O slideshow foi denunciado.
Seu SlideShare está sendo baixado. ×

Pursuing the Elusive High Performance Team

Próximos SlideShares
Carregando em…3

Confira estes a seguir

1 de 56 Anúncio

Pursuing the Elusive High Performance Team

Baixar para ler offline

We all remember being on "that team." The team that banded together through tight deadlines to deliver great products. The team that was a safe place for professional conflict. The team that went to lunch and happy hour together. The team that felt more like a family. Now, 20 years after Scrum was first introduced, why are these teams still so scarce? Can we intentionally reproduce those outcomes? This presentation will fill some of the (intentional) gaps left in Scrum by its creators by exploring the leading research on high performance teams.

We all remember being on "that team." The team that banded together through tight deadlines to deliver great products. The team that was a safe place for professional conflict. The team that went to lunch and happy hour together. The team that felt more like a family. Now, 20 years after Scrum was first introduced, why are these teams still so scarce? Can we intentionally reproduce those outcomes? This presentation will fill some of the (intentional) gaps left in Scrum by its creators by exploring the leading research on high performance teams.


Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Diapositivos para si (20)

Semelhante a Pursuing the Elusive High Performance Team (20)


Mais recentes (20)

Pursuing the Elusive High Performance Team

  1. 1. Pursuing the ‘High Performance’ Team
  2. 2. Me • Ben Thorp • Passionate about teams • Family guy • ISFJ • Zombie fiction + Leadership
  3. 3. What We’ll Cover What do the experts say about teams? 01 Why use teams? 02 How can we increase team effectiveness? 03 Bringing it all together! 04
  4. 4. When people work together to finish a job, such as building a house, the job will probably: a) Get finished faster. b) Take longer to finish. c) Not get done.
  5. 5. Kids Dislike Groups “One person not doing anything, doesn’t know how, or can’t focus” “Some people don’t know how to act around people" “People want to be in the spotlight, just get attention” “People get distracted by stories not related to the work” “Groups don’t work when the smart person gets sick” “It’s hard when the teacher keeps rearranging the groups” “People don’t listen and do whatever they want” “Doesn’t work if people do nothing or one person does everything” “You have to have the right type of people”
  6. 6. Does this match your experience?
  7. 7. Richard Hackman Harvard Professor Nation’s Expert on Teams Author of Leading Teams “Research … almost always finds that individuals outperform the teams.”
  8. 8. Richard Hackman Harvard Professor Nation’s Expert on Teams Author of Leading Teams “More commonly, teamwork really does take longer to finish or doesn't even get done at all.”
  9. 9. Richard Hackman Harvard Professor Nation’s Expert on Teams Author of Leading Teams "…teams can stress their members, alienate them from one another, and undermine their confidence in their own abilities. [many teams] provide their members with significantly less personal learning and satisfaction than they could."
  10. 10. Amy C. Edmondson Harvard Professor Thought Leader on Teams Author of Teaming “… achieving the tremendous potential of teams is far more challenging than many expect - and successful teamwork is thus still elusive in many organizations."
  11. 11. Patrick Lencioni President of The Table Group Author of: 5 Dysfunctions of a Team "Genuine teamwork in most organizations remains as elusive as it has ever been."
  12. 12. Julia Rozovsky Lead Analyst at Google: Project Aristotle ‘‘I always felt like I had to prove myself.’’ The team’s dynamics could put her on edge. When the group met, teammates sometimes jockeyed for the leadership position or criticized one another’s ideas. There were conflicts over who was in charge and who got to represent the group in class. ‘‘People would try to show authority by speaking louder or talking over each other. I always felt like I had to be careful not to make mistakes around them."
  13. 13. Richard Hackman Harvard Professor Nation’s Expert on Teams Author of Leading Teams “When you have a team, the possibility exists that it will generate magic… But don’t count on it. …having a team is often worse than having no team at all.”
  14. 14. What do we mean by “team?”
  15. 15. Google - Team vs/ Workgroup Workgroups Teams Low interdependence Highly interdependent Based on hierarchy Plan their own work, solve problems, make decisions Meet periodically to share information Team members need one another to get work done Have independent goals Commit to each other and shared goals
  16. 16. Drucker’s Team Typology Type Examples Roles Inputs Work Outputs Work Type Evaluation Leadership Work Team Baseball, Cover Band Fixed, same function Stable Series Known, Repeata ble Labor intensive Individual Directive Cross- functional Team Football, Hospital, Orchestra Fixed, diff. functions Mostly stable Parallel Variable within Range Skill intensive Individual and Team Directive w/ flexibility Self- managed Team Tennis Doubles, Jazz Ensemble Dynamic, shared functions Unstable Dynamic Highly variable, Unique Knowledge intensive Team Facilitative
  17. 17. Richard Hackman - A “Real” Team Clear Boundaries Authority Shared Goals Membership Stability
  18. 18. If teams are so hard, why use them? What are the benefits?
  19. 19. Google’s Project Aristotle Innovate faster See mistakes more quickly Find better solutions Higher job satisfaction Profitability increases
  20. 20. Why Teams? Manage Complexity Collective Intelligence Organizational Learning
