Local government is teamwork

From the Beacon, Summer 2023

Local government isn’t a one-person show — it’s a team event.

More than any other level of government, cities and towns rely on an amazingly varied group of employees, elected officials and appointed board members to make decisions and advance community goals, programs and priorities.

By my rough calculation, the average locality has at least 40 boards, committees, commissions and workgroups, with the vast majority of participants being local volunteers. With 351 municipalities, this translates into a staggering 14,000 teams that make decisions and recommendations that guide the governance of our towns and cities. Let’s estimate that the average committee has five members (probably way too low), that gives us at least 70,000 citizen volunteers across the state. And that isn’t even counting Town Meeting.

That’s a lot of teams, and a lot of team members!

One reason why I’m focusing on this is connected to the disturbing rise in incivility that we experienced during the pandemic, and the deep concern that the trend has not subsided. We know local leaders are leaning in to reverse this trend and create positive settings that model respect and listening. The MMA’s most popular webinars this year, with thousands of attendees, have focused on civility, de-escalation, coping with conflict, resident engagement, and so-called First Amendment audits.

A second reason why I’ve been looking at local government from a team-based angle is connected to the question of productivity and performance. Are there elements and traits that make teams more likely to be successful? And do these attributes overlap with or amplify the dynamics that foster civility?

The answer to both these questions is an unequivocal yes.

This isn’t a guess or an intuitive suggestion. It is based on data and analysis.

Google is one of the most successful technology companies in the history of the world, in great part because they have based their strategic decisions on data and analytics.

From 2013 to 2015, the company spent two years studying 180 teams, asking the question, “What makes a team effective at Google?” Code-named Project Aristotle (the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” philosopher), Google’s People Analytics team did a deep dive to find the answers.

Using a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures (executives tended to be more interested in results, such as sales or project launches, and team members gave more weight to culture, e.g.), the project evaluated the effectiveness of all teams using a blend of four different lenses: the executive’s evaluation of the team, the team leader’s evaluation, the team members’ evaluations, and objective sales and performance data measured against benchmarks.

Google conducted hundreds of interviews, explored its rich database of annual employee survey responses, and examined more than 250 attributes, including whether decisions were made by consensus, whether team members were introverted or extroverted, the seniority and tenure of members, team workload, individual performance of team members, expertise of team members, and whether they were located in the same office. (Spoiler alert: none of those attributes mattered.)

In 2015, Google revealed its findings, identifying the five key dynamics that set successful teams apart from others. They were:
1. Psychological safety: Team members felt safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other.
2. Dependability: Team members got things done on time and met Google’s high bar for excellence.
3. Structure and Clarity: Team members had clear roles, plans and goals.
4. Meaning: The work was personally important to team members.
5. Impact: Team members believed that their work mattered and created change.

Of these five characteristics, psychological safety was the most important, and by a wide margin. It was the foundation that held up and supported the other four dynamics of success.

Google’s re:Work website offers much more detail; I’m sharing the highlights here.

There are so many management theories out there, so many how-to-do-it methodologies that are being peddled by experts and academics, but for me, this Google project breaks through the clutter and synthesizes multiple insights into one elegant and actionable framework.

It’s no surprise that psychological safety is a fundamental key to success, and it’s good to have this gut instinct backed up by rigorous analysis. Most of us strive to look competent, smart, and aware. But on a team, if we are afraid to be vulnerable, if we hold back ideas or questions for fear of making mistakes or admitting we don’t understand or don’t agree, then we have one foot in the team and one foot outside. We’re more defensive, we contribute less, and we’re less likely to make commitments or take on new responsibilities.

People who work on psychologically safe teams stay longer, achieve more, and feel greater satisfaction. It’s a good guess that local officials who serve on high-performing, safe boards and committees tend to stay longer, and the waiting list of applicants is probably longer than for panels where there is in-fighting and members are unsure about where they stand with each other.

At Google, and now in many other organizations, teams use this “Google Framework” to regularly self-rate their performance on all five dynamics, and collectively decide on small actions to move the needle and improve in each of these areas, especially if psychological safety is low. Over time, teams can improve and gain momentum.

This disciplined approach to take small yet important steps to implement change reminds me of a powerful observation by Neil Pasricha, the author of “The Book of Awesome,” who says, “It is far easier to act yourself into a new way of thinking than it is to think yourself into a new way of acting.”

Wouldn’t it be great if all 14,000 of our municipal teams could use something like this Google Framework to take their temperature and lean in? The results could improve overall achievement, amplify best practices that enhance civility and positive engagement, and make the experience of volunteering and serving more rewarding and less prone to conflict.

Reading between the lines, it’s important to note that decision-making by consensus wasn’t correlated with high performance. How teams discussed various strategies and ideas did matter. If team members felt safe and felt heard by their colleagues, then they accepted the decisions and were dependable in their efforts to help move the actions forward. But if team members did not feel heard or valued, they were more likely to consent in public but hold back in private, undermining their commitment and follow-through, and weakening overall performance.

Civility, active listening, focusing on the issue or problem to be solved and not the personalities, all contribute to psychological safety. How we engage, and how we model these five traits matters a great deal.

Of course, there is a major difference between Google teams and our public boards and committees: the open meeting law. Discussions are exponentially harder in the public square (fishbowl?), where it is extremely difficult to be vulnerable and take risks, especially when social media can magnify what is said and done. Public service takes courage.

That said, individual team members can look at these measures and ask themselves, “How am I contributing to my committee’s psychological safety? Am I dependable? Can I help clarify our structure and roles? How does serving on this board provide meaning to me, and how can I help us have impact?” I’ve always found that self-reflection helps me make sense of a situation. This makes the next step, listening to others, much easier, because I’m already in a learning mindset.

Many boards and committees hold annual retreats to set priorities and goals for the coming year. In addition to the “what do we want to do and accomplish?” part of the agenda, Google provides evidence for adding “how are we doing as a team, and how can we improve the ways we engage and work with each other?” to the discussion.

Personally, I am in awe of the outstanding work that you and your colleagues are doing to move your communities forward. I’ve been concerned that serving in local government is more challenging than ever, and the experience for some may not be as rewarding as they hoped.

If this is the case for you, perhaps these insights from Google can help. I hope so.