Unleashing the power of small,
independent teams PART I
Small,
independent teams are the lifeblood of the agile organization. Top executives
can unleash them by driving ambition, removing red tape, and helping managers
adjust to the new norms.
What does it take to set loose the
independent teams that make agile organizations hum? These teams are the
organizational units through which agile, project-based work gets done. The
typical agile company has several such teams, most composed of a small number
of people who have many or all of the skills the team needs to carry out its
mission. (Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos contends that a team is too big when it needs
more than two pizza pies for lunch.) This multidisciplinary way of composing
teams has implications for nearly every business function. Take IT management.
Instead of concentrating technology professionals in a central department,
agile companies embed software designers and engineers in independent teams, where they can work
continually on high-value projects.
While much depends on
the actions of the individual team members, senior executives must thoughtfully
create the environment in which teams and their managers can thrive. In a
nutshell, senior executives must move the company—and themselves—away from
outmoded command-and-control behaviors and structures that are ill-suited to
today’s rapid digital world. They must redouble efforts to overcome resource
inertia and break down silos, because independent teams can’t overcome these
bureaucratic challenges on their own. They must direct teams to the best
opportunities, arm them with the best people, give them the tools they need to move
fast, and oversee their work with a light but consistent touch. These ideas may
sound straightforward, but they go overlooked by too many leaders who’ve grown
up in more traditional organizations.
This article explores
how senior leaders can unleash their companies’ full potential by empowering
small teams and supporting their managers, whose roles have been redefined by
agile thinking . Let’s start with a glimpse of what that looks like in action.
How independent teams work
Several years ago,
financial regulators in Europe decided to let banks verify customers’
identities remotely through digital video chats instead of relying solely on
face-to-face appointments at bank branches. When the news reached one
established bank, the team in charge of its know-your-customer (KYC) process
recognized that the regulatory change could help the bank win new accounts. It
quickly sprang into action to create the needed service. The very existence of
this KYC team was a credit to the bank’s leaders, who had previously put small,
independent teams to work—improving the performance of many of the bank’s
functions by giving them the diverse capabilities needed to address market
opportunities like this one. The bank had simultaneously made a series of
complementary reforms to remove cumbersome approval, budgeting, and governance
processes. Without these institutional refinements, the KYC team’s time to
market would have been far less competitive.
Critically, senior
executives had endowed small, focused groups like the KYC team with the
authority and the resources to carry out projects without first seeking
corporate approval. When it came to paying for the development of the digital
KYC service, the team was spared the trouble of making a formal budget request
and enduring a months-long holding period while the corporate planning
committee took up the request as part of its regular planning process. Instead,
the team drew on a tranche of funding that it had already been given, funding
tied to the team’s contribution to outcomes such as higher customer-conversion
rates.
The bank also loosened
or completely unhitched its product teams’ dependence on internal support
functions. New accommodations in the bank’s HR processes, for example, allowed
the KYC team to quickly line up outside contractors for help with front- and
back-end development, without waiting for those contractors to be vetted. The
IT function had streamlined the bank’s technology systems and operations, too,
building a modern architecture platform to more easily connect new
customer-facing services with legacy back-end systems. The bank had also
eliminated its traditional waterfall-development process, as well as a
no-compromises protocol for testing new products before launch. Previously, a
central IT group would have had to integrate the digital KYC service with core
systems, a drawn-out process that could have stalled the KYC team for months.
But now the KYC team could integrate testing with work flows, roll out new
services as soon as they were viable, and make incremental improvements over
multiple cycles. Together, these reforms allowed the KYC team to develop the
new digital services in a matter of weeks, rather than the months it would have
taken before the reorganization.
Senior company
executives had an integral place in this process, despite the independence they
had accorded teams like KYC. They evaluated progress and allocated resources
according to whether teams deliver against well-defined measures of
performance. But they only intervened in the team’s ongoing work from time to
time, and then only to remove roadblocks and provide support. By creating a
supportive structure and managing it with a light touch, senior bank executives
fostered this kind of innovative spirit in teams all across the institution.