  21. 21. A Cautionary Tale
  22. 22. Edmondson - Process Knowledge Spectrum GM was operating here… … but the industry shifted here
  23. 23. Complexity
  24. 24. Where does your work fit on the complexity spectrum?
  25. 25. Collective Intelligence
  26. 26. Peter Senge Systems Scientist MIT Lecturer Founder: Society for Organizational Learning "The organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the organizations that discover how to tap people's commitment and capacity to learn at all levels in an organization“
  27. 27. Organizational Learning Organizations cannot engage in learning like an individual can - yet, when individuals learn this does not always create change in how the org operates. Amy C. Edmondson, Teaming
  28. 28. Why Teams? Manage Complexity Collective Intelligence Organizational Learning
  29. 29. How do you define “High Performing?”
  30. 30. Effectiveness at Google Executives Results Team Members Culture Team Leads Ownership, Vision, Goals
  31. 31. Hackman Effectiveness Model Successful Outcomes • Satisfied stakeholders • Objectives met or exceeded Team Capability • Collective skills increase over time • Discover better ways of working Individual Learning • Personal fulfillment • Growth and learning High Performance
  32. 32. What conditions lead to High Performance?
  33. 33. Fact or Fiction? High performing teams… Have members that stay together for a long time Perform work harmoniously and have little conflict Share similar educational backgrounds Have an influential leader Are larger teams because they have more diversity Socialize often outside of work Are composed of similar personality types Share similar hobbies
  34. 34. Hackman Model Real Team Compelling Direction Enabling Structure Supportive Context Expert Coaching Seedling Nutrients
  35. 35. Lencioni Model • Attention to shared team goals over individual needs • Unrelenting focus on clearly defined outcomes Results • Calling out harmful performance and behaviors • Positive peer pressure Accountability • Team buy-in (not consensus) • Hear all -> Disagree -> Decision -> One voice Commitment • Speak up without punishment • Best outcome in shortest time Conflict • Requires vulnerability • No reason to be careful Trust
  36. 36. Edmundson Model Speaking up Accept perceived risk of being direct Collaboration Cooperation, mutual respect, shared goals Experimentation Expecting to not be right the first time Reflection Critically examine result to uncover new ideas
  37. 37. Google Model - Challenges "No matter how researchers arranged the data, though, it was almost impossible to find patterns - or any evidence that the composition of a team made any difference.“ ‘‘We had lots of data, but there was nothing showing that a mix of specific personality types or skills or backgrounds made any difference. The ‘who’ part of the equation didn’t seem to matter.’’ ‘‘At Google, we’re good at finding patterns,’’ Dubey said. ‘‘There weren’t strong patterns here.’’
  38. 38. Google Model Psychological Safety • Team members feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other Dependability • Team members get things done on time and meet Google’s high bar for excellence Structure & Clarity • Team members have clear roles, plans, and goals Meaning • Work is personally important to team members Impact • Team members think their work matters and creates change
  39. 39. The Taboo WordFeelings
  40. 40. Collective Intelligence “…what distinguished the "good" from the dysfunctional was how teammates treated one another.“
  41. 41. Psychological Safety Equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking High average social sensitivity
  42. 42. Mind in the Eyes Test
  43. 43. To build a high performing team, what individual qualities would you look for?
  44. 44. Team of All Stars?
  45. 45. Individual Qualities for Team Success Empathic Respect for the feelings of others Dependable Team can rely on them to do their job Courageous Willingness to speak up
  46. 46. Required Conditions for High Performance Psychological Safety Real Team Structure Purpose & Meaning Coaching & Support Experimentation Emotionally Intelligent People
  47. 47. Clear Boundaries Authority Shared Goals Membership Stability Successful Outcomes Team Capability Individual Learning Psychological Safety Team Structure Purpose & Meaning Coaching & Support Experimentation Emotionally Intelligent People Traits of High Performing Team MembersDefinition of “Real” Teams Definition of High Performance Required Conditions for High Performance Empathic Respect for the feelings of others Dependable Team can rely on them to do their job Courageous Willingness to speak up
  48. 48. Bonus - Scrum Done Well Psychological Safety Scrum values ? Real team structure Scrum Development Team Stability Purpose & Meaning Product Owner Value-ordered Backlog Sprint Goal Coaching & Org Support Scrum Master ? Reflection & Experimentation Sprint timebox Sprint Review Sprint Retrospective Emotionally Intelligent People ?
  49. 49. Ever experienced magic? What was it like?
  50. 50. Team Magic “Everybody was listening to everyone’s ideas.” “Everyone was participating because the task was fun.” “I like working with my friends, we complement each other’s skills.” “Ellie is a good leader but doesn’t do all the work.” “If you don’t like someone’s idea, I can usually just come out and say it. If it’s a person I don’t know – I would build on the bad idea to make it seem good.” “If someone is misbehaving, I tell them to stop.” “I wasn’t told exactly what to do.” “My favorite teacher – I look at her as a person, not a teacher.”
  51. 51. How is your team doing?
  52. 52. You’re Awesome! Thank You! Ben.r.thorp@gmail.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjaminrthorp/

