Today, many Americans are hooked on reality shows. I hear people talk about Survivor, The Biggest Loser, and the Apprentice as if the participants are members of their families. So I have a great reality show for you to think about, especially if you are leader.

Here are your first two challenges.

First Challenge. Your name is John Carver. You have been selected to lead 102 people on a journey to a far-off land you have never seen. The journey will take more than a month. Your people will be confined on a ship into a space about 90 feet by 25 feet. There will be women and children among your people. You will have dogs, sheep, and goats along for the ride. You will have barely enough food and water to last for the month-long journey and it will need to be rationed. Your people have never sailed before or been confined this way.

To complicate the challenge a few harsh variables have been interjected along the way. After a month, the weather turns bad. The ship almost breaks apart. Days continue and your one-month journey becomes a two-month journey. Supplies run out. Finally, you discover land and you are hundreds of miles off course. Winter is setting in.

As their leader, what would you do at the beginning, during, and at the end of this challenge? What would your leadership look like?

Second Challenge. You are William Bradford in this challenge. The 102 people you started with are down to 53. Your wife was one of the people who died. The 53 survivors spent the winter living on the vessel. It is now the spring and the ship’s captain is heading back to your homeland, he leaves you all behind. You need to build shelters and find food. Among your challenges is how to get along with native people who aren’t very happy with you for raiding their winter stores of food. John Carver had made sure your group paid the native people for the stores you took, which made a good second impression. John dies and you have been selected the new leader.

As their new leader, what would you do? What would your leadership look like?

The Mayflower. By now you’ve figured out these two challenges are those faced by the leaders of the Mayflower in 1620 – 1621. Every year at this time I think about these people and what it must have been like to be on this journey. I also wonder what I would be like as a leader of these people in these very difficult situations.

Among the leadership lessons I think about are:

1. Vision – Obviously for 102 people to make this trip, John Carver developed a very “compelling vision.”
2. Servant Leadership – When you read the book Mayflower by Nathaniel Philbrick you see that both Carver and Bradford displayed servant leadership. Their primary mission seemed to be to “nourish others” so they could survive.
3. Collaboration rather Competing Conflict Styles – Both Carver and Bradford choose to work with the native people rather than fight them. They collaborated with Wampanoag tribal Chief Massasoit, who helped the Pilgrims that first winter and showed the Pilgrims how to plant and harvest native foods.

First “Thanksgiving” really a Harvest Celebration. In late September or early October 1621, the Pilgrims harvested their first crops – corn, squash, beans, barley, and peas. They also shot many migrating ducks and geese. Bradford organized a harvest celebration and invited their Wampanoag native friends. Their “guests” numbered more than 100, so they outnumbered the Pilgrims by a 2 to 1 margin. Of the original 102 people, only 53 people lived to see the celebration - 4 married women, 5 adolescent girls, 9 adolescent boys, 13 young children, and 22 men.

Now, that was a “real” reality show – can you even imagine having that leadership experience? But today the only reality show that matters seems to be who can stake out the Black Friday sale at Wal-Mart for the longest time. I’m not sure how I would lead that experience either.

Last week I was pleased to see the Boston Red Sox trade several of their expensive, all-star players to the Los Angeles Dodgers. Why was I pleased? Because I had stopped watching my favorite team and wanted a reason to watch again. I have wondered how such a talented group of athletes, several of whom won a World Series in Boston, became such a dysfunctional “team.” I also wondered why their management didn’t recognize and deal with the “dysfunctional” symptoms earlier.

How to Detect a Dysfunctional Team. You can have talented team members assembled on the same team, but that doesn’t assure they will have success “as” a team. In his book Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni shares with us why teams become dysfunctional. (You can also learn more in the video below.) When Lencioni describes the five dysfunctions he puts them into a pyramid and teaches us we must solve the first dysfunction (trust) before we can move on to the next dysfunction – solving each subsequent dysfunction is dependent upon solving the prior one.

Here are Lencioni’s five dysfunctions in order.

