Tag Archives: Leadership

Planning is Everything… If You Know How To Plan (Part 1)

In the next two minutes, you will learn what planning is and why it is a critical enabler in today’s VUCA world.

The above General Eisenhower quote and similar ones by Perter Drucker, Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke, and Mike Tyson, are peppered in leadership and team-building presentations at conferences, company off-sites, and in blog posts. Although powerful—just as strategically hanging posters of your company values above water coolers does nothing to change your organizational values—sharing a planning quote at the beginning of your planning sessions does nothing to improve your organization’s planning capability.

Background. As an Agile Coach with a military strategic and operational planning background, I’ve noticed that very few organizations and coaches know how to plan. A common planning mistake organizations make is throwing a group of people into a room for one, two, or three days to “plan” without showing them how to plan. As a trained and experienced military planner, I know that the science and art of planning (knowing how to plan) must be learned, practiced, and reinforced at every level of an organization.

Knowing how to plan is a human interaction skill and when combined with other cognitive and social skills such as closed-loop communication, the emergence of a collaborative and innovative organization becomes possible. 

What is planning? 

  • The primary goal of planning is not the development of detailed plans that inevitably must be changed; a more enduring goal is the development of teams and organizations who can cope with VUCA
  • Planning provides an awareness and opportunity to study potential future events amongst multiple alternatives in a controlled environment. Through planning, we begin to understand the complex systems we are trying to modulate.
  • Planning is an anticipatory decision making process that helps teams and organizations cope with complexities
  • Planning is continuous.
  • Planning is Fractal. A stand-up is a fractal of a sprint planning session. A meeting should be a fractal of a strategic planning session.
  • Planning is part of problem solving.

Why Plan? 

  • Builds individual and team situational awareness and the organization’s sensemaking capability
  • Helps build leadership skills
  • Planning helps individuals, teams, and leaders anticipate the future
  • Planning helps organizations navigate complexity
  • Planning helps individuals, teams, and organizations understand the system (operational environment) 

How to Plan?

For how to plan, I will save that for another day. There are great planning processes out there that an organization can start practicing today. In Part 2, I will provide a Rubric that will inform your planning how.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams and organizations.

References 

Norman M. Wade. The Battle Staff Smartbook: Doctrinal Guide to Military Decision Making & Tactical Operations. Lightning Press, 2005

JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, 11 August 2011

Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), March 2015. http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/15-06_0.pdf

Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print

Share This:

Planning is Everything… If You Know How to Plan (Part 2)

In Part 1, I provided the “What” and “Why” of planning. The intent of Part 2 is to provide organizational leaders a planning Rubric, one that organizations can use to evaluate the adoption of a third-party’s planning process or to help leaders in the development of their organization’s planning “How.”

Based on my experience, training, and education in iterate planning, here are 10 criteria I find essential for any planning process:

  1. Context
  2. Goals | Objectives | Commander’s Intent
  3. Anticipate the Future
  4. Mitigate Cognitive Biases | Challenge Assumptions | Reduce Risk
  5. Low-Tech, High-Touch
  6. Contingency Plan
  7. Retrospective… Part of the Plan
  8. Simple
  9. Iterative
  10. Designate/Rotate the Facilitator

1. Context

You must understand your operating environment (system). Is your operating environment ordered, complex, or chaotic? Not sure? Use the Cynefin framework to help make sense of your context before developing your mission goals, objectives, or Commander’s Intent.

2. Goals | Objectives | Commander’s Intent

If you are operating in an ordered system, then you should be able to establish clear, measureable, and achievable objectives (SMART goals/objectives are okay if you like redundancy). However, this is an unlikely scenario given the amount of VUCA in most operational environments.

For organizations and teams that operate in a complex system—which should be most organizations and teams—using a defined outcome such as SMART goals is not so smart. Why? You cannot predict the future in complex environments. Since complex environments are dispositional, we need to start journeys over stating goals. Vector-based goals are fine—wanting more of X and less of Y is a good example of a vector-based goal and also serves as a decent Commander’s Intent.

3. Anticipate the Future

Complex adaptive systems anticipate the future. Your planning process should include a step that allows team members to identify potential threats to the goals, objectives, or Commander’s Intent. Threats include things such as holidays, days off, system availability, weather systems, outbreak of the flu, multiple futures, etc.

Anticipatory planning also includes identifying resources and people—both available and needed.

4. Mitigate Cognitive Biases | Challenge Assumptions | Reduce Risk

Use Red Teaming, liberating structures, or complex facilitation techniques to mitigate cognitive biases, challenge assumptions, and reduce risk. These tools also help identify weak signals—where innovation comes from—and serve as a check against complacency.

5. Low-Tech, High-Touch

Use a large canvas or board to plan. Sending PowerPoint decks back and forth is a horrible way to plan (Conway’s Law). PowerPoint is a presentation tool, not a planning tool. A high-touch, low-tech approach to planning requires people to be present, both physically and mentally, in a room or rooms.

