LW: Please tell us where you work and what you do.
LF: I have been a software developer for six years, and I currently work
for Equinox Software where we develop new features and improvements
for Evergreen, an open source integrated library system (ILS).
LW: What is the nature of teamwork at Equinox?
LF: Teams at Equinox are divided by function, so we have developers that
change the software, support that helps customers use and troubleshoot
the software, training for customers, system administrators for
customers for whom we host the software on our servers, and of course
sales.
There are defined leaders. Since we're a small startup whose founders have relatively generalized expertise over the domain of work that we do, our leaders actually experiment with their job functions more than the folks who were hired on later to perform specific roles. So the team members more or less stay in place, but the leaders rotate and shift.
There are defined leaders. Since we're a small startup whose founders have relatively generalized expertise over the domain of work that we do, our leaders actually experiment with their job functions more than the folks who were hired on later to perform specific roles. So the team members more or less stay in place, but the leaders rotate and shift.
LW: Do your teams define goals from the outset?
LF: Yes. My team has contracts to add new features or accomplish some change to the software. So the goal is to meet the demands of the contract without spending too much time polishing brass knobs; in other words, don't be a perfectionist, but move on to the next thing.
Other teams have their own goals. Support gets trouble reports in ticket form, so their primary goal is solving every problem and closing every ticket. The system administrators are out to minimize downtime and and have sufficient monitoring in place to mitigate outages when they do happen. And so on.
In more complicated projects, specific goals for subdivisions of the work are helpful when we can get them. Without them, it's easy to spend too much time working on some subset of the work that could use attention, only to find out later that the other half of the contract was what the customer is really more concerned with.
Other teams have their own goals. Support gets trouble reports in ticket form, so their primary goal is solving every problem and closing every ticket. The system administrators are out to minimize downtime and and have sufficient monitoring in place to mitigate outages when they do happen. And so on.
In more complicated projects, specific goals for subdivisions of the work are helpful when we can get them. Without them, it's easy to spend too much time working on some subset of the work that could use attention, only to find out later that the other half of the contract was what the customer is really more concerned with.
LW: Are your team members collocated, or are you geographically distributed?
LF: We have three remote workers now. We used to have seven or eight. I
have always been based in the physical office.
LW: What are the primary challenges you associate with working in teams?
LF: If your work depends on a contribution from another group member, it
helps to know how much of a priority that contribution is to the other
group member. Subtle cues from in-person communication often make it
obvious whether somebody thinks a given piece of work is important,
and whether they're going to address it right away. With remote
workers, it's often necessary to have more explicit conversation about
timelines and priorities.
LW: You mention this problem is compounded by physical distance. Are there any other challenges you face that are unique to geographically distributed teams?
LF: Verbal nuances are lost in email and instant messages. Writing as
carefully as it would take to convey the same things that can be
conveyed in live conversation is sometimes prohibitively expensive in
terms of time. Usually I mitigate this with a quick phone call.
Often, ideas and problems that aren't perfectly after a quick email
can be better elucidated over the phone. Face-to-face conversation
would be even better, but usually the phone works.
Just recently I arranged a small conference call about a time-sensitive project among software developers, and in this phone call we all discovered some conflicting and incorrect understandings about the flow of data in a certain process. No one had spoken up about any uncertainties in writing, but over the phone we quickly made sure that everyone had the right picture.
Just recently I arranged a small conference call about a time-sensitive project among software developers, and in this phone call we all discovered some conflicting and incorrect understandings about the flow of data in a certain process. No one had spoken up about any uncertainties in writing, but over the phone we quickly made sure that everyone had the right picture.
LW: Have you found yourself working with people in other locations more frequently as your career (and the modern workplace) evolves?
LF: Less so, actually. Unless we're talking about the customers, who are
always widely distributed.
I've only been doing this six years, but my company is now discouraging new teleworkers. You have to match the right kind of people to teleworking situations.
I've only been doing this six years, but my company is now discouraging new teleworkers. You have to match the right kind of people to teleworking situations.
[At this point, I introduced Mr. Fogle-Weekley to four paradoxes from "Managing Your Team" (Hill, 1995) and asked if any one in particular jumped out at him.]
LF: Support versus confrontation is an interesting problem. When a
project is slipping, I tend to think that an aggressive tone will help
encourage my co-workers to rally around the cause. But really if you
go to a group with anything too negative or critical, you tend to get
ignored. So it's always a challenge for me to find a way to make
calls to action sound like positivity when it's crunch time.
LW: What do you see as the biggest advantage of teamwork "done right"?
LF: Working in teams allows you to divide up work based on who has the
skills to do the best job on a given portion of the project. When
it's done right, you can mostly avoid anybody getting bogged down
doing research learning to solve new problems without support. Of
course, doing it right is not effortless. It really takes some work
(and experience) to be able to evaluate what portioning out of the
work will be the most efficient, and making sure that in the areas
where workers are learning something new, they have access to whoever
will give them the best support.
This interview provided a great opportunity for me to address the week's topic while learning more about what my brother does for a living. A couple of Mr. Fogle-Weekley's answers were unexpected and deserve further discussion.
