Scaffolds or Skeletons: What Does Your Team Need?

A colleague pointed me to the article  Build 'Scaffolds' to Improve Performance of Temporary Teams about a research paper authored by Amy C. Edmondson, Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School and lead researcher Melissa A. Valentine. We were in a conversation about Teaming.

In this paper they look at how the fluid, short term teams which are very commonplace in the work environment today can work better with a minimal structure - a "scaffold". The team scaffold which is fixed leads to greater collaboration and efficiency on the  temporary team while individual team members flow through the structure.

It is interesting to see the term "scaffold" used to describe the minimal structures put in place to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of temporary teams.

However, the term "scaffold" in its traditional usage also implies a sense of "temporariness" and "ugliness" (eyesores is how some describe them). Scaffolds are generally taken down once the building construction/renovation is complete.

I asked Prof. Edmondson : Does the use of the term "scaffold" in context of this article imply that these minimal structures are in the longer term to be replaced by some structures which are more lasting and more intrinsic to the organization/ teams (rather than the scaffold which is temporary and extrinsic/external)?

Her response was:

I don't think all scaffolds, and especially not these, are ugly.  Their beauty in a way stems from their simplicity. 

You're right about the temporariness.  Here, the temporariness lay in the configurations of people - which were constructed and disbanded constantly... the the essential core of their shared work was ongoing, despite replacements of each expert in an ongoing way.

This sparked off an interesting conversation with Prof. Edmondson-

Deepak: Yes, your “scaffolds” are simple and elegant. I was implying the mental imagery when a layperson gets confronted by the word scaffold esp. if one has to walk under them or past them on the way to work! 

Prof. Edmondson: I totally get it!  Fortunately, our scaffolds are not ugly, but they are simple, and they are enabling - vs. trying to take over and structure the work in a heavy handed way.  Maybe not an ideal term.  Oh well!

Deepak: I get the essential premise of your study; Instead of having new team members (experts) walk into a totally unstructured environment; create a “scaffold” which will provide some permanence and continuity even as the experts keep rolling on/off the team (“temporary group”). 

What could be the drivers for transitioning the “scaffold” into a more permanent “skeleton”/framework for a more lasting structure? 

Prof. Edmondson: I think part of our contribution was that you can’t have permanence given the training and operational needs of these organizations… flux is here to stay… but having some enabling structures that make it work better is helpful.

Deepak: Or do you envisage the “scaffold” to acquire a permanence albeit changing based on the nature of the underlying work processes and the skills/profiles of the new team members.

Prof. Edmondson: yes

I would say, for temporary work groups, with team members constantly changing, the idea of having a loose, lightweight structure in place makes lot of sense. New team members can hit "the ground running".

For more long term teams a "skeleton" (a more robust framework of procedures, processes and guidelines) may be the way to go. 

How social technologies are extending the organization: My comments on McKinsey Article

My comments:

Business Transformation - Analogies from the World of Nature

As I have worked over the years transforming organizations, I cannot but help but draw analogies with the World of Nature :

1. The Hibernators : These organizations have a penchant for cycles of accumulating fat and then trimming it down. Almost like polar bears or other animals of cold climes. Much of this comes about from the cyclical trend of the business they operate in. I once worked in a company where this trend was driven by the cyclical supply of milk- the key ingredient of their final product. All winter it built up stocks of intermediates, added manpower. Only to trim it all during the harsh Indian summers when the milk supply dried down.

2. The Chameleons : Nothing intrinsically changes about these organizations as they supposedly "transform". An appearance of change is created to satisfy stakeholders like banks, shareholders, media etc. Many of the family owned public companies in India in the 80's and 90's used to fall in this category. The internal processes and structure of the company remained unchanged fixated on the mindset of the owner but the external portrayal constantly changed to suit the environment.

3. The Butterflies/Silkworms: Many organizations grow fat as they are inefficient utilisers of resources which are available aplenty since these companies are generally market doyens or operate in a protected environment. Latest trend is for them to go into a transformative pupa stage away from the prying eyes of external stakeholders under private ownership. The objective being that they after transformation will emerge from their cocoons as attractive butterflies, the cynosure of all eyes, worthy of great premiums. Many will not reach this stage as the private equity investor may decide to harvest the silk from the pupa rather than waiting for the butterfly to emerge. Needless to add the company itself would be killed and the value (silk) extracted by sale of brands, patents, equipment etc.

Any other analogies come to mind ?