For several years now FSA has been at the vanguard of Federal agencies for its leadership of performance-based governance. FSA's customer satisfaction ratings place it near the top compared to other federal agencies and on par with private sector equivalents. What's not so visible is that inside this organization exists FSA University, an internal leadership and training center. Isn't it wise that an organization dedicated to helping others access learning has a center focused on the improvement of its own management and staff capacity?
The partnership of FSA University and PSG produced many transformational learning tools . In this Connie's Corner, I want to highlight one - a team toolkit that was developed inside this larger context of managing for results.
Throughout our work together, there was always a focus on front line collaborations - how work teams could improve service to the customers with whom they interacted. Later on, leadership put an emphasis on project teams drawn from across the organization. For both ongoing frontline work and these special cross-organizational projects, working in teams was recognized as a foundational skill that people at all levels needed.
The Team Toolkit was developed as a work aid for those teams. It can be used in several different ways. It's most valuable for teams just starting out, providing an easy-to-use guide for a team to set a clear course and foundation for working well together. For experienced teams, it can be used by the full team or by the team leader to assess team performance and focus on specific areas of improvement. A PDF version of the kit itself can be found here. Feel free to download and use any of it for improved effectiveness inside your own team.
Beyond giving you access to the toolkit, I wanted to share two interesting reflections about its use and development. But first, I'd like to give credit to the creators. There were a number of PSGers who worked on this toolkit. Dr. Chuck Lofy was the project lead. The development team included Lorraine Chang, Jeff Kober, Mary Lofy, and Jeri Fosdick. They partnered with Chuck Conrad, and a steering team from FSA University.
Reflections on its use
In an interview with Chuck Lofy, Chuck emphasized the reason the toolkit was developed in the first place. FSA University staff had been getting reports that even at a third and fourth meeting of a cross-department team, there were people who didn't yet know the names of others in the room or what the team's purpose was. Yet, because team members didn't want to look ignorant, they didn't ask either. Sound familiar?
So Part I of the toolkit helps teams start successfully. This involves clarifying at the beginning what their purpose is, what the ground rules would be, and how the team would know if they succeeded. The biggest obstacle to the use of the toolkit was time. Chuck recalls it this way -
We don't have time for this, they'd say. Yet, they didn't realize the waste involved in sitting in meetings when they didn't know what was going on.
My husband who teaches computer science has a T-shirt that reads "Hours of planning can be saved by weeks of programming." It's the same message here. An hour of time spent up front with Part I of the toolkit can save weeks of ineffectual meetings. From Chuck's perspective, the essence of the toolkit is contained in the statement -
Trust and team work will develop rapidly just as soon as all team members commit themselves to sharing responsibility for the team's success.
See if the toolkit helps your team do just that.
Reflections on its development
Last, I enjoyed the "inside scoop" about the toolkit's development - for that, let's go inside the PSG team.
According to one member, what was most fun was watching the toolkit evolve based on the design team's own dynamics and learning. You may not know all of the members of the PSG team, but suffice it to say, they represent a wide range of attributes and interests. For example, just like any other team, there were differences among them in terms of personality types, professional disciplines from which people came, and life experiences.
One team member could have been described as focused on the product's look and feel. How would this work? How is it packaged? This person was frustrated with the tempo of the design meetings, preferring to make decisions quickly, completing a planned agenda each time, and getting to a final product with as few meetings as possible. A detractor could have described this team member as focusing on the superficial - the "presentation" of the work.
Another person needed much more time to talk - to go deeper, to be more deliberate. This person wanted "content" that helped other teams go below the surface to the real issues that lay beneath. But, a detractor could have described this person as too laborious, too intense - and never specific enough nor interested in closure.
Because of this internal team struggle - not despite of it - the toolkit itself was enriched. In particular, the section on "understanding and appreciating differences" was added. As one team member said, "While the 'tug of war' was going on, we kept focusing on why we were doing this - and why both perspectives were needed. The final product is better because it made sense to both of them. Actually, when I look through the toolkit now, I can see a contribution from every member of the development team. It contains a little bit of everybody."
To me, there's an authenticity test for a great team! Thanks, design team.
|