6. Build a Back-Up or Contingency Plan

You cannot plan against every contingency—those items that you identified as threats or impediments—but your planning process should include a step where the team looks and plans against some of the known unknowns from the complicated domain. Do not spend too much time on unknown unknowns—an organizational adaptive mindset, partially developed from learning how to plan, is a great tactic for protecting against risks in the complex domain.

7. A Retrospective… Part of the Plan

Planning is part of problem solving and building situational understanding; however, a retrospective is far more important than planning and must be included in your plan. Daily re-planning sessions (stand-ups) should also be included in your plan.

8. Simplicity

You should be able to use your planning process as a way to lead a meeting or a stand-up (a re-planning session).

9. Iterative

Planning is not sequential, it is iterative. It is okay to go back and revisit a previous idea, assumption, objective, etc.

10. Designate a Facilitator

If your team and organization knows how to plan, you can eliminate the need to follow a coach who is an expert at putting planning quotes on the board. Leading a planning session builds leadership capability. It also creates team and organizational accountability.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams and organizations.

References

Norman M. Wade. The Battle Staff Smartbook: Doctrinal Guide to Military Decision Making & Tactical Operations. Lightning Press, 2005

JP 5-0, Joint Operation Planning, 11 August 2011

Military Decision Making Process (MDMP), March 2015. http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/15-06_0.pdf

Photo: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print

Share This:

Cynefin & OODA: Sense- & Decision-Making for Today’s VUCA World (Part 1)

Explicitly connected to Scrum and the Lean Startup, the OODA loop is becoming part of today’s business vernacular. If you attend a Big Data, DevOps, Agile, or Cyber conference, there is a good chance that you will hear a speaker talk about “getting inside your competition’s OODA loop” or “flying the OODA loop.” OODA has even made its way into politics as a way for pundits to describe Donald Trump’s ability, purposeful or careless, to create mismatches or ambiguity for his less agile opponents—a key feature of Boyd’s OODA loop.

A decision-making process for dynamic situations, the OODA loop represents forty years of John Boyd’s research captured in several briefings and papers. His OODA loop sketch—and that’s what it is, a sketch—did not appear until 1996 even though many conference goers often hear that the loop was created in the 1950s. John Boyd has clear guidelines about the use of his sketch: (1) it can be drawn any way you want; (2) do not simplify it; and (3) do not make it more complicated than it is.

A few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of video-conferencing with Chet Richards, author of Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business, and long-time friend of the late John Boyd. The purpose of our conversation was to take a look at where Boyd’s OODA loop fits in Dave Snowden’s Naturalizing Sense-Making matrix (below) and to see how we can map OODA to Cynefin, a sense-making framework. This post will look at the former and save the latter following conversations with Dave Snowden, Chet Richards and others.

Naturalizing Sense-Making Matrix: How Do We Avoid The Hype and False Promises (Dave Snowden)

On the left side of Dave Snowden’s 2×2 matrix is the scientific method. And on the right, is Observation + Hypotheses = Method. The items on the left scale at low risk and those on the right scale with high risk. Ideally, we want our management approaches that help us navigate VUCA to be in the bottom left; however, classic science is not applicable to human systems.

Methods that are supported by sound theory–those that can be replicated in different contexts—fall in the top left. The top left is good. Valuable methods derived from observations and hypotheses that have explanatory power fall in the top right. The top right is okay. Context specific methods that claim predictive power fall in the bottom right—most management approaches and Agile methodologies fall here—these are considered inappropriate. The bottom right heeds caution. To learn more about what methods may fall in each quadrant, watch this video or any of Dave Snowden’s recent talks.

Where Does the OODA Loop Fit in This Matrix?

The question Chet and I tried to answer during our call was, Where does the OODA loop fit in this matrix? Chet and I believe OODA falls in the top left. However, overcoming Popper’s falsification test is a current hurdle. And, I am sure Dave Snowden will have something to say about our justification.

Formative Factors Behind the OODA Loop: Air-to-Air Combat, Strategy and Science

Chet and I spent most of our 75-minute conversation examining the science that influenced Boyd and how he captured that in his OODA loop. Chet reminded me that Boyd defined science as “a self-correcting process of observations, synthesis/analysis, hypothesis, and test.” According to Chet, Boyd was deeply interested in how scientist learn and how knowledge grows; the work of Polanyi, Kuhn, and Popper influenced Boyd the most.

Natural sciences influenced Boyd’s thinking and are evident in several of his briefings prior to the 1996 unveiling of his OODA loop. In fact, science played a bigger role in the development of the OODA loop, more so than Boyd’s experience as a fighter pilot. However, most people associate the OODA loop with combat aviation, not the scientific method.

The sciences that provided John Boyd constraints and guidance on the development of his simple and elegant OODA loop sketch and his supporting briefings include Complex Adaptive Systems, Cognitive Science, Epistemology, Evolutionary Theory, Thermodynamics, Chaos Theory, Cybernetics, and Systems Thinking.

