How to manage teams in a world designed for individuals

livemint.com:

Boss Class, our Bartleby columnist searches for the secrets to being a better manager. Episode four looks at what makes a good team, episode five at how to run a meeting. Teams, it turns out, are better at solving complex problems, according to a recent paper by Abdullah Almaatouq of the MIT Sloan School of Management.

Research also suggests that people have a greater attachment to their work group than to their organisation; you’re less likely to go for lunch with a logo. Knowledge is also accumulating as to what makes teams tick, the subject of this week’s episode of Boss Class, our new management podcast. Project Aristotle, a famous bit of research by Google into the characteristics of its best-performing teams, identified “psychological safety"—comfort to speak one’s mind—as the most important ingredient, alongside things like dependability, role clarity and meaningful work.

Different teams excel at different things. Analysis by Lingfei Wu of the University of Chicago and his co-authors found a correlation between team size and types of scientific research: larger teams develop existing ideas and smaller ones disrupt the field with new ones. But a greater emphasis on, and understanding of, teams does not generally translate into matching management practices.

Recruitment processes focus on the achievements of the individual rather than the collectives they have been in. Performance management is still largely a one-player sport. Reviews are usually based on individual targets, as are bonuses.

Metrics are often confined to concrete outputs rather than softer team-based measures, such as how trusted people are. It doesn’t help that many bosses have little idea what their teams really do. Soroco, a software firm, and