Reengineering Best Practices No. 2 March 1996 Building Teamwork in USAID'S Dominican Republic Mission by Wilma Gormley Training Resources Group 909 N. Washington Street, Suite 305 Alexandria, VA 22314 A joint initiative of PPC/CDIE and M/ROR PN-ABY-271 FOREWORD We did not know exactly how far we would go with reengineering before we started our experiment in October 1994. But when we began, we decided we would be risk takers and not be afraid of failure. We agreed we would go for the "whole bag of marbles." We would, if necessary, learn from mistakes. This report gives you a view of the process of change we went through in building teams. For me, who wanted participation, that meant key decisions would not be made by the front office, but by the entire staff. As we moved ahead, it was apparent that the staff needed training. We had to address the question of how reengineering was going to affect the structure of the Mission. I had no magic answer and neither did anyone else. We were prepared for a long debate on reorganization. Most amazingly, there wasn't one. The staff felt we had to reorganize around our strategic objectives to reflect the new reality in the Mission. A double or parallel structure just would not do, nor would the old office structure. And so we reorganized in strategic objective teams and abolished the technical offices. For us, it has been the right thing to do. There is one element to which management must be alert. People react differently to change. Some are more comfortable than others going out into uncharted waters. Some much prefer to know the exact course. Mission management has to take the time to make sure that the staff are solidly comfortable in taking on something new and high risk. We are a very different Mission than when we started out. We know it internally as well as what we hear from our partners, customers and Washington visitors. We are excited about what we are doing and so far have been creative in dealing with the challenge of reduced resources. We also await the new systems to advance our reengineering efforts. The TRG workshop described in the attached report was a defining point for us. I hope it movitates you to go for the "whole bag of marbles." Regards, Marilyn Zak Mission Director USAID/Dominican Republic BUILDING TEAMWORK IN USAID'S DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MISSION ________________________________________________ In 1994 USAID's Mission in the Dominican Republic was designated a country experimental laboratory for Agency reengineering efforts. That fall, Mission management completed several activities to prepare its staff for a team-based approach to operations. Specifically, it  Scheduled a Mission-wide retreat, which developed a vision and values statement, built a shared understanding of reengineering concepts, and committed staff to changing the way business is done  Created a reengineering task force  Established an Employee Development Committee that helped conduct career enhancement activities  Organized a strategic management workshop to obtain input and commitment to the Mission's strategic objectives  Formed strategic objective working groups responsible for sharpening the Mission's strategic objectives As Mission staff began to implement reengineering concepts, they became aware that many of these concepts were significantly changing the way the Mission did business. Mission management, committed to reengineering's core values of empowerment and participation, wanted to avoid imposing strategies and decisions. Management understood widespread acceptance of new concepts was essential for success. Mission staff needed to understand changes and participate in analyzing options and making choices. Staff needed to make thoughtful decisions about the composition of strategic objective (SO) and results package (RP) teams, selection and responsibilities of team leaders, team relationships with the front office and support offices, and procedures to work closely with customers. In May 1995, Mission management asked the Training Resources Group (TRG) to help design and conduct a series of workshops on team-based approaches to development. This report describes that effort and includes recommendations for using teams in Mission activities. The goals of the workshops were for Mission staff to  Understand the team approach and make a commitment to using it for Mission operations  Decide how the Mission would organize and operate to support new teams  Build skills and knowledge to be effective team members  Clarify team leaders' role and build skills needed to be effective  Identify next steps and create an action plan WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES AND OUTCOMES The table above lists major work-shop activities and required skills, fol-lowed by a session-by-session discussion of the workshop series. Mission Team-building Exercise Conducted The entire Mission (67 participants) attended a half-day, team-building work-shop. The agenda included a presentation by the facilitator entitled "Why Organiza-tions Use Teams...What Does It Get You," and a team-building exercise. The exercise helped participants learn about teamwork. Strategic Objective Teams Created The 33 staff members who would become members of strategic objective (SO) teams participated, along with the director and deputy director. The facilitator made a presentation about effective teams, followed by discussion. The group reviewed the purpose and mandate of SO teams. Individuals were asked to select the strategic objective they were most interested in, agreeing to devote 80 percent of their time to that one strategic objective. Through analysis and discussion, teams were formed. One issue needed further work before decisions could be made: how much time team members could expect from support offices (controller, project development, and contracts office), and where these team members would sit. The first assignment of the newly formed SO teams was to identify who would be on their extended (virtual) team. Teams discussed the roles and responsi-bilities of extended team members and how they might involve extended team members in day-to-day activities. Principal outcomes  Individuals designated to work on an SO team selected the team they were most interested in; decisions were not imposed  Teams began forming themselves initiating the process of team-building and adopting the values of empowerment and mutual accountability  SO teams began to share resources, building a win win, collaborative approach. For example, since human resources were limited, one team's having more resources would jeopardize the success of all other SO teams. With give and take, each team had to work out the best allocation of human resources among them.  