OODA Loop: How We Test Hypotheses

The OODA loop is how we test hypotheses. According to Chet, organizations that are trying to learn something new must use multiple safe-to-fail experiments, and through repeated OODA looping (observation, analyses & synthesis, hypothesis, and test), they see how their experiments work, and then add the results to their repertoire. To put it simply, OODA is the decision-making process that compliments the sense-making framework known as Cynefin. We will examine what this may look like in a later post.

Additional Notes

  • Chet wanted me to make it clear that Boyd took over 40 years to develop the OODA loop and one cannot learn the OODA loop in a two-hour seminar.
  • Many people use the OODA loop to sell their management and Agile methods—some of those methods fall in the bottom right quadrant of Dave Snowden’s Naturalizing Sense-Making Matrix.
  • John Boyd’s cross-disciplinary approach in building his OODA loop is similar to Dave Snowden’s approach to Cynefin.
  • Boyd claims that agility is an outcome of OODA. And that agility is an external, relative measure. Not an internal one.

I look forward to your comments and help!

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™ – an evidence-based, human systems solution to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams and organizations.

References 

OODA Loop Sketch by HurricaneAllie Design

Special thanks to Chet Richards for taking time to discuss his passion. AGLX received prior permission from Chet Richards to use notes from our 12/21/2016 conversation.

Naturalizing Sense-Making Matrix image created by AGLX Consulting and is used with permission under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivs license. The Cognitive Edge method is ©2017 Cognitive Edge (USA) Inc., used with permission under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Noderivs license

Richards, Chet (2004-06-24). Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business. Kindle Edition.

Share This:

High-Performing Teams and Complex Algorithms: Things You Don’t Have to Figure out Alone

Personally, I can’t solve long division. I don’t do algorithms, logarithms, or any other “-ithms.” I strongly dislike even having to do my taxes (and I am married filing jointly with standard deductions, no investments, no special circumstances, and no complications). I’ll be the first to admit, I’m just not that smart.

What I am is self-aware. After years of training, learning about, working in, and teaching high-performing teams, I knew there had to be reasons – very good reasons – that our techniques, tools, and methodologies all worked as well as they did. I knew there had to be something about the way we worked and the way we trained which was grounded in something other than wild guesswork, happenstance, and luck.

Indeed, as anyone who’s operated in a high-reliability organization knows, you do the things you do for very clear, proven reasons. Often, you do them because other people have died to teach you the lessons your organization has learned, helping to increase its resiliency and robustness.

Developing high-performing teams is no different!

I encounter – daily – blogs, LinkedIn posts, articles, podcasts, papers, seminars, conferences, Meetups (you get the idea) about various aspects of developing and enhancing teams and teamwork. Some are interesting and useful, but the overwhelming majority are based on personal beliefs, ideas, conjecture, experimentation, luck, a bad experience, or any of a number of other subjective, introverted, well-meaning but ultimately wrong ideas.

Don’t misunderstand – these ideas come from really smart people who are giving their absolute best, but intentions do not equate to outcomes.

Why aren’t we hiring these same people to handle our home renovation projects, build our national infrastructure, or handle international trade and defense policies? Because putting in a lot of effort and working hard is different from knowing what you’re doing.

You may be a very dedicated, hard worker, but I prefer to have an actual plumber working on my home’s plumbing, thank you.

Unfortunately, for too many organizations around the world, this is exactly what they do in building teams. They have highly intelligent professionals who are skilled in management, process and portfolio stewardship, agile frameworks and methodologies, and any number of additional things. Yet what they are not studied, or skilled at, is team-building.

To make things worse, these well-meaning individuals also believe, wrongly, that just figuring this “team-building thing” out on their own is the best, most effective course of action. To those people I want to reflect back to my earlier admission that I know my limits. You need to realize that unless you’ve been raised in a culture of team performance and team-building or have spent considerable time studying it, you probably don’t actually know as much about it as you think you do.

Rather, there is an entire world of scientific research, based in empirical studies, and grounded in human social, behavioral, and cognitive psychology, industrial – organizational psychology, human cognition, sociology, and human evolution which informs us about the social, human-interactive skills which power team behaviors, performance, and effectiveness.

There are an abundance of knowledgeable professionals who have spent most of their adult lives studying, working with, and developing great teams.

However despite that fact, organizations, leaders, and managers continue to struggle through trying to figure these things out on their own. They read an HBR article, a few blog posts, and walk away thinking “I got it.” In technology we have a huge array of protocols, structures, frameworks, processes, methodologies, tools, etc., which are intended to somehow supplant or circumvent the real and necessary process of teaching teams and individuals the social teaming skills necessary to enable them to team together effectively.

