Collaborative teams get more done and have more fun, so how do we take the “Dys-” out of Cross-functional teams?
From startups to the Fortune 500, the first factor for selecting team members is almost always functional expertise. Makes sense…that’s why they’re cross-functional teams. The problem is when that’s the only thing considered.
Let’s look at three key “intelligences” for high-performing teams.
Whether you use a process based on the principles of Lean or Design Thinking or Stage-gate, when it comes to project teams, especially product development and innovation teams, there are four critical outcomes needed to move through the creative problem solving process. We need Insights, Ideas, Implementation and Impact…and HOW we take action to DO these things is based on Instinctive Intelligence and determines our Action-based Strengths.
Let’s look at what happens in the front-end of innovation. When we’re discovering insights about customers and the market, we need to have a person (or people) on our teams who have the instinctive energy to gather lots of information. To dig and explore, to get specific, to see the nuances in the information.
If no one on the team has this instinctive drive, then we can miss critical information. We move too fast through this stage and don’t understand what customers and the market really need. We don’t have the necessary understanding of the critical market-driving insights needed for decision-making throughout the rest of the process.
If everyone has this instinctive drive then we experience inertia, we get stuck, we can’t move forward, we stall, we…the unspoken mantra always seems to be “we’re gonna need more information!”
Functional groups often have similar strengths in one or more stages of the innovation process…they have similar patterns in creative problem solving and communication…which can be the underlying source of misunderstanding across groups resulting in silos.
An R&D group with lots of engineers is likely to instinctively gather lots of information. Marketing (and Entrepreneurs!) may have seemingly unending energy for Dreaming Ideas with the unspoken mantra: “I love possibilities…and rainbows and unicorns.” Operations, concerned with Designing Implementation may seem to have the unspoken (sometimes spoken) mantra: “we’re gonna need a plan, Now” (often before the idea is known).
The irony is that our action-based strengths are also the source of our blind spots. We need people with differing strengths to enhance productivity and effectiveness. Yet those differences can be the source of tensions that arise when we don’t understand the underlying dynamics of instinctive intelligence.
What’s the mantra you most often sense on your teams? Where are your teams getting stuck? Where are they missing clarity on the key outcomes needed to deliver impact? Where are you experiencing conflict?
Awareness is the first step…
Logo credit: AIGA Design For Good logo (head, heart, hands) created by Michael Nÿkamp and Jody Williams design.
Michael Nÿkamp: http://www.mkn-design.com
Jody Williams: http://jodywilliams.com
New Year! New Goals! Same Challenges!!??!
In a 2015 survey by BPI Network, top global executives reported the following obstacles holding back innovation in their organizations: Fear of failure: 42%. Politics and silos: 37%. Resistance to change: 31%. Lack of CEO/Board commitment: 25%. Lack of innovation leadership and empowerment: 24%. The list was dominated by people problems.
If you’re a leader with responsibility for driving innovation, here are 5 ideas to create change and deliver impact in 2016 and beyond.
What are you doing differently in 2016 to inspire and empower your innovators?
The headline, "Doing Well by Doing Good” is not a new story, but the intrigue for me was Fortune featuring it on the cover (http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/introducing-change-the-world-list/) of their September 1 issue. Referring to the renewed attacks on capitalism in the 21st century, Alan Murray writes “The Friedmanites and Randians among us will dismiss such attacks as another misguided mutiny from the loopy left.” After praising some of the world-changing contributions of capitalism in the past two decades, the author acknowledges “…many smart business leaders sense that something bigger is afoot, and recognize that they ignore such public currents at their peril.” Fist bumps all around.
The initial tone of the article reminded me of the “defense of capitalism” I sensed from John Mackey (feature article, p76, http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/whole-foods-john-mackey/) when he spoke at the Kingsbury St Whole Foods store for a Conscious Capitalism Chicago chapter event a couple years ago. The idealistic voice in my head continues to ask, “why can’t we all just get along?” What if Instead of judging capitalism for what it has gotten "wrong,” and stirring the defensiveness, we asked how we can harness its power to take constructive action toward innovation that serves people and the planet? And instead of judging idealism, what if we embraced its inherent power to engage our spirits in doing work that really matters?
I am unapologetically part of the “loopy left” but I grew up in and honor the competitive world of the MBA (long before “social entrepreneurship” was a thing) and CPG/Brand Management. At Helene Curtis (now part of Unilever, #28 on Fortune’s list) we referred to P&G as the “evil empire” and at Gatorade each of us on the marketing team was given a pair of boxing gloves (seriously!) when we were battling Pepsi’s AllSport brand and Coke’s Powerade. Gatorade clearly won that battle, but I suppose Pepsi won the war since they purchased our parent company, Quaker, in 2001. Check out how Murray sets up the "new cola war” (p71) for which company is leading the battle for conserving water and who he picks as the (current) winner, essentially challenging them to channel their competitiveness into how they can change the world.
