A contributor has an expectation of success and looks for opportunities to facilitate that success. A burden has an expectation of failure and devotes a considerable amount of time on activities designed to ensure escaping the blame for that failure. Both contributors and burdens focus their talents and energies on satisfying their desires; however, it is only the contributor that aligns his or her desires with the common good of the team. The desire of the burden is just to get something, get away with something, or both. The concept of the common good isn't even something they acknowledge, much less comprehend. A burden is just that, a burden.

So, once the effective leader has culled out the burdens from the contributors, the next step is to provide each and every burden the opportunity to convert to being a contributor. This opportunity, however, should not be extended indefinitely, and in fact, should really only be extended for the briefest of periods. If (and there are those who would argue that the appropriate word at this point is not "if," but "when") it becomes apparent that a burden has chosen not to avail himself of the opportunity for conversion, the next logical step is to simply release the burden, or as one of my early supervisors used to say, "Free them up for other opportunities."

I was once struggling with a major project that was in danger of falling significantly behind schedule, and while the majority of my team members were high performance contributors, there was one individual who just could not seem to make the transition from a lifetime of habitual burdenhood. Finally, I had no other alternative but to release him for whatever other opportunities he could obtain for himself. This drew sharp criticism from the customer, particularly from my management counterpart within the customer organization (who was, unfortunately, another significant burden on the project). However, the productivity of the team actually increased with the reduction in staff, as measured by the number of tasks accomplished during specified reporting periods.

By simply removing this negative influence on the remainder of the team, the collective unit was able to accomplish more work in less time. To do more with less is often the task assigned to many a manager, but just as often the answer is found less in the right techniques and the right tools and more in the right approach to the utilization of the available human resources.

Process before product
So let's say you've successfully navigated through the various trials and tribulations of high-performance team building, and you've created a lean, mean productivity machine. As an effective leader, you want to equip that team with the best tools and techniques available so that they can go out and conquer the world. Still, our counsel at this point is to pull in on the reins and gently suggest that you don't get out that checkbook just yet.