Developing great teams is not a secret, miracle, or act of individual or organizational brilliance. The science and practice of team-building is based in the fundamental makeup that accompanies being human. Ensuring teams can develop, survive, and thrive, requires the following:

  • Right Environment. Teams need to have the support necessary to enable execution, which includes clear vision/direction, prioritization, and goal-setting from leadership, a culture which enables and rewards teaming, and the ability to identify and deal with things which threaten the team’s ability to achieve its mission or purpose. It also requires leadership and concerted inputs from other teams, as well, like Human Resources and Product Management.
  • Right Skills. Teams need to be trained in the skills which enable high-performance teamwork, and that training needs to be experience-based as well as knowledge-based. They need to learn from those who have lived it, and they need to be empowered to continually learn, grow, and improve those skill-sets. Training individuals is a critically important – and oft-overlooked – key to success. Most people are not born great team players, however as with any skill, the skills which enable effective teamwork can be developed and improved over time.
  • Right Process. A team is a group of individuals working together – interdependently – toward a common and shared goal. As such, they need to have a product which unifies the team members in pursuit of that common, shared goal, and toward which they can work interdependently. They need to be able to employ a process capable of supporting their product’s domain (simple/routine – complex – innovative), and they need to be able to realize intrinsic motivators through Autonomy, Mastery, and Purpose (a la Daniel Pink).

Most importantly, you don’t need to figure out how to develop and implement all of these things yourself, and unless you’ve spent your career studying teams, teamwork skills, and team training and development, you probably do not actually possess the knowledge necessary to successfully develop these skills in your teams.

This may seem a stark presentation of reality, and perhaps a bit harsh.

We all want to think we’re great team players and we know everything there is to know about training and developing the skills necessary for teamwork. However, unless you’ve been studying teams, teamwork, and skills, and can name specific social, non-technical, non-process-related skills which enable and enhance interpersonal communication, collaboration, and creativity, you probably aren’t that knowledgeable about what teams and individuals need to develop and enhance their teamwork. As I said in an earlier post – being able to recognize great art when you see it doesn’t make you a great artist!

Instead, you can leverage the knowledge and expertise of others whose professional existence is grounded in building and developing great teams. There are a large number of people across various industries who focus and work in exactly this domain.

Instead of trying to reinvent the wheel yourself, wouldn’t it make more sense to talk to a car manufacturer who can actually help you get where you’re going?

Rather than devising or borrowing lists of protocols and processes to help you get the behaviors you desire out of individual team members, wouldn’t it make far more sense to simply train them in the skills and behaviors they need to team together effectively, provide them feedback, and enable them to execute and succeed together? The knowledge to do so is out there, resident in professionals across various industries and academia. When you find yourself confronted with these sorts of problems, I’d recommend you do what the best leaders always do…

…find and engage the best people to get the job you need done, effectively.

 

Chris Alexander (that’s me) is a former F-14 Tomcat RIO & instructor, and co-founder of AGLX Consulting, where he co-developed High-Performance Teaming™ – a training methodology focused on teaching individuals and teams the social, interactive skills necessary to help them achieve high-performance. He currently works as an agile coach at Qumulo, Inc. in Seattle, Washington.

This post originally published on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/high-performing-teams-complex-algorithms-things-you-dont-alexander

Share This:

To Build Great Teams You Need a Plan, Not a Picture

Take a look at the painting below…

Vincent Van Gogh - Cafe Terrace at Night

Notice the way the painter (van Gogh, of course) uses color to create light and shadow, which helps add contour. He draws with perspective, which creates depth. Brush strokes create the illusion of texture, such as cobblestones on the street, or wood on the frame of the doorway. Figures and shapes create the impression of movement, action, and build a scene which our minds can easily interpret.  Now you understand some of the most critical elements in painting, right? So… now you should be able to paint a replica of this masterpiece, or at least be able to create something similar which is just as impressive and iconic.

Can’t do it? Neither can I. We can probably almost universally agree that one cannot simply be shown a great painting, told what techniques, brushes, paints, and colors the artist used in painting it, and then be expected to reproduce it.

There is a fundamental difference between knowing what one needs to do, and actually developing the skills and ability to do it.

Yet we are currently living through exactly this sort of coaching fallacy every day. All around us, thought-leaders, authors, managers, coaches, just about everyone – are deluging the internet with just about everything they can image about the characteristics and behaviors of great teams. For example:

High-performing teams deliver amazing results with high quality.

High-performing teams collaborate together to solve the most difficult problems with ease.

High-performing teams have a common purpose. They work toward shared goals.

High-performing teams manage inter-team conflict and are balanced.

High-performing teams celebrate diversity.

In fact, let me share a little collection of just some of the various attributes, characteristics, and skills found in various articles and publications about “how to build high-performing teams.” Spoiler alert! Like looking at a piece of art, this information doesn’t tell you anything about the things you need to do to start developing your teams toward high-performance. It just shows you a pretty picture of what awesomeness looks like.

characteristics_behaviors_and_skills_breakdown

So what? We, as individuals, managers, leaders – as a culture – are often far too focused on what things look like – great teams, great cultures, great companies, great innovation – and in trying to explain how incredible, amazing, wonderful, efficient, or effective that greatness is, we fail to consider or share with people the more important knowledge about how they can actually start to improve, themselves.

