Luc Bretones, a partner of the Mandarina group (NextGen, Holaspirit, Talkspirit):
I don’t like complainers in general and I’ve learned through experience that complaining about your group or company often turns out to be in vain. For what ? Well simply because if we refer to Covey’s circles (1), it is better to invest our time and energy in subjects on which we can have a real influence. Others occupy us cognitively and often negatively. The news, for example, tends, in an addictive way, to exhaust and saturate our attention on dramas beyond our reach of action and influence.
What’s the point ? The context of my business prevents me from performing!
I often hear during my client interventions “many things are dysfunctional in the company and these dysfunctions do not allow us to carry out our missions correctly”.
However, not far from there, a team carrying out the same activity, in the same company and in the same socio-economic context, excels. What’s more, his colleagues seem fulfilled; social bonding and well-being within the team reach new heights.
How can this be possible? What are the differentiating factors of these two team dynamics? How, in the same context of temperature and pressure, do some teams wither while others flourish and flourish?
The dysfunctional team incriminates the context of the company, the very one in which the optimal team found its balance.
Is the grass really greener elsewhere?
This context, quite common in large companies which often combine multiple layers of management inherited from their growth – such as growth rings which make it possible to determine the age of a tree – makes it possible to observe very different management situations. ‘one part of the organization to another but also an ability to sometimes operate at opposite ends of the spectrum from one team to another, including in the same direction or the same department. Do you know many large groups which today have optimal functioning throughout their organization on:
- clarity of objectives and roles,
- transversality,
- trust,
- psychological safety?
I don’t see them often and any durability in this area appears fragile. If you are leaving an organization for these reasons, first check the management that will welcome you elsewhere. I’m talking about your future hierarchical and functional managers and their respective n+1s.
Certainly, the culture of an organization induces powerful currents of values and behaviors. However, management adjusted to the aspirations of the team will make it possible to create a bubble of comfort, requirements and development adapted to the release of the potential of this team. It will alleviate the excesses and limiting beliefs of the organization, promote task interdependence – relying on each other to succeed – within the team and install psychological safety so that every voice is expressed, shares his mistakes as levers for progress and his vulnerabilities as opportunities to play as a team.
Bet on your team, the winning scenario!
Focusing on your team rather than complaining about your company is of crucial importance in today’s professional context. On the one hand because you will not change the systemic functioning of your company in the short term, and on the other hand because indeed, almost all of your problems can be solved through your collective. Just consider that if, for example, all the company’s objectives are set centrally, there is no point in complaining about it or rehashing it every day to your colleagues. This is just an input to the system of constraints that is imposed on you. Focus on everything else, and the rest is huge! Of course, if the system of constraints seems insurmountable to you, flee as quickly as possible!
The prerequisites for team functioning
First, the effectiveness of a team is based on fundamental prerequisites such as clarity of roles and objectives, a climate of respect, fairness, and security, as well as the reflexivity of the team. These elements create a solid foundation for teamwork, allowing each member to feel valued and engaged in the pursuit of common goals. By cultivating an environment where trust reigns, where risk-taking is possible, and where the diversity of skills and perspectives is valued, we promote team cohesion and optimize its performance potential.
Second, team satisfaction, which directly influences team performance, arises from the satisfaction of members’ intrinsic and extrinsic needs, such as mastery, relationships, work meaning, and autonomy. When team members feel competent, connected, engaged in meaningful work, and free in their actions, their motivation and satisfaction increase, leading to better quality of work and greater collective effectiveness. Recognizing and valuing these aspects contributes to a positive climate, strengthening the commitment and well-being of each person, which has a positive impact on the overall performance of the team.
Finally, team performance, which is the ultimate reflection of its effectiveness, is closely linked to the team’s ability to achieve and exceed its objectives. This requires a clear commitment to goals, an ability to manage uncertainty with an inquisitive mind, and an openness to outside suggestions and information. The emphasis on creative collaboration and innovation, supported by positive team dynamics and strong teamwork prerequisites, makes it possible not only to achieve set goals but also to surpass them. By investing in the team, we foster an environment conducive to creativity, critical analysis and innovation, key elements for long-term success and growth.
So, rather than focusing on the negative aspects of the company, investing in your team means building a solid foundation for collective success. This helps create a virtuous circle where respect, trust, satisfaction, and performance feed off each other, leading to a rewarding work environment for all team members and, by extension, a stronger and more resilient business.
Towards a networked and ecosystem-based managerial organization
If the team is the relevant link of performance and well-being in business, we must now consider it as a network , within the company and also within a business ecosystem. John Kotter, professor emeritus at Harvard Business School, proposes a dual organizational model combining the traditional hierarchical structure with a horizontal network of agile teams to enable companies to quickly adapt to changes. This system capitalizes on the efficiency and reliability of hierarchy while integrating the innovation and flexibility of networks, where motivated volunteers work on strategic initiatives beyond their usual roles. This dualistic approach facilitates rapid response to unforeseen challenges and supports growth and innovation.
Ecosystem management is gaining power due to the complex and multidimensional evolution of organizations; It allows organizations to become open, reactive and innovative systems, capable of pooling energies to cope with uncertainty and complexity. By establishing strong and committed collectives, based on the contribution of all stakeholders, organizations can envisage a sustainable and effective transformation, responding to current and future challenges.
(1): Covey circles, from the philosophy of Stephen Covey (1932-2012, American national), are made up of three concentric zones: the circle of concern, the circle of influence and the central core. The Circle of Concern encompasses things over which we have no direct control, such as global policies or the behavior of others. Rather, the circle of influence contains those aspects of our lives that we can directly influence, such as our reactions and decisions, thus encouraging a focus on those elements that we can effectively influence to improve our personal effectiveness and reduce stress. The central core, in turn, represents our fundamental values and principles, those that guide our actions and reactions, and constitutes the source of our integrity and our intrinsic motivation, encouraging a life aligned with what is truly important to us.
