Introducing the T.E.A.M. Framework

A Framework for the classification of innovation teams

In my recent article “Don’t f*ck up your innovation teams” I already started mapping teams to the Three Horizons Framework. Based on the positive reactions on that article I decided to share a bit more about my thinking about team differences. The last decade we have introduced many new words inside organizations that describe a new way of working. Very familiar words like Design Thinking, Lean UX, Agile, Scrum and Lean Startup. These are all great to describe the work methods and processes but are really bad in giving meaning to some more basic human factors that are associated with teams. Factors like motivation, values, creative skills, and culture. I really believe strongly that these human needs need much more attention in order to make these modern ways of working effectively.

We must acknowledge the human needs within teams much more than we currently do otherwise many of our innovation efforts will result in failure and waste.

So with this article, I introduce to you a framework that helps organizations and teams to better understand the different human needs within different teams that are associated to change and innovation.

Another reason that I have developed this framework is that there is a lot of misconception in the field of teams. We really lack the language to express ourselves when we talk about teams. As teams are becoming an increasingly important cornerstone of organizations it is really needed to expand our vocabulary when talking about teams. With this framework, I discriminate between 4 type of teams. These are archetypical teams. I treat a team like a human in a sense. A unit with shared values operating as one consciousness.

They are to be used as a reference to reflect upon your own teams and help you identify the type of team you are part of, or are interacting with, and what the (human) dynamics of such a team is. In this article I will describe the DNA of these four types and I will share more about the context in which these teams will flourish.

So without further ado here is the T.E.A.M. framework for teams.

The four major type of teams that are associated with change and innovation are T, E, A, and M-Teams. Let me give them a proper introduction to you.

The first category of teams is T-teams. T-teams can only be formed based on willingness. Transformation, in general, can only be achieved through willingness. A willingness to participate, to imagine, to invest time and resources. This willingness can be found when old “labels” started to fail and erode with people. With labels, I mean words that have meaning or value. Words associated to certain beliefs, business units, technologies, function titles, tools or jobs. So you can say that behind the willingness to transform is sadness and loss. It is about letting go of these old labels. These teams are about developing new potential. Other emotional themes in these teams include uncertainty about identity, loyalty, attention for the system(the “old” generation), values and purpose. As an organization projects run by T-teams are not so much about building the vision but about relabeling the resources that identify themselves with this new future. Opening a process of relabeling and letting go of old labels is crucial to really effectuate the projects that T-teams work on. Hosting this relabeling process of employees happens in “cocoons”. As an organization, you need to provide these type of safe spaces where it is safe to shed and be reborn. These new transformed “future proof” resources will be the new foundation on which you will slowly and gradually build a “new house”. These people will also be the most loyal to the organization as they were willing to transform themselves.

E-teams are rare and considered to be responsible for deep innovation and disruption. E-teams change how we look at the world. If you facilitate E- teams in the right way, they can truly do magnificent work and deliver disruptive platforms and IP assets that can grow exponentially. Where with T- teams it is about relabeling, in E- teams it is all about the roles. It is about structure and tactics. It is about developing emerging opportunities. It is about expansion and increase in strength. It is about love for the problem and solution. These teams want to control the future (which is an illusion but don’t tell them :)). These teams are like teenagers that moved into the attic. Independent and stubborn. As these teams have not landed yet on earth and have not a lot of proof to show, it is a lot about representation and abstraction. It is roleplaying, enacting. For example, team members represent certain viewpoints. Or in a lab context, you have rebuilt a tiny universe in which you can act out. Where in T- teams we accept everybody’s feelings and opinions, with E- teams you are aligning the team’s point of view. Not by compromise but an elimination of the weakest(survival of the strongest). Working towards a shared truth and consciousness.

Representation goes much further than imagination(which is more for T- teams). Imagination is media, it’s an image in front of you. Representation is more embodied. You experience it, you become part of it. You live through it. You need to have a little bubble(universe) in which you can really go deep down the rabbit hole to understand both the problem and the strength of the solution.

A-teams are connected through the material they work with. Maybe they work together in developing a campaign, or a website, maybe they love making music and we call them a band. It can also be a group of people working in the kitchen that love to work with beautiful ingredients. In corporations, it might be development team that loves to make beautiful code. These teams produce. They deliver a product. They have eye for detail and really love the “art” they make. They are not seeking the truth like E-teams or busy with testing or validating. They are also not that involved with solving problems. These teams produce things that attract. It is beauty that they aspire. Eye for contrast and composition. Balancing “ingredients”. The output of this team is a noun. A unique object. So the creative cycle is designed around the birth of a unique object with a unique name. It is not about iterating and making the object perform better. It is about “showing the world your baby”. These teams can often be disappointed if others don’t recognize the beauty of their art, which is often the case. Therefore it is crucial that these teams really enjoy the process of making the “noun” itself. The satisfaction is in the moment where you work together with the team. Not by the recognition of the customer, press, board of directors, investor or other parties whom you show your beautiful artwork. The Hollywood model is applicable to these teams. The members all know their skill and role. Ready to do their job and play the instrument they love. Be it a brush, a computer, a kitchen knife or a hammer. These teams are not busy with scalability. A-teams have a hard time pricing their work. More and more pricing will be based on rev-share models. So the more traction they are able to generate the more they will earn.