Decisions were made jointly by the 33 staff members. The director and deputy engaged in discussions but did not impose solutions, indicating the extent to which the teams were empowered. Leadership Issues Resolved In one session, participants engaged in discussions on leadership. Previous reading assignments had helped partici-pants understand how other organizations define leadership of self-managing work teams. The facilitator made a presentation on leadership roles and responsibilities, followed by discussion. Although the director and deputy appointed team leaders, they did not clarify the leaders' role. SO teams met to define their approach to leadership and all discussed various leadership options. Teams worked together to define the role of their team leader. The director made the following statement to team leaders: We think you are a good choice for the role of team leader; however, we want to be clear. You will be expected to carry out this role as your team has described it. We see it as a contract between you and your team, and we in the front office will hold you accountable for fulfilling the job as it has been described. If you would rather not take the assignment for any reason, that is okay. But if you do accept, you are accepting it as defined. Each team leader responded to this statement in front of all participants. Each leader said that this was the right way to go and that he or she looked forward to working as a team leader and being a facilitative leader. All agreed to carry out the job to the best of their ability, as the teams had requested. This was a powerful moment for the teams, and moved them to a deeper level of empowerment and mutual accountability. The teams agreed to turn the definition they had developed for their team leader into a contract between the team and its leader. Principal Outcomes  Teams defined the job of team leader for themselves, thus achieving empowerment  Team leaders committed to a contract with their teams that calls for them to be facilitative  All participants developed a common vision of leadership on self-managing teams  Front office agreed to support teams and team leaders as they set the stage for a different style of leadership Mission Organization Determined The director and deputy asked SO teams for suggestions on Mission reorgani-zation to support the teams. After discus-sions and negotiations between teams and support offices, the group reached the following agreements: SO teams would replace technical offices. Staff thought the Mission's size was a key factor in determining organiza-tion structure. Having both a traditional office structure and an additional structure of SO teams might create conflicting structural frameworks, making change more difficult. The group was determined not to "put old wine in new bottles," a clear consensus agreed to by the director and deputy . Extent of support office participa-tion on SO teams was decided. A more difficult issue was how much staff time each SO team could have from support offices. The group worked to reach agree-ment in very collaborative, analytical ways. The support offices described their work volume, shared their concerns about assigning specific individuals to SO teams, made it clear they were willing to work under the team approach, and made offers regarding how much time they could devote to supporting SO teams. Both the SO teams and support offices were satisfied with the agreements reached. Throughout the process, the deputy and director offered suggestions, clarified the big picture, and let the teams and support offices reach their own agreements on how they would work together. Office space task force created. Another difficult issue was where to locate the desks of the individuals assigned to both an SO team and a support office. Several of the affected staff volunteered to sit with their SO teams; others were more hesitant. After some discussion, the group agreed to appoint an office space task force that would make recommendations on how to allocate space in support of SO teams. This was an exciting development, since key decisions once again were being developed by teams and offices in an empowered environment. Secretarial support task force created. The group also agreed to appoint a task force to study the secretarial support needs of SO teams, talk with secretaries to determine their interests, and make recom-mendations on how to include secretaries on SO teams. Principal Outcomes  The director and deputy participated in discussions, but critical decisions were the result of group consensus  SO teams were pleased with their organizational decisions and committed themselves to making them work  SO teams and the support offices negotiated how they would share staff in a collaborative, win win manner; old turf wars were put aside and anxieties began to diminish  Office space would be allocated in ways that support the teams' work; in addition, SO teams developed the idea of rearranging space and will work together to reach agreements Front Office Role Clarified Each SO team met to discuss the role and responsibilities of the Mission director and deputy, and to describe their expectations. The front office also identi-fied and described its role and responsi-bilities. The teams and the front office then related their perspectives and agree-ments were reached. Some of the front office responsibilities agreed to by parti-cipants are shown in the box below. Principal Outcomes  The front office clearly stated its intent to use a facilitative, coaching management style  SO teams participated in establishing this management style Agreements Communicated to Entire Mission Since SO teams and the front office had reached several agreements, the rest of the Mission needed to be informed. The entire Mission was asked to attend an additional one-day workshop. At the beginning, each SO team workshop participant paired up with one person who had not attended earlier sessions and discussed the decisions that were made. Flipcharts were displayed and each pair walked through the "gallery" and discussed each point. This proved an effective way to develop Mission ownership of the changes. Team Startup Activities Planned High-performing teams plan their work before beginning it. This set of actions is called team startup activities. During the work-shops, SO teams had time to think about the four startup activities (listed in the next column), work on some of them, and plan how and when the startup activities would be completed. The four startup activities are: 1. Within each team, clarify and develop a common understanding of the purpose of the team its mandate for action. 