Introduction

Since 9/11, there has been considerable criticism of the Intelligence Community for not coordinating the  activities of separate organizations to “connect the dots” and avoid “intelligence failures".  This is not a new criticism, it occurred after Pearl Harbor and policymakers and the Intelligence Community have been trying to accomplish intelligence coordination  ever since.  The first effort was the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency which was to centralize and coordinate strategic intelligence analysis much of what was formerly done by Army, Navy and State Department organizations.  Then the Armed Forces Security Agency, which became the National Security Agency (NSA), was formed to coordinate Army and Navy Signals Intelligence (SIGINT).  Then, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) was created to centralize and coordinate many military intelligence functions. While left with smaller areas of responsibility, the  Army, Navy, Air Force and State Department intelligence organizations continued to exist. Subsequently, the Community has grown to sixteen agencies. Each one of those agencies has remained subordinate to a separate government department (except CIA which is de facto subordinate to the National Security Council) meeting the needs of its departmental decisionmakers and staff.  Today, of those agencies performs the full range of intelligence functions of collection, analysis and production or direct support to some degree.  But, by law, executive order, community charter and tradition, one of those functions is primary, although another may be important and another less so. Thus, the agencies of the Community are established, primarily, as functional organizations, creating functional “stovepipes”.   Unfortunately, during this long period of growth, the separate agencies of the Intelligence Community have not always worked together cooperatively or collaboratively.

Because of that, additional efforts have been made to assure Community coordination.  During the Cold War, the threats were mainly nation-based or regional.  Thus, a National Board of Estimates was created to draw together the nation and regional analysts from the various functional agencies to share their analysis and coordinate a community position to be published as a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) or other coordinated other community products.  Ultimately, this board became the National Intelligence Council (NIC) consisting of a number of national or regional National Intelligence Officers (NIOs) operating as a matrix overlay to the functional agencies of the Community.  Likewise, when cross-agency cooperation and collaboration occurred on collection targets or production schedules, it was rare and usually only on high value targets or on high interest topics.  Thus,  to avoid overlap, redundancy, gaps, or fulfill unmet needs, it was necessary to coordinate the budgets, collection plans, operations and the intelligence production schedules of the functional agencies. Accordingly, over the years, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI, now DNI) staff grew, under various names, into a sizeable functional matrix organizational overlay to the functional organizational structure of the Community.  Finally, with the end of the Cold War the primary threats shifted from being nation-based or, even, regional to being global, group-based, issue-oriented threats.  Of course, the NIC and regional NIOs did not go away, nor did the DNI staff shrink.  Instead another matrix structure of issue Centers was overlaid on the functional organizations of the Community.

Essentially, the same thing happened within the separate agencies of the Community.  Since the main threats were nation-based or regional, those agencies could perform their  functions on a straight forward national or regional basis.  Thus, the functional intelligence mission elements of the agency (as distinct from the administrative and internal support elements) were structured as nation and regional  directorates/offices/etc. with subordinate functional departments/divisions/etc. In other words, in any agency, regardless of its primary function, it was common to find all Soviet collectors, analysts, reporters in departments or divisions subordinate to the Soviet Directorate or Office.  In those days, there were few  cross-regional matters of common concern and little interaction was required between the subordinate functional departments/divisions/etc. of the national or regional directorate/offices/etc. within an organization. Thus, within agencies, internal national or regional “stovepipes” formed.  After the Cold War, as the primary threats became more diverse, emanating from globally-based groups or as issues affecting various nations or  regional groups, it soon became apparent that those internal agency nation or regional “stovepipes”, with little communication or information sharing between their functional elements, would limit the flexibility and agility of the agency to perform its primary mission on a global basis or focus on a specific group or issue. Thus, today, most agencies have restructured on a functional basis with directorates/offices/etc. for their primary and secondary functions and with subordinate departments/divisions in some kind of matrix structure to facilitate coordination and collaboration between then.

It is these matrix organizational structures, created with the best of intentions to increase coordination, that may have actually frustrated the efforts of the Community to coordinate its efforts.  In a study of the business world, two academics, Sumantra Ghoshal and Christopher Bartlett have reported that matrix structures,

…led to conflict and confusion; the proliferation of channels created informational logjams as a proliferation of committees and reports bogged down the organization; and overlapping responsibilities produced turf battles and a loss of accountability.

Indeed, Nigel Nicholson, a professor of organizational behavior, has called the matrix structure “one of the most difficult and least successful organizational forms.”  Consultants Lowell Bryan and Claudia Joyce argue that organizational structures that are “retrofitted with adhoc and matrix overlays” are ill-suited for “knowledge workers” such as intelligence professionals because,

 …vertically oriented organisational structures, retrofitted with adhoc and matrix overlays, nearly always make professional work more complex and inefficient.

Thus, the rhetorical question:

So what is required to build and maintain the kind of ‘new organisation’ in which knowledge workers will thrive? The three words that most commonly crop up in the answers to this question are leadership, talent and culture.

Yes, the ideal situation is good leadership of talented people working together in a culture of cooperation and collaboration.  To achieve that, a new organizational technique has been proposed.

   Teaming…better ways of working together….Companies…these days…are organized around teams.

As current bestselling theorist and author Malcolm Gladwell has pointed out: “In a complex world, success is not possible without teamwork.”  Not surprisingly, given the complexity of the new threat environment and the continually increasing pressure to cooperate and collaborate to “connect the dots” the same trend is occurring in the Intelligence Community.  