It’s the difference between showing someone a great painting, instead of helping them develop into a better painter. Or to use a sports metaphor, watching Messi and Ronaldo score goals doesn’t help me to become a better soccer player. To improve, I have to develop my own skills.

I suspect the harsh truth is that most of the enthusiastic authors who blog about and are so excited about high-performing teams have never worked in one, never led one, and never built one. Maybe they’ve seen one or two up close? I don’t want to detract from their exuberance, and I applaud the enthusiasm. Yet I also acknowledge the fact that people need more than pretty pictures to help them improve their own situations.

Fortunately, the skills that high-performing teams and organizations use to normalize greatness are skills that every individual, every team, and every organization can develop, too. Communication, collaboration, situational awareness, problem-solving, agility, leadership – even and especially empathy – are all highly trainable skills which empower the dynamic, human interactions and cooperation upon which great teams are built.

The knowledge and information needed to build effective, powerful teams is out there. It is grounded in decades of experience and scientific research in a multitude of fields across a diverse array of work domains spanning every industry. The teams which employ those skills work in the most demanding environments on (or off) our planet, solve the toughest problems, innovate, collaborate, and perform at incomprehensible levels.

To build great teams you need more than pictures and descriptions. You need a plan to train your teams and based on knowledge, research, and experience. That plan starts with the skills which fuel every kind of team, everywhere. Skills which are transcendent and universal because they leverage one powerful fact:

we are all human.

 

Chris Alexander is a former F-14 Tomcat RIO & instructor, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, High-Performance Teaming™ coach, Agile coach, Scrum Master, and is passionate about high-performing teams, teamwork, and enabling people to achieve great things.

This post originally published on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/build-great-teams-you-need-plan-picture-chris-alexander

Share This:

7 Ways to Hack Your Daily Stand-up to Create Psychological Safety

Data from Google’s Project Aristotle, a multi-year study of why some of the company’s teams were successful while others were not, revealed that psychological safety is the secret sauce behind its highest performing teams. (Psychological safety, according to Julia Rozovsky, an analyst with Google People Operations, is the dynamic that addresses: “Can we take risks on this team without feeling insecure or embarrassed?”[1])

But the multi-million dollar, 180-team study did not provide details as to how psychological safety is created. Fortunately, this teaming “discovery” by Google is not new. Thanks to human factors research in aviation and health care, creating psychologically safe environments is relatively simple — though not necessarily intuitive.

A psychologically safe environment cannot be established by simply proclaiming: “This is a safe environment.” And, as far as I know, Google does not possess a magic wand. Psychological safety, according to Amy Edmondson, a professor of leadership and management at Harvard Business School, must be created by leaders through simple behaviors and actions. Those leaders include perceived, functional and, most importantly, managers in the middle of the organization.

Before introducing key behaviors and actions that promote a psychologically safe environment, leaders should understand the benefits of establishing this critical condition that enables individuals working in groups to rapidly transition to becoming members of high-performing teams.

Psychological safety[2]:

  • Encourages speaking up
  • Enables clarity of thought
  • Supports productive conflict
  • Mitigates failure
  • Promotes innovation
  • Removes obstacles to pursuing goals for achieving performance
  • Increases accountability

Your daily stand-up is the perfect place to create a high-performance, psychologically safe environment for the team. As a leader, you can accomplish this by [3]:

  1. Being accessible and approachable. (Yes, managers are encouraged to attend Scrum events)
  2. Acknowledging the limits of current knowledge
  3. Being willing to display fallibility
  4. Inviting participation and valuing input
  5. Highlighting failures as learning opportunities
  6. Using direct language
  7. Setting boundaries

These seven key behaviors and actions will help you establish a psychologically safe environment for your team – no magic wand needed.


Practical Application to Daily Stand-ups (Scrum) and Your Typical Ineffective Meetings

Most Scrum teams blindly follow The Scrum Guide’s approach to stand-ups, where each team member answers the following three questions:

  1. What did I do yesterday to help the team meet its goal?
  2. What am I doing today to help the team meet its goal?
  3. What impediments are in my or the team’s way of meeting the goal?

Yuck!

This three-part daily Scrum Q&A is a recipe for a status update — which is not the intent of the daily Scrum, but is its typical outcome. To avoid this, and to create psychological safety during the daily Scrum, the event instead needs to be viewed as a re-planning session.

Below is an example stand-up and script that follows an effective planning process and provides several opportunities to display the behaviors and actions needed to create psychological safety.

Big Picture

“Good morning, team. It is 9:15. Today is May 6, the third day of Sprint. Our Sprint objective is to deliver the grommet and flipperdoodle functions for our elite users so they can bypass the ninth stage of zoom and provide us with rapid feedback. We have 12 stories with 68 points that support our objective. Our team goals are to use ATDD on 70 percent of our stories, practice closed-loop communication using SBAR, and to have at least four different team members other than the ScrumMaster lead the daily stand-up.”

