Teams Blog

In my book, The SuddenTeams™ Program, I cover different ways to pay teams that will improve teamwork. A study sponsored by The International Society for Performance Improvement confirmed the value: “tangible incentives in the form of money or awards increase performance an average of 22%.”

In 1907 early psychologist William James wrote, “We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental resources… which only exceptional individuals push to their extremes of use.” In my last post, I mentioned that Americans who quit high school and later take a test to prove similar knowledge do not do as well in their careers as people who stick it out until graduation. You surely know very smart people who do a lousy job of their jobs, or lives.

An exercise at the end of my active listening skills class always produces an interesting insight into human behavior.

The participants are paired off with people they do not know and provided questions to ask each other, like:

Given the praise blanketed on “visionary” leaders, you probably assume they are good for teams. “Visionary leader behavior… can include maintaining high performance expectations, promoting followers’ beliefs in their ability to attain the vision, and helping followers to see how their work fits into the big picture,” a group of Dutch researchers say in a study report. They add, “Initial research shows that visionary behaviors are positively linked to team states, processes, and performance.”

“Leadership scholars are increasingly acknowledging that traditional, unitary approaches to leadership are likely suboptimal in team settings.” Translation: Objective study shows top-down team leadership, the way most business teams are led, is not the best way.

Most startups in America, and many established companies, seem convinced that an open seating arrangement with low-walled cubicles and people facing each other is the best one to foster collaboration. Yet, in my two contracts at Microsoft, I noticed that every regular employee was given his or her own office, or at least a high-walled cubicle shielding everyone within direct view. There’s a disconnect here. Every company would love to have the financial success of Microsoft, so why don’t they adopt Microsoft’s seating arrangements?

Depending on your corporate environment, having factions in your team based on work skills and background may make team members more productive—or less so. Science again brings us a warning that issues like diversity are far more complex than consultants want us to think. It also provides a way around the problem, however.

"People are all, to a greater or lesser degree, storehouses of information," write Bryan Bonner and Michael Baumann. "To the extent that people can effectively pool their knowledge and expertise with others, groups, by extension, become vast resources with immense potential impact." Professors at the Univ. of Utah and Univ. of Texas at San Antonio, respectively, the pair demonstrated a way to tap that potential in a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Reading a few sentences may be enough to help your team answer problems as well as an expert.

This week I wade into an obscure debate about teamwork research, but give me a chance before you click away. In the process, I will hand you a powerful set of arguments to use when a boss pressures you to do something with your team just because it worked with another team. Scientists call that "anecdotal evidence," and over the years have presented solid proof it is often wrong. It isn't always wrong, so if you are presented with a practice that does not take a huge investment, give it a shot.