The Human Resource Practices Development (HRPD) Project

The HRPD Core Team

Research on Project Team Formation

* Term of appointment shorter than full term of the project.

SUMMARY

Evolution of the Report on Project Team Formation at MIT

This report of Project Team Formation at MIT responds directly to the first recommendation of the Human Resource Practices Design (HRPD) Team:

During 1996, the HRPD Team researched and reviewed best practices within the MIT community and at selected corporations and institutions. Through the process of education, research, evaluation, and interaction with approximately 10 percent of MIT’s campus-based staff at all levels, the team found that current human resource practices at MIT no longer aligned with the Institute’s changing environment. However, they found that members of the community would support human resource practices that provided clarity for employees, supported career development, and rewarded and recognized high performance if these practices were designed to meet the diverse needs of MIT’s different constituencies.

On the basis of these findings, the HRPD Team generated eight broad recommendations for human resource practices to help make MIT as excellent an employer as it is an educator.

In 1997, the HRPD Team conducted a census of teams as part of its review of MIT’s classification and compensation system. They found that respondents, who represented 70 percent of academic, administrative, and research departments, laboratories, and centers, reported overwhelmingly that they behaved in a "team-like" manner to do their daily work. Specifically, respondents reported working on the following types of teams: 34 percent on permanent teams; 14 percent on project teams; and 9 percent on standing teams. Although teams are not by any means a universal solution for accomplishing tasks, it seems clear that teams are becoming increasingly common and work increasingly collaborative around MIT. Recent experience with reengineering and department teams provides an ideal opportunity for understanding how to form high-performing project teams within MIT’s unique environment, and thus how to accelerate the start-up process of collaborative work.

The goal of this project is to build on the experiences of recent project teams at MIT, and to validate those experiences against current research and literature about teams. The primary researcher on this project committed 20 percent of her time for a five-month period beginning at the end of summer, 1998.

Project Scope

Rationale:

Understanding how to form project teams at MIT will improve their efficiency and effectiveness. Forming project teams in a way that respects and takes into account the Institute’s unique environment and culture will ensure increased team productivity, leading to increased individual and team learning from every project team experience.

Deliverables:

• Summary of findings (themes and "lessons learned") from interviews, surveys, and focus groups
• Summary of findings from research and literature
• Summary of "best practices" for forming project teams based on research
• Summary of current "best practices" for forming project teams at MIT (including known benefits and constraints of the MIT culture)
• Recommendations for forming project teams at MIT
• Tool: Guidelines/checklists for team leaders, team members, sponsors, and supervisors

Methodology

The findings and recommendations in this report reflect research on teams and team formation. In addition to a review of current scholarly research, twenty-eight one-on-one interviews were conducted with both administrative and support staff members who had participated or were currently participating on reengineering and IS project teams as team leaders and/or team members. Specifically, these interviewees represented HRPD Core and Project Teams (Rewards and Recognition, Orientation, Training Policy and Administration, Performance Management and Coaching, and Generic Roles and Competencies), Community Involvement, Custodial Services, Mail, Management Reporting, Repair and Maintenance, Student Services, Training and Development, Trans-I/T Redesign, and IS Project teams. The interview protocol was developed with the assistance of Professor Deborah Ancona, Professor of Organization Studies, at the MIT – Sloan School of Management.

In an effort to solicit input and gather data from as wide an audience as possible, a web-based survey instrument was developed, and used to survey a random sample of MIT staff members. An invitation to complete the survey was emailed to the <aac-aoquery>, <infosys>, and <c-group> mailing lists with a request that the survey be forwarded to anyone else who might be interested. Survey response approximated three percent of likely respondents, based on an estimate of the number of MIT staff who had participated or were participating on project teams.

