Teamwork is the ultimate competitive advantage; greater than strategy, than finance or technology. People working in teams can achieve more than people working individually could ever imagine.
Here’s an experiment, that I’ve had much success with, in improving the performance of teams:
1) At a team meeting, ask each team member to have a short conversation with the person sitting to their right, answering the question: What do we do well as a team? What are our strengths?

2) Next, ask everyone on your team to anonymously rate from 1 to 10, how effectively you currently work together as a team, and how well you need to work as a team to be a truly effective team (1 is terrible and 10 is excellent). These two numbers can be written on pieces of paper and passed to one team member. Whoever receives the papers totals and averages the two scores. (For example, a recent team I worked with rated their current performance as a 6, and the desired performance a 9.) Then, post these two numbers – the average of where we are now; where we need to be, on a board, where everyone on the team can see them. (thanks to Marshall Goldsmith for a variation of this process.)

3) Then, ask the team, what are two activities or two behaviors that everyone on the team can do differently that would close the gap in the rating of where we are now, and where we need to be; that is, what are two things we can all do differently to make the team become more effective?

4) Write down everyone’s suggestions; then, agree on two behaviors that everyone can do differently.

5) Follow up – once a month for the following six months, check in with your team about how you are doing regarding these two behaviors. What are recent examples of making these changes? What are examples of not making these changes? After three months and after six months, ask every member of the team to anonymously rate how the team is functioning.

I find this to be a powerful process. For many teams, just focusing on how to improve the performance of the team can be eye-opening, sometimes a bit frightening, and can shift the team dynamics in subtle as well as not-so-subtle ways. This process is intended to reduce fears, reduce assumptions, and build trust.

For a deeper experience, you can also have everyone on the team meet in pairs, where each person asks every other person on the team: please tell me, what are two behaviors that I can do differently which would make our team more effective? Then, after meeting with every other team member, each person would report the two changes they are working to change. This activity requires a fair amount of trust, and is often more effective with the help of an outside facilitator.

Marc Lesser

“Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful.”

N.N.

Sergio Marchionne has lit a fire under Chrysler that is providing a spark of hope to the ailing automaker. From media reports, it seems that the Fiat team under Marchionne’s leadership is shaking up the place the way another Italian (albeit American) did a generation ago, Lee Iacocca.

As a hands-on manager, Marchionne expects his direct reports to meet with him regularly, which they can do face to face at Chrysler or via video conference. He also has ditched the executive suite for the engineering trenches so he can be closer to the action. Marchionne is to be commended for keeping the loop tight enough that executives can keep each other informed. But there is there is a price to pay. Marchionne, according to the Wall Street Journal, he expects his executives to be in the office as he is six or seven days a week “for the foreseeable future.”

Creating urgency to save a sinking ship is imperative. Working long hours to do so is also critical, but working day after day for months on end without a break is a bad idea. When a team is crashing on a deadline, pulling together can be energizing. But when there is no deadline in sight, the long hours exact vengeance in the form of loss of energy as well as diminished commitment. Managers do not become more creative by working harder; they burnout more quickly. You need give people a break from the day to day flow of work. Here are some suggestions for sustaining productivity under fire.

Set standards. The team leader must make it clear that during the crisis people are expected to assume a greater work load. The leader sets the example by taking more than his fair share of the work. Part of that work means being there for his team. At the same time, the leader does not need to decide how individuals must work. Often employees can decide how best to do their jobs. For example, mandatory meetings are fine, but every meeting need not be mandatory.

Get a buddy. One way to work smarter is to do what I have seen efficient organizations do. Team up with a co-worker to cover for you, not simply on vacations but also during times you will be out of the office. If your buddy is junior to you, then it can be a development opportunity. The leader can also buddy with a colleague or boss to stand in for him, too. Many organizations preach team as in collaboration but too few take advantage of treating teammates as partners. You can do more when individuals work together.

Mandate fresh air time. Get out of the office from time to time. This can be as simple as going out for lunch, or taking a walk in the afternoon. Clock time in the gym, too. Fitness is essential for tackling a heavy workload. The leader also sets the tone by making time for himself. When the team sees the boss taking a break (mental or physical), it gives the team permission to do likewise. Without the leader’s example, no one will follow through on making time for self.

