Team Genius: The New Science of High-Performing Organizations (19 page)

As for the renegades, the “Sword” in this pair, they are often portrayed as brave but foolhardy (or at least naive)—the Frodo to the protecting “shield” of Aragorn in
The Lord of the Rings
; David Balfour to Alan Breck Stewart in
Kidnapped
; Tom Canty to Miles Hendon in
The Prince and the Pauper . . .
as well as in scores of lesser novels (that most of these are “children’s” books only underscores the parallel of these relationships to that of father-son and father-daughter in family life).

In the worlds of business and politics, this characterization is usually not quite accurate. There, the renegade figure is usually either too young to have much power inside an organization or holds a position of some importance—such as a scientist in the company lab, or a senior figure in a government—but has neither access to nor experience with the halls of power. When this type of individual is actually portrayed—for instance, Jimmy Stewart’s character in
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
—the knight figure (Claude Rains) is often portrayed as one who is initially jaded or corrupt, even an exploiter of the newcomer, but who then comes around and takes on enormous, career- or life-threatening risks to save that vulnerable figure.

Ultimately, Sword and Shield pairs are so valuable and effective because they combine antipodal traits almost impossible to find in one person: experience and energy, technical talent and managerial skills, youthful optimism and mature pragmatism. That’s why these teams, when they succeed, don’t just change the organizations in which they operate but transform them.

That said, their odds of success, almost by definition, are quite low. The crucial question any “knight” in such a pairing should be asking is:
Is this the right hill to die on?
Just because a corporate insurgency is exciting, it doesn’t mean it is right. And just because it is compelling, it doesn’t mean it will succeed. Even if you succeed, your reputation may be so tattered that you will have to find work elsewhere. And if you fail, the consequences are likely to be much worse—even competitors don’t like mutineers. So, before you become too enamored with your little revolt against the status quo, you had better decide if this is the fight you want to make, if this is what you want to drag your younger, more innocent, partner into, and if the organizational dislocations and recriminations to come at your company are worth it.

We’ve listed twelve different types of pairs, as well as several variants—and truth be told, if we wanted to be even more specific, we could probably double that number. After all, how many functioning, even successful, pairs—especially in marriages—have you encountered that simply left you scratching your head and thinking “What do
they
see in each other?” Needless to say, there are similarly inexplicable pairs in the business and professional worlds as well. When we speak of love, people often say, with a kind of mystical belief, that
there’s somebody for everybody in the world
. We are convinced that’s true in the public side of life as well.

MAKING PAIRS WORK

Having such a panoply of pair types can seem a bit daunting, especially when you ponder the challenge of picking the correct one for a particular problem. But the reality is that most pairs will continue to come together into the indefinite future. At minimum, the crucial things to remember are:

•
      
All pairs are not alike.

•
      
Don’t recruit pairs based solely on compatibility, or by intuition.

•
      
Some of the most successful pairs do not fit our expectations; rather, the members can be very different in terms of age, talent, character, and temperament. Indeed, one team member may not even physically be there.

The great thing about there being so many pair-types is that, like different shapes of building blocks or Legos, they enable the creation of an almost endless number of larger groups.

Obviously, it is not enough to identify and categorize the different types of two-person teams. In reality, the far more important challenge is to apply that new understanding in productive ways. That is, you need to:

  
1.
   
Identify the Need:
First of all, and keeping in mind that usually the smaller the team, the better, ask yourself: Is a duo the best team for the job? And what is that job? Is it embedded in the larger enterprise, with specific duties, or will it work on the fringes of the organization and break new ground? If the role of this duo is to be tightly circumscribed, you will undoubtedly want the type of team you can actually create (Remember the Force, Inside/Outside, Artist-Angel, even Sword and Shield), and not those that are almost always the result of spontaneous formation (such as Castor and Pollux). For the former, recruiting can be just a matter of a résumé search. The latter is much more hit-and-miss, and will likely require testing various pairs for their productivity.

  
2.
   
Prepare the Candidates:
An often-ignored threat to successful pairings, especially those composed of individuals with different, even opposing, personalities, attitudes, and skills (like Yin and Yang), is that the members may not recognize or respect each other’s achievements. They may not even take each other
seriously. It is incumbent then on a manager to orchestrate these introductions in order to nurture mutual respect. This will prove particularly important with larger groups.

  
3.
   
Determine the Goal:
In some cases, you know exactly what you want a duo to do: come up with a new feature for an existing product, prospect and close a particular sales target, open a new office, improve service response times, and so forth. In other cases (Lifeboat, etc.) the goal may be to improve the performance of the team members themselves. And in still others, the goals may be more nebulous—for example, “discover a new market into which the company can expand its offerings”—but no less vital. At the heart of managing pairs—and all teams—is to match the character of the team to the task assigned to it; that is, don’t bet the company on an unproven pair of opposites, or give an open-ended assignment to a by-the-book pair.

  
4.
   
Establish Metrics:
In most enterprises, this is the easiest step. And, indeed, if you have a pair of scientists who work well together and they are pursuing a particular design goal, then establishing performance benchmarks is pretty straightforward. It is a lot more challenging when you are talking about giving a troubled pair an assignment to save their careers, or asking a pair of corporate superstars to work together to get the company into a new market.

  
5.
   
