-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Read: 07
The article from the New York Times is an interesting one to say in the least. How does one create an efficient team? How can managers better manage the direction their team moves in? What does that look like?
This article explores that and one of the ways it does so is by discussing this example to induce the reader into thinking about how teams SHOULD work:
Imagine you have been invited to join one of two groups.
Team A is composed of people who are all exceptionally smart and successful. When you watch a video of this group working, you see professionals who wait until a topic arises in which they are expert, and then they speak at length, explaining what the group ought to do. When someone makes a side comment, the speaker stops, reminds everyone of the agenda and pushes the meeting back on track. This team is efficient. There is no idle chitchat or long debates. The meeting ends as scheduled and disbands so everyone can get back to their desks.
Team B is different. It’s evenly divided between successful executives and middle managers with few professional accomplishments. Teammates jump in and out of discussions. People interject and complete one another’s thoughts. When a team member abruptly changes the topic, the rest of the group follows him off the agenda. At the end of the meeting, the meeting doesn’t actually end: Everyone sits around to gossip and talk about their lives.
Which group would you rather join?
An interesting concept in my mind as I myself have been part of both types of teams and I can say without a doubt that one of the biggest things to do in meetings like these is for the leader to ensure that everybody STAYS ON TRACK.