Thus, for the rest of your career, especially in the Military and the Intelligence Community, you will be involved in coordinating your work with others, both as a member and a Leader of groups—often called “working groups”, “special projects”, “task forces”, “planning groups”, “boards”, “councils”, “conferences”, “committees”, etc.—on which the members are supposed to work together to address an issue or resolve a problem.  These groups are critical to the performance of the Intelligence Community in meeting the required cooperation and coordination required to “connect the dots”.  Many of these are what academics and management experts define as “teams”. 

But, Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith who were, in large part, the instigators of the increasing use of teams for the leadership and management of organizations, say that “People use the word ‘team’ so loosely that it gets in the way of learning and applying the discipline that leads to good performance.”  Thus, this topic identifies the different kinds of teams on which you will serve as intelligence professionals, tries to clarify their similarities and differences, highlights the leadership challenges that each presents, and provides some suggestions for developing the leadership skills to meet those challenges and stimulate good performance from the group.  

Definitions

The definition of a “team” provided by the Office of Personnel Management is: “A team is two or more people who must coordinate their activities to accomplish a common goal.”  

Based on that definition, any organization small or large could be called a “team”.  And sometimes an agency staff or the smallest element of the organizational hierarchy below the department/division/ branch/section is called a team.  And certainly the individual elements of a larger organization are expected to work together as a team to coordinate their activities to accomplish a common goal. Isn't any organizational staff or small element comprised of two or more people and isn't any organization composed of groups of people.  Aren't those  people or groups supposed to be coordinating their activities?  Don’t the people or groups within any organization large or small have common goals?  Certainly, and they should be coordinating their activities and exhibiting teamwork in their efforts!  But, whether they exhibit teamwork or not, we know that they are actually formal elements of an organizational hierarchy, not what academics and experts would define as a “team”.  As Katzenbach and Smith say:  “The entire workforce of any large or complex organization is never a team.  But, think how often that platitude is offered up.”

Katzenbach and Smith  caution that:

Many people believe that any group that works together is a team....
Actually, a team is a small group of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.

Diane Hanson, “The Team Doctor” is more specific in defining the word “team”.   She says:

A team is basically a group of individuals working collaboratively.  And the key word is collaboratively. 

The word “collaboratively” means, not only to cooperate but, to “cooperate with an agency or instrumentality with which one is not immediately connected”.  Thus, as Hanson continues, “The word ‘team’ can be a misnomer if it is used to refer to a group of people who work in the same department or office location….”   

Thus, a formal organization, even if it works together cooperatively, in coordination and with teamwork because of good Leadership, is not definitionally a “team”.  A “team” is a cross-organizational entity—a group of people who do not normally work together, drawn from the separate elements of one larger organization or from several separate organizations, who are brought together for a common purpose and.   who are mutually accountable for the outcome of their effort.  Since team members are drawn from separate organizations, whoever is assigned to Lead the team has little directive authority. And since the team members are mutually accountable for the results, it stands to reason that they, not the Leader alone, have the right and opportunity.—i.e., the responsibility and authority.—to determine the approach, methods, performance standards and results of their effort.—i.e., to participate in Leading the team.      

Leadership “Teams”

Unfortunately, because of managers’ personal agendas, workers’ desire for personal recognition and advancement for their own efforts, and organizational parochialism or “rice bowls”, the people and elements of organizations often fail to coordinate their activities and exhibit teamwork in their efforts. That is why organizations use all sorts of management tools—mission statements; strategic plans; planning, programming and budgeting processes; schedules and deadlines, etc.—to try to create cooperation and coordination in and among the people and elements of the organization.  But, it takes more than management processes to assure cooperation and coordination and create teamwork within and among organizations.  It takes Leadership.

In an effort to assure that their organizations function in a cooperative and coordinated manner, today, large business organizations are often use leadership teams consisting of the CEO (Chief Executive Officer), COO (Chief Operating Officer), CFO (Chief Financial Officer), CIO (Chief Information Officer) and sometimes even a CHRO (Chief Human Resources Officer) and CGO (Chief Growth Officer) to share in the strategic leadership of the organization—creating a vision, leading the development of that vision with the people of the organization, developing the strategic plan to implement the vision, coordinating the schedule and actions to implement that plan.  Likewise, a number of the Agencies of the Intelligence Community have adopted this business practice and also use groups—sometimes called a “board of directors”, “executive committee” or “management council”, etc.—consisting of the Agency Head and the principal Department Heads and other senior officials—to share in the strategic leadership decisionmaking of the organization. The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) has created the Joint Intelligence Community Council for that purpose. 

Those organizational Leaders and officials who Lead in this way are on the cutting edge of organizational Leadership today. A survey of 150 senior executives, highlights that the,

...overarching conclusion is that ...business still pays too much attention to the search for charismatic leaders, rather than engaging in the more difficult but less chancy task of promoting and developing leadership throughout the organization....
Two sub-conclusions underpin this assertion. (1) Say goodbye to the controllasaurus....(2) Tomorrow’s organisation will be managed by a team of leaders.

Jack Welch, the much-heralded CEO of GE, told the survey that the old bureaucratic command and control style is out; only those who can manage by building trust and teams are in. As we have discussed, trust is the foundation of Leadership.  To that end, he said that managers must change their behavior.

Leadership styles are in transition....command and control is condemned virtually to disappear and will be replaced by a combination of styles, principally one based on sharing information and power and spreading decision-making and responsibility throughout the entire organization.