Manage with the Right Intensity:
Finding the right manager is often as important as the right team. An Inside/Outside or Yin and Yang team may work best under a tough taskmaster who doesn’t worry much about the emotional health of the team. By comparison, the manager of a Got Your Six team may just establish targets and get out of the way. A Castor and Pollux team manager mostly just needs to make sure the duo stays on track. And for a Sword and Shield team, the manager’s primary task is to make sure the team is a positive force and not a destructive or anarchistic one.

  
6.
   
Stay Observant:
As you’ve probably noticed, a lot of especially powerful pair-teams are almost impossible to create by decree; instead, they almost always create themselves, often spontaneously. Sometimes, they are the product of circumstance—such as in response to a deteriorating or dangerous situation. Other times, they are the product of ineffable factors (personality types, backgrounds, interests, maybe even pheromones). This is, in fact, the greatest challenge facing team managers, both external (with pairs) and internal (with larger teams). It all but demands that you work backward; that is, you need to be perpetually vigilant, spotting successful teams when they occur—and then placing them into situations that best fit their skills.

  
7.
   
Create Opportunities:
Even when dealing with spontaneous teams, there are ways to improve your odds of finding success. One is to bring people together in physical proximity and see what sparks. Interestingly, this is most likely to happen at two extreme moments: when the enterprise is doing very well and has the luxury of experimentation . . . and when it is in deep trouble and is willing to take unprecedented risks to stay alive.

  
8.
   
Keep Records:
Too often, teams, including duos, are formed, then succeed or fail at their task, and then split up, leaving little record of their existence. The message of this book is that every team is distinct, a combination of personality types, structural characteristics, and a record of performance. It is time to start keeping track of
all
these variables—and then use them over time to create new teams with ever-greater chances of success.

  
9.
   
Manage Transitions:
Finally, as we shall soon discuss, teams (including pairs), have life cycles—they can behave very differently at their start, at the peak of their activity, and as they approach retirement. By the same token, they cannot be managed in the same manner during these different eras of their existence. A manager not sensitive to this may well begin brilliantly,
only to unexpectedly fail later on. A smart manager will identify these evolutionary steps as they occur and adjust his or her communications, motivations, rewards, and punishments accordingly.

MATCHMAKER, MATCHMAKER

When it comes to the care and feeding of perfect pairs, you should start as a leader by identifying your most talented people, especially those who are described as difficult, unpopular, eccentric, or odd. Look especially for people who are generally considered the smartest or most creative people in the organization—in particular, those who are unable to accomplish what everyone expects of them, or those who are at risk of quitting or of being driven out of the organization.

Now, don’t look at the obvious strengths of these individuals, but instead focus on their weaknesses. Compare these weaknesses to see if they can fit together in a way that neutralizes them. If you can’t find a suitable match among this select group of individuals, look elsewhere in the organization. Is there someone in that population who makes an emotional match? Remember, don’t go into this process with any preconceptions: the best pairs may be quite alike, complete opposites, or somewhere in between. The key is that, on the job if nowhere else, these individuals fill each other’s voids.

Next, put these potential pairs in close proximity, as isolated as possible from outside influences—especially peer groups—which may amplify their differences and undermine their synergies. Do
not
demand that the members of this pair fraternize—office parties, off-sites, business trips, and so forth—outside their actual project activities. Rather, assign the pair a task for which they have the requisite skills but are unlikely to accomplish as solo operators.

You are done with the first phase. You should now step back but continuously monitor what happens. If the team proves to be either dysfunctional or, conversely, enjoying itself too much to get any work done, dissolve it. If it proves to be highly productive—and this will be obvious quickly—keep it intact, find more challenging projects for it, and clear a path for it through the company’s bureaucracy. A productive Counterweight team can create miracles.

You’ve now done the hard part: created a successful team where there was none before, and taken two underperforming employees and made them valuable to the organization. Your task now, over the long term, is to find a way to keep these successful pairs in the company, as they are likely to make a major contribution. But don’t be surprised if you lose them. For example, Counterweight teams have a high likelihood of spinning off (after all, why do they need you?) to create their own enterprises.

There are other dangers as well. Magic Moment teams, when successful, can be not only the greatest opportunity but also the greatest threat to any enterprise in which they appear. Even expelling them can be a disaster: they may start a new enterprise and crush your company. You will have created a monster—but one that might just make you successful beyond your wildest dreams.

By comparison, Remember the Force teams are comparatively easy to establish if, like KPMG, you formalize the process into your corporate culture.

Treat Lifeboat teams like the British Army did its “forlorn hope”—men who could avoid a court-martial, imprisonment, or execution by leading an assault on a seemingly impregnable enemy position. The idea was that the odds of survival were so low, and the bravery required so great, that a successful assault would outweigh any black marks against a soldier. Give your Lifeboat pair the most impossible task and short time (say, three months) to achieve it. If they succeed, reward them but don’t promote them; if they fail, get them out of the organization.

Artist-Angel and Sword and Shield pairs should be managed lightly but ruthlessly. There is too much talent there to waste on failed efforts—so break them up quickly if they fall behind. Inside/Outside pairs often require the most preparation, because of the antithetical nature of their talents. Loyalty to the enterprise can be an effective motivator. Finally, be ruthless with Here and There pairs. Because there is no emotional involvement between the two members, you can break them up and re-form them at the slightest provocation.

With pair-teams, we are looking at enduring and durable human structures, some of which can last a lifetime. We’ll now look at
trios
, the most volatile, and least enduring, of such structures, and then beyond to ever-larger team structures.