Jack, the president of a global media company, was leading a new team that included leaders from several recently acquired companies, some veterans of the original company, and a few recent hires. Jack’s division was working toward launching a large, ambitious, risky new venture. This project’s success was critical to the company’s success.
Jack’s team comprised vastly different cultures, personalities, perspectives, and experience levels. Even with all of their exceptional talent, the leaders weren’t actually working together as a team. Jack needed to assess the team’s collective strengths, weaknesses, and areas needing immediate attention.
The Boda approach
After speaking with Jack about the needs and goals of the team, The Boda Group deployed a team self-assessment that evaluated the team on 20 dimensions that correlate to team effectiveness, including productivity, skills, trust, collaboration, accountability, and others. This anonymous assessment gathered qualitative and quantitative data, and took each team member less than ten minutes to complete.
The results were compiled into a summary report on how the team was operating collectively, as well as its strengths and development areas. Jack’s team reviewed the report together for the first time as part of a team offsite, facilitated by Boda coaches. Together, the leaders and the Boda coaches discussed the data and explored the implications for the team.
The assessment report revealed that team members broadly regarded each another as some of the most talented and experienced professionals they had ever worked with. They were aligned with, and deeply committed to, the team’s objectives. And they were willing to work incredibly hard to be successful.
Even with their considerable strengths, the team wasn’t satisfied with any of the results along the 20 dimensions of team effectiveness. Though they targeted 80% effectiveness, most dimensions were in the 0-30% range. In particular, trust was low, communication was insufficient and confusing, and decision-making was too slow.
Team members’ reactions to these findings ranged from surprise and disappointment to relief that the gaps were now crystal clear. The remainder of the offsite was spent prioritizing actions to address the team’s critical development areas, including starting monthly team coaching, setting targets for each area of team effectiveness, and agreeing to re-evaluate their progress in another 90 days.