Pulling in All Directions

We often talk about the necessity of having everyone on a team pulling in the same direction.  I had a friend back in Rutherford County who was a retired dairy farmer.  One of his hobbies was working large Belgium draft horses.  He confirmed the notion that a successful team of horses has to work together and pull in a common direction.  We often roll these metaphors out when explaining strategic direction.  But, does everyone have to move in the same direction in order to accomplish the mission?

h

This week I am at the National Conservation Training Center in Shepherdstown, West Virginia.  I am here with four other covaches/presenters for the NACLEC Leadership Academy.  The academy has drawn wildlife officer/game warden/conservation officer leaders from across the United States and Cana.  The goal of the program is expose the students to the adaptive leadership skills needed to successfully lead their organizations into the future.

One challenge each state faces is engaging a more diverse group of stakeholders while maintaining the relationships with our traditional constituent groups of hunters and anglers.  There is a great risk of alienating one group by appearing too cozy with the other.  So, like my old friend’s horses, the question becomes, “How do we hitch these seemingly different entities together and get them to pull in a common direction?”

We went off site yesterday for a series of team building exercises.  The purpose of the activities were to increase the effectiveness of interpersonal communication, to demonstrate how to break complex tasks down into manageable steps and to show how things that may be impossible to do alone can be accomplished when working in conjunction with others.  One of the exercises disputed the concept of pulling in the same direction.

The teams were tasked with moving a tennis ball from an upright piece of PVC pipe, through an obstacle course and it back to the pipe.  The ring had several multicolored pieces of cord attached and was slipped down over the pipe.  The team members each took a cord and pulled it taunt.  They then eased the ring up the pipe and lifted the ball free with the ring.  They had to balance the tennis ball while maneuvering it through the course.

The interesting thing was that the team members had to pull in different directions in order to achieve their mission and the tension had to be maintained by all parties.  Pulling too hard was as damaging as not pulling hard enough – too much or too little tension led to failure.  I saw four keys to success.

First the team members had to communicate effectively.  They had to give directions that were clear and precise.  There was no room for assumptions or ambiguity, and each person had to understand what was expected of them.

Second, the focus had to be on the objective or mission and not an individual.  All eyes had to be on the ball. Even a momentary glance from the objective could have meant failure for the group.

Third, someone had to be willing to concede and release some tension while the opposing force had to pull a bit harder.  Otherwise there would have been no movement and the group would have stood still.  Coordinated give and take allowed the group to move.

Finally, the ease of completing the task increased with the number of partners.  The tension was more forgiving as the number of team members increased.  However, more ears increased the need for clear communication exponentially.

I guess all this leads to an obvious question; “How many game wardens does it take to move a tennis ball?”  The best I can tell, there can’t be too many.