Six Secrets of Powerful Teams: A Practical Guide to the Magic of Motivating and Influencing Teams (6 page)

Political correctness is vital in order to survive and flourish in and as a multicultural society. It enables effortless relationships, careful interactions and erring on the safe side.
This tendency of politically correct is also one of the biggest adversaries of powerful teams
. When teams are treating each other with too much political correctness, they are undermining the healthy interactions of powerful teams.

A cornerstone of political correctness is the usage of the: ‘WE’.

‘WE’ conveys a (mostly false) message of cohesiveness and comradeship, often covering and smoothing dissent and disagreement. In many teams the usage of ‘WE’ is the manipulative method of saying: “this is how things are done in this team, and do not argue with it because this is what the majority is thinking and since the majority rules we’ll do it this way”.

One can witness how the usage of ‘WE’ interrupts the free-flowing interaction between team members as it imposes an implicit rule on a free exchange of ideas, decisions, and actions. Who has not heard 1001 times the proverbial: “
this is how we do it here
”, to which only a few brave risk takers can retort: “
well, maybe we can change…
”

‘WE’ is used too much in team interactions. When I question participants during workshops that I lead on the superfluous usage of ‘WE”, usually the answer is: It is politer to say ‘WE’ then ‘I’.

I agree that for politeness sake it is nicer to say ‘WE’. It is more social to say: “WE would like to go to the cinema for the team building activity” rather than: “I want to go to the cinema for the team building activity”.

It does sound better, doesn’t it? However, what is the price that WE are paying?

The usage of ‘WE’ dampens the communication, it makes the message vaguer, it creates communication noise. With ‘WE’ the individual thoughts, preferences, feelings, positions are masked at the expense of the often false sense of unity.

Let me refresh your memory regarding a discussion about the Tuchman – Jensen model:
This tension between unity and individualism is the essence of what a team is about – the precise balance between these two elements is at the basis of a powerful team. This tension is about how much I give of myself to become part of the team, and how much I retain of myself as a functioning individual
.

Teams that have reached high performance are able to withstand the propensity of the individual team members; there is no need for false sense of ‘WE’. As mentioned above, team members will frequently use ‘WE’ in order to create a stipulation on the team’s behavior, that will stop the free generation of individual thoughts, ideas, recommendations, proposals etc.

Other times, people will use ‘WE’ instead of I, as they do not want to take responsibility and commit to a certain action, or maybe they don’t want to blame anyone and prefer to hide behind the wide back of the team.

Let’s review the second case study and observe where the use of ‘WE’ interrupts communication. Do you remember the emails that have been sent? Here is the scenario:

We
should definitely work harder on producing the deliverables and maybe
we
haven’t put enough effort, but that is just because of other pressing matters the team had to deal with in the last few weeks. Shaj from India, already mentioned how it is important that we report our actuals according to the way that we accumulate them. Shaj was also the one who was saying how it is important that
we
follow our defined way of work. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the way that you reported information that was detailed in the mentioned status report.
We
should though make sure that
we
are consistent with how
we
communicate our actual. Can I ask you that next time we try to be consistent with how
we
decided to do that.

What would be a better choice of words? How about changing some of the ‘WE’ to’ I’ and see what happens:

We
I should definitely work harder on producing the deliverables and maybe
we
I haven’t put enough effort, but that is just because of other pressing matters
the team
I had to deal with in the last few weeks. Shaj from India, already mentioned how it is important that we report our actuals according to the way that we accumulate them. Shaj was also the one who was saying how it is important that
we
follow our defined way of work. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the way that you reported information that was detailed in the mentioned status report.
We
I/You (both applicable) should though make sure that
we
I/You are (both applicable) consistent with how
we
I/You (both applicable) communicate our actual. Can I ask you that next time we try to be consistent with how
we
decided to do that.

It is now much clearer what Ed wants to say. He’s also taking a risk by saying that he hasn’t performed well, and this will invite a different answer from Beverly.

Moving from ‘WE’ to ‘I’ is challenging, the benefits are higher accountability and responsibility, clear communications and less clutter of messages.