With the big picture approach, we just created an opportunity for the person leading the stand-up to be viewed as approachable. We also established boundaries by starting on time (ending on time is equally important). Moreover, we repeated shared and common objectives and goals — the Sprint objectives are customer-centric and the goals are focused on teaming.

Failure Check

“Does anyone have a quick, individual failure from yesterday or today that you would like to share with the team?”

This is a great time for a manager, product owner, or functional leader to admit a failure, or show fallibility, in front of the team. Keep it short, 30 seconds or less. For a manager who is attending the stand-up, this is the only opportunity you have to talk until post stand-up.

Impediment Share-out

“What impediments, dependencies, or threats are going to keep us from achieving our Sprint objective and team goals today?”

This step invites participation and allows the team to build off of each other’s impediments. The idea is to share impediments, perceived or actual, and park them until all impediments are heard. There should be no discussion about individual impediments until the impediment popcorn stops popping and the team moves to the next step. The ScrumMaster will act as a scribe. Warning: This approach will uncover more impediments than The Scrum Guide’s stand-up process.

Plan of the Day

“What are you doing today to overcome the impediments and move us closer to achieving the Sprint objective and team goals?”

This question invites additional participation, where team members are free to use the information radiator and talk about what they plan to do today and with whom. They will also use this time to quickly discuss what they can do to overcome or remove team impediments. Each member is invited to talk and may include information from what they did yesterday. This is the re-planning part of the stand-up. Realize that this is just the start to the day’s conversations.

Adaptability Plan (or the What If? Plan)

If there are any leftover impediments that the team or ScrumMaster cannot solve, then the team should develop a “what if” plan. For example, Mike’s spouse is expecting and may deliver their first child during this sprint. By definition, this is an impediment to achieving the Sprint objective. The team should build a “what if” plan around Mike’s potential departure. Make sure to invite participation.

When you view the daily stand-up as a re-planning session, you’ll get more than just a status update — you’ll create a psychologically safe space for your team to reaffirm objectives and goals, identify impediments, and most importantly, create a plan for action.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and the co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™, an evidence-based approach to rapidly building and developing networks of high-performing teams.

References:

[1] Duhigg, Charles. Smarter Faster Better: The Science of Being Productive in Life and Bussines. Random House. Apple iBooks Edition

[2] Edmondson, Amy C. Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy. Wiley. Apple iBooks Edition.

[3] Ibid

Share This:

Psychological Safety is Just One Piece of the Larger Puzzle – Where Google’s Project Aristotle Missed the Bigger Picture

Google recently released the results of a five-year study, known as Project Aristotle, through which they determined that the common attribute – or what Google termed “key dynamic” – which successful teams exhibited was something known as psychological safety.

Unfortunately, Google’s expensive, five-year foray into teamwork is a great example of what can happen when technologists undertake studies in team and cognitive psychology, human interaction, sociology, and complex adaptive systems (among other disciplines), and base their findings entirely on self-collected metrics and their own statistical analyses of that data. What Google found was that psychological safety is a statistically significant attribute (key dynamic) associated with high-performing teams, but unfortunately this doesn’t tell the full story or help other teams or organizations to understand what they need to do to create those same conditions in their own environments.

I certainly do not want to impugn or belittle the considerable efforts or discipline of the team conducting Google’s study. However, I might have suggested beginning with a review of existing research in some of those disciplines (teamwork, sociology, human behavior, cognitive psychology, etc.) relating to team performance and teamwork. As it turns out, there is quite a lot.

In fact, so much that today there are meta-studies covering these topics. Among other critical areas not studied by Google, team performance is directly tied to the number and quality of social interactions between team members [1], the existence of Shared Mental Models within the team, shared expectations regarding behavioral norms (what we call Known Stable Social Interfaces), as well as organizational issues such as the leadership and management culture.

Which isn’t to imply that psychological safety isn’t important; indeed it is. Amy Edmondson in her book Teaming points out that psychological safety is of critical importance to effective teams:

“An environment of psychological safety is an essential element of organizations that succeed in today’s complex and uncertain world. The term psychological safety describes a climate in which people feel free to express relevant thoughts and feelings without fear of being penalized…In corporations, hospitals, and government agencies, my research has found that interpersonal fear frequently gives rise to poor decisions and incomplete execution.” [2]

Psychological safety is important. Yet psychological safety is not a team skill. For example, we can teach a team and individual team members to communicate more effectively using certain techniques and behaviors. Similarly, we can train a team to communicate in more assertive ways. However, we cannot train teams to simply “be psychologically safe.”

As Edmondson states in the quote above, “psychological safety is an essential element of organizations…” (emphasis added) – it isn’t a team skill or behavior.