Notas do Editor

  • What we will not cover… retrospective techniques, fun games, agile practices (story mapping)
  • Question from a 4th grade Ohio citizenship test

    we know teams are the best way to work, intuitively

    Not a trick question
  • Like Voltron – where each lion on its own is effective but when they form together they create something even greater than the sum of its parts.

    This is our intuitive feel about teams.
  • So here’s another test. Which one were you in high school or college?

    Wife – school project, had a near perfect A, almost went down to a B because of one person did poorly on their part of the project.

    Brother-in-law – got stuck being the leader because no one else on the project would contribute and he was the only one that showed any initiative.
  • I asked all 3 “do you like group work” and got an emphatic “NO”

    Their responses when asked why
  • My Experience:

    Only ever achieved marginal success
    Expensive to get just OK results
    Feedback from a large number of people – they dislike the Agile environment
    Never any breaks in agile
    Hate the open space, no privacy
    Can’t focus
    As a leader – thrust into the SM role without much mentorship or guidance
    Management supporting teams not trained on teams
    Certifications don’t make a leader
    I’ve seen occasional magic – and want more!
    Intentional gaps in the Scrum framework – Scrum Guide is not really a “guide” to building teams, truly is just a framework
    Teams in the enterprise were diluted, slow, lacked energy, mechanical, boring – manufacturing mindset still in place
    SM expected to drive team performance – but often lacked management support to make changes
    Pains Integrating with a waterfall enterprise
  • So, what do the experts say?