1. Absence of Trust. Successful teams trust each other. Team members are vulnerable, open-up to each other, and accept feedback when they are performing below expectations. On a dysfunctional team there is an absence of trust, people talk behind each other’s backs, cliques are common, and they don’t believe in each other’s strengths. We saw this with the Red Sox when different members of the organization were critical of players and the manager to the press.
2. Fear of Conflict. People on successful teams aren’t afraid to engage in good conflict where they debate about anything that improves results. Everyone is heard and ideas are debated. Team members aren’t personally offensive or defensive and only focus on activities that will improve results. Because dysfunctional teams don’t trust one another, they are unable to engage in good conflict that pushes the organization toward excellence. Although I don’t really know what happened in the Red Sox dugout, media reports suggest there was a great deal of bad, personal conflict, which displaces healthy conflict and makes the team dysfunctional.
3. Lack of Commitment. Team members on successful teams are personally committed to the teams’ goals. If team members don’t really trust each other and don’t engage in healthy conflict and debate about team goals and strategies, they will most likely not be committed to common team goals. Individual objectives begin to trump team goals or objectives. Lencioni makes this important point – even if team members disagree about the goal, when they feel like they have been heard and their ideas discussed, they will be more willing to commit to the team goals even if they disagree with them. Many Red Sox players over the past year have clearly been focused only on themselves – a lack of conditioning and chicken and beer during the game, to name a few examples.
4. Avoidance of Accountability. On successful teams, people hold themselves and peers personally responsible for actions and results. When team members are not committed to team goals and standards and they don’t engage in healthy conflict, they won’t hold each other accountable. The leader or manager becomes the “enforcer” of accountability and that only works for a limited time. For the Red Sox there were many examples of this dysfunction, which peaked at the time when only four players attended Johnny Pesky’s funeral. Not even a strong peer like David Ortiz could hold his team members accountable for this really simple and meaningful team activity.
5. Inattention to Team Results. I think we all know that people on successful teams really pay attention to the overall team results. When team members stop paying attention to and working hard toward achieving team results, this becomes the ultimate dysfunction. Poor results will follow. A symptom of this is when you see team members totally focused on only personal objectives without regard to the team objectives. It is a good thing for individuals to focus on their objectives as long as those objectives support the team’s objectives and are not in conflict with them. Baseball is one of the very few team sports where most of the competition during a game is really a one-on-one activity – pitcher vs. batter, for example. When certain Red Sox players blamed other players for the team’s failures, often behind their backs, this is when the team goals were undermined.

Unlike leaders of baseball teams, you can’t just trade away team members that may be contributing to your team’s dysfunction. You can, however, act proactively and make sure your team doesn’t become dysfunctional. Awareness of Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions is a good first step. Then focus on building trust, engaging in good conflict, committing to common goals, holding each other accountable, and measuring and celebrating the team’s results. If you do this well you just might be able to keep your championship team together.

A few years ago we added discussions about Jack Welch’s “four E’s of leadership” to our assessments of mid-level leaders. When I looked at the 4Es again recently I wondered how many of you had heard of them.

Jack Welch and the 4Es of Leadership. I was amazed recently when I asked my class of business graduate students if they knew who Jack Welch is and only 25% of the class raised their hands. It was another moment when I knew I was getting older.

He is the former President of General Electric (GE) who introduced the world to a number of management and leadership practices that continue to be used globally. He retired on September 10, 2001, which was quite a challenging day to start for the current GE president, Jeff Immelt.

One business practice that GE developed under Welch’s tenure was a very thorough leadership assessment. A component of that assessment that is easily transferred to other industries is the 4Es of leadership – energy, energize, edge, execution.

In our organization we ask these four questions about each manager or leader:

1. What level of energy does the leader display?
2. How well does the leader energize others on her/his team?
3. Do they have the edge to deal effectively with conflict and make tough decisions?
4. Does the leader execute strategies effectively and achieve their strategic plan?

Energy. When you think of energy who do you think of? Maybe Rachel Ray or Kelly Ripa? I think of President Teddy Roosevelt. When we assess energy at our company, we look for evidence of consistently high stamina, happiness, and enthusiasm for our mission. Assessing energy is definitely subjective, but when we have six or seven people doing the assessment, a pattern of consensus evolves.

Energize. This is how well the leader acts as a catalyst and moves their team into action towards achieving your mission. Steve Jobs is an excellent example of someone who energized his teams. As an avid Red Sox fan who still cherishes our first World Series championship in 2004, I think of Kevin Millar as the person on that team who energized his team mates. At our company, we examine how well leaders energize people, we look at how well their team members individually achieve their outcomes, how effectively they communicate, and ultimately, how well they retain quality team members. Most of these are measurable.

