Someone has noticed for months that a supplier is delivering late and does not mention it during meetings, because another department handles it.
In the project meeting, everyone knows that the schedule will not be met. No one says it until the date arrives.
Someone backs out of a decision, doesn't say so, and three weeks later it turns out not to have been implemented.
Each one small. Together, they are the difference between a plan and what becomes of it.
Whatever reaches you regarding this arrives months later. Via a complaint from outside the organization, via the quarterly report, via an exit interview, or via a team leader walking in because he can't take it anymore. Always later than it happened, and always dependent on who decides to report it.
The figures you *do* have do not capture this. They show that things went wrong, not what didn't happen between people. Surveys provide delayed indicators. Mood polls show that there is friction, but not where exactly. A team cannot use them to make adjustments.
What reaches you, is the bill.
- A disappointing quarterly report
- An exit interview
- A team leader who can't take it anymore
- A complaint from outside the organization
Teams are not exhibiting the behavior required for this task, despite all the attention paid to it. Progress is too slow, things are stagnating, people remain stuck in patterns, leaders keep pulling a cart that won't move on its own, and the strategy exists on paper but not in behavior.
What actually happens depends on the few people who pick it up of their own accord and on whether they stay.
Why it doesn't happen automatically
The main cause is that people do not engage in a conversation about how they work together. There are three reasons for this.
01
It is not invested with them
The idea quickly becomes that someone else will solve it: the manager, HR, or a program that is yet to come.
So people are waiting for whoever or whatever comes.
02
There is a threshold
It is not a standard work topic: you have to force a moment for it and push yourself over a threshold. As a result, it only comes up when things are already getting uncomfortable, or it ends up with the manager, because they act as the point of contact.
03
Knowing is not the same as doing
Knowing how a good conversation works is one thing; doing it together in real work is something else. And where people do try, it falls apart due to the desire to keep things pleasant or because someone becomes defensive.
But teams can indeed have and sustain the conversation about how they work together themselves.
The responsibility for this then lies with the team; the manager retains their own role. It requires no extra consultation: fifteen minutes every two weeks is a fixed part of a meeting that already takes place.
What that looks like
For the teams that do it this way, it looks like this:
Choose
The team itself chooses two behaviors that are crucial for what it needs to achieve.
Apply
They apply them in the daily contact moments in their regular work.
Looking back and forward
Every two weeks, fifteen minutes together: what worked, what didn't, and what we will do differently in the coming weeks. They lead that fifteen minutes themselves.
What will be there within six weeks
The setup is in place within six weeks. Every team knows which two behaviors hinder them the most. The discussion about this lies with the team itself; it has a place where no one has to force a moment, and there is a way to do it that does not depend on who happens to be good at it. What a team does with it and how quickly varies, and that is visible from day one.
The teamscan
The team looks in its own mirror: what patterns are at play here, and where it is strong and where it is not. The starting point, not the goal.
Two behaviors
Based on the team scan, the team itself selects the two behaviors that are demonstrably the most obstructive. Not you, not us, not the manager.
The quarter
A fixed part of a meeting that is already in place. No one needs to force a moment for it anymore: the topic is already there.
The heartbeat rating
Two questions every two weeks, sent automatically. It remains visible how things are going, even when it slackens.
Monitoring on two levels
The team adjusts itself. And you can see for each team whether things are running smoothly and progressing, without having to ask.
Remote support
For team representatives and organization representatives.
What it is not
No training. No intervention. No advisory process that lasts for a while and then ends. No one is coming to take over the team, and no one comes by weekly.
In most organizations, there is ample attention paid to behavior. What is missing is the setup: who it belongs to, where it is located, and whether it recurs.
For two teams, it looked like this.
A team of supervisors at a large housing corporation
Pragmatic doers, busy all week with quotes, work orders, and vacancies. Everyone had their own hassle with contractors, and work piled up as soon as someone was busy. Noticeable to everyone, yet none of it was put on the table. When problems arose, they went to the manager.
The team looked in the mirror and chose two patterns themselves: remaining silent when someone needed to stand up for a problem, and losing touch with each other as soon as things got hectic. Translated into behavior: asking out loud who is taking on a role, and seeking each other out when things get tough. Reviewing for fifteen minutes every two weeks, during the meeting that was already taking place.