    Richard Hackman – still one of the leading experts on teams. Died in 2013. Author of Leading Teams.
  • Amy C Edmondson – author of Teaming and colleague of Hackman. Harvard professor, known thought leader on leadership and teams.
  • Author of 5 Dysfunctions of a Team
  • Lead analyst for the well known Project Aristotle at Google
  • THIS is the puzzle

    Richard Hackman – still one of the leading experts on teams. Died in 2013. Author of Leading Teams.
  • Ask them to differentiate between Team and just a collection of individuals
  • Quick definition – let’s level set on what defines a team

  • Important to acknowledge that there are different types of teams


    Some tasks are not appropriate
    Creative writing is difficult to do for a group
    Peter Drucker described 3 classic types of teams
    Baseball team
    Players have fixed roles and positions
    Performance is largely independent of how the others are doing
    Can act to optimize their own performance to help the team excel
    Still have fixed roles
    But have to focus on interactions
    Doubles tennis / Jazz ensemble
    Constantly have to sense and react to others
    How much integration and interdependence do you want? Have to match the type of team to the needs
    Linda Hill - Gasner, CEO of BMG - formed a team
    Team members were dissatisfied
    They had different expectations of the type of team
    Gassner viewed team as a baseball team, but others thought of it as an orchestra

  • http://www.arch.ttu.edu/courses/2005/summeri/4601/Team_Building/Peter%20Druckers%20on%20Teams.pdf
  • Flip back to the typology slide
  • “which results from having a shared task, clear boundaries which clarify who is inside or outside of the group, and stability in group membership.”

    Note on stability – airline cockpit crew study.

    Shared Goals – difference between individuals climbing a mountain, and a team climbing a mountain where they cannot place their flag until everyone reaches the top.

    Has to match the task at hand
    Some tasks are more appropriate for individuals
    Sometimes have a leader and a set of direct reports who meet frequently, but they are not really a team
    Don Hamburg - A real team is "behaviorally integrated" - interdependence on the team, sharing of info, collaboration, joint decision making
    Clear boundaries - who is on the team? Different people show up to meetings? Who is RESPONSIBLE for achieving goals?
    Authority - what decision rights does the team have? What is their charge as a team? Often this is not clear
    Membership stability
    Excessive stability can be negative.
    Airplane cockpit crews in commercial airlines - Hackman sites - national transportation safety board
    74% of incidents happen with new crews on first day
    Almost 50% of these happen on first flight on that first day
    Fatigued crews do better than rested crews, if they have stayed together longer
    Loyalty, commitment, shared successes and failures
  • So we’ve defined “team”, now switching gears to why teams?
  • All good reasons. We want to dig in even further, see next slide.
  • Some of my thoughts…
    Few individuals have all the knowledge, skills, abilities
    We are tribal by nature
    Increased eyes on – fewer mistakes
    Forming meaningful, lasting relationships
    Increase organizational learning

    Collective Intelligence, Manage Complexity, Increase Learning – some reasons for teams that may not be so obvious, but what the research shows…
  • So bare with me, going to tell a story. Then flip back to the team typology slide – They were managing as a “work team” with stable inputs and outputs

    GM one of the worlds most successful companies of all time
    1908, #1 in 1931, stayed there for 76 years
    Predictability and control dominated management thinking
    1970 – nearly twice the size of the #2, Exxon Mobil
    1980 – 350,000 employees
    Grew through successful high volume execution and centralized control
    2008 lost its crown as “king of the carmakers”
    2009 filed for bankruptcy
    Why – “Managerial mindset that enables efficient execution actually inhibits an organizations ability to learn and innovate.”
    Inhibits reflection and experimentation
    This belief persists today – that a focus on productivity, “performance is a simple function of native ability plus effort expended”
    Works well when knowledge of the what and how is well developed

  • What does this have to do with teams? – We work in a complex environment. No one person can hold all the knowledge. No one manager can control all inputs and outputs. We have to utilize the right organizational structure to manage complexity.