But leadership teams do not guarantee successful organizational coordination and cooperation. That is because in the strategic planning process, it can happen that “…no matter how much time and effort the team members expend, they cannot reach a satisfactory decision.”   This is because:

Reaching collective decisions based on individual preferences is an imperfect science.  Majority wishes can clash when a group of three or more people attempts to set priorities among three or more items.  This “voting paradox” ….has been understood by mathematicians working in social theory and economics for over a hundred years and, more recently, been proven in pure mathematics by an “impossibility theorem”.  For example, in a group of nine people with three options on the table, it is possible for a majority of a different combination of people to be in favor of each option.  Thus, with the group unable to reach a mutually acceptable decision, when the senior decisionmaker chooses one of the options, it is also possible for a majority of a different combination of people to be opposed to it. Thus, “The Boss is Always Wrong”.

Thus, in some organizations, an organizational leadership team is not always a “team”.  It could be simply a Leader using a participating style of leadership with the senior members of the organization to solicit their views before making a “top down decision”.  It only becomes a “team” if the organizational Leader brings the group to an agreement and the members commit themselves to the agreement and hold themselves responsible for assuring that it is carried out.  That requires the Leader to develop an atmosphere of mutual trust among the group and use not only a participating but also a delegating decisionmaking and implementing style to achieve a consensus that one of the options is, at least, the most acceptable to all.  While often derided as achieving the lowest common denominator, it is often the only decision that will actually be implemented by all. If such an agreement is not reached, some members of the leadership team may just “go along to get along” and go back to their office and continue “business as usual”.  Thus, the organization fails to perform in the cooperative or coordinated manner desired.

There is little doubt that the DNI and his staff encountered this problem when engaged in the working groups, meetings and final Joint Intelligence Community Council sessions required to develop and approve the new National Security Directive redefining the powers of the DNI and create the Vision 2015 guiding the future collaborative efforts of the Community.  Whether they succeeded in overcoming the “voting paradox” and reaching decisions acceptable enough that they will be adhered to by all 16 members of the Intelligence Community remains to be seen.  

Kinds of Teams

But, it takes more than a leadership team to assure cooperation, coordination and create teamwork among the people and elements of an organization or between separate organizations. Teams must be created at other levels.

Katzenbach and Smith “classify teams into three varieties:

-teams that recommend things,

            - teams that make or do things,

            -teams that run things.

Hanson describes five kinds of teams:

-“work teams” are those in which “everyone has similar skills, or at least skills within a similar area of specialization.”
-“cross functional teams” are those which include “workers who have many different talents and areas of specialization.”
-a “project team” may be either functional or cross functional “but it becomes a project team when its members are challenged with a particular task that has a finite beginning and an end.”
-the “virtual-cyberspace-team” is when “team members work at different locations” and “don’t see each other physically very often and must communicate primarily by e-mail and conference calls. This is rapidly becoming the most common type of team.”
-“self-directed teams manage themselves. They have a particular project or outcome for which they are responsible and they accomplish their objective without the management of someone at a higher level.”

But, more importantly for the Intelligence Community, all these kinds of teams fall into one of two categories: either Intra-Organizational teams, which are formed within one Agency or major element of the Agency, and Inter-Organizational teams, which are formed across Agencies.

Intra-Organizational Teams

In addition to leadership teams, to create cooperation and teamwork in the organization and to achieve desired results, organizational Leaders are increasingly turning to the use of teams to address the major challenges or the non-routine issues and problems facing their organization. For example:

-Agency Commanders or Directors often create permanent "standing committees", perhaps consisting of Deputy Department Heads and other senior officials, to meet periodically and collaboratively recommend and coordinate policies, plans and activities that require strict adherence across all parts of the organization; for example, in the areas of human resources, facilities and finances. Depending on the issue, these can be “work” or “functional” teams that “recommend things”.
-The senior official of one element of an organization will often create an “expert group”, bringing together, for example, the best analysts working on order of battle, transportation, ground, air, and maritime issues in order to coordinate national or regional assessments. If this group has a stable composition and meets regularly it is a “functional team”. If it meets as necessary, it is a “project team” that “makes or does things”.
-Several senior officials of an organization, such as Department or Division Heads, may agree to create permanent “review groups” or establish temporary "working groups" or “project teams” to undertake work that does not fall within the responsibilities or capabilities of the subordinate elements of either of them but requires the collaborative expertise and capabilities of personnel from both. For example a group of analysts, collectors and technicians that meets regularly to review and validate collection requirements might be considered a “cross-functional team” that “runs things”.  Another example might be those who meet to develop  a collection plan responding to an intelligence gap or an emerging analytical enigma could be considered a “project team” that does things”.
-Organizations sometimes still create temporary “process teams”, such as those that were often used during the government emphasis on Total Quality Management (TQM). These are comprised of representatives from different elements of the organization, all of whom are engaged in separate parts of a single organizational process—such as introducing a new IT system for use by analysts: requiring the determination of requirements; selection, purchase and installation of hardware; selection and installation of software; and training—to work together as a team to make the entire process run more smoothly. These might be considered as “functional teams” that “do things”.
-Sometimes "tiger teams" are created to throw people at an emerging problem, such as a growing backlog of work to be completed or when or a “crisis action team” is added to a watch center.

No matter what they are called, these groups are intra-organizational teams. And, despite the use of the team concept to bring together people who have disparate capabilities to work on a single effort, to take the responsibility for figuring out for themselves how it should be done and to be accountable for getting it done well on an appropriate schedule, we all know that such intra-organizational teams are really still just matrix or temporary elements of a hierarchical organization. That fact determines the composition and characteristics of the team and has implications for the Leadership required to achieve successful performance.