Context for Project Teams at MIT

Current scholarly research defines a team as "a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable." A project team is a narrowing of this definition. Specifically, a project team is a small team with a shared mission, goal, and approach, which exists within a fixed timeline. Like all teams, project teams rely on intense, collaborative work to accomplish a specific goal or task that could not be accomplished by an individual or a work group. Effective project teams increase the productivity, satisfaction, and growth of each of its team members, the team itself, and the rest of the organization.

Teamwork is becoming increasingly common at MIT, as it is in other organizations. MIT staff interviewed and surveyed throughout the course of this project view project teams as welcome opportunities to step outside the sphere of daily work and wrestle with issues that can improve the organization at a fundamental level. One team leader explained: "I saw the potential to achieve radical change and significant savings to the Institute. We could roll out something really neat, and have fun doing it." Project teams offer participants the opportunity to use and develop new skills – both technical and behavioral – in new venues at MIT. Often, project team experiences lead to career development opportunities.

Teams at MIT combine the intangible benefits of employee satisfaction with the tangible benefits of results that meet the interests and requirements of customers and stakeholders, such as the Student Service Center or the collective work of the HRPD Core and Project teams. Forming teams in a way that respects MIT’s unique structure, culture, needs, and opportunities will help ensure that the initial enthusiasm and focus that participants bring to project teams produce the results required by the Institute as it moves to continuous improvement.

Forming teams thoughtfully can accelerate high performance, which is characterized by shared leadership, shared responsibility, shared purpose, shared recognition, high task focus, high communication, and high morale. Team formation entails more than team staffing. Once team members have been selected, they need to learn about each other and what they each bring to the team, and relationship-building needs to occur. Questions about commitment and expectations need to be addressed. The team needs to establish trust and cooperation as it seeks to clarify goals, processes, and context.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

"Great teams can be a hell of a lot of fun, or they can just be hell… You get withdrawal symptoms when a great team ends."  --quote from a veteran MIT project team member

• Team selection predicts team performance. Effective teams base member selection in technical and behavioral competence. A prospective team member’s area of technical expertise, perspective, and interest need to be considered in the light of the project team’s scope of work. Effective teams that focus on Institute-wide issues reflect a deliberate diversity of membership across MIT’s academic and administrative units, and across MIT’s payroll/employee classifications (i.e., administrative, support, service staff, sponsored research staff, students, and faculty), depending on the team’s work requirements. Gender, ethnic, geographic diversity is important. Thoughtful selection processes correspond to high member satisfaction and commitment.

• "The composition of the team had a profound impact. There were people who knew the ‘content’ of the service, people who used the service, and people who were well-versed in the team process. There was a cross-section from central and academic departments, as well as a cross-section of administrative to support staff. Most had team experience, and all were high-achievers."
• "The diversity of our team was helpful when talking about issues; it forced us to consider different viewpoints, which led to a better product."
• "[The team’s] composition was good because it was broad and covered all the right areas. Selection was based on experience and knowledge of the current processes; the team included workers in those processes and customers."
• "The composition of the team depends on the ‘work breakdown structure (WBS)’: what is the work, what technical expertise is needed, and what behavioral expertise is needed."
• "You need folks who can and are willing to make a decision, to talk, to give their opinions. You need folks who understand MIT culture. You need the perspective of the old, as well as the new ideas, but everyone needs to be committed to the change."
• "We did behavioral interviewing. The care we took helped enormously because as the team went through its highs and lows, there was enough commitment, action orientation, results orientation, etc., to get us through it. Looking back, though, it would have been helpful to list technical competencies, too (e.g., writing ability, presentation ability, communication skills, database skills, etc.)."
• "Attracting team members was hard because our project was long-term. This was a disincentive."
• "We had no volunteers, so we did recruiting and then competency interviews. This helped because team members were educated on the topic. It was the right mix of people – educated and committed to work."
• "A lesson learned for us was that we needed to interview new members. We were desperate for new members to replace ones who had left, so we didn’t interview."
• "There were two team members who had personal agendas. They were personally defensive and overly sensitive. We had to worry about how we said things in meetings."
• "Our team wasn’t diverse enough to reflect MIT, which is made up of engineers and scientists. Most of the team had an HR background, which was actually a drawback because we were missing the perspectives of those who don’t do this for a living."
• "Support staff were absolutely essential – they would bring us back to earth."
• "The team sponsor had conversations with each team member’s supervisor before the kickoff to ensure that everyone was on-board. We needed to honor this."

