More and more, services organizations of all kinds are relying on what we used to call telecommuters and now refer to as “remote employees.”

I’ve written about the subject before, concentrating on how to make telecommuting work, both for the organization and for its telecommuters. If you’re interested you’ll find the columns here.)

What I didn’t cover in any of them: How services firms, and especially large services firms that extensively rely on a remote workforce, collect them into project “teams,” put them in front of customers for the project kick-off event, maybe take the new “team” to dinner at a nice restaurant, and expect the “team” to function as a team.

I enclosed team in scare quotes because members are left to interact on a basis of trust and alignment to a shared purpose with no basis for either.

What’s truly scary is how few services firms take any steps at all to turn their assemblage of remote employees who have never before met into a functioning team.

What’s only a smidgeon less scary is how often large corporations mimic this services firm worst practice. It’s less scary only because the poor teamwork that results is more visible in internal teams than with those fielded by a vendor.

As is so often the case, the problem begins with the difference between tangible and intangible costs and benefits.

If you aren’t familiar with the terms and what makes them problematic, we covered this ground a month or so ago, in “KonMari and your business.” How it applies here: Bringing remote team members together results in easily recognized expenses: airfare, hotel bills, and meals. They’re tangible costs.

The benefits, in contrast, are intangible: Getting team members together helps them understand who each other are as human beings; it gives them a chance to reconcile hidden assumptions, work styles, perspectives, and particular strengths.

It lets project managers communicate nuances and subtleties about the project’s goals and priorities far beyond what they can accomplish with teleconferences, email, and even web conferences accompanied by PowerPoint.

As a correspondent once put it, email communicates facts, but it doesn’t build teams. Teleconferencing and web conferencing permit the exchange of ideas, but not the connection of co-workers.

I say the benefits of bringing team members face to face are intangible because failing to do so constitutes a risk — something bad that might happen in an uncertain future. Worse, it’s the kind of risk that, even when it turns into reality, still won’t be acknowledged as the cause of the problems in question.

For example, every good project manager recognizes the critical role rapport with the project’s sponsor and governance committee plays every time something unexpected comes up. Project managers can build rapport in direct proportion to the time they spend face to face with these fine folks, and especially the time they spend face to face early in the project, before issues arise.

Second example: Agilistas … practitioners of real Agile methodologies, not “Scrummerfall” variants that replace Agile’s “individuals and relationships over processes and tools” with the exact, polar opposite … recognize the importance of being able to consult, frequently and informally, with product owners, subject matter experts, and end-user representatives throughout development of whatever is being developed.

Unless team members have met these people face to face at least once, the social hurdles that must be overcome to have even one conversation are considerable. Frequent and informal conversations? Good luck with that.

Which is why offshore agile projects rely heavily on on-site business analysts to have these conversations. And that’s okay. It isn’t great, but it’s okay, so long as the business analysts and project team members have had the opportunity to interact face to face.

In the interest of not beating the subject to death and of providing useful solutions, I trust the useful solution is, by now, obvious: If, as a vendor, you’re planning to deploy teams of remote employees, bring them together at the beginning. Specifically, bring them together for a week of orientation and socialization a week before the official project kick-off meeting.

Follow that with three weeks of working together on-site in a bull-pen environment. During this period, schedule as many briefings as possible — sessions in which various project stakeholders explain the current situation and their hopes, concerns, and expectations for the project’s outcomes.

Couple this with a professional-grade, on-demand web conferencing environment. It will be essential for collaboration once the team has been built.

For building the team? Not so much.

We took a break from the Minnesota winter, so I decided to take a break from KJR, too. It was a timely opportunity: Vox recently published “Intellectual humility: the importance of knowing you might be wrong,” (Brian Resnick, 1/4/2019) which is well worth your time and attention.

It’s also an opportunity to say, once again with feeling, that I told you so! Yes, it’s ungraceful. Still, I did get there first, with the piece that follows, first published in 2007, along with this follow-up article that focused more on what you can do about it. – Bob

—————————

Learn from your mistakes.

It’s barely adequate advice. You can fail in a thousand ways. Learn from one and, like bottles of beer on a wall, you still have 999 left.

Compare that to what you can discover from success. Learning how to avoid one route to failure leaves you many ways to fail again. Learn how to succeed and you succeed.

Learning from mistakes matters. Learning from successes is vital.

So here are two questions to ponder: Why are most organizations more than willing to repeat their mistakes and so unwilling to learn from their successes?

These are two entirely different questions.

One reason organizations refuse to learn from their mistakes is well-known and obvious: To learn from a mistake, the organization’s decision-makers first have to acknowledge it. That’s a problem in our winning-is-the-only-thing, hold-people-accountable, lean-and-mean (really, famished and feeble) business culture.

We might encourage risk-taking, but that doesn’t mean we’re willing to accept a little failure now and then. That we have to redefine “risk” to mean “sure-things-only” is a small price to pay.

As is making the same mistake over and over.

Another reason organizations refuse to learn from their mistakes is more subtle: Very often, those who make the mistakes are also those who define the metrics that measure success. This might not seem to be a problem but it is because of the three fallacies of business measurement: Measure the right things wrong and you’ll get the wrong results; measure the wrong things right or wrong and you’ll get the wrong results, and anything you don’t measure you don’t get.

Example: A CIO who presided over an enterprise with four business units. He established measures of success for the four service desks that supported them. Unsurprisingly, he established productivity as a key metric, defined as the number of incidents resolved per technician.

One of the service desk managers seriously underperformed the others — productivity was truly awful. Here’s what he did wrong: He established a very effective program of end-user education. Because it was so effective, end-users in his business unit reported many fewer incidents.

The CIO held him accountable for his failure and praised the other service desk managers. His metrics defined failure as success, ensuring the perpetuation of a mistake — failing to educate the end-user community.

This really happened. It probably has really happened in company after company. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit to learn that someone has enshrined “maximizing technician productivity in service desk environments” as a best practice.

This example also illustrates one reason businesses sometimes fail to learn from their successes: Metrics that define failure as success also define success as failure (if they don’t just ignore it completely).

For more than a decade, the business punditocracy has blathered incessantly about success being the creation of shareholder value. There’s a problem with shareholder value as a measure: It’s hard to know whether today’s rise in the price of a share of stock is a blip that’s due to actions that will harm a company’s long-term competitiveness, or is the result of a real improvement in the health of the enterprise.

Even worse, it isn’t clear that it matters. I created shareholder value today. Next year, or the year after that is Someone Else’s Problem.

Just an opinion: The proper definition of business success is that it is sustainable. Never mind that sustainability is hard to measure. Never mind that it’s hard to recognize. It’s the only goal that matters.

If knowing what success looks like is hard, connecting actions to results is even harder. The actions that lead to sustainable success rarely produce immediate, dramatic results. Important change takes time and patience. By the time the impact of successful effort is visible, many business leaders will have given up on the effort.

Then there is the most common reason businesses refuse to learn from success: The Not Invented Here Syndrome (NIHS).

Very few enterprises reward managers for sharing their formulas for success with their peers. They don’t reward managers for emulating the practices of other managers either. Nor does emulating a peer do much to feed the average ego.

Being the first to spot a useful idea from outside the company looks and feels a lot like creativity. But if I borrow an idea from you, you get more credit and I get none. Where’s the value and satisfaction in that?

Why do businesses so rarely learn? The barriers are immense.

The miracle is that, occasionally, they do.