Why Most Team Norms Don’t Change Behavior

It’s bad enough to be on a team whose members constantly struggle when it comes to making tough decisions and handling disagreements. But imagine if you were legally prohibited from addressing these and other communications issues as a team?

That’s the case with a local five-person municipal governing board I recently worked with. The only time they are permitted to have discussions with more than one other team member must take place during their bimonthly public meetings. “Open meeting” laws require that every substantive exchange has to happen in front of constituents, on the record. Violations can be costly.

Now imagine that same board has been struggling for years with recurring issues like these: Last-minute agenda changes that make preparation almost impossible, no agreed-upon framework for making decisions or handling conflict, and decisions that never get implemented because no one’s ever really sure who is accountable.

That was the situation facing one municipal board I facilitated recently. To abide by the Open Meeting law, we could not discuss any town business.

During our three-hour workshop, board members realized for the first time that they shared some of the same frustrations, making it relatively easy to create a shared set of operating norms addressing the greatest sources of friction. By the end, they agreed on explicit norms governing these areas: meeting preparation and agenda creation, making decisions, navigating through disagreements, accountability for follow-through.

People filed out of the room visibly relieved to finally have the kind of honest, constructive conversation they had all been longing for. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive. It felt like a breakthrough. And it was, maybe.

When norms become virtually meaningless

I’ve worked with dozens of organizations to guide their creation of shared operating norms. Whether it’s a global behemoth, a mid-size nonprofit, or a public sector entity, I see the same thing: They spend hours (or days!) creating shared norms that all agree to, walk away with a tidy list, and then slowly revert to old habits. Why? The norms may not have been fully defined in the first place, and team members may not have discussed who’s responsible enforcing them.

For example, a norm like “We come prepared to every meeting” sounds straightforward enough. But what does prepared actually mean? Reading the agenda? Reviewing background materials? Formulating a position? Coming up with questions? Without a shared definition, five people can each believe they’re honoring the norm while behaving in markedly different ways.

Even when an explicit norm is established, it becomes meaningless when people aren’t living up to it. Without an agreement about accountability and enforcement, most people tend to say nothing when someone violates a norm, often because they’re not sure it’s their place. No one wants to be the only person chiding others. Without consistent enforcement, team members quickly learn that their norms have no real meaning.

Essential questions every team needs to answer

Whether your team is a public board, a leadership team, or a cross-functional project group, creating shared norms that will change behavior requires much more than a list. For each norm your team agrees on, make sure you also discuss:

Why do we need norms, anyway? What’s going on within our team that makes creating norms so important right now? What’s the impact if we let things go on as they are? Where would norms most help to reduce friction, misunderstandings or frustration? As a group, come up with a comprehensive list of possible areas to tackle, probing to better understand the potential impact of explicit norms.

Where should we focus first? I typically interview and poll representative team members to get a better sense of where they think their team most needs to start. Don’t be overly ambitious. Creating shared norms that have staying power require in-depth discussions. Pick one or two areas to start. Be realistic about how much time the group can devote to this effort in the near-term and over time. Typical starting points include consistent team communications channels or meeting participation.

What principles inform our norms? As a group, agree on overarching values or principles to guide the creation of norms in each area. Norms that don’t tie back to shared principles and values may not be taken seriously. Let’s say that the use of team communication channels is the focus area. A principle might be: “All team members can access all project-related information quickly and easily from wherever they are.” Specific norms might address responsibilities for updating content, ease and speed of access, editing rights, and notifications.

What does this norm look like in practice? Describe specific behavior or actions team members are expected to follow. “We’ll come prepared” becomes “We will review the pre-read materials and come with at least one question or perspective to share.” Or, “We will clear our calendars and desktops so we can fully participate during the entire meeting.” Or maybe, “We share our agendas at least two working days before our meetings.”

What does a transgression look like? Many teams skip this conversation because they implicitly assume that everyone will automatically adhere to the norms. Naming what not honoring a norm looks like makes it easier to recognize and easier to address without it feeling personal. Examples of norms that are often violated: Asking questions that would not be necessary if they had done the pre-work, flagrant multitasking, shutting off camera and mic, or passing up every opportunity to contribute.

How will we hold each other accountable? This needs to be agreed upon in the room, rather than figured out later. Who can raise a concern? How? In what setting? For the board I worked with, this was especially tricky because accountability conversations have to happen in public. That constraint made it even more important to agree in advance on how they’d handle norm violations with diplomacy and grace. Many people tend to shy away from calling out their peers, especially when they are unclear whether they are empowered to do so. As you create norms, note how each will be enforced and by whom.

At what point should we revisit our norms? Norms that fit a team in January may not serve them well in June. Build in a scheduled check-in, even a brief one, to ask what’s working, what doesn’t make sense in practice and why, what tweaks are needed, and what new norms have emerged? You may find that some norms that sounded good around the table can’t be easily applied in real-life situations. Better to call it out earlier that later. Norms are designed for the rule rather than the exception. If you find that a norm has too many exceptions, it’s time to revise it or perhaps get rid of it altogether.

Taking stock and starting fresh

Think about the last set of norms or operating agreements your team created. Did you get specific enough about what each one actually means? Did you tie them back to values and principles? Did you pressure-test them using real-life scenarios? Did you agree what to do when someone falls short? Have team members held themselves accountable?

If the answer is “not really,” join the club. It’s never too late to start over. You can begin the conversation by asking which existing norms make sense and whether people are adhering to them. If not, probe to understand why. Your team may feel that an existing norm needs just a few minor tweaks, while some norms may require a complete overhaul. In any event, invest the time in discussing what behavior, exactly, needs to change and how team members will hold each other, and themselves, accountable for upholding these norms. Only then will your team’s norms have staying power in the real world.

P.S. This newsletter never was, and never will be, written with AI.