Hi Anne,

My experience is that team building is commonly perceived as a nice-to-have that borders on irrelevant. I've seen this in SMEs and in Fortune 500s. And I agree with you that this is the result, at least in part, of the plethora of recreational services that promote themselves primarily in terms of team building.

Having recreational experiences together certainly aids the building of a team. My colleagues and I have used this technique in political mediation with warlords in Africa intent on killing each other. But utilized independently of other, more robust processes that target issues, increase insight and push for solutions, these recreational activities become banal, and even self-defeating. They can ultimately generate cynicism with employees. An analogy is a disease that becomes drug resistant because of the inappropriate or inconsistent use of the drug.

Team building, to my mind, encompasses two dimensions: trust and capacity (skills leveraged synergistically against team objectives). Three simple questions need to be asked: "who am I and why am I here?" "Who are you and why are you here?" "What shall WE do and how shall WE do it?" The third question is the capacity question, and it can't be answered effectively without answering the first two questions successfully -- precisely because it is a WE question. If I don't know and trust who you are, and you who I am -- and why you and I are on this team -- you and I cannot answer this third question effectively.

But being able to tackle these two dimensions requires effective leadership, and it also requires the wisdom to know whether or not you have put the right people on the team in the first place. So there is no one silver bullet.

I say all that to make the point that team building (or team development as I prefer to call it) has to be a holistic and multi-faceted process. To reduce team-building to an event or a set of exercises gives lie to its multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary nature.

I think you have asked a great question. I hope my answer contributes to an important discussion.

Jonathan

Links:

• http://www.amazon.com/Performance-Factor-Unlocking-Secrets-Teamwork/dp/0805...

posted June 1, 2009

I have to agree with the comment about a need for more leadership training, but also agree that team building has, unfortunately, been reduced to unfocused 'play time'. To be of any real use, such training needs to be focused and measurable. Right now, this economy is just making it more evident that organzations are no longer going to expend their tight budgets for training that is little more than a day at the park. For teams to be effective, it is important that team members build trust, learn about each other and their respective skills, not who is a good shot with a paintball gun or laser tag gun...or is 'skilled' driving go-carts. More important is to uncover one's business attributes and find the best assignments to utilize those traits to contribute toward the team's 'wholeness'.

posted June 6, 2009

Hi Anne,
Great question. And Anita, I'm with you!

I am focusing a lot more these days on understanding my folks, seeing their strengths, and helping them seethe connection between their unique contribution and our mission.

I wouldn't call it "team building" in the traditional use of the term, but it's definitely focusing on building stronger teams. Does that make sense?

Susan.

posted May 30, 2009

Anne,

I would say that yes, team building as a discrete process/function/activity is going by the way-side because of the reasons you have mentioned.

I feel team-building is an organic, dynamic, and on-going endeavor that is more rooted in getting the right individuals in place from the start than creating activities and 'build sessions' in an effort to force or correct the matter.

I think it would be interesting if someone created a Poll and asked if individuals have ever received any value from a team building activity. I can say that I have not.

It would also be interesting to me to see what the numbers would be if they separated Morale and Team Building into 2 distinct categories. I would hope Morale spending would stay relatively unscathed, but am sure that would not be the case.

posted May 30, 2009

In this globally challenged economic environment there's the self survival shift from we to I... This is unfortunate and short sighted. Companies that continue to find ways to build teams by soliciting the best ideas, encouraging innovation, and taking some risks will build enduring businesses. The economy WILL improve...

However, in the short run there's a need to be extremely well focused in husbanding resources for use and impact to develop people and teams through people oriented programs. It's a time to focus on identifying and raising the bar to grow your best people and to be sure to have the resources to nurture their development.

Regrettably this means leaving some behind, and laying off people. However, this is preferable to just cutting work hours and wages across a redundant staff force that isn't in a position to accelerate the company forward in the economic rebound to come....

posted May 30, 2009

Most companies that invested in "team building" found it to be a low ROI activity, as long as things were fine in the company otherwise.

I would suggest that the "extremes" of the economy (hypergrowth and significant slowdown) require groups of individuals to function differently. In those circumstances, taking time to specifically and deliberately outline roles, expectations, decision processes, and so on becomes a higher ROI activity.

