I’ve noticed a fresh challenge for teams charged with problem solving and strategy implementation work that’s been coming up consistently.
The scenario sets up something like this: a significant issue with a product or service arises. Mirroring pre-COVID protocols, the account manager calls a session and tags everyone who might have a hand in the solution. The participants get on the video call and the account manager shares with the group what has transpired. After a short confirmation dialogue, someone pops up a screen share and the brainstorming begins.
The team has deep protocols for problem solving, but this “quick hitter” doesn’t seem to merit activating the full-on process.
Pretty soon there is a long list of potential contributing factors. It’s usually numbered in the dozens and covers everything from partner incoming quality to packaging – and all items in between. Since a VP has been called into the session, the team lead wants to make sure that a sufficient amount of (visible) action is being placed on this high-value account, and so asks for names and dates for all the items.
And there we have it: an enormous amount of action has been triggered, and you can imagine how it cascades from there. The update meeting is lengthy and varies in depth and quality. If the issue is a linear, non-interaction item, it might have been solved. However, it’s highly likely there are two or more factors going on and this army of individuals is going to have a hard time finding it.
And the loose wheel of action exceeding planning is off and running…
How We Need to Think About Teamwork Differently in the Virtual Space
When we were all semi-colocated, we’d use ad hoc, team problem-solving meetings for a long list of solutions. For example, we would use it for communication (all on the same page), clarity (ask lots of questions until the real issues emerged), strategy (pull ideas into groups and design a shortlist of specific intents), diagnosis (ask questions and design experiments to cut through the fog of complexity) and planning (who, what and when).
As I’ve been working with teams, I’m finding that some old-school insights really help this along:
- Be really specific. Take time to set the context and place the group on the same level, pointed toward the same goal. Is there enough context so that everyone on the team understands the who, what, where, when, and why for the current project?
- Keep teams as small as possible. Communication paths scale as n*(n-1)/2, so things get complicated quickly. Five people yield 10 connection paths – which is why virtual sessions get messy so fast. How could we have a smaller core team and make use of line-item experts?
- Use silence as a tool. One of the biggest shifts you can make is to use fresh tools to bring the quiet intuitive to the table that gets washed out by the highly verbal. Could you encourage people who are less verbal to rotate into the mix? Perhaps you might consider silent Post-It note brainstorming?
- Narrow the path. Have a Subject Matter Expert (SME) get the facts by doing pre-meetings with the customer, account manager, and others to create a brief that everyone can understand and review before the session. What pre-work assignment would move the team forward?
- Use the brilliance of the team as the (expensive and valuable) resource it is. In short, use it to solve the hard problems where collaboration is key (not for updates). What tools do you have that could assure all the data for the challenge is in the same place?
How I Help
I work with a select group of clients in larger firms who have a technology background and are sponsoring or leading transformation in their firms. They have exhausted off-the-shelf tools and know they need integrated, bespoke solutions to achieve their goals.
Together we use proven diagnostics to expose hidden patterns that are holding back their journey to value creation. If you’d like to accelerate your success with a validated model, please use this link to put a call on the books or reach out to me at scott@scottpropp.com.
