- roles in the team and corresponding expectations
- Clarification of expectations in the team
- Method: Six questions and the reflections
- handling results
- Conclusion
In every team that wants to work together in a goal-oriented and efficient manner, the team members take on certain tasks roll. Ideally, these roles are coordinated with each other, separated from each other and clearly defined. Because only then does everyone know what their own task is and what they are responsible for. This results in corresponding expectations of each and every team member. Practice shows, however, that this ideal-typical constellation is rarely the case. Next to the lack of clarification and agreement it is mostly due to the fact that organizational areas, departments and teams are often composed rather randomly or are subject to change processes and individual influences. So many meet differently unclarified expectations in everyday working life. Conflicts are then inevitable.
Clarification of expectations in the team
Among expectations we can primarily understand anticipated assumptions or wishes about how something should be or even has to be according to our ideas. These more or less pronounced expectations relate to ourselves (self concept) or to people in our private or professional environment. Such images of expectation arise primarily from our individual view of things. Socialization, experienced experiences and their evaluation as well as dealing with them play an important role in this. Because this is where ours are formed system of values, our attitude as well as our thoughts and actions. All of this manifests itself in the long term in our individual and mostly unconscious lives beliefs. We then use our own compass to navigate through real life.
Depending on the context, expectations relate to different areas of life. In private, for example, we have preferences and sometimes very specific ideas about what our partner should look like, what interests or character traits are important to us in relation to a possible partnership. In the working world, there are often so-called role conflicts. They arise when one person in a group fails to live up to expectations. In a company, these are classic conflicts between superiors and subordinates. However, such role conflicts can also occur at a hierarchical level (e.g. on the management level at division manager or board level) or among employees of the same rank in a department or in teams.
The timely Clarification of expectations reduces the risk that role conflicts can arise at all. However, if they have already arisen, are slowly smoldering, are depressing the mood in the team and thus also the work performance, then it is advisable to to take urgent measures that reveal the different expectations in the team. The first step is to constructively address the perceived dissonances in the team. In order to initiate this, the team leader can, for example, ask his team the open question whether they feel like a team and if not, what would be necessary for that. In the second step, the team should then agree that they want to work on it together. That probably reads easier than it can perhaps be implemented in some already very deadlocked team structures. However, there is no alternative to working together and clarifying the dissolution of mutual expectations if cooperation and the atmosphere in the team are to improve.
Procedure: Six questions and the reflection
If you search the internet for “group mirror” research, you come across that the term describes a method that is often used at the beginning of seminars. In this context, the group mirror serves to provide an overview (e.g. name, department, function, since when in the company) in To gain reference to the group of seminar participants concrete Clarification of expectations in teams is usually from the “Marketplace of Expectations” spoken. Since the respective principle (creation of transparency) is very similar, the following is the Group mirror presented in a shortened combination with the marketplace as a method with which you can transparently disclose the different expectations in the team relatively quickly.
Assuming that the team consists of a team leader (manager) and a certain number of team members (employees), The team leader and team members each answer three questions for themselves. The answers can be noted, for example, on colored moderation cards.
The team leader answers the three questions:
- What do I expect from myself as a manager?
- What do I think my team expects from me as a manager?
- As a manager, what do I expect from my team?
The team members answer the questions either individually or together as a group:
- What do we expect from ourselves as a team?
- What do we think our boss expects from us as a team?
- What do we as a team expect from our boss as a manager?
From the questions it follows intuitively which answers can be meaningfully reflected. Because that is ultimately the method with which agreements and discrepancies in expectations are recognized and made transparent. This results in the following mirror groups of expectations:
- What do I expect from myself as a manager?
- What do I think my team expects from me as a manager?
- What do we as a team expect from our boss as a manager?
- As a manager, what do I expect from my team?
- What do we think our boss expects from us as a team?
- What do we expect from ourselves as a team?
It is advisable to have this process carried out by a neutral authority (external moderator or coach). This works best when the team is open and playful about the method and treats each other constructively and appreciatively. The team should set aside a morning or afternoon together for the group mirror.
handling results
When all questions have been answered and the results have been compiled, the exciting part begins. Everyone in the team can now see in black and white to what extent their own expectations match those of the boss or the team or differ. This can lead to aha moments that are met with humor in the team. In the case of tense team constellations, an experienced moderator is required at this point, who brings the results together with the necessary sensitivity and then allows the team to work out a common solution.
After the perception and viewing of the answers, a round of reflection takes place. Everyone thinks about it, maybe jotting down a few keywords. This is where personal impressions, emotional impulses and sensitivities get their space. There is still no content-related discussion or discussion of the results.
In the last phase, the content details are dealt with. It is important that these are exchanged and discussed in a collegial, empathetic and appreciative manner. By no means should one slip into an occasionally accusatory or even hurtful evaluation mode (right, wrong, good, bad). Instead, questions like “Why does this and that work well?” or “Why is this and that not working the way we want it to?” When processing the mirrored results, the key to success lies in taking the perspective of the other person. This promotes mutual understanding and clarifies why there are certain expectations. Here, too, an experienced moderator has a supportive and helpful effect in terms of finding a solution. Depending on the results and their background, a solution cannot and does not have to be found on the same day. The group mirror can, for example, be the prelude to getting together once a week in the future to work on the solution steps.
Conclusion
Different, unfulfilled expectations can lead to disturbances, bad moods and ultimately to a reduction in work performance in the working world. Therefore, when putting together new teams, for example, mutual expectations should be set in advance position, function and role be clarified openly and made transparent within the team. In the case of departments, teams and groups that are already working together permanently, this can also be implemented retrospectively, also in order to discover change requests or potential for change.
The method presented here is one Shortened combination of the tools “Group Mirror” and “Marketplace of Expectations”. Both have to goal, transparency to manufacture. For this purpose, the expectations of the team management and associated team members are compared and reflected on the basis of specific questions. The results serve as an open expectation base for the team to work with. The procedure for evaluation and discussion can be varied. In any case, it is advisable to consult a neutral moderator for the implementation.
The method is suitable for small and medium-sized teams. For larger organizations, it is advisable to form smaller groups that are initially put together based on function or role, for example. Here, too, the goal is of course to have developed common, coordinated and transparent knowledge about mutual expectations at the end of the process. On this basis, for example, changed role understandings can arise, work processes can be reorganized or formats for regular communicative exchange can be found.