How executives empower independent teams
The challenge for
senior executives in an agile organization is clear but difficult: empower
small teams with great independence and resources while retaining
accountability. As our colleagues have written, an agile organization speeds up decision making by allowing teams that are closer to customers to
make day-to-day, small-stakes decisions on their own, and only escalating
decisions that could have significant consequences or that can only be made
effectively with input and sign-off from multiple parts of the organization.
Executives further empower teams by lessening their dependence on support
functions such as finance, planning, and human resources. Yet executives still
must ensure that teams operate with proper governance, that company resources
are aligned in pursuit of strategic priorities, and that midlevel managers get
the coaching they need to become better versed in agile ways of working. Our
experience helping companies with the transition to agile ways of working
suggests emphasizing the following actions:
Unleash independent teams in meaningful areas
We’ve argued that
autonomy is especially beneficial to teams working on processes and
capabilities that directly affect the customer experience. When executives
begin to give their small teams more independence, they should look first at
teams that are responsible for features that matter greatly to customers. This
way, executives can demonstrate how independence helps teams generate more
value. (Skeptics may challenge this approach on the grounds that a new,
untested way of managing teams is too risky to try in significant
customer-facing areas. In practice, independent teams create less business
risk, because they make incremental changes that can be rolled back with ease
if they don’t work out.) It’s also important that executives choose teams of
people who represent different capabilities. When multiple domains of the
company take part in independent teams, executives and managers can test the
limits of the decision-making authority that these domains extend to teams, and
demonstrate that autonomous teams can be trusted to exercise good judgment.
Put strong performers on independent teams,
especially at the outset
Executives can be
reluctant to place their best-performing employees on independent teams that
aren’t mission critical, because they would rather keep them engaged in “more
important” activities. We hold the opposite view: that independent teams are
too important to the company’s future for top performers to be deployed
elsewhere. Executives whose companies have been through agile transformations
say much the same thing. In an interview with McKinsey, Scott Richardson, chief data officer at Fannie Mae,
said, “Creating a new team is probably the most important thing managers can
do, so make sure you get it right. When we created our initial agile teams, I
was personally involved with structuring them and selecting team members. It
might sound crazy to get so involved in this level of detail, but it is
critical that the early teams become true beacons for success.” Choosing
high-caliber people not only sets up the teams to be successful but also
teaches managers how to build more independent teams. “By the fourth or fifth
team,” Richardson continued, “my direct reports knew what questions to ask and
how to structure a proper team, and they could scale up on their own from that
point forward.”
Provide teams with a clear view of their
customer
At digital-native
companies and agile incumbents, an unwavering focus on improving customer experiences provides each independent
team, regardless of its area of responsibility, with a consistent understanding
of business priorities. Each team’s job is simple: to generate small but
frequent improvements in the quality of the customer’s experience. Executives
foster this shared sense of purpose by making sure that every team has a clear,
unobstructed view of customers.
In the offices of one
international retailer, real-time data on the customer experience is on display
almost everywhere you go. Walk through the dining hall: oversized screens on
the walls bear the latest conversion rates for each of the company’s sales
channels. Visit an independent team’s workspace: screens are lit up with
measures of customer behavior and satisfaction that relate to the team’s
responsibilities, such as revising the script that call centers follow or
tinkering with the layout of the web storefront. At any moment during the
workday, a product manager might drop by a team room to see what the team is
working on, ask how customers are responding, and offer to help.
So that each
independent team can track the customer experience in ways that are relevant to
its work, companies might need to loosen their governance of data. A “canonical
data model” that standardizes the classification of data across the entire
company can cause inadvertent delays because all teams have to agree on changes
to the model that are required to capture new kinds of data or reclassify
existing data. To avoid these complications, independent teams are ideally
allowed to work with and define data within their business context.
CONTINUES IN PART II
No comments:
Post a Comment