This critical fact is where so much of the literature, and Google’s study in particular, come up short. Knowing that successful teams operate in an environment of psychological safety does not enable leadership, management, or coaches to build psychologically safe environments any more than looking at a painting enables me to paint a replica of it.

The real challenge is determining how one can mindfully, purposefully build a psychologically safe environment within an organization. To answer this question, we need to first understand what, exactly, psychological safety is. I define the term slightly differently than many textbook definitions:

Psychological safety is the existence of an environment in which individuals proactively exercise assertiveness, state opinions, challenge assumptions, provide feedback to teammates and leadership, while openly sharing mistakes and failures.

Many traditional definitions of psychological safety make use of the term “feel,” as does Edmondson: “The term psychological safety describes a climate in which people feel free to express relevant thoughts and feelings. Although it sounds simple, the ability to seek help and tolerate mistakes while colleagues watch can be unexpectedly difficult.” [3] (Emphasis added.)

However, I purposefully make use of the word “exercise.” Although this may seem a semantic difference at first glance, since we’re concerned with factors such as team performance, quality, and effectiveness, the existence of a psychologically safe environment in which no one actually admits mistakes or states opinions (although they feel free to) is undesirable. We need not only the environment, but also the actual actualization of the skills and behaviors necessary to realize the environment’s benefits.

How to build psychological safety in teams and organizations.

Although I’ve only glossed over the considerable amount of theory and research, I also don’t want to try to provide a Reader’s Digest version of decades of knowledge here. I’d rather get right to the point. What do leaders, managers, coaches, and teams need to do to purposefully build psychological safety in their environment, today?

First, significantly reduce the focus on processes and frameworks. The existence of a specific environment or culture is largely independent of the business process employed in an organization’s daily operations. Some frameworks and methodologies are structured to support the types of psychologically safe environments necessary to enhance team performance and effectiveness, but they do not guarantee it.

As Lyssa Adkins, author of Coaching Agile Teams, stated in her Closing Keynote at the 2016 Global Scrum Gathering in Orlando, Florida:

“I thought we would have transformed the world of work by now. People, we’ve been at this for fifteen years…Transforming the world of work is literally a human development challenge. So we are awesome, we are so good in this community at process and business agility. We’ve got that handled people, and we’ve had that handled for a while. What we’re not so good at, what I want to see us become just as great at, is human systems agility. Because that’s the other piece of it…You know, those organizations – they’re all made of humans, aren’t they? So, human systems agility is a piece of business agility. Not the only one, but an important one; and one that we’re not as good at.” [4]

Business processes and frameworks, including Agile systems such as Scrum and Lean, can only help create a structure capable of supporting the ways in which teams and individuals need to work to reach the highest levels of performance, effectiveness, and innovation. What those teams – from executive to functional – need, is a shared mental model, a Known Stable Social Interface for interacting and working collaboratively together, and which enables them to develop and exercise the interpersonal skills and behaviors necessary for psychological safety.

Leadership and management must initiate the formation of a psychologically safe environment by welcoming opinions (including dissent) on goals and strategies from peers and subordinates. People in management or leadership roles who fear questioning or are more focused on their ideas than on the right ideas need to either learn, adapt, and grow, or move on. They are obstacles, roadblocks, and hindrances to organizational effectiveness, performance, and innovation.

Steps leadership and management can take to start to create psychological safety:

  • Establish and clearly communicate expectations
  • Receive training themselves
  • Provide training for their employees
  • Ensure follow-through with dedicated coaching and regular check-ins

Then, learn about and employ the following behaviors and skills:

  • Frame mistakes and errors as learning and opportunities for improvement.
  • Encourage lessons learned to be shared instead of hidden, focused toward helping others to learn, grow, and avoid similar mistakes.
  • Embrace the value of failure for learning by admitting to mistakes they’ve made themselves.
  • Understand the difference between failures and subversion, sabotage, incompetence, and lack of ability.
  • Learn about the interpersonal, social skills which power team effectiveness, including Leadership, Communication, Assertiveness, Situational Awareness, Goal Analysis, and Decision-Making. Those skills include the explicit behaviors necessary to build psychological safety in the organizational environment.

“If I focus on using your mistake as a way to blame and punish you, I’ll never hear about your mistakes until a catastrophe ensues. If I focus on using your mistake as a way for us to learn and improve collectively, then our entire process, system, and business will be better after every mistake.”

Individuals and teams can also help to build and enable psychologically safe environments:

  • Seek training about and learn the interpersonal, social skills which power team effectiveness, including Leadership, Communication, Assertiveness, Goal Analysis, Decision-Making, Situational Awareness, Agility, and Empathy.
  • Advocate for and build a climate in which learning and improvement is possible through open and honest analysis of failures / mistakes.
  • Frame and focus discussions on the plans, strategies, and ideas supporting what is right, not who is right.
  • Assume responsibility for their own psychological safety and proactively help build it as a fundamental attribute of their teams’ work environment.

