By Stefanie
A confused team will never be able to reach its full potential. Confusion results in time loss, dissatisfaction, and sometimes a paralysis within the team that endangers the success of the entire team. Therefore, one of the first points we look at when working with teams is how much clarity they have on the clarity/confusion points elaborated below.
If clarity is low or lacking, processes (in all areas: core outputs (e.g. research results), maintenance (the stuff you do to prevent emergencies), and leadership (mentoring, ensuring high quality research etc.) break down.
The main reason usually is ambiguity. Ambiguity itself has many faces, which I will talk about today, because it is this inexactness that leads to lack of clarity and confusion. Here is my incomplete list of things to do if you want to confuse your team (hint: work really hard to not do this if you want more clarity):
If you want to make sure something doesn’t get done, just say: “Someone should…” or “We should think about…”
I am entirely guilty of statements like this “Someone should clean up the lab.” “We should think about more effective team meetings.”
This is how most efforts to change something begin…
…and end.
When tasks are thrown out like this, a team member lacks any connection to them. I have often found myself in the same situation, first wondering whether it was more of a philosophical statement or actually a task. Such statements lack a clear assignment of responsibility (who will do it) and a completion date. I thus question whether it’s important or if I am the person who needs to take ownership. Nowadays, because I have a lot to do, any “we should X,Y, or Z” from others including my chair inevitably go into the “not gonna happen now” area of my brain.
If you don’t want this to happen to your “shoulds” and want them to be considered tasks, classify their priority and provide context so that your team can develop a better sense of whether and why they want to/need to take on the task.
Returning to the “lab cleaning” example above, one team member needs to take responsibility. This doesn’t mean they clean and tidy the lab all by themselves. But it could mean that the team member plans and coordinates a cleaning day, ensures that cleaning supplies are available, etc. My lab does Project Sparkle each year, a day or two dedicated to a deep clean and sort of the lab. This is typically the responsibility of the lab manager who will set the date and the rules (start times, lunch fun, what clean really means). They will also make a list of responsibilities/tasks that team members sign up for. This can be to check the inventory of the freezers, organize drawers, clean benches, organize our data drives etc.
Normally the “shoulds” come up during meetings. We recommend that all meetings conclude with a summary of the discussed to-dos/tasks/actions. The assigned action keeper records throughout the meeting what tasks need to be done. At the conclusion of the meeting, actions are assigned to a specific team member and a deadline is agreed on.
But this is not all there is to creating clarity, which brings us to the next point.
If you want to drive yourself insane, keep your requirements vague
I remember Project Sparkle a few years ago. Some team members were cleaning our communal kitchen. When I inspected the results of their work, I was taken aback. To me, it looked like they’ve done a crappy job. The refrigerator still looked dirty, cabinets hadn’t been touched. When I asked one of the responsible party why they considered the job done given that there was still dried up food leftovers stuck to the refrigerator insides, they said:
“Oh, you should have told us that you want it to look like new.”
We tend to assume that those we work with understand everything just as we do. But unfortunately, this is not the case. My standards for clean were clearly different from Team Kitchen’s standards. Without making your standards and expectations explicit, your team will not be able to anticipate your expectations regarding quality, quantity, and time. Therefore,they will deliver either something worse or better but in any case likely something different from what you “ordered”. When you go to a coffee shop, you don’t just order “coffee” and expect the barista to know that you meant decaf frappuccino with extra whipped cream and caramel sauce.
And yet, we tend to do exactly that with our team members–sometimes because we are not clear about our expectations upfront. Therefore, its useful to have a process in place that ensures that you and everyone involved has clarity on your order. For every major project, e.g., a research project, a kind of contract is drawn up. In this one-pager, you detail the criteria for a successful project output. This includes standards for quality and quantity of the results, timelines and if possible a budget. These acceptance criteria ensure clarity about the scope and nature of the expected output on both sides. Moreover, this meticulous pre-definition helps to work towards the goal and to reflect on whether one is still on the right track. Once you have acceptance criteria that work, you can incorporate them into standard operating procedures.
For example, when we put publications or grant applications together, we do figures in a specific way. We use the same font, font size, colors, organization for all figures. There are additional standards such as including quantifications of otherwise qualitative results, scale bars for images, statistics for data. If a figure does not meet the criteria, the task is not considered complete. We have a checklist and an example figure that team members can refer to.
Change a Lot at Once
A common mistake made in the enthusiasm for change is the attempt to initiate too many changes at once. The idea that comprehensive change can happen overnight is exciting but often leads to overwhelm and resistance within the team. Change requires time – for planning and implementation as well as for adjustment and acceptance by the team.
Implementing several major changes simultaneously will quickly lead to confusion. Team members may feel insecure, priorities may become blurred, and the sense of overwhelm can lead to important details being overlooked. Moreover, it becomes difficult to measure the impact of individual changes when they are all introduced at once. This complicates learning from mistakes and making adjustments.
Instead, introduce changes gradually. By focusing on one or a few changes at a time, you give your team the opportunity to adjust, learn, and become familiar with the new situation. This approach also allows for collecting feedback and assessing the effectiveness of the changes before taking further steps. Not only does this increase the likelihood of success, but it also strengthens engagement and acceptance within the team.
Project an Image of You as the Perfect Leader
A point often overlooked when it comes to confusion in a team is that new leaders need to find their own style. And first off: that’s okay, and it’s perfectly normal for mistakes to happen. When you start something new that you have not experienced before, looking for role models makes sense. Often we draw from key people in our lives, parents, former boss, mentors etc. we try to derive recommendations for action for ourselves and generate our desired image of ourselves as a leader. Put simply, we ask ourselves, do I want to be like Mom/Dad/Former Boss or the exact opposite. When consciously done this can be a useful strategy. The challenge is that we don’t always do it consciously, e.g. before we know it we find ourselves responding to a challenge like mom did even though we may not love this particular response that much. Or it may not be the most effective one for the situation that you are handling.
However, it’s just as important to incorporate your own character into this leadership self-concept, so that you do not come across as inauthentic. If I present myself to my team as easy-going and chill but am inwardly tense and worried that we won’t get our work done, I will come across as inauthentic., which will reduce my authority and the trust the team places in me. Again, they may not be picking up on this consciously but there will be this little nagging subconscious feeling that they can’t trust what you say.
To avoid inauthenticity, three things are necessary:
- Theoretical knowledge about leadership styles
- Self-reflection and self-awareness
- Practice
There are many leadership styles. These help one to apply the right kind of leadership in a particular situation. Starting with Authoritarian Leadership all the way to Servant Leadership. We cover how to handle these leadership styles in our Research Leadership Mastery Program (Link to the flyer). Depending on the situation, it’s helpful to apply a leadership style that’s tailored to it. For instance, if a fire breaks out in the office building, it’s probably not wise to engage in Democratic Leadership to discuss possible responses; instead, it’s time to give direct orders. While this example seems clear, in reality, we often find ourselves in a gray area where several leadership styles may be justified. And it’s precisely here that it’s important to have developed a leadership self-concept. This allows you to lead your team authentically and without confusion.
The last point is the most challenging to implement, as it’s not just about introducing a tool like a task list, a project plan, or acceptance criteria. To me, however, it is the most important in this list because, in addition to authenticity towards the team, it also allows you to be yourself, which is less energy consuming. Playing a role is exhausting. You’ll find inner peace and more satisfaction in your work when you are who you are and as a consequence reduce confusing your team.
-Stefanie