Clocking long hours is not reserved for the corporate suite. Working in government, or even in the highest office in the land — the White House — can be grueling. President Obama vowed to make his administration family friendly, but as his chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel quips, “It’s friendly to your [Obama] family.” As a result many staffers, as reported in the New York Times, are feeling stressed chiefly because they miss time with their families. Continued long stretches of working extraordinary hours will cause talented people to leave early.

Taking breaks is not the same as doing business as usual. It is an acknowledgement that people are your most valuable resource. They need rest and relaxation as well as an opportunity to reconnect with their families. Rather than diminish urgency, it heightens it. Getting outside of the bubble of work allows the mind and body to recharge and be better prepared to face the gauntlet of challenges that lie ahead.

John Baldoni (http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/baldoni/)

“Today is a new day; you’ll get out of it just what you put into it. If you have made mistakes, even serious mistakes, you can make a new start whenever you choose. For the thing we call failure is not the falling down but the staying down.”

Mary Pickford

Twenty years from now you’ll be more disappointed by the things you didn’t do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore, dream and discover.

Mark Twain

Trust, in case you hadn’t noticed, has gotten “hot” lately. But much of it sounds very vague—soft, fluffy, nice-to-have, the buzzword du jour.

I’d like to do my part to make it real.

To me, that means breaking it down and making it sound; tapping into the strategy and mysticism, but also staying grounded in the tactical and the practical.

So let’s review some context; then talk about four specific operating principles a business can hone in on to improve its trustworthiness.

Putting Trust into a Workable Context

I’ve suggested elsewhere that “trust” is too vague a term to work with. To do something practical, we need first to identify the trust realm: are we talking about personal trust, or business/organizational trust, or social/institutional trust?

The next question is about the trust role: are we working on being more trusting? Or more trustworthy? They are not the same thing. And “trust” is the result of them both interacting.

Building a Trustworthy Business

In the realm “personal” and the role “trustworthy,” we can point to personal beliefs and behaviors as indicated in the Trust Quotient. But in business, trustworthiness is built through a set of daily operating principles. Trustworthiness is built from habitually behaving in accordance with a set of commonly shared beliefs about how to do business.

I suggest they can be boiled down to four.

The Four Trust Principles

1. A focus on the Other (client, customer, internal co-worker, boss, partner, subordinate) for the Other’s sake, not just as a means to one’s own ends. We often hear “client-focus,” or “customer-centric.” But these are terms all-too-often framed in terms of economic benefit to the person trying to be trusted.

2. A collaborative approach to relationships. Collaboration here means a willingness to work together, creating both joint goals and joint approaches to getting there.

3. A medium to long term relationship perspective, not a short-term transactional focus. Focus on relationships nurtures transactions; but focus on transactions chokes off relationships. The most profitable relationships for both parties are those where multiple transactions over time are assumed in the approach to each transaction.

4. A habit of being transparent in all one’s dealings. Transparency has the great virtue of helping recall who said what to whom. It also increases credibility, and lowers self-orientation, by its willingness to keep no secrets.

Executing on the Trust Principles

What are the tools an organization has at its disposal to make itself more trustworthy? Any good change management consultant can rattle off the usual suspects, but for trustworthiness, the emphasis has to shift somewhat.

The usual change mantra includes a heavy dose of behaviors, metrics and incentives. Some of that works here, but only to a point.

For example, Principle 1, focus on the Other, is contradicted by too much extrinsic incentive aimed at leveraging self-interest–it undercuts focus on the Other. And Principle 3, relationship over transaction, forces metrics and rewards to a far longer timeframe than most change efforts employ.

Another great shibboleth of change is that it must be led from the CEO’s office. But with trust, it ain’t necessarily so. Trustworthiness is a great candidate for infectious disease change strategies; guerrilla trust strategies can work at the individual level, and individual players can lead. Behavior in accord with these principles cannot be coerced; the flipside is, it can be unilaterally engaged in.

The most powerful tools to create a trustworthy organization are things like language, recognition, story-telling, simply paying attention to the arenas where the principles apply—and the will to apply them. Role-modeling helps; some skill-building helps. But most of all, it is the willingness to notice the pervasive opportunities to work in accordance with this simple set of four principles.

Trustworthiness breeds trusting (the reverse is true too); the combination is what leads to trust. Which, by the way, is quite measurable in its impact on the bottom line.

Charles H. Green is founder and CEO of Trusted Advisor Associates; read more about Charlie at http://trustedadvisor.com/cgreen/

You can follow him on twitter @CharlesHGreen