

Transformative leadership feels less restrictive and allows room for more individual responses to problems.  It seems to encourage invention and ownership more than transactional leadership, working from the basis that the leader has confidence in his/her team and is open to more than one way to solve a problem.  It seems a more creative approach.  I think I adopt this approach in the classroom/studio and on projects with staff centred around curriculum development.  I see the advantages of this approach being that it creates a space in which we can be surprised and to see what’s possible from another angle or others’ thinking, rather than prescribing an outcome.  However in some situations this can back fire and too elastic a structure can be moulded to a form that isn’t that conducive to the overall building of a culture, stretches a little far from the overall vision or won’t dovetail with the fundamental shape of things or expectations within a programme. 

I have experience this recently with a team of staff developing course material.  The organic process provided a positive platform for development of ideas and lots of discussion regarding pedagogical approaches between schools in the faculty, great collegial links and dialogue was had but the outcome doesn’t quite fit the purpose -  yet.  The work now is to facilitate this work back on track without losing the enthusiasm of the team. 

In a recent conversation around this with my colleague we discussed how to deal with this situation, our shared goal being to have the work done by a certain deadline.  My colleague’s suggestion was to take the work off the team leader and assign it to someone else or to do it ourselves.  My preferred option was to maintain the team leader and to support that person and the team to develop the work further.  My preferred method is potentially more time consuming but I see learning in it and an opportunity to see success developed from the work already done.  Although there may be some frustration to deal with in the team dynamic, getting through that will (hopefully) ultimately make better work.  I’m not sure if this comparison of ways to solve this issue demonstrates the difference between a transactional and transformative disposition, but it outlines different approaches.  In hindsight, although broad parameters were set for this work initially, a tighter deadline could have been helpful.

Some other notes on transformative and transactional perspectives:

Leading Academic Excellence - Leadership

I respond to this thought - seen here in a slide from Steve Maharey's Think Differently: towards the entrepreneurial university.  Alongside this slide Maharey discussed a simple exercise to do with staff or members of an organisation.  

Think 3 concentric circles, the outside one has the word what in it, the middle one has how and the core has why.  Maharey suggests that often staff are able to answer what and how the organisation does things, but tend to struggle with the why.  He emphasises the need to always know (and to pass on thinking, discussion and projection of) the why.  His argument is "always know why you do things".  That's how "people get it" and that's important.  Having your team "know why, is the place to get to as leaders".  I couldn't agree more!

This more philosophical approach invites discussion and debate around the core of what the organisation, business or institution does and stands for - its motivation, goals, raison d'etre.  It also translates to the teaching situation where, as teachers, we know that students want to know the relevance of a theory, technique or exercise.  Relating this to our class sessions has me recall the discussions we had around staff knowing the MIT mission statement, MIT transforms lives and community through learning.  See also discussion board - group 3 Nov 29th.  For me, knowing the why or the motivation/drive an organisation has at its helm is important: as a follower it helps me contextualise what I'm doing 'on the floor' and support decisions, strategies and shifts that enable achievement of the goal, as a leader it helps me foster development in my area that address closer attainment of the goal.  Where I come a bit unstuck though is when direction or strategic planning and its relationship to the why is not clear or discordant.

Referring back to the slide.  What is implied here is that holding the position does not necessarily automatically make you a leader.  I agree.  This has me consider some of the discussions we had in earlier classes around the difference between management and leadership roles - see slide from Stuart Middleton's presentation in earlier blog entry.  Some rhetorical questions spring to mind:

How does someone who is newly appointed to a leadership position become a leader? 

Is it appropriate to think that only someone who displays leadership qualities already should be appointed to a leadership position? 

Do you have to be appointed to a leadership position to lead?

We know that leadership style, reflection and development can be assisted by learning, but does a successful leader have to possess inherent leadership qualities as a beginning point?

Does everyone truly have leadership potential?

