TeamResearch News

May 2005
Vol. 2, No. 11

From the Editor: Last month came the latest nightmare for someone like myself who considers himself, in part, a science journalist: yet another confusing spate of news reports about science, in this case about the dangers of being overweight. The U.S. mass media pounced all over the latest studies from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on the topic, saying the CDC had changed its tune about the death risks of being overweight. I was skeptical—and as the editor of this newsletter, chagrined. After all, people who don't trust science won't have much use for TeamResearch News.

So I read The CDC's press release about the studies, and then the study article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (April 20). It is true that the studies indicate people who are "moderately overweight" are less likely to die in a given time period than people of normal weight. To determine "overweightness," the studies used the ratio of someone's weight to their height. Being underweight was linked to higher rates of death, which surprised a lot of people. But as you dig into the details, there's a lot that got lost in the new reports:

• "Obese" is a different category from "moderately overweight," and still carries a higher risk of death than any other weight level.
• Most of the excess deaths for underweight people were among those older than 70.
• A major reason for the drop in risk for the moderately overweight is better treatment of the many ills associated with being overweight—in other words, overweight people are still more likely to get certain life-threatening diseases that cause great suffering, but are less likely to die from them because of medical advances.
• The measurement used does not take into account the ratio of fat to muscle—important because a six-foot, 200-pound individual could be a weight lifter or a couch potato—so these studies don't directly address the relationship of how fat someone is to their chance of death.

The JAMA article points out that the studies did not address quality of life, just length of life. So these studies absolutely did not say, as many news commentators believe, that people should no longer worry about being overweight. That's why it's important to rely on reporters who really know the related scientific literature on a given subject—like, for example, relying on me for teamwork research!

P.S. In March I mentioned how renewed teamwork had greatly improved the play of my favorite college basketball team, from the University of North Carolina. Guess who won the U.S. national championship last month? (Go Tar Heels!)

Get the Real Scoop (and Your Name in This Newsletter)

Ever hear or read something about teams that you're just not sure you believe? Contact me about it and I'll tell you and the other readers of TeamResearch News what the experts say.

Contents

Studies and Articles

• Being Positive can be Negative
• Charismatic Leaders Open Followers to Change
• Employee Forums Improve Company's Communication
• Delegation Done Right Rare but Good for Career

Newsletter Information

• About This Newsletter
• Reprinting Articles
• Subscribe/Unsubscribe
• Contact the Editor

Being Positive can be Negative

Study: Leadership and teamwork gurus who tell you to always project a positive attitude may be wrong, according to a new study by American and Canadian organizational researchers.

The scientists gave a challenge to 56 teams of college students that had been operating as self-managed teams for school projects: assemble a tent blind-folded. By "self-managed," the researchers meant the members "conducted meetings, outlined task procedures, assigned tasks to members, and handled interpersonal issues." On self-managed teams, different people take the lead on different tasks based on expertise, so the researchers randomly selected a member of each team and gave that person very basic instructions for assembling the tent (not step-by-step procedures). Then they told the leaders this experiment was about memory, and showed them a short video from which the leaders supposedly would be asked to recall things after the tent-raising.

In reality, the videos were meant to affect the leaders' moods. Some leaders saw a comedy clip, while the others saw part of a "documentary about social injustice and aggression." Meanwhile the team members were tested for their moods. After the leaders went back to their teams and held strategy sessions, the teams built their tents while being rated on their performance. The researchers tested the team members' mood again after the strategy session and both before and after the tent-building.

Leader moods had a major impact on the moods of their fellow team members. The mood of the leader also directly affected the team's performance, but not in the way you would expect. Teams with leaders in good moods coordinated their work better, and were somewhat better at strategizing how to build the tent. However, teams with leaders in bad moods worked harder, and performed slightly better overall (though the difference was not mathematically significant).

Application: Previous research had shown that a formal leader (that is, a traditional group manager) in a bad mood about a particular project could sometimes get stronger results. The logic, of course, is that the team will pick up on the leader's concerns and respond with greater effort. That this can occur even with informal leaders is interesting. But it doesn't mean when you are in a leadership role, you should be in a foul mood all the time. As the authors note, constant long-term bad moods can harm team members' abilities to work together on other tasks. For example, a task requiring a high level of coordination would be hurt by a negative leader. Also, bad moods can have an effect on people's job satisfaction, which reduces individual performance over time.

Instead, the researchers suggest that a leader must learn to regulate his or her moods and/or the expression of them (see the study report below about charisma). Showing a negative mood in the wrong circumstances could hurt the team's ability to complete a task given the group skills that task required. But on the other hand, hiding the fact that you are concerned about whether a task can be completed well and on time may be equally harmful. Honesty is the best policy: honesty with yourself about the real chances of a project going sour, then honesty with your team by sharing your feelings, but also the same facts you used to draw your conclusion so they can draw their own.

