In a groundbreaking field research project conducted at Harvard, the focus was on customer service representatives transitioning to self-managing teams at Xerox. This shift marked a significant change for both the service representatives and their frontline managers. Previously, service staff enjoyed autonomy, managing their own customers, schedules, and repair methods. The move to self-managing teams, however, introduced shared territories, team-developed work practices, and coordinated schedules and decisions. For managers, the transition involved a shift from supervising individual employees to coaching teams.
The role of “coach” was pivotal—managers needed to adapt their management styles to foster team ownership and excellent customer service. Which coaching behaviors, such as task coordination, insightful questioning, and motivation through encouragement, were most effective in developing exemplary teams? Conversely, which traditional “supervisor” behaviors, such as dictating solutions, were now too controlling and needed to be discarded? This inquiry revealed that many teams were teams in name only. While some service representatives continued to operate independently despite being part of a team, others embraced the team concept. These cohesive teams adopted best practices, coordinated their schedules for prompt customer service, and regularly reviewed lessons learned. What caused such discrepancies?
Over a year was spent exploring this issue, involving team observations, interviews with supervisors and team members, and collaboration with managers to redesign reward systems. Although initial hypotheses existed about what factors would be most influential, the findings were surprising and shaped subsequent thoughts on effective team dynamics. The three primary drivers of team effectiveness were identified as tasks suited for team execution, a clear shared team purpose, and rewards for team excellence.
Supervisor behavior was found to be less significant and only impactful once a strong team foundation was established. Essentially, fundamental working conditions promoted effective collaboration, with coaching serving as a supplement to already well-designed teams.
Richard Hackman’s work, “From Causes to Conditions in Groups Research,” elaborates on this practical approach to team effectiveness. Hackman suggests viewing teams as complex systems that navigate their own paths, directing attention to fundamental conditions that promote good team processes, rather than direct process intervention. Over time, Hackman developed a model of these fundamental conditions, initially a five-factor model in his book, “Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances,” which evolved into the Six Conditions framework as described in the book by Ruth Wageman et al “Senior Leadership Teams: What It Takes to Make Them Great.” Team composition emerged as a distinct sixth factor due to its impact. These conditions are divided into Essentials—necessary for any teamwork—and Enablers, which propel a well-designed unit into an outstanding team. The three Essentials include:
- A Real Team—bounded with stable membership long enough to achieve meaningful goals and genuinely interdependent.
- A Compelling Purpose—clear, challenging, and consequential.
- The Right People—a right-sized group of individuals with the technical and teamwork capabilities as well as the diversity of perspectives to realize the purpose.
These Essentials are designable conditions, not emergent features of team dynamics. The three Enablers include:
- Work Design—real team tasks, and explicit norms of conduct and ways of working.
- Supportive Context—resources and support that facilitate teamwork rather than obstruct it.
- Team Coaching—an enabler to accelerate the team’s effectiveness only when foundational conditions are met.
By concentrating on establishing these conditions, teams will naturally cultivate positive collective processes, self-correct negative dynamics, and navigate their path to exceptional performance.