Where E-teams can deliver potential disruptive assets, M- teams can drive results by the application of solutions and by for example shuffling the actors in the business model canvas. They are the masters of making things go frictionless. Once the A-teams have produced their work, it’s up to an M- team to turn that “noun” into “verbs” and even into “numbers”. These teams are busy with changing the messaging, reframing solutions and building trojan horses just to make it all work together. Supply meets demand and the “mess” it creates is solved by or M-teams. Here we move from being just right to also being successful. The sacrifice that needs to be made is the purity of new solutions. In a sense, the solution finally gets a role to play. The solution needs to adapt. Where in E- teams it is all about generating input with M-teams it is all output. It helps a lot to be pragmatic, data-driven and a bit opportunistic in nature. They live to make the “machine” work smoothly. Their product is the operation. They think in inputs and outputs. M-teams can start to do value-based pricing. They know exactly what everything is worth. Great M-teams are able to sell subscriptions.

Now that we have had a proper introduction of the different types I want to show a couple of ways how these teams have different needs, beliefs, and characteristics.

Time and TEAM

All four teams have different associations with time. T-teams feel free from everything and even free from time. They easily travel between the past and the future. They try to connect time and open up a generational narrative and in fact make things timeless as everytime a new generation replaces the old. So death is not death. By transformation and self-healing we can cheat death. Making everything timeless. E-teams on the other hand feel that they have been given a slot in time. A temporary slot in time and space in which they need to make the most of it. E-teams thrive in such a finite game. E-teams want to control the outcome. They make tactics to control the future. They see a journey in front of them. A-teams are totally present. You need to become one with the moment in order for things to manifest. All instruments need to be present in order to make the music. An assembly line only works if all pieces work together and generate the final product. Both brush, paint and painter need to be present in order to paint. It is this feeling of being connected in the moment that is crucial for A-teams to succeed. M-teams need to get feedback. They need to hear the echo return. They are driven by the effect. They experience the consequences of their actions. Making them not fully present but slightly registering the effect of that what happened.

Space and TEAM

Different teams also have different needs when talking about space. T-teams need a safe space. A space where they can show their vulnerability. A dressing room where they can try on various roles and scenarios. T-teams most likely don’t have a fixed space. They meet at set times and someone hosts. T-teams also spend time in coworking spaces and coffee shops. Spaces that open up contemplation, daydreaming, and imagination. E-teams, on the other hand, need dedicated spaces. They need to model, prototype and test. They need a “womb” in which they can grow and build strength. A-times are becoming one with the space where they work. It stocked with materials that are needed in process of production. Be it that a MacBook is loaded with software programs to make great code or designs or be it that they have many instruments to make music with. M-teams start the break up in space. Everyone has their station. Maybe they don’t physically meet but they just make clear agreements on who does what and when. In order for the “shop” to run everybody needs to play their part. The show must go on. The space for M-teams is open and available to customers. Customers can enter the space and experience the team and their work. M-teams maybe have a stand at a conference. Maybe they are a SaaS service and running the service is the main work now.

Leadership style and TEAM

T-teams especially benefit from one on one mentoring. Team members of T-teams tend to be actively working on their personal development path. T-teams often have no formal structure that allows other leadership roles to be part of the team. E-teams need a supportive coach that focuses on the growth and health of the E-team. E-teams are autonomous and outside of the team there is no leader. E-teams go through turbulent phases where opposite viewpoints need to be bridged. A coach can be essential to mediate the team through these phases and support the team to break through their ceiling of consciousness to a viewpoint that includes both viewpoints. Within the E-team there is a leader that leads through his/her knowledge level but has no formal status. A- teams need a producer that aligns all actions into one harmonious process of assembly. The producer creates the rhythm. Within M-teams we start to think in above and below, in input and output. As the machine starts to manifest so will it’s leader. They will mutually arise.

The main question and TEAM

So there is always one big question the team is working on. T-teams are idealists and purpose driven. There needs to be clear why. As mentioned again it has to do with this willingness to do it. Once a T-team understands why they are willing to help. E-teams are much more about how. They need to remove an “obstacle”. Something is in the way of the desired state. They are riddle solvers. A-teams, on the other hand, are not that interested in abstract values or models, they are more involved in what influences the senses right now. What they hear, see, feel and smell. The physical world enters the picture. M-teams is continuously busy giving everybody a role, changing roles. Who does what, when and where. The overarching question is “who is acting?” Everything becomes an actor in a sense.

