PROBLEM
The 15-person department responsible for developing the distributed work practices for their global technology firm were themselves struggling. Communication breakdowns and persistent conflicts were hindering productivity and eroding morale, resulting in the departure of a key team member.
ANALYSIS & INTERVENTION
Using a combination of social network analysis, individual and group interviewing, and team observation, we identified three main factors setting the team members up for miscommunication and conflict:
- Lack of communication agreements and policies
- Project assignment and launch processes that excluded key team members
- Widely varying perceptions and expectations for “team cohesion”
Communication agreements & policies
As part of the team’s promotion of distributed work practices throughout the company, they advocated for individuals to “work when and how you are most productive.” They applied that same principle to their own work. What they did not anticipate, however, was that in the absence of agreements or guidelines about when and how to communicate, they were setting themselves up for recurring breakdowns and delays.
All team members had access to a standard suite of communication technologies and devices. In the absence of policies or working agreements about how to use them, however, everyone “did their own thing.” Members who preferred text only communicated by text and did not respond to emails, and vice versa. Another member only responded to emails at 3pm each day, completing as many as he could before leaving to catch his bus, but that meant many went unanswered. Another member preferred the phone, but her key collaborator did not answer his phone!
When a team member didn’t receive a response to their original message, they would send it again via the same channel – text, email, or voice mail. After multiple attempts without a response, each person concluded that the other was “goofing off.”
No wonder everyone was angry and couldn’t get anything done! The Director thought the problems were interpersonal and assumed the members would sort the issues out themselves.
Project Assignment & Launch Process
Prior to becoming a distributed team, the group had been colocated and project assignments were made and accepted informally. After becoming distributed, project assignments continued to be made informally among the members via private communications. When marketing and HR adopted more distributed models, a Marketing Associate and an HR Partner were added to the distributed team but without clear guidelines about their respective roles. The tenured members saw them as “consultants” – available if needed but not full team members. Consequently, these new members were not included in new projects. They felt left out, and the Director wondered why they weren’t contributing more!
Varying perceptions of team cohesion
One team member complained that the team didn’t feel as cohesive since becoming virtual. When asked what had changed, she described the colocated experience as one where birthday parties and holiday celebrations were common and “we all knew about each others’ kids and shared pictures when we came back from vacations.”
We added questions about team cohesion to our interviews and got a range of responses. Some members were relieved not to be distracted by the parties and in-office chitchat. They defined cohesiveness purely in task terms – “I feel like we’re cohesive when we can all get our work done and the pieces fit together.” Others were interested in more of a balance – “It’s nice to know a little about everyone’s life outside work – it makes us all seem a bit more human – but I really like working at home where I don’t feel like people will think me anti-social when I need to be heads down to get some work done.”
We facilitated a full-team workshop to reflect on these findings and develop the needed operating agreements. We also coached the Director to hold the team accountable for complying with the agreements and about the risks of unaddressed conflict in distributed teams.
RESULT
After some initial resistance to changing individual practices, the team finally settled on guidelines regarding available hours, the official team communication channels, and response times for each. In addition, the Director established guidelines for new project team formation that decreased the risk of excluding team members with mission critical expertise.