Edge. I think this word “edge” is simple and yet very important. We have all worked with and for leaders who don’t have it, but many do. Governor Chris Christie has it as does Bill Belichick, coach of the New England Patriots. We assess “edge” at our company by looking at our leader’s ability to recognize problems, evaluate solutions, and make decisions. We also look at their ability to effectively manage conflict internally and externally. Finally, we note whether they can emotionally deal with the ups and downs of leading in today’s always changing world. Again, this is a subjective assessment based on the input of six or seven people.

Execution. In Jack Welch’s mind, and I believe anyone who ever worked for him would confirm this, execution is the most important “E”. This is how well you deliver results; deliver your plan. In sports it is players like Joe Montana and Tom Brady and their great coaches (Bill Wash and Bill Belichick, respectively.) We evaluate a leader’s ability to execute at our company by evaluating the quality of their team’s services and their financial results over a continuous period, not just one year. This assessment is very objective and leaders should always know where they stand.

So now if someone asks if you’ve ever heard of Jack Welch you can say, “yes.” More importantly, when you reflect on these 4Es of leadership, how would you rate yourself?

If you are leading a team or expect to lead a team, it is helpful to think about what type of team you have. Why? Because each type of team requires you to use a different mix of leadership skills. A few years ago, I read a wonderful piece by Peter Drucker who described three types of teams. I later read updates of his definitions in a Harvard Business School case. The three types of teams are: fixed position, parallel, and innovative.

Here is a short summary of the three types of teams and what a leader needs to do in each situation.

Fixed Position Team – On this type of team each member occupies a “spot” or “position” in which they perform a specialized task that others on the team cannot. They “play on the team”, but not “as a team.” The team members might be positioned in near proximity to each other and they work together for a common goal.

Examples that Drucker used were some assembly line teams, surgical teams, and baseball teams. In baseball, for example, a pitcher has special skills and rarely, if ever, plays other positions. The pitcher faces a hitter, each with different skills. Each pitch, and subsequent hit or miss, is an independent action. And each fielder usually has special skills suited to that position. One fielder catches the ball and throws it to another fielder who catches it and so on. While the common goal for the baseball team is to win the game, we see now that their success is really how well each player executes his or her independent task when it arises.

To lead a successful fixed position team you need to: (1) know what qualities (talents/knowledge/skills) are required of each position; (2) know how to evaluate and select team members who have these qualities; (3) know how to coach individuals for skill improvement even if you don’t have the unique talents/skills yourself; (4) assure each team member gets practice time to improve their skills; and (5) make sure the individuals get plenty of practice time working together trying to effectively connect their individual actions together so they can more likely achieve the team’s goal.

Parallel Team – This is also a “fixed-position” team, but the team members play “as a team.” Like the fixed position team, each team member has unique qualities (talents/knowledge/skills). However, unlike the fixed position team, the team members on this team must work together on each action/musical piece/play in order to achieve the goal.

Drucker’s examples include the symphony orchestra, emergency room team, and the football team. On a Parallel Team one person might be called on to perform a special, individual action (e.g. be a soloist, do CPR, throw a deep pass), but it will always be part of the “play” in which other team members must perform their tasks well or an unsatisfactory result will occur.

To lead a successful parallel team you need to do all that I described above for the fixed-position team and: (1) understand synergy or how the parts played by each person complement each other or contribute to the whole result (e.g. a block by a lineman opens a hole through which a running back can score); (2) create a plan, musical score, or play that combines everyone’s qualities to achieve the best outcome; and (3) motivate the whole group to work together and achieve the goal.

Innovative Team – Unlike the prior two teams, team members on this team are not fixed-position players and are able to cover for each other and perform multiple positions. They may each have qualities that allow them to better perform certain tasks than other team members, but they have adequate qualities to perform all tasks.

Drucker uses as examples the jazz combo and the tennis-doubles team. In my business and consulting work, I see this type of team as the fastest growing type among businesses; especially in businesses where cross-selling and cross-training are common strategies. These team players all know how to serve, volley, and charge the net, but they may have stronger forehand or backhand shots than their partners.

Unlike the first two team types that have highly specialized, fixed positions, I think the leader of a successful innovative team needs to be able to perform all the tasks of the team. They also need to (1) select team members who have flexible attitudes as qualities along with the necessary basic skills needed to accomplish tasks; (2) keep teams flexible by keeping the size between five and seven members; (2) train the team together as a group where the leader constantly changes the variables that require team members to change roles; and (3) clearly articulate the goal, but encourage flexibility and different paths to achievement.

So, as you think about the type of team you are leading, try to think about the how you can customize your leadership behavior to fit the needs of your team. Success will be sure to follow!