    Centralized Process Control
    Desired outputs are fully known
    Processes, tools, technologies are defined
    Work can be distilled down to simple tasks
    Stable environment
    Focus on individual worker efficiency
    No requirement for free thinking or worker feedback
    Not limited to blue-collar – Organization Man
    Bound by processes, rules, hierarchy, fear

    Changing workplace
    Workplace is changing –manufacturing mindset is no longer effective
    Staggering increase in knowledge (complexity)
    1960 – 100 articles, Today over 10,000
    Managers can no longer control every aspect of the system
    Product development is complex, black box

    Complex Adaptive Systems
    Found in nature (ant colony)
    Dynamic and adaptable
    Feedback loops
    Cannot easily predict outcomes
    Self-regulate (sometimes sub-optimally)
    Self-organize in reaction to external and internal stimuli
  • Where do you think software or product development falls?

    What are some examples of Simple and Complex work environments?

    Don’t forget that the more people involved, the more complex an environment becomes.
  • 2008 Study – was impactful to the Google Project Aristotle team

    So why teams? There is lots of research on poor performing teams, some also points to a collective intelligence.


    Revisit later with the findings on what influenced group intelligence and what didn’t
  • Systems scientist, MIT lecturer

    Peter Michael Senge is an American systems scientist who is a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management, co-faculty at the New England Complex Systems Institute, and the founder of the Society for Organizational Learning

    Lead-in to next slide: need new structures for learning – teams!
  • Radically different mindset
    Focuses less on ensuring processes are followed than on helping it evolve
    Integrate small learnings into day-to-day work
    “Reflection in action” vs “reflection after action”
    Need problem solvers and experimenters
    Learning from doing
    Did WE learn vs/ Did YOU do it right
    Integrated expertise
    Analyze process variance to adapt and improve
    Failure is seen as an opportunity to improve learning
    Works well when path forward is not clear
  • Just a re-cap, this part was a bit meaty
  • So we have a good gut feel for what makes teams “effective.” But what does “effective” mean? Ask the audience.
  • No simple definition of effectiveness so look at it from different participants. So, they asked their people.

    …qualitative evaluations helped capture a nuanced look at results and culture, but had inherent subjectivity. On the other hand, the quantitative metrics provided concrete team measures, but lacked situational considerations. These four measures in combination, however, allowed researchers to home in on the comprehensive definition of team effectiveness.

    So… their answer is really “it depends” on who you are, but to aggregate all definitions of team effectiveness.

  • Team product acceptable to clients
    Growth in team capability
    Team becomes increasingly capable over time as team members gain experience and discover new and better ways of working together
    Meaningful and satisfying growth experience
    Team members can find a good measure of personal learning and fulfillment

    From “Effectiveness at Google” slide…
    Executives care about outcomes
    Team Members care about culture
    “Teams” focus on team capability growth
  • We’ve defined effective, so what do you think a team needs to BE effective?
  • Who disagrees with this statement? If so – is your definition of team effectiveness one dimensional?
  • According to the research, last one is the only one that is true

    Teams who perform work harmoniously perform better than those that have lots of conflict
    A primary "cause" of team dynamics is the behavioral style of the team "leader", especially the degree to which he or she is authoritative or democratic
    Larger teams perform better than smaller teams because they have more, and more diverse member resources
    The performance of teams whose membership stays intact for a long time often deteriorates because team members get careless, insufficiently attentive to environmental changes, and too forgiving on one another's mistakes and oversights
    The best teams socialize often outside of work
    The best teams are composed of similar personality types
    The best teams share similar hobbies
    The best teams share similar educational backgrounds
  • Without the Essentials, it’s best not to use teams

    “Well-designed team is the seedling, supportive context and expert coaching provide the nutrients needed for the team to grow.”

    Coaching: “About building teamwork, not doing the team’s work”

    Richard Hackman developed a synthetic, research-based model for designing and managing work groups. Hackman suggested that groups are successful when they satisfy internal and external clients, develop capabilities to perform in the future, and when members find meaning and satisfaction in the group. Hackman proposed five conditions that increase the chance that groups will be successful.