• Team organization and processes predict team performance. Effective teams establish and adhere to behavioral standards regarding team member roles, team practices, norms, and ground-rules. Typically, effective teams designate a facilitator (who may or may not be an outsider). Typically, the team leader is an effective project manager and coach. Expectations of all roles, including that of team sponsor, are discussed and documented. Effective teams adjust roles, goals, and tasks to match individual team members’ styles and strengths.

• "We used thoughtful methodologies. With our consultant’s help, we decided on our mission. Based on our vision of the future state, our understanding of the present state and what we needed to do to get from here to there, we developed a plan."
• "The team refined its goals after a series of dialogues and consensus-building. We inherited objectives to start."
• "When you’re part of creating goals – aggressive or not – you had to meet them. They were motivating because you agreed to them."
• "As a nice symbolic act, the whole team signed the scope statement."
• "We had no process for revisiting the scope after we’d accepted it. In hindsight, we should have changed or chopped off one goal."

• "We were aligned on our goals. We had norms about external communication, with a little sign posted on the wall. We made decisions by consensus, with a process for airing concerns, dissentions, and minority positions."
• "We had norms to control rumors. We had to develop a communication method – ‘information brokers’ – who would call the design team for the facts and break the cycle of rumors."
• "There is a difference between representatives and participants. You need to understand that you’re on a team, not just showing up for meetings. Norms can help address this. Everyone on the team needs to learn how to work on the team."
• "Our inability to control off-topic ‘talkers’ caused friction between team members."
• "The inability of the team leader to define tasks and roles, to focus the group, and to provide structure led to frustration."
• "There was a lack of clarity about which group our recommendations would extend to include or affect."

• "A team needs to define roles."
• "One of our crucial practices was a process around expectations. We each made our own lists of internal and external expectations."
• "As team leader, I need to recognize each of my team member’s style and strengths, and to adjust tasks and my leadership style to them. This is a matter of respect."
• "We needed more guidance from our team leader, but she got better as time went on."
• "A lesson for me was learning that a team leader cannot do everything, cannot be timekeeper-scribe-facilitator-note-taker. It wastes time. It worked better when everyone helped put together the agenda, and everyone had a role at the meetings."

• "It was helpful at the beginning for the team leader to meet with an external facilitator and the team’s internal facilitator to plan meetings. They would plan three weeks of work at a time."
• "There was a team captain, who also was facilitator. We had operating norms: for example, stick to schedule by time-boxing and avoiding rat holes, self-policing by all of us, timekeeping by all of us. At various times, we all took shots at leading discussions (where we had the interest and the expertise). Sometimes, the outside facilitator would lead the discussion when we were lost…. We were ‘soft on people and tough on ideas.’ No idea was too small because it was like a seed that could grow into a tree. We had FUN."
• "A trained facilitator was provided to the team, and he helped to focus the team…. Because he was an outsider, there was no outward resistance to him."

• Team-kickoff events increase team productivity and build momentum. Team-building events at the start of a project team increase its productivity and preserve its momentum. Team "kickoff events" (which may last as long as a couple of hours or a couple of days, depending on the work of the team) enable the team to articulate and understand the team goals, mission, and structure. Outcomes of an effective "kickoff" typically include understanding the rationale for the team; refining the team’s work scope or charter, with timeline and milestones; and team- and relationship-building through work-related exercises and/or "ice-breakers." In the absence of a kickoff event, the team may suffer from ambiguity around these issues.