-Intra-organizational teams are usually created on the initiative and by the authority of a senior official(s) of the organization for a specific and important organizational mission-related purpose. They are usually “teams that do things”.
-For that reason, a qualified person is usually assigned to Lead the team and given some guidance concerning the high level of performance and quality of results desired.
-Likewise, team members are selected and assigned, by the interested seniors or at the request of the assigned Leader, and based on their expertise and capabilities to address a specific part of the overall group effort.
-Team members will likely be assigned to the team on a temporary but full-time basis for the duration of the effort.
-Team members will be a generally homogeneous group by grade and of similar levels of expertise and capabilities.  They will generally know each other by reputation (or can quickly gain that knowledge) and also will understand the bureaucratic imperatives and agenda of the organizational element from which others come.
-Team members will expect to work independently using the specific expertise for which they were selected on a specific part of the overall effort, coordinating their work with others as required, but will expect to be held responsible and accountable for the quality of only the portion of the overall effort on which they have worked.
-The Leader has little directive authority but is expected to guide and coordinate the efforts of the team; providing information on the parameters of the effort and the intended goals established by the convening seniors, while inspiring the individuals to work cooperatively and collaboratively with other members to determine the approach, methods, performance standards and results of their effort.

-If the Leader is unable to do that, there are additional resources to call upon to help foster the required teamwork. Most organizations have in-house, or can hire, outside consultants to assist in “team-building efforts” to foster the cooperative and collaborative activities of the group and to “facilitate” its meetings.  And, given that the team was established and operates under the authority of a senior official(s) who desires that it complete its task successfully, the team Leader knows that somewhere in the organizational hierarchy, there is a person who, if need be, can and will take action to assure that the team stays focused on its goals, receives the support it needs and who can modify the composition of the team to assure that appropriate members work cooperatively and effectively and collaborate their efforts toward those goals.

Intra-Organizational Team Leadership

Thus, the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Human Resources describes the intra-organizational team Leader as:  

An employee who facilitates his/her team's processes by working collaboratively with the team to ensure that they complete their tasks effectively, by maintaining good working relationships, and by coordinating with the manager on goals, priorities, team needs and achievements.

Clearly, to Lead a team of diverse personnel who do not usually work together, assembled as a matrix or temporary element of the organization to carry out an important task and to do so without direct line authority will require a greater degree of leadership ability, than is required to Lead the typical formal element of the organization.  But, if the team does not respond to the leadership efforts of the assigned Leader, additional organizational resources are institutionalized and available so that focus on goals can still be maintained and the requirement for cooperation and coordination can be enforced and collaboration assured.  Thus, the team can be made to be successful, if not happy

Inter-Organizational Teams 

Inter-organizational teams are not as common in business and industry as intra-organizational teams, mainly because commercial organizations in the same business area are competitors, not collaborators.  Nevertheless, major retail businesses like WalMart use inter-organizational teams of their suppliers to assure the integration required to support their just-in-time inventory control. Likewise, industrial corporations, such as Boeing, use inter-organizational teams to integrate the efforts of their sub-contractors to insure that the component parts of the aircraft that have been out-sourced arrive for assembly absolutely compatible and perfectly on time.

In the Armed Forces and the Intelligence Community, the use of inter-organizational teams is a necessary way of life. Both the Joint Armed Forces and the Intelligence Community are groupings of organizations that are in other departmental structures. Yet, because of the nature of joint warfare and the requirements for all-source intelligence, they are required to function on the basis of inter-organizational coordination, cooperation and collaboration or “teamwork”.  But, both groupings are Led by officials—the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)—who have no command or directive authority over the many organizations they are required to Lead, are not in the direct chain of command of any of those organizations and have only limited bureaucratic power.  As Director Mike McConnell has said: “I am referred to as the Director of National Intelligence.  A more apt term today would be coordinator of National Intelligence because I don’t have the authority to be directive…” Thus, a wide variety of inter-organizational teams are used at every level—leadership, staff and in professional work.  For the rest of your career whether as military or civilian intelligence professionals, you will be called upon to be members and Leaders of inter-organizational teams.

For background on the extensive use of inter-organizational teams in the Joint Armed Forces, the Intelligence Community, and for national security, read here_____.

-Inter-organizational Community teams are normally convened by senior Community staffs members—representing the DNI, the ASD(I) or Director of DIA in the role of Director of Military Intelligence—to develop coordinated policies, plans, budgets or intelligence products.  Or, teams may be created when a Community leadership group of seniors from different Agencies want to generate consensus on an  issue or an agreed recommendation they can endorse or act on. However, convened, they are usually “teams that recommend things.” Even, National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) are drafts for review by the National Foreign Intelligence Board (NFIB)>

-For that reason, the Leader is usually a member of the staff of the senior Community organization responsible for a functional area or nominated by the member of the senior group who is advocating the need for the team.  Because of the role to “recommend things”, it is clear that coordination and consensus are the goal.  