2. Develop performance goals for the next 6 to 12 months actual work products and accomplishments to be achieved and for which the team is willing to be held accountable. 3. Develop a set of standards or operating agreements for the team ways of working together that each team member can agree to and be held accountable for. 4. Develop a work plan for the next 6 to 12 months. Effective Team Knowledge and Skills Built Effective teams have 1) technical skills for their area of work, 2) team problem-solving and decision-making skills, and 3) interpersonal communication skills. Workshop sessions were devoted to developing the team skills. The teams' actual work was used for simulated sessions where specific new skills could be practiced. For example, a session was held on how to plan and facilitate productive problem-solving and decision-making meetings. The facilitator presented a model, which was used by the teams in their work on real situations. The integration of actual work with a forum to practice new skills is especially effective. It makes training less artificial and accomplishes real work. Principal Outcomes  Individuals assessed their own interpersonal communication skills, identified areas for improvement, and worked on these areas  Teams learned how to plan meetings to solve problems and make decisions by setting meeting outcomes (accomplishments) that are doable within the allotted time and by developing an agenda or step-by-step process to follow to reach the outcomes  Teams learned and practiced simple team problem-solving models and decision-making techniques  Teams learned and practiced team communication skills and how to do team facilitation. Team facilitation involves listening to each other, taking turns speaking, constructively con-fronting differences, staying focused on topics, reaching conclusions, recording agreements, summarizing, and ending on time RECOMMENDATIONS The experience of the USAID/ Dominican Republic staff is a good example of how to initiate effective teamwork in an international development setting. TRG appreciates the openness of the USAID/ Dominican Republic staff and their willingness to share their experience so others can learn from it. TRG's recommendations for USAID/ Dominican Republic's continued success in teamwork include the following: 1. Create a team learning framework. SO teams need to create and maintain a "team learning" framework to be conscious of the teamwork process: how they work together, what is working well, and what gets in the way. Teams that focus only on work products without an awareness of process risk being less effective teams. Teams need to be conscious and purposeful about learning how to learn. 2. Provide regular feedback to team leaders.Team leaders need to be very con-scious of the impact of their behavior on the team. Since this is a new role, team leaders should be reflective and open to feedback from team members. Team leaders should ask the following questions from time to time:  What am I doing that you find helpful?  What am I doing that isn't helpful?  What can I do differently? Team members must in turn be forthcoming it is important to talk face-to-face with team leaders about differences. 3. Consider how extended team members are used. Teams will have to think through the involvement of extended team members and plan an approach. Just letting it happen may not lead to desired results. What is expected from extended members? How will core team members communicate with them? 4. SO teams must learn to coach. Since SO teams also will be responsible for starting up RP teams, they need to be conscious of their coaching role in helping RP teams be effective. Since RP teams will include stakeholders, partners, contractors, and others, the coaching role may be more difficult. RP team members may need training (and coaching) in effective teamwork. 5. RP teams need startup activities. RP teams need to go through the same startup activities as SO teams. Neglecting this startup stage could result in problems later. Teams should start from clear agreements, instead of trying to fix things when the inevitable disappointments, frustrations, or anger occur. Fixing "broken" teams is difficult and can require costly external organization development skills. Broken teams can be even more costly when results are not achieved. 6. Empower FSN staff. Teams that have a dual class structure the Americans who make important decisions and the FSNs who do not will be less productive. The Mission and USAID/Washington need to do all they can to delegate to and empower FSN staff. FSN staff need support, coaching, and confidence-building to achieve their potential. And FSNs should be assigned as team leaders, at least on RP teams. 7. Front office must keep on coaching.The Mission director and deputy must maintain their role as coaches and continue to empower teams. This is a delicate balancing act. How can the front office disagree with teams without disempowering them? How can they give advice without imposing decisions? Without micromanaging, how can they monitor team performance and intervene when necessary? How can they move from a command-and-control style to facilitative coaching? TRG will soon be writing suggested guidelines for Mission directors and deputies about coaching and their contribution to the growth of team performance. 8. Maintain a positive attitude. A positive attitude will be an important ingredient during the next year. Change is difficult people try new behaviors and they make mistakes. Here are some ideas on how to create a positive environment:  Create small wins and celebrate them  Find ways to reward extraordinary team performance  Share and celebrate progress  Celebrate the boldness to try new things  Treat mistakes as learning points  Nurture people who are trying; create safe environments  Celebrate learning  Encourage one another  Avoid complaining or being overly critical  Use humor laugh! Be purposeful about having fun