Charismatic Leaders Open Followers to Change

Study: Charismatic leaders increase their followers' acceptance of change, by controlling their expressions of emotion (not the emotions themselves), according to a study by business doctoral candidate Kevin Groves of California State University. For his dissertation, Groves tested a complex model for the effects of leader behaviors, follower types, and company culture on change and leader effectiveness.

Groves sent questionnaires to 108 managers in 64 firms and to at least two of their direct subordinates each (a total of 325 followers). The firms were in different industries; about three-quarters were government or nonprofit agencies. Leaders' questions were written in a way to disguise the fact that Groves was looking at emotional traits and behaviors. Followers were asked about their leader's behaviors and effectiveness—defined as "the extent to which their leader accomplished the goals and objectives of their work units"—and their own openness to change. Both groups were asked how much change had occurred in the firm in the previous year.

One of the ethics that sets good science apart from bad (and most nonscientific endeavors) is the willingness to admit when the scientist is wrong. Groves says two of the six main ideas he tested, called "hypotheses," were incorrect, but four were backed by the results:

• A leader's skills at conveying emotion and adjusting behavior to fit the situation affected how "charismatic" they were considered.
• Their skill at controlling their emotions internally did not not, as predicated, relate to ratings of charisma.
• Charismatic leadership increased a follower's openness to company change.
• Charismatic leaders were seen as more effective, though less so by followers less open to change.
• The amount of change in the prior year had no effect on leadership effectiveness ratings.

Compared to five other models about how all this fits together, Groves' fit the data best. Basically, knowing how and when to use which emotional expressions to get your desired result increases your followers' willingness to create positive change in your organization, and your own appearance of effectiveness.

Application: Groves says organizations should consider social and emotional skills when hiring managers, and add training in these skills to executive development programs. On a more personal level, I think someone who wants to lead change—whether as a leader or just a "change agent" regardless of job title—needs to focus on their emotional skills as much as their facts and logic. Specifically, based on the questions Groves asked and my own research on persuasion, I would try to get better at:

• Reading how others are responding emotionally to your words, and adjusting your approach accordingly
• Taking personal risks to challenge "the way we've always done things"
• Having a clear vision that your words and actions always mirror
• Trying ways never tried before in your company to get your vision across
• Asking the people you want to influence what their needs are

Employee Forums Improve Company's Communication

Article: A United Kingdom cable operator has set up a an employee government of sorts to get feedback on company planning. Employees elect representatives to staff "consultation forums" of 15 employees each, which in turn elect one or two reps each to a company-wide "group" forum. An article in a UK human resources magazine, People Management, details the process.

Many companies in the UK are scrambling to set up such tools because they have to. As of April, by government regulation, "all firms with 150 or more employees will, if staff request it, have to put in place a system for consulting and informing their workforce." By 2008, companies with as few as 50 employees will have to do so. But Telewest introduced the forums last year at the suggestion of the senior HR manager, who had seen such forums work well in other companies.

The CEO "was enthusiastic about the idea...as a means of strengthening engagement." An employee relations manager was charged with forming employee focus groups to come up with a plan. "It was decided to align the forums along business-process lines instead of geographically," the article reports, "even though that meant transporting more people around the country to meetings." The eight divisional forums meet every three months timed with the release of quarterly financial reports, which are discussed. The group forum also meets quarterly. Divisional managers chair the process forums, and the CEO the group forum.

"The forums incorporate health and safety consultation," staffing levels, "and agenda items from management and employee representatives," the article says. Although the Communications Workers Union has contractual rights regarding pay and the other usual union matters, it supports the forums, and non-union reps are allowed to raise such matters in the forums. The time commitment is an hour or more per week per person, plus one day per meeting, which rep's managers allow time for in their schedules. Each member gets two days of training, "covering everything from finance and employment law to health and safety policy and personal impact," and serves one to two years.

The article does not report the financial results, but lists several successes. Follow-ups on repeated customer complaints were reduced from several weeks to a few days each. Lower-level workers seem better informed about company business. And communication apparently improved in the other direction. Managers were pleased to learn that a 360-degree feedback program they had killed (presumably due to complaints from some people) was "so popular that no one could understand why it was dropped." So it was reinstated.

Application: Your company may be thinking of better ways to tap employee input, and this is a model I've long advocated. It amuses me that top U.S. managers, who as a group tend to be supportive of this country's democracy efforts in Iraq, generally oppose similar efforts in their own companies. Telewest's approach meets a number of criteria for "the right way to do things" based on my research:

• First gain upper management and, if applicable, union support.
• Involve employees in the planning of the feedback mechanism.
• Provide training on matters members might not have had exposure to.
• Provide the time to do the job well.
• Provide to reps the same information managers have when making a given decision.

Delegation Done Right Rare but Good for Career

Article: Though directed at empowerment of individuals, a recent article in Supervision does a nice job of covering steps required in empowering teams. Business Professor Anthony Urbaniak of North State University writes: "When it comes to delegating, most inexperienced supervisors make two big mistakes: (1) They fail to delegate enough. (2) They fail to do it skillfully. The primary reason for both mistakes is that it's easy to agree to the idea of delegation, but difficult to put into actual practice." Few supervisors really delegate, and those few often do it poorly, he says. Urbaniak argues that failure to do so hurts supervisors, because proper delegation can do more for a career than handling everything themselves.