The 4 P’s and TEAM

T-teams focus on the potential. Potentiality is a hard word to define but it basically means that the team has an infinite amount of possibilities. Meaning the future is still open. Just like with Schrödinger’s cat the T-teams have a superposition. All the potential is within the team, untapped and barely defined. It is the job of T-teams to show the potential. E-teams have chosen and are chosen. They represent the solution. They represent the promising next generation. E-teams build platforms that serve a set of use cases. Their product is most of the time bigger than a single use case. A-teams produce. The product of these teams is available and can “consumed” by the public. M-teams convert the promise into proof. Where A-teams should be able to create product fit, M-teams create product/market fit. It is the M-team that shows you the case, the working use case.

The Job and TEAM

So somebody needs to pay the teams. It helps a lot if the expectations about what you get in return are aligned between the team and whoever pays the team. This is probably one of the hardest things to swallow for corporations. T and E-teams are paid to discover and learn. Making their output extremely untangible. They contribute enormously in increasing tacit knowledge within the organization through all the experiences they have had. This is probably the most valuable aspect of these teams.

Future horizons and TEAM

The Three Horizons Framework designed by Bill Sharpe is a very intuitive framework to think and express yourself about innovation. It adds nuance to innovation efforts. As Bill says it: “The three horizons are about much, much more than simply stretching our thinking to embrace the short, medium and long-term. They offer a coordinated way of managing innovation, a way of creating transformational change that has a chance of succeeding, a way of dealing with uncertainty and a way of seeing the future in the present.”

First Horizon(H1) — current context and conditions; the focus is managing the current results, and the mindset is that of the operator. H1 projects can be overseen in within a year, solutions are fairly known and the main act is replacement.

Second Horizon(H2) — actions taken in the present to resist change, to adapt to change, or to build on change; the focus is on creating and managing(uhm.. controlling) change, and the mindset is that of the entrepreneur. H2 projects run one or two years, solutions need to emerge and the main act is creation.

Third Horizon(H3) — transformative emerging changes, ideas about possible futures, and visions of preferred futures; the focus is on transformation and disruption, and the mindset is that of the visionary. H3 projects are 5 years out. solutions are now known and the main act is resourcing.

Bill Sharpe doesn't offer a H0 Horizon. Which basically means there is just the present. A-teams live in this world. They live now and make the moment work.

Information processing and TEAM

Carl Jung identified 4 ways to process information: feeling, thinking, intuition and sensing. They fit perfectly with the four type of teams. The inner compass of T-teams are their feelings. T-teams are sensitive. By the act of feeling they can determine what something is worth. They are aware of the impact of their choices. They are aware of the individuals involved and affected, their circumstances, and relationships. E-teams are logic. They like to find the basic truth or principle to be applied, regardless of the specific situation involved. They like to analyze the pros and cons, and then be consistent and logical in deciding. A-teams follow their intuition. Intuition is not an easy to word to grasp but one can say that from some magical internal source information is provided that gives cues about what to do or not to do. M-teams needs to sense and taste in order to make decisions. Where with A-teams the information comes within, with M-teams it is the physical context that needs to be experienced to release cues for decision making.

Mutual dependence and TEAM

The output of one type is the input for the other. For example, an M-team won’t start building an operation if there is no object of attraction first by an A-team. An A-team can only make stuff once “the manuals” are made and the requirements are clear. An E-team can only deliver knowledge once resources are freed up to explore. T-teams need resources to transform them. They are provided by the eroding systems that eject resources that have no further value to the system. This is how the four team types work together in regenerating our world.

Background and details about the classification

These four type of teams can reside anywhere. I have created a classification that is independent of the organizational type or phase of the company(start-up, scale-up or corporation). So you might recognize a T-team as an innovation team within a big corporation or as a visionary founding team of a start-up. Also, teams can migrate from one type to the next as the project they are working on is maturing. If projects are maturing also the team needs to mature and develop a new set of values in order to deliver the work needed with the phase of the project. Team types can also be nested. So an M-team can reside inside a T-team. Of course different type of teams can request support from other types of teams to solve challenges they are not comfortable with to solve.

Most teams won’t fit exactly in one of these categories, most will have a dominant culture that fits with one of the types. By making explicit what type of team you are, you also create clear expectations of the type of work you will do and what you truly value as a team. People understand what they can expect from this team and what not. This way we don’t ask an E-team to improve the conversion of a website or ask an M-team to create a next-generation platform.

Have you figured out in which type of team you are working?

There is lots and lots more to share about team types and how to motivate them, which I will publish in an e-book. If you want to be one of the first to receive the book T.E.A.M. for free then please send me an email at raimovanderklein@gmail.com.

About the author: Raimo van der Klein is an established Team coach and CEO of team coach software company Teamily. Further Raimo consults organizations in the field of organizational design.