• "Startup was important because of the team-building, norms, goals, timelines, and a lot of subgroup work."
• "Our kickoff was a two-hour luncheon about the context and overall goals of the project. We were spurred to look at scope, and we began to build a timeline."
• "The most important thing we did was have a successful kickoff. It made the team official. The first few team meetings included a lot of good team-building exercises. We brought our resource/advisory folks in to ‘play’ with us, so we learned together with them."
• "Team startup meetings or retreats shouldn’t just be fun and ice-breakers unrelated to the work of the team. They should be related to the content-work of the team and the startup issues that any team faces about how it will operate and what it will do:

• What is our charter?
• What are our deliverables?
• What are our norms (of behavior, at a high-level)?
• What are our practices (about how we act in this team)?
• What do we expect of each other?
• How do we begin to divvy up responsibility?
• How do we handle conflict?
• What will make our stakeholders and constituents say ‘this team’s work is great’?
• What are the team’s critical success factors?"

• "Our first meeting was a highlight. We got a lot of work done and set expectations. We set a tone for producing a lot of work and that meant momentum."
• "The little exercises that focused on listening and getting to know each other off-topic worked well. The icebreaker that was totally unrelated to the work didn’t work."

• Team-building is an ongoing learning process. Facilitated team-building events early and throughout team development increase relationship-development and member satisfaction within the team. Team-building events that include sponsors or stakeholders outside the team often increase outsider satisfaction with the team’s performance.

• "The best thing our team did was an all-day meeting to define the structure for our report. Most of the work was done as a team."
• "We took frequent retreats to take stock, to revisit roles, and to review expectations."
• "When the team got together, we said: "let’s get to work" immediately, and we missed some of the touchy-feely stuff; we missed opportunities to be more cohesive. Eventually, an outside consultant came in, and he urged us to do the ‘getting to know you’ stuff."
• "We could have started sub-tasking sooner instead of having real work happen in team meetings; this could have been because we didn’t know each other well [that we did real work in meetings], but sub-tasking made us more productive."

• Teams need resources about teams. To accelerate team development from "forming" to "high-performing," teams need to understand the basic tenets of team development and team dynamics. Effective teams understand or receive training in the definitions of different kinds of teams, the theory of effective teams, the basics of systems thinking, and the basics of project management. Understanding basic conflict resolution and negotiation theory is also valuable. There is value to a team’s "learning by doing."

• "Teams need project leaders who know how to lead and who want to lead. Project team leaders need guidelines (tips on how to lead, characteristics of a good leader, where to go for help). There also needs to be clarity around a project leader’s role, especially when there are competing priorities, or the leader is being spread too thin."
• "Team leaders should receive a specific actual training in teams, leadership ploys and tactics. This would be helpful to strengthen the team overall."
• "Teams need to know what they need to learn, why they are doing something, how to balance competing priorities, where to get resources, and how to define what resources are needed."
• "Team members need to know: ‘this is what it means to be an effective team member; this is how to balance life back home and life on team"
• "Make available team facilitators, folks who are trained in teamwork, conflict resolution, keeping teams on track."
• "During the course of the project, the team asked for training in how to conduct focus groups, how to track team-process, how to conduct brainstorming sessions (concept and process). We needed skill-building in actual team techniques."

• Effective teams need means or systems to assess, recognize, and reward team performance consistently across MIT. An individual project team member’s effective performance should be recognized and rewarded within home departments. Performance on teams should be part of the performance management process. Currently, team members are not held accountable for their poor team performance, nor are they credited for good performance.

• "There needs to be a mechanism for tying someone’s participation on a team to their performance to create some level of accountability and to ensure recognition."
• "Having volunteers on the team meant essentially that there were no consequences for poor team performance."
• "As a team leader, I need to recognize what people want out of projects and what their goals are. This is an ongoing process of asking and observing…. It is important to recognize people’s efforts, especially where there is partial commitment (less than 100 percent) on a team."
• "What happens to folks after teams? How do we capitalize on their learning?"

