What does a productive, gelled development team look like? What does any productive, gelled team look like? You may as well give up the idea of working on a high-performing team. Unless you are willing to do what it takes to elevate your team’s performance. And that might not be enough.
Even if you are willing to do what it takes, does everybody on the team?
A development team is not that different from any other kind of team.
Let’s face it, if a team is going to have a chance at becoming a high-performing team, it needs to have an overall commitment to excellence.
On a sufficiently dysfunctional team, one person trying to lead by example or one voice exhorting the team to work smarter, harder, faster, better will be met with derision.
If it is a manager calling for improvement it will be met with passive resistance (at best).
People have compared development teams to orchestras … or, better, jazz bands. And some developers do like to think of themselves as … artistes …
but what is different about a development team, though, is that it is supposed to be building a working solution – it is more engineering than art – and that creates an environment that is more like an academic department than an orchestra …. or jazz band … or athletic team …
… and academic departments are never dysfunctional …
Depending on the type of project, the actual development team may be created ad hoc or pulled together from existing staff. Or some combination of both of those. Unless you are unusually fortunate, we assume the following:
Your team will be, on average, … average. That means that – assuming we have a normally distributed population – 68% of the population will be within +/- 1 standard deviation of the mean. The average. It also means that 84% of the population will be +1 standard deviation or worse.
I am willing to be convinced that our population of developers is skewed … towards excellence, of course. But the argument holds that you will not draw your entire team from the lofty reaches of engineering excellence.
The job is to take a generally average group of performers and build them into an above-average team. It takes an above average leader to do that.
Many of the arguments for self-directed teams presuppose that the team is above average. An average or below average team will fail at self-direction.
There are more than a few average (and below) performers out there who believe that they are well above average … or that they are owed self-direction.
If you have the time, patience is a virtue. The team should be allowed to start work as it sees fit – within bounds. The team’s metrics will save you. One of four results can be expected:
Metrics are not produced. If the team cannot even reliably collect data and produce process metrics then it is clearly below average and incapable of self-direction.
Metrics show below average performance. Is there a trend showing improvement? If so then encourage the team and sustain their ascent. If not then intervention is needed.
Metrics show average performance. Is that good enough? Again, is the team showing improvement? Keep an eye on things and if performance slips, intervene.
Metrics show above average performance … pop a cork and celebrate … everybody wins.
Next time we will talk about building a development team. What kind of group characteristics and dynamics need to be developed.