    Core Conditions:
    Being a real team (rather than in name only)
    Compelling direction for its work
    Enabling structure that facilitates teamwork
    Like Scrum. The best structures provide a solid platform for collaboration and creative work while allowing room for them to develop their own ways of operating.

    Maximizing Benefits:
    Supportive organizational context
    Reward system (how are employees incentivized), information system, educational system
    Expert Coaching
    Direct interaction with the team to help members use their collective resources. Provide feedback. Asking reflective questions.
    “About building teamwork, not doing the team’s work”
  • Trust
    Foundation, but has to be real vulnerability-based trust
    Confidence in speaking openly about: weaknesses, skill deficiencies, interpersonal shortcomings, mistakes, requests for help
    Sounds soft… but it is only when team members are truly comfortable - they can focus their energy on the task at hand

    Trust makes productive conflict possible. Team members know they can speak up without being punished.
    Purpose is to produce the best possible outcome in the shortest possible time
    Avoiding results in revisiting issues again and again

    Conflict allows for real team commitment where all team members buy-in (but not consensus) because they have had their opinions heard. Info resides in the minds of team members, needs to be extracted.
    Hear all -> Disagree -> Decision -> One voice (from http://bertparlee.com/training/5-dysfunctions-of-team/)

    In order for team members to hold each other accountable, they have to know what was expected and what the team decision was.
    Positive peer pressure – allows for team members to set high expectations for behavior and performance

    If no Accountability, team members are more likely to shift attention to their own needs. Invites team member to focus on areas other than the shared team goals.
    Unrelenting focus on objectives and clearly defined outcomes.
    Caution: "no amount of trust, conflict, commitment, or accountability can compensate for a lack of desire to win"
  • Speaking up
    Not as common - research shows an overall lack of directness in the workplace
    Overdetermined by human nature and by specific realities of the modern economy
    Hard wired to overestimate rather than underestimate certain types of risk
    Better for survival to flee from threats that weren't really there than to not flee when there was a real risk
    Inherited emotional and cognitive mechanisms that lead us to avoid perceived risks to our well-being
    "A way of working with colleagues that is characterized by cooperation, mutual respect, and shared goals
    Expecting not to be right the first time
    Learning from the results of action
    Experimentation behavior involves reaching out to others to assess the impact of one's actions on them
    Reflection is the habit of critically examining the results of actions to assess results and uncover new ideas.
    Reflection-in-action is the critical, real-time examination of a process so it can be adjusted based on new knowledge or in response to subtle feedback received from the work itself
    This is enacted in iterative cycles
  • Project Aristotle
    2012 - study of hundreds of google teams - why did some stumble and others soar?
    Reviewed half-century of studies of how teams work
    Scrutinized group composition at Google
    How often did teammates socialize outside the office
    Share same hobbies?
    How long teams stuck together
    Gender balance

    Became focused on building the perfect team
    Spent millions measuring nearly every aspect of employees' lives
    From how frequently people eat together
    (the most productive employees tend to build larger networks by rotating dining companions)
    To which traits the best managers share
    Obviously, good communication and avoiding micromanaging is critical - which was news to many Google managers
    Long held belief that the best teams were comprised of the best people
    "Its better to put introverts together"
    "Teams are more effective when everyone is friends away from work"
    But… no one had really studied if this was true

    These didn’t seem to matter as much:
    Colocation of teammates (sitting together in the same office)
    Consensus-driven decision making
    Extroversion of team members
    Individual performance of team members
    Workload size
    Team size

    NOTE: these things still do matter in the research, but just didn't "pop" at Google
  • Psychological Safety
    Team members feel safe to take risks and be vulnerable in front of each other
    Team members get things done on time and meet Google’s high bar for excellence
    Structure & Clarity
    Team members have clear roles, plans, and goals
    Work is personally important to team members
    Team members think their work matters and creates change
  • I’m going to do something you’ve probably never seen before and show a word, a taboo word, makes people uncomfortable to think about let alone discuss opening. Ready?


    The problem is… no one wants to talk about feelings! But all the research points to the best teams being those who can acknowledge each other’s feelings
  • “Teams that did well on one assignment usually did well on all the others.”

