I ran one of our regular “Introductions to Extra-Dependent Teams” calls recently and one person picked up on some simple indicators of a team that is hierarchical. A hierarchical team is one that is line managed in a hub and spoke way. They are teams in name only because they don’t benefit from the synergy that real teams achieve through their mutual collaboration. Sadly, for most people in organisations, the hierarchical team is the norm. So for many readers this might be both enlightening and uncomfortable reading.
In real teams collaboration is equal, with people caring equally about each other, the purpose of the team and the contribution of every team mate. Leaders in such teams are participants, principally contributing through theact of leadership, rather than the position of Leader. As a participant the leader will:
- Not be the decision maker but will care how decisions are made
- Not drive the agenda, but will pay attention to the dynamics of how the agenda is formed, how it plays out and what takes it off track
- Not account for performance, but will care deeply about how the team cares collectively for the value they create together.
Inspired by the curiosity of my recent participant, I thought I’d share 10 ways in which a hierarchical team might be noticed during team meetings. In effect the “tells” you might look for. Individually they aren’t enough to prove a team is hierarchical, but with several of them, it starts to show a pattern. Most of these “tells” hide a deeper assumption about teams and power. It’s these assumptions that restrict the true collective potential of a team. Because in a hub and spoke, things can’t get better than the sum of the parts.
Tell 1. When a manager can move a meeting to suit their schedule, but a team member can’t
Many of the “tells” are before a team meeting even starts. How meetings are scheduled and attended are symptomatic of the power dynamic at work within a team. In hierarchical teams managers are perceived (and allowed) to have the right to change meetings to suit them, when others cannot. The assumption is that they are more important than everyone else. Indeed rescheduling meetings demonstrates their importance, and the singular dependence team members have on the leader – a hub to their spokes.
Tell 2. When the team manager can’t make a meeting, people don’t turn up
The team manager says they won’t make a meeting, and then loads of people find reasons for not attending. This is all too familiar. It’s attendeeism – the need to be seen. This is marked when the person they turn up to be seen by doesn’t show, what’s the point in turning up? It misses the whole point of why a team exists – to collectively create value.
Tell 3. Team members asks permission from the manager to miss a meeting – but don’t ask anyone else?
This is a subtle indicator, but really quite routine in organisations. A person has a clash and mentions it to the team manager, but not the rest of the team. The inference is that only the team manager needs to know the person’s whereabouts and that the rest of the team aren’t affected by the person’s absence. This is true in a hub and spoke model, but not in a real team. So it is a useful indicator to look out for.
Tell 4. Where the meeting doesn’t start until the manager arrives, but does start if others are missing
Another power imbalance is when everyone waits for the leader to arrive at the meeting. Yet if someone else was late the meeting would start. The question is, whose meeting is it? Is it the line manager’s or the team’s? One indication of this is how such meetings are titled. I often hear teams named after the person who manages them – “Sanjay’s Team” or “Robyn’s Team” for instance. This emphasises the position of the line manager, not the collective purpose of the team.
Tell 5. Where the team agenda is decided by the manager
When the team manager decides the agenda they direct what goes on in the team. Team members become subservient, letting the team manager decide the important topics. It encourages team members to be passive, to arrive ready to listen and conform rather than contribute, share points of view, even take a chunk of time on an important topic
Tell 6. The manager talks more than anyone else
This is an easy one to spot! I witness this less and less, but it still exists. I recently listened to someone seemingly holding a team meeting via their phone whilst walking to the train station. He barely stopped talking for the 10 minutes or so I listened. He mentioned different people’s names on the call, telling them what information they needed to know, and worst of all, it was clear he was thinking whilst he spoke, changing his mind and getting himself in knots. How about taking a breath? How about hearing from someone else? What view might they have? What information could they add to make the team time more valuable? Personally I’m delighted I never attend meetings like that anymore.
Team Coaching with You
Contact us to explore how team coaching can realise your team’s needs and aspirations.
Tell 7. Information is a cascade
Of course, a team meeting of line reports is a great opportunity to cascade important information through the organisation. But the focus shouldn’t just be on the cascade itself. During a recent client meeting I observed such a cascade. Team members didn’t ask “what does that mean for us?” and explore their collective work as a team. Instead, they asked questions about “what do I need to know, to tell my team?” The “tell” is that the cascade was the only line of questions; there was no thought to “us”.
Tell 8. Individual goals are kept hidden from other team members
In a real team, why would you keep you individual goals or targets from other members of the same team? What is there to protect? The hub and spoke approach treats people individually, rather than as a cohesive collective. In a real team objectives are transparent so people can see the bigger picture and appreciate if the collective value is being created or not.
Tell 9. When the manager is the default decision maker
The team waits for the team manager to make the decision. In the worst cases a team member will ask the team manager what they want to be done. But it can also show up in people waiting for the line manager to decide, or disagreeing between themselves whilst waiting for arbitration from the leader. In real teams everyone’s contribution is key to making the best decisions.
Tell 10. When debate and disagreement is taken “off line”
In real teams, debate and tough discussions, allowing for disagreements, are necessary to bring out the best potential of the collective. The “tell” of a hierarchical team is when such topics are asked or expected to be dealt with outside the meeting because the topic is limited to those debating their points. Yet everyone in real teams should be affected by such disagreements, and therefore the discussions should be held within the team space. This is a really important factor for high performing teams and so this is a key “tell” of hub-and-spoke.
Self assessment?
Considering teams you are part of, I wonder how many of these “tells” you recognise? If it’s just one or two, it might not be limiting. But more than 3 would indicate hierarchical dynamics limiting the impact of the team.
Other OCH resources on this topic
See also my previous blog on “Good Leadership that Blocks Teaming” as it also highlights unconscious dynamics that occur in teams that limit their potential.
And read our many other blogs to learn more about teaming in Interdependent and Extra-Dependent Teams.
