In the last post, we looked at setting goals for teams. In this post, we will look at how to structure the team: both in terms of formal structures, as well as through informal roles and norms. We will also discuss the importance of team charters to delivering high performance.
Formal structure in teams
Formal structure in teams
- Departmentation
- A grouping of jobs and activities within the team
- Typically, a team has a leader and team members
- Team members might be subdivided into teams, each with a leader
- Questions: How to subdivide into teams? Generalist team or specialist team?
- Specialist team: works better when tasks are predictable. Efficiency becomes the key here (research here).
- Generalist team: works better when tasks are dynamic in nature, not readily understood. Enables cross-functional collaboration, as well as quick adaptation to changing situations.
- Not easy to go from one structure to another (research here)
- Easy to go from specialist to generalist, not the other way around
- Specialists develop norms for communication and collaboration to work across their functional silos, which come in handy when they are put into a generalist structure.
- Generalists probably have not developed such norms, because they do not need them (as all functions are already present in this structure), and jumping to a specialist structure becomes difficult.
- Centralization
- Distribution of decision making power: team leader or spread within the team?
- Where tasks are relatively known and efficiency is key, centralized decision making works well. Where tasks require creativity, decentralized decision making is more effective (because of flexibility, multiple inputs etc. Research here).
- Decentralized leadership typically is typically perceived as being more effective. Likely because there are many faces recognized as leaders, and that reflects positively on the strength of the team (research here).
- Note that in this decentralized leadership, each person is responsible for a different area, and in seeking local maxima, people might not coordinate well. That could explain why decentralized leadership does not work when coordination required is high.
- Switching from one structure to the other has costs: centralized to decentralized has lower performance drop than the other way around (research here).
- Why? Because the norms people develop in one structure carry over, and new norms require time to take root.
- Rewards structure
- Should we reward the individual or the team? Should we focus on competition (sales) or collaboration (innovation)?
- If speed is the focus: competition works better (research here)
- If accuracy is the focus: cooperation works better
- Switching from competitive to cooperative actually improves speed a little, while hurting accuracy (contrary to what is expected; research here). Why is this?
- Norms survived the switch from competitive to cooperative structure (for example, not feeling incentivized to contribute more, given the team as opposed to individual rewards).
- Change thinking/norms first, and the benefits will follow.
- Switching from cooperative to competitive reward system actually helps. For the same reason that cooperative norms get carried over.
- Can we do a mix of individual- and team-based rewards?
- The evidence is mixed:
- Recognize if you are committing the folly of rewarding A while expecting B. Change accordingly.
- We want teamwork, while rewarding individual performance.
- Virtuality
- Teams spread across geographies/nationalities; and/or communicates using technology
- Research here
- Geographic dispersion
- Lack of contextual knowledge (of local conditions etc.); foster it to make this work!
- Added coordination/communication costs
- National dispersion
- Arrive at a common understanding that respects cultural differences/uniqueness, so the team can work together
- Electronic dependence
- Reduces ability to control/monitor for leaders; increase feedback (bidirectional)
- Reduces richness of communication; increase face-to-face communication, and establish norms for communicating effectively (use video conferencing for resolving sensitive issues etc.)
- Three strategies to improve performance of virtual teams
- Team empowerment: Low face-to-face in combination with low empowerment is a disaster. High empowerment + low face-to-face can actually be better than high empowerment + high face-to-face (research here).
- Support structures: Clear task structures and roles, clear reward structures, consistent info. sharing are examples of support structures. For virtual teams, these are key; they don't matter as much for co-located teams (research here).
- Building a safe environment: Where people can speak their mind freely; very important, especially for geographically dispersed teams (research here)
| Centralized | Decentralized |
| High interdependence in teams | Low interdependence in teams |
| Execution-focused tasks | Creativity-focused tasks |
| Low complexity tasks | High complexity tasks |
| High diversity in age/experience | Low diversity in age/experience |
Informal structure in teams
- Team roles (research by Belbin here and here)
- Investigator: explores opportunities, develops contacts, stakeholder insight
- Teamworker: helps team gel and avoid friction, builds trust in team
- Coordinator: Focuses on team goals, draws out colleagues, delegates work etc.
- Plant: Fosters creativity, solves complex problems, generates ideas
- Implementer: Turns ideas into action; develops work plans
- Finisher: Quality control; polishes and evaluates outcomes for quality
- Evaluator: Objectively evaluates the team's options; logical
- Shaper: Provides drive and motivation, so team maintains focus and motivation
- Specialist: Brings expert knowledge of a key area to the team
- Identify critical roles, and roles that are unfulfilled (especially ones that are resulting in underperformance)
- Evidence unclear on whether team roles are distinct, probably because people play multiple roles (research here)
- Team roles have no bearing on salary, promotions, formal power etc. (research here)
- All team roles have weaknesses that need to be managed (research here)
- Team needs to have most of these roles filled for success
- Make sure you identify people who play multiple roles; lot of dependence, what if they leave?
- Either you or someone else should fill missing roles.
- Make sure to discuss team roles, especially when there is a competitive reward structure. Disaster if no such discussion happens in this scenario (research here)
- Team norms (thinking)
- Behavioral patterns that are accepted, relatively stable, and expected by team members
- Norms around accountability, responsibility, ownership, decisions, conflicts, meetings, communication etc.
- Why care about team norms?
- Positive outcomes for individuals (satisfaction, perceived performance, compensation) when cooperative norms (vs competitive norms) are present (research here)
- Teams with cooperative norms meet early, establish guidelines for cooperation, and are more effective.
- What can leaders do about team norms?
- When team expectations are low, high leader expectations help establish effective norms like accountability, responsibility etc. (research here)
- When team members have high expectations, leader influence is low
- When team norms get set, they are difficult to change. Make sure to crisply define team norms: an opportunity when they are not clearly articulated.
- If team members have clearly defined low expectations, going to be an uphill battle; takes time.
- It is important to have a shared understanding in the team about roles, norms, expectations, reward structures, processes etc. Team charter is a formal document that captures this.
- Team goals
- Roles and responsibilities
- Authority and empowerment
- Resources and support
- Operations (team meetings, frequency etc.)
- Protocols for giving/receiving feedback
- Rewards and sanctions
- Team charters improve intermediate process outcomes like communication, mutual support, cohesion etc. (research here)
- Team charters can also really boost team performance, even when the strategy is not very effective (research here). Better charter + worse strategy > worse charter + better strategy.
- Why? Because the systematic approach will help the team discover ineffectiveness of the strategy, and adapt course.
- Note that charter is in our control, whether a strategy is good may/may not be.