Based on prior experiences it is easy to cut the "fluffy stuff", but in tough circumstances it is especially important to solve group dysfunctions or performance will go further downhill.

posted May 30, 2009

Having retired from our nation's premier team building organization -- the military, I can attest to the enormous synergy and benefit of "effective" team building. My 25 years of civil military team building experience leads me to conclude that poor teams are usually the result of poor leadership , rather than the result of some contrived "team building" experience. When times get tough, everyone, including the team's leaders will revert to their predominant modus operendi rather than attempt to execute some "new untested way" of doing things. For these team building events to work, you must have the right leadership, and the right team members who are "capable" of working together. Stress and the certainty of failure is the glue that will bind good team players together. Teams’ metal is hardened and strengthened by the heat of stress and the observed results of their energy in real world situations over time -- whether they were formally "trained" or not.
I agree with Jim Collins that the first and most important thing a team can do is get the right players on the team. That is a leadership responsibility. When economic times become tough, companies will seek first to ensure the right players are seated in the right seats and only then will they even consider contrived team building to "develop" team behaviors. I am a firm believe that teaming behavior is more innate than we presently understand - - much like the pack behavior of animals.
Good question.

Regards,

Lucky

posted May 31, 2009

Ahah! I have not attended one for long.

Team building excercise today has become a tool to put some insufficiently skilled managers or leaders other side of the table and draw a line around them. Take out some latest management book and lets try this one man. Irresespective of any idea about team members.

It's not that TB activities are an evil and we should get away of them. Problem is managers today have become so academic about these things that they often ignore practicle utility of such activity. Team is built on some basic components trust, respect and diversity. Not only for each other but also for work they are doing.Remember we can never build a team rather we can build youself around a team. Big difference

So we should overdoing of team building

posted May 31, 2009

As I read the answers what is not effective, as Anne has stated, is the Grape Stomping, Go-Kart racing, Laser-Tag events with no facilitation and practical tie back to effective team dynamics.
The programs that are thought of as TeamBuilding are not they are just recreation.
And recreation has a value to the team although team building they are not.
When organizations attend trainings and other learning programs the ROI is equal to most effective Team Development Programs.

My hope is the endangered species are Team Recreation activities.
Organizations that focus locally and are effective are what businesses need and are paying for. If you are a team building provider and you can deliver on your promises the economic turmoil will not effect you greatly.

People pay for and value what works.

Links:

• http://teambuildingwny.blogspot.com/2009/03/team-building-success.html
• http://teambuildingwny.blogspot.com/2008/05/your-corporate-team-building-pr...

posted May 31, 2009

IMHO leaders build teams not facilitators.

So a little less 'team building' (which often turns out to be either a poor man's outward bound course or a thinly veiled drinking event) and a little more 'leadership development' may be a good thing.

posted May 31, 2009

"Team building" is a term that means a lot of different things and it is purchased for many different reasons.

For some, it means the ropes courses, obstacle courses, trust building activities, ice breaking, corporate retreats, and corporate-mandated activities/training. Speaking from experience, these events MAY change workplace behavior, but they leave an awful lot to chance. Often, little thought goes into defining the goals, deciding how success will be measured, and the practical outcomes that can result from such activities.

When people think about how individuals and groups can work together to achieve better business results though, team building isn't something that we buy. It is what we do. Do we invite participation? Do we listen to what others say? Do we create an environment in which people are able to share their concerns, listen to other's concerns, and work together to solve the business issues of the day?

Whether one is a contract negotiator/supply chain manager, a sales team leader, or senior exec at a large company, teaming behavior is important. We have to work with other people - be they suppliers, customers, subordinates, supervisors, creditors, or peers - to achieve business results. Building those teams has become even more important in today's economy as we struggle to find ways to do more with less.

posted May 31, 2009

I don't think team building spend has gone away however what I do think is that institutions are becoming smarter and more focused as to how they spend it. We are seeing greater interest on activities that are linked to issues and traditional team building exercises are a smaller part of the overall process. Still obviously important but sending a group of people down rapids in a river may have a short term effect in building morale but if the issues are deeper then that soon wears off. Alot more thought goes into these type of activities these days. Some people may argue that budgets have been cut due to deperessed economic conditions and I am sure there is some substance to that. However, I also think that managers have a greater and more sophisticated range of products that they can utilise and alot more of them are tailor made to address what it is they are trying to achieve. cheers

posted June 1, 2009

For some of us the analogy with sports teams isn't particularly relevant. And the "team-building" exercises I've participated in have been games with, so help me, funny hats and the weirdest sense of condescension. I forgot: there was one set of mind games in which people with slightly different answers were told how rare those answers were, and it wasn't a compliment.