• Effective teams are valued. Teamwork is not consistently valued across MIT. Departments, laboratories, and centers tend to marginalize teamwork as less important than regular work. Perceived cultural differences in working styles, motivations, ability, and so on, can lead to a persistent "us and them" mentality that further complicates teamwork at MIT.

• "Nothing really came off my plate."
• "MIT’s decentralization hindered team progress. Departments would say: ‘Okay, you can be away 20 percent of your time, but you still need to get all your old work done,’ so people worked nights and weekends."
• "We talk about self-directed work teams, about flexibility, and about moving in and out of teams. But does MIT have a support system that would make this not be punitive?"
• "In the aggregate, MIT’s culture makes it difficult to move things forward. There is an evident attitude that ‘MIT is different,’ but this isn’t clear…. Our university culture is marked by non-demonstrative and/or incongruous leadership."
• "Project team work should be recognized as a ‘modus operandus’ for MIT. For example, you could have a ‘clearinghouse’ for projects teams Institute-wide in scope."
• "MIT’s culture is diverse. There is a sense of entitlement, a lack of accountability. Change is viewed suspiciously."
• "The MIT culture prides itself on individualism, which has fostered an entrepreneurial environment as opposed to a shared, collaborative environment."
• "MIT is a high-achievement culture, and a roomful of high achievers who are passionate and knowledgeable about content was a big help."

"I’d do it again in a minute: it was refreshing, stimulating to wrap my head around another problem besides daily work." --quote from a novice MIT project team member

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Legitimize project teams as valuable ways of working at MIT.

• Consider an HR information system "clearing-house" to publicize team opportunities around the Institute.
• Consider cost-sharing team members’ salaries between team and home department budgets.

• Establish a set of guidelines to facilitate team selection and team formation at MIT.

• Develop a Team Formation Handbook.

• Support the Performance Consulting and Training Team project on Facilitation.

These recommendations can be implemented within the next 18 months, depending on development time.

BENEFITS TO MIT

As the TPA team progressed with its work, it became apparent that both MIT employees and the Institute would benefit from the implementation of these recommendations in the following ways:

• Cost Tracking: Tracking department training costs will give MIT a good idea of how much is currently being spent on training and provide guidelines for future expenditures
• Formal Policy: A formal, defined, and well-publicized policy on training will help all levels of MIT staff recognize the Institute’s commitment to training. Such a policy can be used as a guideline in establishing department norms for training and give individuals assistance in making a case for their own training needs.
• Central Funding: Providing central funds to underwrite the costs for on-campus training programs will make these programs more accessible to all MIT employees. Easier, more equitable access to training will result in a better- trained staff. Employees who receive training will feel that they are considered an important resource of the MIT community. This will further increase staff loyalty.
• Faculty Support: A well-trained, more versatile staff will allow faculty to delegate tasks more successfully, giving them more time for teaching and research. Training will also create a ready pool of qualified, internal candidates to fill open staff positions.
• Tuition Assistance: A more widely promoted Tuition Assistance Plan, and wider communication about training, in general, will educate staff about training which can enhance both their job-related and career-related skills. As a result, training will become more employee-driven.
• Labor Market: A world-class training program will enable the Institute to compete in the labor market more effectively and will promote succession planning for key staff positions.
• Learning Plans: The development of individual learning plans provides employees and supervisors with a tool to assess the learning needs of individuals and teams, to develop skills for their immediate positions and to assist them in thinking of longer-term employment goals at the Institute. Tying such plans to the performance appraisal process and recommending that supervisors play an active role in their employees’ training supports regular attention to these plans.

The following factors are essential for the formation and development of effective teams at the Institute:

• leaders demonstrate that they value teams
• team work is considered part of job performance and tied to the performance management cycle
• the Institute considers monetary support for teams, especially those which focus on Institute-wide issues
• team work is evaluated for its quality and effectiveness
• there is increased communication about teams
• employees in all payroll categories are able to participate on project teams