What is a team that works smart?

I have been thinking for a long time about what kind of team can truly work "smartly."

It has been about five years since I became a leader.
I pride myself on having thought about this almost every day, without exaggeration.

I feel like we are working quite smartly now, but I haven't been able to put it into words well.

I have read various books, groping in the dark for "words" that could articulate this feeling. But I finally found it. Not as a single word, but as a context.

Here it is.

"Whether or not it is explicitly stated"

Rules are not about decision-making power, but about how to assemble things

In my team, many things are turned into rules.

Since we are in a medical profession, it is inevitable that there are many rules, but since we are dealing with people, there are also many gray areas. After all, we don't really understand the human body at all.

But if we keep doing that, even if it's good in the short term, it will gradually drift apart in the long term. The scope of everyone's work.

When this happens, mistakes start to stand out.

Even things that wouldn't be a problem under normal circumstances can lead to incomprehensible work when done under time pressure or in stressful situations.

Why does this happen?
I have been thinking about this since before I became a leader, and one of the reasons I considered was "deficiencies in the rules."

The rules in this case are a little different from manuals.

A manual, as the name suggests, is a guidebook that details the steps of a task. In other words, it aims for a state where anyone can do it.

So, the rule I'm talking about is 'how to use a manual'.

A manual is a set of procedures for completing a task and achieving results.

In contrast, rule-making is like an agreement within a team that defines when to use that manual—whether it's a situation where the manual should be used or not.

In soccer terms, it's not about how to score a goal, but how to build up the play leading to the goal.

What is known as the build-up.

Do you get the idea?

If a manual is 'individual tactics',
then rules are 'team tactics'.

It's been a long explanation, but I've finally realized that the important thing is whether or not these 'rules' are clearly documented within the team.

For example, like this.

Suppose you have tasks A and B and don't know which one to prioritize. In many teams, I think they would give guidance that doesn't solve the root cause, like 'Learn to make your own decisions!'

But my team is different.
When in doubt, the only option is to 'ask your supervisor'.

There are several purposes for doing it this way.

In some book, it was phrased something like, "Capable leaders give multiple meanings to a single action." I hadn't put it into words like this before, but I have thought the same thing for a long time.

(Well, it's a bit of a frugal mindset, or rather, a simple thought that if you're going to do it anyway, isn't it more convenient to kill two birds with one stone? But modern society clearly has a higher workload than it did 10 years ago.)

If that's the case, I feel it is extremely inefficient for a single action to yield only a single meaning.

It might be fine if members work with a 1-task-to-1-meaning ratio, but if a leader can only provide 1 task to 1 meaning, the team will not grow.

If the team doesn't grow, it cannot work smartly.

Simply putting rules into writing will definitely serve as a starting point for that.

Today, I wrote down some tips that can serve as that "first step to changing the team."