How do I make sure to use ‘I’ in the teams I lead and otherwise. I add it to the team charter, and explain the benefits of taking responsibility and accountability I also offer a funny prize to people for saying ‘I’. Please bear in mind that having too much of ‘I’ is also problematic. I invite you again to the very important foundation ingrained in the individual-team interaction.

This tension between unity and individualism is the essence of what a team is about – the precise balance between these two elements is at the basis of a powerful team. This is about how much I give of myself – I – to become part of the team – WE – and how much I retain of myself as a functioning individual
.

Make sure you don’t exaggerate to one extreme.

The German word gestalt cannot be translated into an equivalent, single English term. It encompasses such a wide variety of concepts: a shape, a pattern, a whole form, and a configuration. Gestalt therapy draws on all of these meanings, with equal emphasis on the organized whole and on the notion of pattern.

Gestalt therapy is a holistic, process-oriented, dialogical, phenomenological, existential, and field theoretical approach to human change with the centrality of contact, awareness, and personal responsiveness and responsibility. Primacy is given to the uniqueness of the individual. The person is never reduced to parts and structural entities but viewed as an integrated whole with innate potential of growth and mature self-expression. Of crucial importance is the interplay between biological maturation, environmental influences, interaction of the individual and the environment, and creative adjustment (Yontef, 1933). Gestalt therapy is about the aliveness and excitement, the awareness of choice everyone has in creating their lives.

The Gestalt that Fritz Perls created, as the official founder of Gestalt therapy (he preferred to be called the finder or re-finder), is predominantly a synthesis of many existing elements and concepts interrelated into a meaningful, new whole. He wove the new Gestalt out of different bodies of knowledge and disciplines, and was particularly influenced by existential philosophy, phenomenology, holism, humanism, Gestalt psychology, bio-energetics, orthodox and interpersonal psychoanalysis, and Eastern philosophies (Clarkson & Mackewn, 1993). The Zeitgeist, the historical and cultural situation that prevailed during his lifetime, in combination with numerous political upheavals, and his exposure to different cultures, left clear marks on this revolutionary new theory.

From: Gestalt Therapy Theory: An Overview. By Maria Kirchner

Okay, that’s nice to know, however what is all this psychological theory to do with powerful teams?

Quite a lot: Self-disclosure is a fundamental concept within Gestalt therapy, using ‘I’ instead of ‘WE’, is another. The third secret is the Gestalt concepts of: Introjecting, Retroflecting and projecting. Hey, don’t stop reading now…

You might have heard of projection, which is a highly known psychological Freudian concept. Gestalt however refers to an active process; therefore all the above-mentioned concepts are active things which occur between individuals and are extremely noticeable in team behaviors.

Let’s put these concepts into action, I will be using simple explanations and not psychological theoretical ones:

Projecting
is an active process by which one person assigns his beliefs, ideas, concepts, thoughts, and feelings onto another individual. For example the parent might be hungry during a family road trip but instead of saying: “I am hungry let’s stop for a burger”, he will say: “the kids are hungry let’s stop at McDonald’s”.

Does this happen in team interactions? Sure, and quite often!

Remember the case study:

And so it continues for ten more minutes
when
Ashley says: “I think that
the team
can use a break now”.

The above statement is a very common projecting statement, where a person takes his wants and needs and puts it in the mouth of someone else.

The result? Masked interactions.

Projecting occurs often when team members and leaders are afraid to speak out, communicating their individual wants and needs, masking them by using: ‘YOU’ or ‘WE’.

We mentioned this behavior in the previous secret, and indeed using ‘WE’ is a form of projecting. Team members and leaders can be cognizant of projecting by monitoring the amount of ‘I’ and ‘YOU’ that occur during team interactions.

Introjecting
is an active process: when introjecting a person performs according to his understanding and belief of what the norms, accepted, approved processes, guidelines, behaviors are. Thus he will operate in line with the social accepted behavior for the situation.

This is mostly manifested and exhibited in the word: ‘Should’.