-Team members are usually assigned by the participating community organizations from their own staff or organization, based on their general expertise in the topic/issue area but with no assurance that all the specific capabilities and expertise required will be provided. Members are also often selected for a variety of other factors as well—such as their availability, their organization’s view of the level of participation necessary, their organization’s desire to influence or control the outcome of the effort, etc. The Leader of the team may have little or no influence on the assignment of team members.
-Team members are usually assigned to participate on a temporary, part-time basis in addition to continuing to be responsible for their full-time job in their home organization.
-Team members will be a diverse group of individuals, of widely differing grades and level of  capability and expertise.  They may not know each other and will be suspicious of the bureaucratic imperatives and agenda of the organizations represented by the other members.
-Team members will expect to do only as much or as little, as broad or as detailed, work as they or the organization they represent desires, knowing that the intended Leader and the group as a whole is mutually responsible and accountable for the final result to the convening group and that they can avoid individual responsibility or accountability.
-The Leader is expected to inspire the team members to share Leadership and mutually direct the activities of the team and work cooperatively and collaboratively to achieve the desired results for which they are all responsible and accountable.

-If the Leader cannot do that, Leadership must shift to another person(s) on the team because there is no one else to fall back on for assistance. There usually are no other resources to call upon for “team-building” efforts or to “facilitate” the cooperative and collaborative activities of the group nor are there any higher authorities to call upon to assure that the team stays focused on its goals and  that team members work cooperatively collaboratively and effectively toward those goals.  Inter-organizational teams are “self-directed teams”.

Inter-Organizational Team Leadership

Thus, the successful conclusion of an inter-organizational team effort is totally determined by the leadership efforts of the Leader and other members of the team who take leading roles.  Clearly, the Leader of a inter-organizational team, who has no direct line authority or even any organizational bureaucratic support to call upon, but who is expected to inspire a diverse and part-time group of individuals to cooperate, share Leadership and work in a coordinated and collaborative manner to achieve successful results needs to employ an even higher level of Leadership than is required to Lead an intra-organizational team. Ultimately, if the Leader is ineffective, the effort will fail to achieve desired results.  That is the leadership challenge that you will face as Leaders of the changing Intelligence Community. When placed in such a position you have only one thing to fall back on—your Leadership talent.

The Difference: 

To review intra-organizational  and inter-organizational teams in a sports context, sports fans can click here.  _____  

To review the important differences between intra-organizational and inter-organizational teams, click here.           

The Core Traits, Qualities and Competencies of a Team Leader

The Leader of any team, intra-organizational or inter-organizational, needs the same core traits as the Leader of an organization, only more highly developed.  

-First of all, as the designated or intended Leader of a team, you must come to the effort with a reputation for integrity—a reputation for doing what is right, regardless of Service or Agency parochialism. If you are known for your parochialism, you’ll never even begin to gain the trust required to Lead an cross-organizational or inter-agency team.
-Further, while you will likely have some competence in the professional or technical area in which the team will be working, you must be able to demonstrate from the start that you have leadership competence as well. If you do not rapidly demonstrate your leadership competence, the team will flounder and another Leader will step forward and gain the trust of the members which you have forfeited by inactivity.
-Finally, you must make it clear that you will have the moral courage to stand up for the results of the team effort, regardless of pressure from the outside, even if it comes from your own agency. Only then will you be able to gain the full trust of the members of the team and only when you have gained the trust of the members will the disparate group of people become a real team.

In addition to those core traits required to gain the trust of the members of the group and turn them into a team coordinating their activities to a achieve a common goal, you will also need the other core traits of a Leader—vision and inspiring skills—if you are really going to Lead the team.

-To get the team off to a good start you must be able to articulate a proposed vision for accomplishing the task of the team.
-Then you must be able to inspire the members to adopt that vision, or an alternative proposed by the members, as the shared vision for the common effort. There must be a shared vision because without one the team cannot and will not work together.

One leadership quality that is mentioned in the values emphasized by each of the military services is “selflessness”. Selflessness is an essential quality for team Leadership. The Leader of a team must be fully dedicated to the efforts and the members of the team. The designated or intended Leader of a team must be able to give the time, talent and energy required to make the team effort work while sometimes also continuing another full time job.  The designated or intended Leader must have the willingness to share Leadership with other members of the team who seek it. The Leader must show the generosity to give credit to other members for their contributions and to the team as a whole for its success.

Team Leadership at the intra-organizational or inter-organizational level, requires a Participating/Supporting style of Leadership. Thus, all of the interpersonal skills required to effectively deploy such a style are essential for a team Leader. Among them communications skills and, especially, listening are a priority. All team members are equally responsible and accountable for the efforts of the team, thus all must be given the opportunity to participate and all should be heard and their ideas given due consideration. The designated or intended Leader needs to set the example of asking questions, seeking understanding and active listening if other members of the team are to do so. 

The team effort is a collaborative effort, for the Leader this means;

…ceding some controlling responsibility, embracing transparency, managing conflict…learning new skill sets that emphasize building trust, honoring commitments, changing dynamically, and sharing decisionmaking with peers.                                                                                                                

Other competencies important for the team are a heightened social awareness in order to be able to sense and evaluate the potential of those members of the team who desire to share Leadership, would be willing to share Leadership or could support the efforts and success of the team in other ways.  Clearly, since many team activities will take place in meetings, the Leader’s ability to Lead a meeting is critical.  

The Creation of Teams

Some senior official(s) or group of seniors faced with a problem, issue or task that needs to be resolved in a cross-organizational element, intra-organizational or cross community, inter-organizational manner will decide to convene  a committee, board, working group or other type of team and usually designate someone to Lead it. Normally, that convening authority asks other peers or the members of the group to assign their own representatives to the team. Unfortunately, the convening authority often feels its responsibility ends there. The designated or intended Leader of the team is expected to do the rest.  But, if you are that Leader, you must begin your job by Leading the convening authority to do more.  The convening authority must:

-set clear goals for the job. Is the team simply to undertake a study of the issue or problem, or is it to include recommendations, perhaps prepare a plan for implementation? How will the results be used? For what purpose? What is the due date?
-set clear boundaries for the team effort. How far is the team expected to go in doing the job?  For example; stick to the issue and reach consensus?  Think outside the box and come up with some new ideas?  Even if those ideas impact other programs?   Also; what is the authority of the team.  Will the team have access to all programs and levels of classification, will they be able to visit other agencies or call upon others for briefings to get all members of the team up to a common level of knowledge of the issue or topic?
-designate the source of resource and administrative support for the team. Space in which to work will be needed, perhaps support staff will be required for administrative or security needs, computers or other technical equipment may be required. If it is a major effort, these cannot all be provided by the organization of the designated Leader.
-agree to monitor the progress of the team, review its accomplishments and recognize its achievements. The convening authority is the only source of authority for the designated  Leader. It must be kept involved or seen to be involved or the team will lose its motivation and the Leader will lose whatever bureaucratic authority and power that might be seen to be available.

Given the usual high interest by the convening authorities of an intra-organizational team in the outcome of the team effort, that level of commitment and guidance is usually forthcoming at a meeting when the Leader meets with the convening authority to be given the job. In that meeting, as the Leader being designated you should have those points in mind to you want to have a high-performance team.   But, such guidance and commitments will often slip through the cracks, or be forgotten or neglected when a higher Community group establishes a team, especially when the team is to work on an issue on which the members of that group could not agree on a contentious issue.  Thus, the foregoing is especially important for designated Leaders of inter-organizational teams. 

Indeed, sometimes in such circumstances, the designated Leader of an inter-organizational team does not even get to meet with the convening authority. The word will just come down through the chain of command in your Agency that you are the “stuckee”.   Thus, it is of critical importance that, as the designated Leader, you arrange a meeting with, at least, the representative of your Agency on the convening authority who attended the meeting at which the decision to create the team was taken to find out the background.

-          Why is the team being created? To resolve an important or critical issue with expert insightful thinking?  Or, just consensus? Or, something else in between?

-          What does the convening authority want?  Information, recommendations, a plan?

-          What are the views of the different members of convening authority with regard to the team and its efforts—for against, indifferent?

The answers to these questions will tell you the importance of the team effort to the convening authority, you Agency and, indeed, to your career reputation. It may be just a run of the mill project.  But if it is a “high stakes” for the community, your organization or your career reputation, you will want to create and Lead a “virtuoso team”.  

Bill Fischer and Andy Boynton who have studied virtuoso teams say that they are “fundamentally different from the garden-variety groups that most organizations form to pursue more modest goals.”  They say:

Unlike traditional teams—which are typically made up of whoever’s available, regardless of talent—virtuoso teams are made up of star performers who are handpicked to play specific key roles…. 

High-stakes projects need all-star teams

To assure that you assemble a virtuoso team of all-stars, as the designated Leader, you should make it a point to visit or contact the individual members of the convening authority or their senior representatives.  It is those people who will be selecting the members of the team from among their staff.  You will want to insure that you have the best people available designated to be on the team.  That may not occur unless you ask for it.  Also, during this meeting you may be able scope out the general attitude of that organization toward the team project—high interest and an agenda, uncommitted, little interest, opposed, etc.. That information will prove invaluable in guiding your leadership efforts. 

Teams do not just form and function; they must be created and sustained.

The Team Process

With the establishment of the team out of the way, the team Leader is responsible for leading the team through the effort. 

Hopefully, the team is not like the committee which was once defined as: “A group of the unwilling, picked from the unfit, to do the unnecessary.”  More likely, it will be like traditional teams that “typically operate under the tyranny of ‘we’-that is, they put group consensus and constraint above individual freedom. Team harmony is important; conviviality compensates for missing talent.”  On the other hand; When virtuoso teams begin their work, individuals are in and group consensus is out….”  Most teams, however are a mix of all three types of people—a few unwilling, most seeking consensus, and a few who, at least, consider themselves, all-stars.

Regardless of the kind of team you are required to Lead, there are four “developmental sequences” that every team goes through in its work:

·  Orientation to task.

·  Intragroup conflict.

·  Development of group cohesion.

·  Functional role relatedness.

Those are rather formal academic jargon for what really happens during the typical team process:

·  Form

·  Storm

·  Norm

·  Perform

Remember, all teams go through this developmental process in which there may be a lot of depressing moments and hard leadership work for the team Leader before the team is up and running in a coordinated fashion and striving for common goals.  That is because, as they go through that four-step cycle process, there are “five disfunctions of teams” which will infect team members and which the Leader will have to work to overcome.

Form:

Disfunction = Absence of trust

-Interpersonal behavior of the members involves testing of other members and dependence on the Leader to initiate activity.
-Task behavior of the members involves their initial orientation to the task.

In this stage, regardless of the kind of team, people are reluctant to be involved, wondering how much time they will be required to spend, how much work they will be required to do, how much influence they can have. They are standoffish toward others, sizing up the agenda of others and looking for allies to support their agency’s agenda or approach to the task. They will be watching and waiting to see what the Leader does and will be resistant to strong Leadership. During this stage there is lots of drift, but alliances begin to form. That is not good because it sets the stage for the team to:

Storm:

Disfunction=Fear of Conflict

-Interpersonal behavior of the members is characterized by intra-group conflict among individuals.  This can be especially true for a virtuoso team.
-Task behavior of the members is usually an emotional response to the task and to how the task should be approached

Unfortunately, this stage is often the longest.  Remember, you may have asked for all-star members or you may have gotten an all-star or two on the team because their organization wants to control the outcome of the team effort.  Different organizations will have different agendae with respect to the task.  Thus, their representatives are still deciding how, given their organization’s level of interest in the project, they will work to support it, try to change it, or thwart it. Discussion becomes argument by all-star vs all-star or clique against clique, involving the struggle to impose one view over another, attempts by individuals or groups to gain control of the process for their own agency's ends, anger between individuals. Some common symptoms of this stage include:

-some members not participating out of desire to avoid confrontations and conflict and, thus, permitting a few members to take over the team effort to further their agendae. 