I think that if a manager engages with his or her "team" as people and professionals, knows when to be tough and when to relax, models high standards and a powerful work ethic, and -talks- to us, not at us or down to us, that is all the team building I need.

Speaking as a working professional (who has also been called a "worker be" and "if you're not a leader you're a peon" and "emotional-with-a-religious-affiliation attached), I should prefer to see HR do its jobs of selecting good candidates, helping managers improve their skills and being there actually to intervene with management assuming they don't.

posted June 1, 2009

The essence of team building is about developing working relationships, improving the performance of the team and about improving motivation, communication, support and trust within a team. I would say that most people in the United States work anywhere from 40-60 hours a week with their management and peers, in other words their team. IMHO, any team building that goes on should be a result of those 40-60 hours a week.
If this is not happening in the allotted time each week, then there is an issue with the leadership. Team building should be constant during those 40-60 hours a week. People generally work to make a living so that they can enjoy the rest of their lives. Money is typically the motivating factor. To prove my point, pay top executives what the drones make and see how happy they become. Even take them for an all expense paid trip of white water rafting. 
Team building is very easy.
• Help people to feel appreciated. They are people first and employees second.
• Provide an organized, proactive, clearly defined environment for them to perform their job.
• Allow them to have some control over their growth and advancement within the company.
• If it is all about the money to the stock holders; it is all about the money to the people performing their jobs on a daily basis.
There really is no reason to do anything else beyond this. Trying to do anything beyond this to me feels like a hidden agenda.

posted June 1, 2009

Team building has its place.

Unfortunately, too many middle management buy into whatever the latest fad is in Corporate Speak.

Team building was WAY overdone.

posted June 1, 2009

For some reason organizations believe that they can keep changing the names of managers (i.e., leaders) and all of a sudden they will be able to fix all of our problems. The problem is that management/managers/leaders today in most organizations are not properely trained to handle people issues. People are complicated, you can't just throw a handful of folks in a room and expect them to work together at optimum efficiency; Sports teams, the Military, Team Builders, and Psychologists know this.

Heads of companies won't admit this because it will cost money, and they have MBA's that have given them CBA's that will show them that they can do it in-house. But, how many MBA's have ever had any training in psychology and really understanding the human psyche? But, I know that is psychobabble, right? I don't think so? There are reports that show over 70% of employees are disengaged in the work they are doing, and the numbers of Toxic Employees have been increasing. Maybe if we paid more attention to our employees and did more team building this would not be the case.

posted June 1, 2009

Anne, I think you've aptly listed many of the reasons why team building activities end up getting deferred during financial downturns. While I think that team building budgets swell disproportionately during periods of strong growth, it is hard to make a case that they are completely without merit. Instead, as training budgets and discretionary funds are slashed a good manager simply has to do more with less. One interesting idea I've run across are business simulation programs that teach (or remind us of) business subjects, while creating an atmosphere conducive to relaxation and team building. This sort of program confers many of the advantages of team-building programs while simultaneously addressing many of your critiques of such programs. (Not tied into the business, unquantifiable gains etc). Maybe in the future we'll see a shift away from traditional team building exercises and towards programs that take a more holistic approach to aiding business growth.

Links:

• http://www.income-outcome.com

posted June 1, 2009

If team building is becoming an endangered species, it's only through the demise of good coaching availability and practices.

Team performance is direct reflection of how they're coached. Average teams with great coaching will more often succeed over great teams with average coaching (in the long run).

Maybe we should all wear our names on the backs of our work clothes...(Hmmmm).

posted June 4, 2009

Absolutely agree.

Dubbing recreational activities as team building measures is crazy. It may work at workplaces where physical intensity-levels are very high, for example: the army, physical labor, etc.

In the business world, the story is different. If team members are not self-aware and not aligned to corporate goals, then such team building efforts are like taking a lame, dying-of-thirst horse to a water body. Even if the team members are self-aware, these fun, recreational activities are nothing more cases of instant gratification -- an activity that will be forgotten soon, but will end up puncturing next day's workplace productivity.

posted June 6, 2009

My organisation works with clients to create effective high performance teams that deliver against the strategic business agenda. I will borrow a comment from a former CFO / RVP colleague of mine who said it of himself and adapt it the Shinergise business focus - "we don't do fluffy bunny!"

Organisational Development interventions that are focused on building effective and energised teams that are focused and aligned on delivering results are still as relevant today as they were when times were less financially constrained.

As others have mentioned it is the Team Recreation activities that masqueraded as "Training and Development" that are being most heavily cut - and to be honest would you rather see colleagues keep their jobs or spend a few hours thrashing your way round a race track?