    What didn’t seem to matter
    Average Individual intelligence
    Maximum individual intelligence

    wrote in the journal Science in 2010
    Divided 699 people into groups with assignments requiring varying degrees of cooperation
    e.g. - different uses of a brick
    Some came up with clever uses, others kept redescribing the same use
    e.g. - planning a shopping trip which encouraged sacrifice of individual needs over team needs
    Some easily divvied up the buying, others couldn't fill their shopping carts because no one was willing to compromise
    Teams that did well on one assignment usually did well on all the others
    Conversely teams that failed usually failed at everything
    Eventually concluded that "what distinguished the "good" teams from the dysfunctional groups was how teammates treated one another."
    The right norms could raise a group's collective intelligence
    Wrong norms could hobble a team, even if individually all members were exceptionally bright
    Not all good teams behaved the same
    Some with a bunch of smart people
    Others with average members but took advantage of individual skills
    Strong leaders
    More fluid and everyone took a leadership role

  • Team members spoke in roughly the same proportion - "equality in distribution of conversational turn-taking"
    As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well
    "High average social sensitivity" - skilled at intuiting how others felt based on their tone of voice, expressions, other nonverbal cues
    e.g. - show picture of eyes and describe what they are thinking or feeling
    "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test
    Low performing teams seemed to have less sensitivity toward their colleagues

    Consists of traits like "conversational turn-taking", "average social sensitivity"
    "Shared believe held by members of a team that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking"
    "sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up
    "a team climate characterized by interpersonal trust and mutual respect in which people are comfortable being themselves"
    Edmondson wrote in a study published in 1999
    From google
    Leader was "direct and straightforward, which creates a safe space for you to take risks."
    In contrast - "team leader has poor emotional control" "he panics over small issues and keeps trying to grab control. I would hate to be driving with him in the passenger seat, because he would keep trying to grab the steering wheel and crash the car."
    How does it "feel" to be on the team
    Totally exhausting or gaining energy?
    Enthusiasm for ideas, joking around, having fun - allowed everyone to feel relaxed and energized

  • One way of gauging social sensitivity

    Answer is panicked

    Interesting note: I scored a 34 / 36 on this. Validates my previous self assessment of being hyper aware of people’s feelings. This is good and bad, or neither good nor bad. Yes I am aware of how people are feeling which helps me working through challenging conversations. But being so aware of how people feel, I tend to shy away from situations that will put people in a negative emotional state. Makes risk taking more… risky.
  • We haven’t talked about people much – how would you staff a world-class team?
  • Of course people matter but not in the way you think. See “Dependability” on the google framework. They think it’s the 2nd most important thing.

    2004 USA men's olympic team
    Earned bronze
    Lost 3 games - more than the team had lost in the history
    Had star individuals
    Alan Iverson - scoring titles, MVP
    Tim Duncan - his team won 2 championships, 2 MVPs
    Dwayne Wade - multiple champs
    Lebron James - ROY, multiple MVPs
    Didn’t have complimentary skills
    Hadn’t played together before
    Didn’t understand each other's roles
    Didn't train together
  • My aggregation – and things I personally find valuable
  • Putting all the pieces together
  • For printing, do not delete
  • The point is that Scrum done well covers most of what we talked about. But the Scrum guide is not enough.
  • When asked about their favorite group experience:

    Elise: best group? Because everybody was listening to everyone's ideas. Everyone was participating because the task was fun
    Ava: like working with my friends. Complement each other's skills. Ellie is a good leader but doesn't do all the work.
    Ava: if you don't like someone's idea, I usually just come out and say it. If it's a person I don't know - I would build on the bad idea to make it seem good
    Elise: if you don't like someone's idea, I would say "that's a good idea", but then ask if there any better ideas
    Ava (same with Elise): if someone is misbehaving, I tell them to stop. If they don't, I tell on them
    Ava: I prefer not to be told exactly what to do. (my favorite teacher) - I look at her as a person, not a teacher