Hybrid Without Intent: Silently Undermining Team Resilience
I began this series noting that, while there are benefits to remote work for some people, teams and organizations (especially creative/ innovative ones) may be exposing themselves to considerable risk.
In the last post I explored the first of 4 Risk Categories: Productivity. This time I’m looking at Risk Category 2: Creativity-to-Resilience spectrum, by which I am suggesting that Creativity is one of the starting places in building resilience.
Risk Category 2: Creativity-to-Resilience
Risks to the Creativity-to-Resilience(by which I am suggesting that Creativity is one of the starting places in building resilience) spectrum stem from, or are magnified through, the lack of in-person interpersonal interaction. . . perceiving individual strengths, frustrations, interactions, mannerisms, cross-room glances and even biases, happens naturally in person. While this may be possible virtually, it takes dedication, patience, perseverance and skill.
Risk 4: Reduced growth potential and resilience
due to reduced spontaneity in collaboration, problem solving, team-building, creativity and innovation.
. . . reduced spontaneity in collaboration, problem solving, team-building, creativity and innovation
An example: The employee at one desk overheard the frustration of a colleague, and after exploring the situation, created a solution. Or, you might remember spontaneous hallway conversations that swivelled to “let’s go white-board this”.
Another example: a multi-million dollar project was barrelling down the finish line as the team was meeting to refine next steps. An assistant quietly asked how this planned implementation was going to happen alongside another priority implementation on the same day. This was news to the team and it resulted in a very nimble re-work – with clusters of the team swiftly “white-boarding” the solutions. Would this have happened in a remote setting? Possibly. Though with so many factors in play I can’t help but be skeptical: The assistant felt it was a safe space to ask the question and had a safe ear to whisper into. (Stay tuned to Risk Category 3: Culture) They had also been invited to the meeting as part of their onboarding. The team, while a global group, were all on-site.
future focused brainstorming sessions are a powerful tool to lift spirits and engage the team - especially in times of stress. “What could be possible?”
Risk 5: Reduced team engagement and brainstorming opportunity.
It has been my experience that a future focused brainstorming session is a powerful tool to lift spirits and engage the team. The “where could we take this” and “what could our future be without specific (named) constraints” conversations. This coaching practice helps people move beyond self-perceived constraints. Having a team brainstorm boosts team collaboration as well. Does the remote leader recognize the need for these sessions? And how easily can a leader facilitate this with a hybrid team?
Risk 6: utilizing disagreement to creative advantage
becomes more difficult to facilitate remotely.
. . .the space for innovation and creativity is a space of intellectual friction
Amy Edmondson (The Fearless Organization) speaks of the Psychologically Safe workplace as the space for innovation and creativity, which is a space of intellectual friction.
An example: Two programs were finding it impossible to talk with each other: they were competing for the some of the same resources had many inter-dependencies and the same implementation date. Much energy was spent in accusation, “us vs. them” and self-protection mind-sets. A space had to be created swiftly in which all participants could speak with assurance of being heard and respected. This required creating and holding the space, reading the room, catching subtle behaviours and responses and gently inviting the less vocal to contribute. The threads of connection between them were established, the tensions of competition were diminished and all contributed actively to sometimes very innovative resolutions. While this may well be possible virtually, I wonder what might be missed or lost by not catching the nuances and hesitations within the room. I also wonder how much more difficult “hearing” each other might be when each individual is “shielded” behind their computer screen.
risks to Team Creativity and Resilience may . . . be magnified through lack of in-person interaction. Perceiving individual strengths, interactions, mannerisms, cross-room glances and even biases, requires dedication, patience, perseverance and skill.
The risks to Team Creativity and Resilience may stem from, or be magnified through, the lack of in-person interaction. For the empathetic and practiced leader perceiving individual strengths, interactions, mannerisms, cross-room glances and even biases, happens naturally in person. While this may be possible virtually, it takes dedication, patience, perseverance and skill.
How easily do you perceive reluctance, hesitation, or friction on screen? How often are your team members raising ideas, concerns or counter-proposals (with respect)?