And, I’d offer, what might be possible if Coke and Pepsi were actually collaborating on conserving water to positively impact the planet? Or creating water? The questions we ask frame the answers we see.
There are so many great stories featured in this “Change the World List.” I loved seeing Nike, #37, celebrated for how it “zealously audits factories’ ability to meet the company’s labor, health, safety and environmental targets" now because of it’s past challenges. It’s not about being perfect, it’s about getting better…every day, every year. Let’s celebrate it all! Let’s accept and celebrate every company for the intention to do good regardless of where they are on their journey. Let’s understand how it’s often from crises that the true character of leaders emerges and the purpose of organizations discovered or redefined.
Some surprises I appreciated on the list were multiple pharmaceutical companies and even Walmart, #4. Let’s all open our hearts and minds to what is possible for every company that aspires to “do well by doing good.”
Murray offers in closing, “Our point is simply this: Business in pursuit of profit still offers the best hope of addressing many of mankind’s most deeply rooted problems. Companies that are making genuine efforts to change the world for the better should be encouraged. The future of capitalism—and the future of mankind—depends on it.”
Because “what gets measured/celebrated, gets done,” thank you Fortune for celebrating the companies on your First Ever “Change the World List” and cheers to having more and more to celebrate!! (Note, the author makes no attempt to rate the companies on overall “goodness” or “social responsibility,” acknowledging that some companies' actions are clearly in response to public criticism of their past actions and impact.)
What are you doing to inspire and empower innovators in your organization to create and deliver products and services that change the world?
Howard Gardner’s Five Minds for the Future offers a framework for succeeding in a world of accelerating change and information overload, ways of thinking that are essential to thrive as citizens of the twenty first century. Gardner’s groundbreaking theory of Multiple Intelligences identified distinct cognitive capabilities that make each of us unique. The 5 Minds he distinguishes are broad uses of the mind which utilize our several intelligences.
The 5 Minds Gardner delineates are directly applicable to the process of innovation in organizations, they are generative rather than descriptive. And, importantly, unlike the individual profile created by our inherent intelligences, the five minds can be cultivated. Because innovation is a team effort, the five minds are especially relevant because they explicitly include the human elements required to create the future.
The first three minds, Disciplined, Synthesizing, and Creative, relate to the cognitive spectrum and are sequential, building upon each other. The last two minds, Respectful and Ethical, relate to the human sphere and are foundational to the process of innovation and the way we approach our work and our interactions with others.
The Disciplined Mind is about mastering a way of thinking, working steadily over time to improve skill and understanding. In the innovation process, this is the way we think about our marketplace and our customers, the way we observe and gather information, develop theories and revise them when we make new discoveries. It’s about gaining expertise, not in the subject matter, but in the way we think about our innovation challenges and opportunities.
The Synthesizing Mind is about putting information together in ways that make sense to you, which are coherent and can be effectively communicated to others. In the innovation process, it’s about creating a framework for the vast amount of disparate data that we have, deliberately choosing what to listen to and why, as well as what to ignore and why. It’s about how we summarize the relevant information and convey our perceptions of the opportunities.
The Creative Mind is about coming up with new things which get accepted, delivering creative results. As Gardner notes, personality and temperament are at least as important to creativity as cognitive powers. Creativity requires taking chances, taking risks, not being afraid to fall down, and learning from our experiences. In the innovation process, creating something new requires a deep understanding of what already exists, a framework to make sense of how it all fits together, and a willingness to take risks. Only then can we create new products and services that meet the functional and emotional needs of our consumers and deliver innovation to the marketplace.
The Respectful Mind is about recognizing that the world is composed of people who look different, think differently and have different belief and value systems. It’s about trying to understand them better. In the innovation process, our cross-functional teams are a microcosm of this diversity with vastly different intelligences and modes of operation. Respecting, and learning to truly appreciate, each unique perspective and contribution creates an atmosphere of teamwork and common cause that can transform a group of people into a unified, brilliant team.
The Ethical Mind encourages us to consider our responsibilities as workers, rather than our rights, and to act on them. Gardner notes that Good Work embodies the three E’s: excellence (technical,) engagement (meaningfully involved in work we find motivating,) and ethical (behaving responsibly as a worker.) In the innovation process, teams that bring their technical excellence to their work, fully engage with one another consistently, and behave responsibly toward their projects and their peers will deliver significantly more impactful results.
The 5 Minds offer a roadmap for developing innovation competencies in our leaders and teams. In addition to how we think about our challenges, they represent the innovation mindsets and innovation values that can be cultivated to deliver creative results.