In a sense for SHRM to lump the things together in this way is effectively a disservice to effective organisational development - you need to fix teams that are not working; however the route to doing this is to understand the existing behaviours, the underlying motivations and issues, address these quickly and effectively and then create a new sense of direction, alignment and commitment.

At Shinergise we partner with The Center for Creative Leadership to use their Explorer tools to get to the bottom of team issues quickly and then build stronger, more effective teams that deliver results.

Hopefully companies and CEO's will and do recognise the difference between that and playing games at expensive venues for a few hours.

Great thought provoking question.

Regards

Hamish.

Links:

• http://www.shinergise.com

posted June 6, 2009

Yes, team building as a paid exercise is going the way of the dinosaur, and rightly so.

In my experience, these types of exercises have been used by poor managers, who think they are leaders, and come up with an excuse for a paid "vacation".

While there is some value to these types of activities, the understanding of when and how to use them, the expected results, and measurement of those results are typically non-existant.

A good leader constantly uses the workplace to have their team built, actively building it by recognizing that a team has different components, personalities,skill sets etc, and putting these in place utilizing the hiring process. A good leader also allows a team to grow within themselves, and thus does not require "games" to make this happen.

This whole "industry" grew by taking advantage of weaknesses within people and organizations, and realized that when times were not tough, managers needed things that sounded good and had all the right buzz words, to use a budget line items to meet their quotas.

If there is a demonstrated value, these can be good items. Unfortunately for team builing, there is no demonstrable long term value (nature of the workplace) and therefore it becomes a "reward" play time for most.

posted June 7, 2009

Pertinent question Anne. I have just read the Five Dysfunctions of a Team by Patrick Lencioni. It was written in 2001 and they were going on team building exercises all the time :-)
Team building as an external 'other' will always be seen as a cost and probably should be cut. The secret is to consider learning as an investment and that would mean integrating team building into the fabric of the organisation where its return is immediately productive.

posted June 7, 2009

Anne

Team building is crucial, but not necessarily achievable through contrived exercises. If people lack fundamental social skills, team building is too advanced for them. And I DO mean fundamental. Case in point:

I participated in a leadership conference sponsored by one of the leading education grad schools in the country. The goal was to enlighten high school students about leadership ( well, yeah. . .) and team building. My group of students wanted to introduce the topic "respect" into the larger discussion. We convened in the conference room complete with scribe. When it was our turn to announce our favored topic, the coordinator and scribe both said, "I'm not sure what you mean by respect." My students explained that respect between people was a prerequisite to leadership and team building. Needless to say, the leaders, so called, never got it and the topic was brushed aside, never to see the light of day again.

The concept of collaboration is fundamental to any group effort, and without respect, collaboration doesn't happen. People used to practice respect, and hence, collaboration simply occurred sans seminars.

I live in a rural area populated by mountain folk. They don't worry about "self." When we experienced the highest recorded rainfall in the history of the US, one private excavator took his backhoe and load of chainsaws up to the local store and recruited a bunch of what outsiders might call "red neck loafers" to clear 8-10' high twisted debris off a bridge that was jutting out into open rushing water. They had is cleared in a couple of hours, with no hard hats, no life jackets, no flashing signs, no regulations, no supervision, no promise of compensation or reward. In fact, the State had no clue where their funding was, so they failed to move. The Nike slogan is particularly salient here - Just do it.

We have become so self-indulgent that I suppose seminars are necessary, but please remember, that without mutual respect there is no team. That doesn't mean people have to agree on values, religions, lifestyles. They don't have to know each other much less like each other. It means that they need to overlook all that and focus on skills and the goal at hand. The rest is irrelevant.

posted June 7, 2009

I agree with Anita. I certainly hope so. My co-workers are my just that - my co-workers. They are not necessarily my friends nor are they my family. I find "team building" exercises annoying and can do very well without them. Believe it or not, I would rather work than attend some contrived "team building" exercise.

posted June 7, 2009

There will always be a need for some form of team building. But the days of stand-alone team building (off-site meetings, etc.) is on hold for the most past due to financial constraints.

Any type of training must:
- Be a part of a whole strategy not stand-alone
- It must be planned over years and in line with vision, mission and values
- Budgets must be protected
- Require a commitment from senior leadership

Only when team building is a part of a larger whole can it be effective, justified and the results sustained.

George F. Franks, III

Links:

• http://franksconsultinggroup.com
• http://careerandleadership.blogspot.com

posted June 7, 2009