Understanding the mismatched is another benefit of long-lived, stable teams

From the Easy in theory, difficult in practice Blog
by
My musings on project management, project portfolio management and change management. I'm a firm believer that a pragmatic approach to organizational change that addresses process & technology, but primarily, people will maximize chances for success. This blog contains articles which I've previously written and published as well as new content.

About this Blog

RSS

Recent Posts

Do your performance evaluation and recognition systems support cross-functional teamwork?

Don't be like a squirrel hiding nuts with project lessons!

I may be a "Crazy Fool" but I consider the A-Team to be agile!

Understanding the mismatched is another benefit of long-lived, stable teams

Horror movie lessons for managing project issues



In his latest book, Talking to Strangers, Malcolm Gladwell writes about the problems which can result when we expect that there is alignment between how people act and how they really feel internally. Gladwell call this the transparency problem and provides multiple examples to illustrate the challenges we face when we assume that what we see is what we get.

He presents the assumptions which Neville Chamberlain made in the years leading up to World War II based on the meetings he had with Adolf Hitler. Chamberlain assumed that Hitler was being genuine when he indicated that he had no interest in starting a major conflict in Europe and yet his near term actions clearly showed that this was not the case. He talks about the difficulties which judges face when having to decide whether or not to grant bail based on not only case information available to them but how an accused behaves when they are in front of the judge. And he writes about the Amanda Knox case where Italian authorities assumed that she was guilty of murdering her roommate primarily because of her behavior when she was questioned after the incident.

Gladwell sorts people into those whose external behavior matches what is happening inside of them and those who don't. We are quite good at identifying matched people. In fact, Gladwell indicates that our ability to detect when a matched person is lying is almost as good as that of law enforcement experts. What's chilling is that when dealing with mismatched people these experts are no better than we are.

It is not that assuming transparency is a bad thing to do. As Gladwell states, Charles Darwin felt that transparent behavior was critical to creating trust between strangers which enabled our species to survive.

But what's the relevance of this to project delivery?

When interacting with those who we've never worked with before, most of us default to expecting transparency. When someone appears to be acting in a negative manner, this assumption might result in us becoming offended. Alternately, we might be getting warm, friendly vibes from a team member which causes us to assume that they are on our side only to be shocked when their subsequent actions prove they were not supporting us at all. In the latter situation, the individual may be purposefully deceiving us by providing false "tells" (to use the poker term) but in the former, it might simply be a case of someone who is mismatched.

This is illustrated in the movie Joker. Joaquin Phoenix's titular character is prone to burst out laughing hysterically at inopportune moments as a result of childhood head trauma. Strangers exposed to this behavior assume transparency and respond negatively. To attempt to compensate, he has cards which he hands to offended strangers providing the justification for his inappropriate laughter.

But once we get to know that these team members are mismatched, we begin to understand them for who they truly are, and the likelihood of misinterpreting their behavior is vastly reduced. When we are part of long-lived, stable teams, we are able to appreciate the diversity of those who work with us and are able to leverage these differences as strengths and not as sources of conflict.

Posted on: October 27, 2019 07:00 AM | Permalink

Comments (10)

Please login or join to subscribe to this item
Dear Kiron
Interesting reflection
Thanks for sharing

If some of our paradigms are:
- All people are unique, different and equally respectable.
- Map is not territory
- To be understood we must first understand
- My relationships are based on Win-Win

Can we create synergies whether we have worked long or recently together?
Of course, over time situations flow more naturally

Thanks Luis - synergies but more important understanding develops over time.

This is a great observation. It takes time to learn who people are, to learn how to work with them effectively, or to learn that you really shouldn't be interacting with them at all. Long-lived teams provide the opportunity, and the motivation, to learn these things. This increases the chance that you will build an awesome team. Furthermore, because you know the team will be long-lived there is also the motivation to put a lot more effort into determining whether someone is a good fit for the team to begin with, also increasing the chance that you'll build an awesome team.

One of the great downsides of short-lived project teams is that they often don't have sufficient time to learn to work together well. Worse yet the motivation isn't there to fix any problems because there's a good chance you can get away from the people you don't work with effectively once the project finishes. Everyone, including the organization, is the lesser for it.

Dear Scott
Absolutely according to your comment
What is the current trend?

Scenario 1: Short-term outsourced teams

Scenario 2: Outsourced teams in long term projects

Scenario 3: Organization teams on short term projects

Scenario 4:Teams of the organization in long term projects

Scenario 5: Other Possibilities

Interesting point of view Kiron. I totally agree with you as I’ve been in situation like the ones you describe in your blog.

Very interesting thanks for sharing

@Luis, within the agile community we're seeing a very clear shift to long-lived teams. I suspect this is because agile strategies now dominate in the IT space, and scenarios 1 through 3 that you mention tend to struggle in that space due. Scenario 4 isn't that great either for IT due to the higher rate of change in that space.

Interesting view Kiron. Reading people is always a challenge for me because I normally assume positive intent when starting to work with a member on my team. This is something that one has to master over time.

Wow Kiron ! just finished the same book yesterday . What a great analogy to project management . I was beginning to think how I should link that book's learning to some practical real life experience so that I don't lose the key message. "Talking to Strangers" who are your stakeholders off course ! A great many hitlers out there and especially that mismatched policeman Encinia derails projects for the Poor Sandra Blands of this world !

Please Login/Register to leave a comment.

ADVERTISEMENTS

"A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five."

- Groucho Marx

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsors