I interviewed a peer who is a configuration design engineer from the R&D branch of a major aerospace company. She specifically is a concept aircraft designer. Her company has very tight security and confidentiality requirements for their employees, so throughout this post she will be referred to as Sue Smith from Company X.
Company X relies on teamwork between and among the various branches and department for their success. I decided to ask Sue questions that directly related to how the team is managed according to Hill’s (1994) team management guidelines.
First, the team’s role within the organization is to “conduct technology identification, evaluation, selection and development to support near term and far term aerospace vehicle product development” (S. Smith, personal communication, March 2012). Essentially, they evaluate and develop systems for to improve and expand current aircraft technologies. I would have asked Sue if she was working on flying cars, but I am pretty sure she wouldn’t be able to tell me. Sue added that the weapons systems and aerospace systems teams rely on their team for some elements, showing an understanding of how the team fits into the organization as a whole.
When asked about the team’s goals, Sue clearly articulated the goal of the team, which is two-fold to development of technologies and increasing the company’s profit (Personal communication, 2012). These goals were communicated through mission statements of the leadership (Personal communication, 2012). The team goals and the team’s role within the organization are very clearly spelled out for the employees and provide an effective agenda for the team to work within. The roles and goals certainly fit within Hill’s (1994) guidelines that a team needs to share a common goal and that they will benefit from moving the team forward.
Hill’s (1994) second guideline is determining the coordination necessary for the team to complete its goal. At Company X, the type of teamwork needed is clearly identified based on the project at hand. Sue states that the amount of team work is dependent on the breadth of the project (Personal communication, 2012). The teams are disassembled at project completion and are re-formed with members who will best meet the goals of the next project (Personal communication, 2012).
Team structure is the third guideline indicated by Hill (1994). Sue states “most people on my teams are introverted by nature but some are highly aggressive while others are very reserved…most people are highly analytical and creative” (Personal communication, 2012). She continues by saying that all are passionate about the work of the company (Personal communication, 2012). When it comes to employee diversity, Company X is limited by the high qualifications necessary for job duties. However, it sounds as if the team structure has a diverse personality group combined with a homogenous dedication to the company and the field.
The team culture and coaching are clearly defined through the establishment of team norms, routines and values (Hill, 1994). At Company X, mangers work closely with teams to ensure that the project is moving forward and to help remove any barriers that may prevent the project’s success (Personal communication, 2012). Conflict is typically handled by talking through the situation (Personal communication, March 2012).
Overall, there is very clear communication within this team regarding their goals, processes and structure. Sue attributes the success of her team to a combination of excellent people and a cooperative working environment. I believe the team’s success is in part due to successful development and management of the team.
Full disclosure: Sue and I interned together at NASA Langley during undergrad and have remained close friends since that time.
Hill, L. (1995) Managing Your Team, Harvard Business School, pp. 1-22.
Brenda, I will choose to believe that Sue is indeed working on flying cars. I find it interesting that she stated that some people are "highly aggressive." From your conversation, do you think her teams have both task and interpersonal conflict? Do you think these teams could benefit from more diversity, besides just diversity of personality types?
ReplyDeleteSue specifically made reference to task and interpersonal conflict in her group. Twice during the interview she mentioned personality-related conflict. She followed up by saying that the team members "are either friends of they have very respectful relationship with each other," which eludes to conflict.
ReplyDeleteThe need for different personality types within aerospace engineering sectors is something that Sue and I have discussed at length over the years - from our time together as interns through her grad school experience and now while she works at Company X. As an extrovert she is a minority when it comes to engineers, more so when you consider that she is a successful, female, extrovert engineer. She brings a different dimension to the team and probably helps with the team balance.
Company X has a concentrated effort on interpersonal development and encouraging team work. Sue is part of an international young leaders group that meets quarterly to bond and brainstorm. I believe this focus will set Company X up for success as these young leaders move into greater leadership roles within the company - it should foster greater collaboration and innovation among their various teams and branches.
Hi Brenda,
ReplyDeleteVery nice post ~ love it that there's a little mystery involved. You say that the teams are disbanded after each project, and new ones are formed depending on what skills are needed for a new project. Does Sue or any of her colleagues get to choose who they work with, or is it a random assignment based on need? If it is a random, skill-based only selection, I'm wondering if an element of emergent groups is in play. Not that the projects are disasters, of course, but is there an element of everyone just doing what needs to be done and a lack of tranactive memory system? Thanks to you and "Sue" for the great post!
Lisa,
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that when the teams are re-formed it is based on the expertise needed for a project. So, let's say one project is studying the aerodynamics of a car to determine if it is possible for it to fly and the next project is whether a specific aircraft can handle the additional load of a new weapon and still be effective (both fictitious examples). These two projects would require some overlapping skills and some different skills. I don't believe the assignment of the project teams is random - but is specifically pulled together from the larger department to create the best team for the project at hand.
Is there a lack of transactive memory? I don't think so. I believe this system is the best of both worlds - the teams will develop their own transactive memory but will not be reliant on the sames person for the same skill set every time because of how the teams are formed. This provides a greater collective memory and allows continued growth for team members.
The department could have multiple project teams ongoing simultaneously and each employee could be a part of more than one team. By not relying on the same team group over and over, Company X is perhaps intentionally preventing a Nut Island.