In our interview, Mr. Fogle-Weekley describes Equinox as having a dynamic group of leaders who "rotate and shift" because they all have a broad range of general expertise and like to "experiment with their job functions." This idea is completely foreign to my own work experience. When my company makes a change in leadership, it's always reactive: someone has left the company, been promoted, or hasn't performed well and must be replaced. "Experimental" change in leadership is a topic I'll have to probe further. It's possible there are some real advantages to this model; maybe changing leaders supports innovation and idea-generation or simply brings fresh perspective where its needed. Still, Hill (1995) describes a team's leader as its "nerve center" (p. 4). Leaders are responsible for a number of essential team-building and team management tasks (Hill, 1995), so it's easy to imagine some challenges arising from unnecessary leadership changes.
I was somewhat surprised to learn that Equinox is actively moving away from geographically distributed teams by discouraging telework. Hinds and Mortsensen (2005) suggest this possibility when they acknowledge that geographically distributed teams are hard to manage and don't always perform well. Yet somehow, a startup open-source software firm is exactly the kind of employer you'd expect to embrace technology-enabled teamwork. Mr. Fogle-Weekley suggests that the blame for problems with remote workers may lie with HR, and I think he's right that teleworking is not a fit for every employee. But Hinds and Mortensen (2005) would probably identify this instead as an issue of task conflict (or maybe process conflict) caused by a lack of shared context among group members. The authors might suggest facilitating more spontaneous, informal communication as a means of mitigating conflict and increasing shared context (Hinds & Mortensen, 2005).
References
Hill, L. A. (1995). Managing your team. HBS No. 9-494-081. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290-307. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0122
I'm glad you had a chance to interview your brother! I was also a bit disappointed that they are moving away from virtual teams. It sounds like the main form of communication within these teams is instant messenger or email. I would think that instant messenger should promote spontaneous communication, but perhaps because it is still in writing (and likely on record), employees don't use it for informal conversations. What other technology do you think could facilitate informal communication and thus create a shared identity?
ReplyDeleteCynthia's interview mentioned that there was little task conflict in that team because the projects tend to be clearly defined, but interpersonal conflict was more of an issue. Do you think this is the case for Mr. Fogle-Weekley's company as well?
I think that Lebbeous' advice on having more explicit conversations with remote workers was spot-on. I really started to realize the importance of visual cues when we conducted our focus groups in CMGT 540 and went without video camera access for the second half of the session. When you're dealing with phone calls and email, the lack of visual cues can often result in misunderstandings and misreading that drastically affect the way that the receiver interprets the message and in turn, the way that they carry out a manager's request. Great piece of advice that I'll definitely carry into my professional life!
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting to hear about another company getting away from the teleworking. My company (well the one I'll be with for the next 2 days anyway) invested heavily in IT so that workers were not tied to the main office as HR clamped down on teleworking. There are days where work is getting done in my department and only at the end of the day do we learn half of us were never in the office. It's funny at meetings when the head of IT says you don't need to be in the office to work, ever, and the HR boss says oh yes you do. I think my company needs a communication consultant.
ReplyDeleteYou mention HR reason may be the reason, but I wonder if teleworking helps avoid social conflict? If I work from home I don't have to deal with the annoying idiosyncrasies of those around me and I tend to take fewer brakes and tend to be more productive. But as you say, it probably changes from employee to employee.
Hi Leslie - I was most interested in reading LW's response to the support versus confrontation paradox in that a "an aggressive tone will help encourage my co-workers to rally around the cause." I have a similar issue in my office and finding new ways to motivate people to meet deadlines is getting tougher and tougher. I remember a time when a paycheck was all the motivation a person needed. I was also interested to hear that they are going with less telecommuters these days. Great interview!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDr. Pade,
ReplyDeleteWork teams at Equinox should integrate some of the collaboration solutions we've adopted in the MCM program -- or others like them -- to increase spontaneous communication and build shared identity. One thing we've begun to do in my own workplace is to spontaneously take an IM conversation to the next level through technology. We all use Microsoft Communicator for intra-office instant messaging, and it only takes a couple of clicks to add screen sharing or webcam sharing (or both) to a conversation.
It does sound like Mr. Fogle-Weekley's team at Equinox may experience some interpersonal conflict, but I think there is definitely some task conflict afoot as well. Hill and Mortsensen (2005) strongly equate shared context (as opposed to shared identity) with task conflict. Shared context encompasses the creation of mutual understanding, establishment of behavioral norms, team orientation or approach toward goals, and team member coordination (Hill & Mortsensen, 2005). Mr. Fogle-Weekley describes some timeline and priority miscommunications that align very clearly with task conflict in my mind.
Justin,
You're right: every employee is different. Ideally, employers should provide enough flexibility and choice to meet the needs of diverse employee populations. I'm somewhat envious of those colleagues who work from home half the week, but I know myself well enough to recognize my need for the structure of a work environment. Teleworking -- at least, on a regular basis -- is just not for me.
Phillip,
A sense of personal responsibility to my colleagues has always been my biggest motivator. I don't know where it comes from, but I'd love a blueprint for instilling that obligation in others!