-lack of cohesiveness as discussions divide different coalitions,
-members complain and find fault,
-combative behavior is displayed in the name of playing “devil's advocate”,
-even minor decisions are subjected to protracted debate,
-decisions are changed after they are made.

But, all this conflict is not bad if the Leader can keep the storming on a substantive rather than personal level. In this stage, the Leader gets to know the views and capabilities of the members, especially the all-stars.  All sides of the issue are raised, all hidden agendae get put on the table.  If the Leader can set up an easy issue on which the team can reach a consensus—even if the consensus is, for a virtuoso team, that the work will be divided among individual all-stars or sub-groups led by all-stars—the team will gain a sense of shared accomplishment, mutual trust and progress.  Then, the groundwork has been laid so that the team can:

Norm:

Disfunctions = Lack of Commitment and Avoidance of Accountability

-Interpersonal behavior of members in this stage begins the development of group focus getting the job done by cooperation and coordination among individuals, including all-stars.

-People begin to freely offer individual proposals for the consideration of others.
-Task behavior begins to involve people freely offering individual proposals and open exchanges occur between members with the discussion of pros and cons and the seeking of relevant information and interpretations.

If the Leader has successfully assessed the all-stars, now is the time when the Leader can offer them the opportunity to take the Leadership of sub-units or subsequent meetings of the team in areas or issues of their expertise.  Seeing one “all-star” take such an opportunity may stimulate the ego of another “all-star” to step forward to Lead in another area or issue.    Once people begin to see that they can achieve some of what they want, they are more willing to compromise and let others achieve some of what the others want.  They are willing to exchange views in a calm open atmosphere and the first compromises are made. Then the team can really begin to:

Perform:

Disfunction = No focus on results.

-Interpersonal behavior of the members becomes a focus on the task rather than on the people.
-Task behavior involves the emergence of solutions.

This stage emerges slowly after a number of small agreements in the previous stage. It is in full swing when it is marked by breakthrough agreements on previously hard-fought issues. At this point the Leader can step back, because collaboration and cooperation begin to naturally occur between individuals and the team begins to break the project into parts and delegate the work among itself.  But, the team members may now be immersed in the details of the effort and be performing in a relaxed manner. But, the effort probably has a deadline and scope of effort.  Thus, the role of the Leader is to keep the team moving toward completion.

As the team Leader helps the team move through this process, the criteria by which the Leader can sense where the team is in the process and whether it is ready to move to the next stage are:

·  the degree of trust among the members,

·  the amount of shared Leadership,

·  the level of honest, open and useful communication,

·  the commitment to team goals as shown by cooperation and collaboration on the issues,

·  and the general atmosphere of the team meetings.

The Team Leader’s Functions

Given the team process described, it is clear that the job of a team Leader is a busy and tough one. It involves creating an effective and productive team from a disparate assemblage of people.

The team leader’s job is to establish the conditions to enable the team members to collaborate competently; the leader needs to spell out exactly where the team needs to end up, but not dictate the step-by-step process of getting there.

To do that, the team Leader needs to carry out a number of functions:

-First, initiate the team process by scheduling and chairing the first meeting of the team and, perhaps,  more in order to accomplish the following important functions:

--Assure clarity of the task. The Leader must define the desired product requested by the convening authority and any specifics with respect to the content of that product set by the convening authority.

--Establish the authority granted to the team and any guidelines for the work of the team as set out by the convening authority.

-Make it clear that accomplishing the task is a mutual responsibility. So, the Leader should start right off by opening up to discussion “How should we do it?” As that discussion progresses, however, it is up to the Leader to stimulate a shared vision with respect to the task, the subordinate objectives, ground rules for doing the job, etc. by summarizing team discussion or proposing alternatives for adoption.

-The first meeting will be an “all hands” gathering of all team members.  But,

,…teams become less effective as they grow in size.  Ideal team size…is about six people; performance problems increase exponentially as team size increases beyond that….

While, such a small team may be possible for an intra-organizational team, it is highly unlikely for a inter-organizational team in the Intelligence Community to be so small.  Thus, as the discussion proceeds on how to do the job, the Leader may want to suggest breaking the effort into several component parts, each conducted by a sub-team whose work would be brought together later by a team of representatives.  This often appeals to busy people.  Of course it means more work for the team Leader who, at least at the outset, must attend all sub-team meetings.      