Six months later, the rhythm is still running, and monitoring reveals when it slackens. When a problem arises, the team collectively decides who will take it up. The department manager is no longer putting out fires and can once again focus on looking ahead.
Whereas at the beginning they said that input depended on a few individuals, it is now: "everyone is open to discussing everything, and we all dare to express our own opinions."
The customer contact center of a large housing corporation
Criticism landed on the person rather than the work. Problems were discussed *about* each other rather than *with* each other. Everyone worked on their own little island, with little mutual support and improvements that fizzled out.
The team itself selected two patterns: the feeling that the work is happening to them, and the way they handled disagreements. Translated into behavior: proactively contributing ideas and setting boundaries in a timely manner, and listening to each other and substantiating opinions instead of saying "I think it's stupid." Reviewing for fifteen minutes every two weeks, during the meeting that was already taking place.
Six months later, the team helped each other, agreements held up, and the team made adjustments themselves instead of waiting for someone to come and fix the problem. Personal influence moved from 4.7 to 7.6, and handling disagreements from 5.1 to 7.7.
They continued to measure and discuss: two years later, the team names as its own strongest points that no one is left out, that they help each other, and that everything is open for discussion.
What you decide
1 You decide that behavior in teams counts in fulfilling your mission. It matters.
2 You decide that teams will have the conversation about that themselves. Not whether, but what about.
3 You decide that the conversation about behavior will recur in a routine, during the meeting the work already requires. No additional meeting.
If those are three decisions you want to make, the rest is furnishing.
What directors present to us
Doesn't this take extra time?
Fifteen minutes every two weeks, within an existing meeting. No additional meetings will be added.
What does the manager do then?
His own work. What changes is that the responsibility for how the team works together lies with the team. If the supervisor is part of the team, he joins in the rhythm. If he is not, then he isn't. What this yields for him: he is no longer the go-to person for everything that goes on between people. With the team of supervisors mentioned above, the department manager no longer had to put out fires and could finally focus on looking ahead again.
What if a team lets things slide?
Then that becomes visible. The bi-weekly measurement continues, even if the conversation isn't flowing for a moment, and that is precisely the moment when something can be done about it. With the team of supervisors mentioned above, the rhythm is still running six months later, and the monitoring reveals when it slackens.
We already have an employee survey.
That measures opinions and feelings once or twice a year, alongside work. It doesn't tell you what a team does differently on Monday. The outcome goes up the chain of command: to HR, to the board, to an action plan. Employees then often wait to see what happens with it, and the results of the work sessions on the subject disappear into a drawer. With DURVT, the outcome and the actions lie directly with the team. Every two weeks, it concerns the two things they have chosen themselves. Then it is no longer a report, but their own work.
We have already done a lot about this.
Almost everyone has this. Sessions, a team day, a training. The effect is usually real, but temporary. To endure, it needs to find a place in regular work, with a rhythm that fits the schedule and with the people doing it acting as owners.
Our teams are not looking forward to this.
That might be the case at the start. What makes the difference is that the team chooses the two behaviors themselves and leads the fifteen minutes themselves. It is not about something imposed on them; it is about what they need from each other to do their work.
Our teams cannot do this.
Many people think that at the start. What helps: the team does not have to learn complicated conversation techniques. They receive a fixed framework for selecting the two behaviors and for the fifteen-minute session, so that no one has to figure out how the conversation should proceed. Through small, joint steps, they gradually break the patterns that stand in the way of what they want to achieve. No one has to bring about major changes on their own. There is remote support, and when things stall, they follow up on the issue. At the customer contact center mentioned above, criticism was taken personally at the beginning. Six months later, points were being discussed *with* each other.
What do you understand by a team?
Two or more people who are jointly responsible for a single result and who need each other to achieve it. It is not about how things are currently going: many teams work at cross purposes even though they do need each other, and that is precisely what this is about. If there is no shared result and people are not dependent on one another, then it is a group and serves little purpose. Furthermore, the work itself must demand regularity: if there is no reason to speak to each other at least once every two weeks, then there is no rhythm to establish this. Incidentally, a team does not necessarily have to appear as such on the organizational chart.