Although it might totally contradict what our sessions have covered and read in a fairly outdated mode, I tend to think that there are people whose nature or disposition lends itself to leadership. It's their 'natural game', something that comes at a fundamental level with ease and they find it enjoyable. I consider myself on of those people.  That's not to say that there aren't lots of techniques, tricks, strategies to learn and room for growth around leadership, nor that people who don't naturally take up leadership roles in a casual situation can't be good leaders.  I can relate these thoughts to when I was first appointed to my current position and my growth as a leader since then.  Before I took the position I was already leading informally, staff seeking advice, input, developing collegial supportive relationships. Strangely once I officially was appointed less staff approached me in the first few months.  I put this down to a combination of me being a bit too heavy handed at the offset, trying too hard to assert myself alongside a little fear from staff about seeking input from someone who had 'crossed' to management. 

Over the last couple of years I have done much reflection and development of how to lead in my position.  Managers and structures have changed considerably and with the introduction of a Dean-led structure, the position no longer sits in the school's management team which disappointed me as I initially viewed that as exclusion and a sideways move, lessening my opportunities to affect change and contribute to the faculty's vision - frustrating for a forward thinker.  However, with a bit of creative thinking I have now developed strategies to sow seeds and to lead without being present, to subtlety influence and to build with others opportunities to affect developments in thinking around teaching and learning.  I have become more noticed a maturing in my leadership capacity, enabling academic and leadership potential in individuals and teams within the School.

This has me recall Kate's discussion around transformative leadership vs transactional - food for thought for my next posting.

 

Leading Academic Excellence

Response to 

Think Differently: towards the entrepreneurial university presentation by Steve Maharey, 2010

The presentation focused on the need for universities (although theoretically we could map on top of this any educational institution) to shift from inward looking to outward looking to function more effectively in the 21^st century.  Of course it could be argued that the polytechnic sector has long being doing that in comparison to universities. 

Maharey used Massey University as a model for change towards thinking more about the increasing demands of the external environment and accountability for educational institutions to respond to various communities’ inquiry and investment of how institutions serve the broader environment. While presenting this model Maharey was clear about the Massey University’s vision for a programme of change and the autonomous nature of academics as experts in a field (perhaps as opposed to teachers).  He listed (see below) elements that need to be activated to enable such a transition.

While attention to all listed items here needs to dovetail and is relational, Maharey’s reference to “culture, not structure” as forming an important aspect of moving towards a more entrepreneurial institution resonated with me.  This attitude also, in my opinion, greatly increases gaining buy in from staff and stakeholders.  While Maharey mentioned that structures have to change, he placed emphasis on the development of the culture of an institution; the need to cultivate a sense of what an organisation stands for, for empowering members of that organisation to feel supported in taking risks, looking for new opportunities and to clearly understand the cultural landscape of the institution.

Development of a culture of creative thinking, critical inquiry and reflection in the School of Visual Arts is something I try to emphasis in my role as Principal Lecturer (Teaching and Learning). I do this ‘on the floor’ in teaching situations and in fostering discussion with staff and students about what kind of environment we want to create in the studios, in our thinking and, in my conversations with my managers, in the running of the school and Faculty.  Wherever possible I try to talk about developing shared (but not dictated) values and philosophies towards teaching and learning.  With the relatively young formation of our new faculty I see this construction of culture and building of foundation as key to success in our new degree and development of a collegially supportive environment.  

At times, I wish there was more emphasis on the bringing of people together (synonymous in my book with building culture) further up the hierarchy.  So the question for me is sometimes, how can I lead in this area when this may not appear to be one of the most important goals of the Faculty head?  This has me recall something Tim Wilson said in his presentation: “just do it anyway, so I guess that’s what I do.

It also brings to mind consideration of the recent Right-sizing exercise in place at MIT (is there anything that doesn’t bring that to mind at present?).  If, according to Maharey, the building of culture is more important to affect change, how does the Right-sizing exercise relate to that argument?  The process seems to be very focussed in structure and changing infrastructural organisation.  Where does building (or rebuilding of culture) sit within this?