-Throughout the rest of the team building and work process, the team Leader’s principal function is to encourage, establish and maintain appropriate group dynamics. Group dynamics are critical. As the U.S. Marine Corps points out, “Effective teams are based on effective relations between people.” Likewise, the U.S. Navy agrees that “The efficiency and effectiveness of teams are directly impacted by the interaction of the personalities of the team members.”.
One of the key factors that will facilitate the work of the team is the Leader’s ability to build trust and openness between and among the members of the team. To do so the Leader needs to:

--treat all members fairly and equally and with respect. That means that the Leader must ensure that all members have the opportunity to participate by being given an equal opportunity to raise issues and make suggestions. This will mean encouraging the introverts to participate. It will mean limiting the domineering participant. It will mean listening with genuine interest and ensuring that others do so.
--insure there are no hidden agendae. As a Leader or member of a team, each person must set the example by placing their thoughts, ideas and proposals on the table openly and honestly and try to cause others to do the same.
--facilitate internal communications. Remember, information is power, the Leader must make sure that all members know everything and know that they know everything.
--share leadership with those who seek it. The Leader needs to ask; “Who would like to ....” “Who will....”
--give credit and praise whenever possible. The Leader should use “We” when talking about progress and success, but also single out major contributors, especially from all-stars once they begin to become part of the team. The slackers and obstructers are eventually evident from lack of praise.

–Sometimes it will be the Leaders function to undertake conflict resolution and insist on collaboration and cooperation. Arguing over substantive issues is useful and productive but when it turns to arguing over who is right or personalities, then it has gone too far. The Leader may have to take some members aside and use forceful, active measures to quell competition.  The Leader should especially praise cooperative efforts and work.
-Finally, throughout the team process, the Leader must maintain continuous contact with the convening authority. In that way,

--during the early stages of the effort, the Leader can arrange for outside support, get answers to unknown information, get guidance, special help.
--later, the Leader will report progress, both to the convening authority and to the bosses of the members. This is the Leader's only link to authority and may have to be used to get whatever help is needed—guidance from the convening authority to break a deadlock among members, or stimulation from a member’s boss for a non-participating member.

Sensing and Evaluating People

If Leadership is about people, then team Leadership is especially about people! Lacking line authority and with only limited bureaucratic power, the only tool that the team Leader has available with which to influence the members of the team is an understanding of people and how they can be motivated to participate in and support the team effort. Thus, a special skill that is valuable for a team Leader is the ability to be able to sense the personalities of the people on the team and evaluate how those personalities will affect the efforts of the team. This should be a continuing effort on the part of the Leader.

In the first and early meetings of the team, the Leader should be alert to sense the general behavior of individual team members that signals some dominant traits which will be useful to support the efforts of the team and those, which unless they are nullified or alleviated by the Leader, will thwart or delay the efforts of the team.

-In the early meetings, some people will set the example as good team players and contribute to the progress of the team. They will be the idea initiator, information seeker, information provider, problem clarifier, summarizer, consensus tester, harmonizer, supporter, compromiser, and standards monitor. If the Leader can identify these people early and use them to share Leadership by filling those roles the team will form more quickly and work more smoothly.
-But, there will also be people who demonstrate behavior which can impede the formation and progress of the team. They are the overbearing participant, dominating participant, reluctant participant, clique builder, name caller, gossiper, interrupter, and joker. If  the Leader can identify them early the Leader can be prepared with measures to turn their behavior into a positive contribution—for example by using the overbearing participant as a “devils advocate”, or by asking the clique builder to head a sub-group or by calling on the joker to provide some levity after a hot debate. If that is not possible, then the Leader must be ready to take steps to nullify or alleviate their disruptions.

As time goes on and the Leader sees the members of the team in action and gets to know them better, it should be possible to get some sense the distinct personalities and temperaments of the members of the team, as they might be reflected by their Myers-Briggs types. If the Leader can do that, then the strengths and weakness of the individuals and as the team as a group will be more apparent. Based on an understanding of those strengths and weaknesses, the Leader will be able better to determine what kind of meetings the team must hold, how much effort the Leader must put into assuring full and equal participation by various team members and who will be most useful and valuable for contributing in one stage of the effort and who will be best for another part.

There will be a mix of people on the team, a mix of personality and temperament types and, therefore, a mix of preferred work styles and behaviors when participating in a group. As you know from your work on your own MBTI, people have different work preferences. On the team there are likely to be:

-both Es and Is. They are easy to spot.

--Es will pitch right in, bypassing the agenda and will work well in a group; Is will have to be invited and will want to follow an agenda.
--Es will prefer interviews to collect data; Is will want to do research.
--ETs will want to take a logical approach, ITs will want to take a systems approach.

-There will be both Ns and Ss:

--Ns will want to brainstorm and work in short bursts; Ss will want rules, SOPs to be all laid out and will work for prolonged periods.
--Ns will be abstract in selecting measurement criteria; Ss will want practical measures.

-There will be both Js and Ps.

--Js will be purposeful, want to develop criteria for evaluating alternatives first, will want to finish the job. Ps will be easily distracted by something more interesting, will want to see alternatives before setting criteria, they will enjoy the process more than finishing it.

-There will be both Ts and Fs:

--Ts will tend to overlook the people aspects of the issue or decision; Fs will   tend to focus too much on the people aspects and IFs will be concerned with organizational aspects.
 --Ts will compromise quicker than Fs; while Fs will insist on unanimity or consensus, especially EFs

Leading Meetings

Conclusion

As highlighted in the first topic, Leadership is a talent, which cannot be taught but which can be fostered by exposure to education and training. However, Leadership talent can only be developed by constant practice and life experience. Immediately and throughout your career in the Intelligence Community, whether assigned to leadership positions or not, you will be assigned to teams, sometimes as the designated Leader. Since, as the Leader of a team you will have no means of influencing the other members of the team other than your leadership qualities and skills, team activities present the best opportunity to demonstrate your leadership qualities, practice your leadership skills, get leadership experience and develop your leadership talent. Every time you are engaged in coordination in the Intelligence Community, look upon it as a leadership development opportunity!