SERIES 18: Our blog series features articles written by leaders in planning, engineering, and construction, offering valuable insights and knowledge for readers.

It might be evident that for any work team there should be a clear delineation of team membership. When we think of work teams oftentimes team and sub team membership is apparent. While it might seem obvious that this should be the case team boundaries do become blurred leading to dysfunctional teams and frustrating consequences. It is for good reasons that team membership must be clear and restricted. When people who should not be included are included; when teams have no clear boundaries, inclusion can be detrimental to team performance.

A scenario.

My friend Hector told me of his experience while working in the top management of a large London based finance company. Once a month, 12 department heads and the CEO would meet to discuss challenges, possible solutions and strategies. The CEO became increasingly frustrated with the team’s functioning as it just would not produce the outcomes he had hoped. The executive members were also unhappy and frustrated as nothing ever seemed to get done as a consequence of these meetings. The CEO did not actually want this group to run the company, to take any strategic actions of its’s own since that was his job. Each executive was responsible for his own department’s performance and it was not clear what collective actions they would need to take to affect these. Department heads would often send deputies to represent them at these meetings. After some time, it was not clear who comprised the team.

While many important matters and good ideas were discussed and generated within the meetings the changing attendance and team composition meant that the message would not always be received by those who should act upon it. The key message might be delivered to one set of people one month with that set of people changing the following month. Some actions fell by the wayside. Setting a plan and following through with it was a frustrated endeavour; gaining buy-in, setting direction, making strategic aims were all a challenge given such changing team composition. What’s more, accountability was rare given the shifting sands of membership and involvement. It was easy for one employee to think an action intended for them was someone else’s responsibility.

Despite all these problems, some members of this executive committee felt it was the ‘nice’ thing to do to retain access to the team meetings for all executives and deputies. A lack of defined membership meant no defined team and hence team purpose became difficult to achieve. There was just too many people interfering with team functioning and plans. Without delineation, lines of command were confused, members were not clear on whose instruction they need to follow.

It is always preferable to define team membership clearly and rigidly.

Dynamic situations.

For some types of teams this can be a tall order. In particular this can be more difficult to accomplish for top level executives who might work across multiple teams; belong to teams simultaneously. In addition, depending on the context some ‘members’ of a team might provide information to the team or otherwise support the team; some might not belong to the team but might do work that is critical for the team. Some teams might have limited scope and purpose; forming and disbanding once their purpose was completed. Still it is important to know who make up the team and maintain team boundaries in order to evade the aforementioned detriments of a blurred team boundary.

Teams must be delineated.

One management consultant in seeking to understand the team structures within one large organisation came across the frequent problem where even heads of departments were not clear who comprised their teams and would question the definition of the word ‘team’. In all cases it was clear that certain individuals were definitely part of the team and as a result this problem of defining the team structure was circumvented by listing the team’s core members.

In industry where demand can fluctuate such as where there is seasonal demand and team membership needs to grow and contract to meet changes in demand; defining a set of core members can help to enhance team functionality. It can help to ensure that members who will be a part of the team on a long-term basis are communicated with and invested into adequately. Members can gel as a team. In this way the size and mix of the team required to achieve the team’s goals when production is at its lowest can be determined. These core members can in turn develop a network of workers and resources who might supplement their core team when demand grows. This approach can help to ensure some team stability and retention of expertise within the organisation. By defining the team in this way leaders can reduce negative risks of a loose team boundary. When team membership needs to be flexible taking an approach such as defining a core team is preferable to including all those who associate with the team as members. 

Summary

Teams need clear boundaries so that goals can be defined clearly, work can be pursued collectively and there can be accountability and security over time. Without a delineated team, accountability and long-term planning become more challenging.

Leaders should resist any urge to not define team membership but rather be bold about team composition. When flexibility is required on team membership a solution such a defining a core team structure can be effective. Both rigid membership and flexibility can be achieved by giving some brief thought to whom might comprise the core membership structure.