The ‘Shoulds’ are at the basis of our culture and civilization, without them we will not be able to operate within society. Reflect about that for a moment, a lot of how we operate within a given context is based on how we believe we are supposed to behave in that specific context. Actually without a powerful belief and conviction in the ‘shoulds’ our society will crumble.

Different cultures have varying level of adherence to the ‘shoulds’.
I should always obey commands
is a good example of how total adherence to ‘shoulds’ can create horrific consequences.

The excessive use of ‘Shoulds’ in teams kills creativity, freethinking, out-of-the-box solutions, and thus constrains the team to a predefined and safe course of action.

Team members and leaders would be wise to notice, how much of their communication is peppered with these ‘shoulds’ - we will revisit the concept of ‘shoulds’ later on in a discussion concerning NLP.

Remember Mark’s email to Ed and Beverly? 

“Hello team,

we
should
really try to stick to our defined way of work because this is what helps us, but sometimes I see that it’s better to err on the safe side in terms of task completion. You don’t want to make mistakes while reporting that understood. We
should
as a team work together.

Mark”

What does Mark imply with his ‘shoulds’? Maybe a better and clear way of saying his first sentences is:

              “I want us to work according to how we defined”

How about the last sentence in his email? Can it be rephrased into something more direct, that can rally the team around, which also exhibits self-disclosure?

“I want us to work together, I prefer to carry out these discussions over the phone, this will contribute to a quicker resolution of issues”

Notice the difference between the first message in the original email which is abstract, indirect and carries little force, compared with the altered rephrased message which is potent and clear.

Retroflecting
freely defined, is an active process by which one person performs to himself what he would rather do to someone else. It is a constraining, self afflicting behavior which also can be seen in the context of protecting our social relationships.

An example in a team interaction might be when someone speaks, while other team members bite their lips. Lip biting is a powerful retroflecting example, as it shows energy which would like to be released only to be held back by the person experiencing it. As a team leader or member notice lip biting, it is an indicator of discontent and agitation. It can also signal that the person wishes to speak, however s/he does not want to interrupt as –
We should not interrupt one another
– is a powerful should in many teams (i.e. Introjecting). S/he also believes that if s/he
does
interrupt the team members will be
unhappy
and the leader would frown upon him/her (i.e. Projecting – since s/he is putting his/her thoughts on the team members and the leader when actually s/he will frown upon himself for interrupting…) what remains for him/her to do is to bite his/her lips (i.e. Retroflecting).

The three concepts tend to operate integrally
.

Another great example in team interactions is clutching of fingers as someone else is speaking. This might be a restraint on a wish to strike out at that specific person. Watch out how people hold their hands as other people are speaking, it’s an amazing cue to their acceptance or disagreement of what another team member is saying.

Here’s another physical example of retroflecting - slowly massaging the back of the neck as someone else in the team is speaking, making an argument towards, disagreeing etc. the person massaging the back of the neck is actually holding the energy instead of saying something like: “this is the stupidest idea I ever heard have”. Observe and remain cognizant of this behavior of rubbing back of the neck.

Noticing retroflecting behaviors assist the team leader and team members in dismantling conflict situations by putting the conflict out in the open.

When someone is biting his lips, the team leader might ask, in a nonthreatening way: “does anyone have anything to say”, or if there is enough trust and confidence in the team he can ask the person who was biting his lips: “would you like to add something”.

Alternatively, the team leader might offer her perception and see how this impacts the team. If you are biting your lips during team interactions or elsewhere, what can you do for yourself to ease your burden?

Asking open-ended questions when any of the above behaviors are seen, is a good method to dismantle the energy that has been built and held at bay by introjecting.

Important – notice how the concepts function together:

Lip biting can signal that the person wishes to speak, however s/he does not want to interrupt as –
We should not interrupt one another
– this is an example of
introjecting
.

S/he also believes that if s/he
does
interrupt the other team members will be
unhappy
and the leader would frown upon him/her – this is an example of
Projecting
– since s/he is putting his/her thoughts on the team members and the leader when actually s/he will frown upon himself for interrupting…)

What remains for him/her to do is to bite his/her lips (i.e. Retroflecting).

The three concepts operate at once
.