He lists four reasons supervisors resist delegating:

1. "No faith in subordinates." Some managers have been burned by poor performance, while others may have unrealistic standards. But lack of confidence can be a self-fulfilling prophecy: "To delegate successfully you must have confidence in the results you anticipate and transmit this feeling to the employee." (I would add that often poor performance occurs because the manager does not delegate properly.)
2. "Fear of superiors." You risk failure and criticism when you delegate, but Urbaniak argues, "If you are not sufficiently secure in your job and with your company to take a few failures, then you should not be a supervisor in the first place."
3. "Desire for personal credit." A manager who needs ego strokes wants to keep credit for important work to himself. But "by relinquishing personal credit to those in their departments they can increase productivity, which...is more rewarding and will take him farther."
4. "Misjudgment of time." Many supervisors do not recognize the time required to create delegation as an investment that will pay off in more personal time for more important work later.

Urbaniak says delegation is worth considering when the supervisor needs time to do more important work than they are delegating. Other reasons are because it will help an employee's morale and growth or the supervisor needs to relieve work pressure to reduce personal stress. However, it should only be done when the supervisor is willing to put in the time and effort to delegate correctly and it can be done without showing favoritism or hurting other relationships.

To delegate correctly, Urbaniak says you must:

1. "Select the job carefully." Make a list of tasks that can be delegated, then prioritize them based on how much of your time they take and how much follow-up would be required.
2. "Select the person carefully." Consider their workload, desire, and skills.
3. "Prepare all individuals for change." Inform everyone in the group, "so everyone is informed, misunderstandings are eliminated and there is some opportunity to ask questions."
4. Follow these steps with the individual:
   1. "Meet in private where you will not be interrupted."
   2. "Allocate sufficient time to do the delegating carefully and thoroughly."
   3. "Go over the new job step by step."
   4. "Ask the employee for verbal feedback on all details to eliminate any misunderstandings."
   5. "Give the employee an opportunity to ask questions."
   6. "Compliment the employee on previous work and transmit confidence..."
5. "Follow up soon."

Urbaniak says if you delegate regularly and well, "you will eventually worry less" and build better relationships with your employees—and possibly your family and friends as a result.

Application: The steps Urbaniak lists apply with a little modification to delegating to teams. As part of The SuddenTeams® Program, I hand the manager a list of typical administrative tasks and ask him or her to check when, if ever, over the next two years the manager wants to see the task turned over to the team. Then I would transmit that to the team for members to begin planning the change themselves. One glaring omission in Urbaniak's approach is training: the person or team you delegate to will need the same skills and information you had when handling the delegated tasks. Also, the individual or team should be explicitly asked what else they need to get the task done, and be encouraged to ask for more help when they have a better feel for what the task takes.

About This Newsletter

TeamResearch News summarizes the latest information from studies or articles on business teams, along with guidance on how to apply that research in your workplace. It is published the first full weekend of each month as a free service from TeamTrainers^TM Consulting (www.suddenteams.com). Learn how to subscribe below and see the newsletter Web page for details about the newsletter, cautions about studies, and our privacy policy.

Reprinting Articles

You may reprint any part of this newsletter at no charge in any electronic or print publication for which authors do not receive pay for individual articles, subject to the conditions below. This includes but is not limited to company and nonprofit organization newsletters, Web sites, intranets, etc. If authors are sometimes paid on a per-word or per-article basis, contact me to arrange reprint rights. The conditions for free publication are:

• The author ("Jim Morgan") should be credited.
• "TeamResearch News" must be cited, containing at least the name and the publication date (shown at the top of this page).
• A link to the newsletter Web page must be provided, either written out or (in Web formats) as a link from the newsletter title: "www.teamresearchnews.com."
• Please notify me of the publication.

The right to reprint does not imply the granting of any other rights, and all copyrights remain the property of Jim Morgan.

Return to Contents

Subscribe/Unsubscribe

Plain-text e-mail announcements are sent at no charge to subscribers whenever a new issue is posted, containing a list of that month's studies and articles and a link to the newsletter. To:

• Subscribe: Send an e-mail request to info@suddenteams.com from the e-mail address at which you wish to receive newsletter announcements. You will receive a welcoming e-mail to confirm receipt of your request and ensure you were not subscribed against your wishes.
• Unsubscribe: There are two methods:
  1. Reply to any TeamResearch announcement e-mail with “Unsubscribe” in the Subject line.
  2. Send an e-mail request to info@suddenteams.com. You will receive an e-mail at the subscribed address asking for confirmation.

Contact the Editor

Your questions and suggestions are always welcome. Contact:

Jim Morgan
Head Coach, TeamTrainers Consulting
(425) 770-8595
jim@suddenteams.com
www.suddenteams.com