Reflection on Managing Difficult Conversations (25 Oct session, Carol Cardno)

Difficult conversations - Managing Professional relationships

This session focused on leadership dilemmas - conflicts that highlight the uncomfortable territory leaders often encounter between concern for maintaining, changing or improving organisational goals and concern for maintenance of good collegial relationships.  Strategies of how to deal with these situations, in particular communication skills, were discussed and the Triple I (information, illustration, inquiry) model presented as a framework from which to operate in a mode of productive reasoning.  This was presented as the opposite to defensive reasoning, perhaps a more 'natural' reaction or easy place to stand for many.

Fear was highlighted as the main obstacle to engaging in difficult conversations and avoidance of interpersonal communication a major contributing factor. This area of difficult conversations is one that I have given a great deal of thought to and hold fairly strong views about.  I totally subscribe to fostering as open as possible communication in both the classroom and meeting room and do so in practice by asking for and giving candid feedback and feedforward.  I am confident that most of the time I am approachable and open to discussing issues and any interpersonal differences in a collegially supportive manner.  I  admire leaders who 'say it as it is' and tend not to respect leaders who do not deal with 'people problems' directly.  My 'natural game' (and cultural disposition) tends towards direct communication but in various situations I have had to adapt that as it can come across as too assertive. My ultimate work environment would be somewhere that promotes a culture that fosters open (but not too navel gazing) discussions about how we each operate in a group and allows space and time for upfront exchanges to talk through issues and to resolve these with no residual bitterness (or potential comeback).  It would be a space where colleagues can feel both supported and hungry for input on their performance, attributes and operation as part of a team.  This requires a lot of trust and may just a be a tad idealistic!

Triangulating the learning from Carol Cardno's session and ideas in her article Making a Difference by Managing Dilemmas had me consider a difficult conversation about communication with a colleague that I had been avoiding.  My usual strategies of upfront 'lets sit down for a conversation', inviting an opportunity to discuss communication between me and the colleague evaded me because i was fearful of potential comback.  I was also feeling responsible for others' unhappiness around communication issues with this colleague.  While I have not yet had the most direct difficult conversation, seeking advice from a colleague from another area, taking time to step back (not a usual trait of mine) and approaching this from a less direct angle has achieved some improvement for the time being.  I am not 100% satisfied with this though and will deal with it in the future.

My learning here: it can wait (even although that sometimes feels a bit weak), subtle interaction can sometimes work, smaller direct responses at the time can address and diffuse tension

Getting back to my ultimate work environment...  Interestingly I saw a real positive in a conversation yesterday with a colleague and leader in my area.  Pending cut backs will create timetabling groupings of staff where we are aware some interpersonal tensions exist. I steered the conversation re strategies to deal with this to a conversation about the importance of recognising and talking about how we operate in a group/team situation and how as leaders we can enable staff to feel comfortable to discuss this.  I modelled a description of how I would do that and perhaps (hopefully) took a small step towards creating a 'safe' space for such discussions across a broader platform.  It's an area that will be important in a much reduced staff where building trust to enable frank, productive conversations will be vital.  The real positive was to hear an endorsement of such an open approach coming from a leader who has previously (in my opinion) avoided any such discussions.

Going back to the Making a Difference by Managing Dilemmas article and the session:

The article emphasises appraisals as time for difficult conversations however I disagree with this.  The time for difficult conversations is all the time and, usually at or close to the time.  If things are delayed until appraisals, situations can escalate, become distorted and misinterpreted.

Some of the language in Carol's examples appeared to present a structure with a touch of 'blame' attached, particularly around the use of the word 'you'.  I believe "I" statements to be key in any difficult conversation (personal or professional) and although that can be read as diminishing a leadership position, or position of authority, I find it enhances authenticity in conversation and opens up space for resolution.  I also believe, placed with tact and an acute and informed reading of the situation, humour and empathy can be very useful tools.