More on a Group of Equals

Have you ever been on a team that was memorable for the quality of the outcome and the closeness of the relationships? Most people have at least one such experience, but they are often such exceptions that they look back on it with the fondness of a European vacation. Some people report that they still write to the people from that special team.

We have good reason to hope for -- and even to expect -- such outstanding results. A group represents a greater pool of knowledge. The different perspectives should lead to greater diversity and innovation. The broader base of knowledge should create greater comprehension of the problem. The involvement of more people should lead to smoother implementation of the eventual decision.

Unfortunately the list of downsides of a group are equally impressive. A group can be vulnerable to social pressure to avoid certain issues or to feign support when people really have doubts. The mix of personalities and expectations can make a smooth process more difficult to maintain. All those different opinions make for longer meetings and more of them. And conflict can easily get out of control.

The more typical experience of a working group is less than memorable, often a frustrating experience with a disappointing outcome. Truly outstanding teams are difficult. But there is a reasonably clear checklist for forming a more successful team effort:

• Clarify the membership. Who's in ... and out. Who is present as a representative of another group, and who is present only as themselves.
• Acknowledge the differences in culture or perspective. A group composed of Engineering staff and Manufacturing staff will view the same situation through very different lenses. Men and women often see things differently. These differences can be assets when consciously called out. They are usually sources of unnecessary friction when ignored.
• Address the ambiguity of authority. Will someone be the facilitator? What exactly is their role? What decision-making rule would best serve the group? What are the constraints that limit the discretion of the group?
• Acknowledge the different levels of experience or expertise. In an effort to be more egalitarian, some groups will gloss over the fact that 1 or 2 people are true experts, while others bring intelligence but not direct experience.
• Normalize the ambiguity. Groups are often less tolerant of ambiguity than an individual, unless someone names it and normalizes the experience.