Psychological safety is a key organizational characteristic which is critical to the growth of high-performing teams. However, it isn’t a holy grail and most organizations, coaches, and consultants do not know how to purposefully create a psychologically safe environment, nor why it makes sense to do so. Yet mindfully organizing to build high-performing teams is not only possible, it is something which many organizations have been doing for decades.

 

Chris Alexander is a former F-14D Flight Officer, the co-founder of AGLX Consulting, High-Performance Teaming™ coach, Agile coach, and Scrum Master, and has a passion for working with high-performing teams. Learn more at https://www.aglx.consulting.

References:

  1. Pentland, Alex (2014­01­30). Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread – ­The Lessons from a New Science (p. 90). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
  2. Edmondson, Amy C. (2012­03­16). Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in the Knowledge Economy (Kindle Locations 1474­-76, 2139-40). Wiley. Kindle Edition.
  3. Ibid, 2141-2144.
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDKYehwuirw

Share This:

High-Performing Teams: Built from the Basic Skills of Human Interaction

I’ve struggled my whole life to connect the dots. I’m the smartest dumb person I know, and I at times amaze even myself with the brilliance of my own insights, which generally occur simultaneously alongside my forgetting to turn off the stove, or turn on the dishwasher (which I’ve just finished loading).

I recall quite vividly sitting in Instrument Ground School, well along my way to becoming an F-14 Tomcat Radar Intercept Officer (RIO), and learning about Crew Resource Management (CRM) for the first time. My overwhelming thought at the time was, “why do they insist on teaching us things we already know?”

Of course, they weren’t. Instead, once again, I was both intelligent enough to recognize the value of CRM for what it meant to my situation immediately, but not smart enough to appreciate, in any sense whatsoever, the importance of its formation and history, nor its incredible potential to help people everywhere to work together, in any environment or on any problem; from operating rooms to oil rigs, from ocean floors to outer space.

High-Performance Teaming™, one of Crew Resource Management’s successors, leverages those same skills which have been proven to help teams perform and succeed in High-Reliability Organizations across cultures and industries to include NASA, surgical teams, nuclear power stations, civil and military aviation, and special forces units, to name just a few.

The simple reason that these tools work across such diverse types of teams is not because they are based in the newest or most proven processes, or the latest in business operating frameworks or methodologies. Rather, these tools work because they focus on building the skills which enable dynamic, positive, and powerful human interaction.

By leveraging our shared human abilities to learn and improve, and targeting the skills specifically connected to the human capability to effectively function as part of a team, we can develop high-performing teams regardless of functional level or the domain of work.

Take, for example, rock climbing.

I know – “whaaaat?” Stick with me. I was recently asking one of the teams I work with what they would like to do to celebrate our successful (and early) completion of a software feature. Typically I would expect the standard answers: go to a team lunch, after-work drinks, trip to the pinball museum, Friday-night pool – the usual things teams choose to do. Yet, as is becoming standard, the team surprised me.

“The weather Thursday is supposed to be beautiful. How about if we do a team rock climbing day?”

Now I’m a climber and so are a couple of other people on the team, and going climbing together is something we’d half-joked about plenty of times, but this was a real suggestion. So I asked around, gave it some thought, and realized we could use the experience to not only have fun and bond further as a team, but to actually train with the skills we’d been talking about at the office in an entirely different context. My hypothesis was that a team of individuals climbing together is still a team, and the same skills which drive human interactions within teams in an office environment, an operating room, or in a cockpit, should be congruent.

So we went rock climbing, and discussed the litmus test. Here’s how I set up the day and the High-Performance Teaming skills we discussed in the context of our day on the rock.

Communication. As it was actually quite windy at the climb site and we were a few hundred feet up the side of a hill beside a busy interstate, the conditions for clear and easy communication were not good. Yet communication is critical to good team performance. Personal tendencies, culture, speech, choice of words and a standard vocabulary, not to mention overcoming environmental challenges (wind, noise, etc.) were all critical to our performance.

Assertiveness. Given the challenges already acknowledged to our communication, combined with the fact that we had a few new climbers who hadn’t done this sort of thing before, we recognized the need for everyone to assume an assertive role in helping the team ensure that we achieved our goals. We needed everyone to speak up when something didn’t look right or make sense, or when they did not understand anything about what they were being asked to do.

Goal (or Mission) Analysis. I asked the team at the parking lot to state what they believed was our goal for the day. “Go climbing,” “have fun,” “enjoy the outdoors,” “bond as a team” were a few of the responses. All noble and understandable goals, to be sure, but I offered another: “come back safely.” Understanding what your primary goal or goals are isn’t always intuitive, obvious, or easy, but getting it wrong can create a cascade of mistakes due to your team being misaligned on the very fundamental issues around why they’re doing what they’re doing.

Situational Awareness. Understanding that we’re going to have to make decisions about which routes to climb, who will be climbing belaying, whether we need to clean routes behind us, and a host of other potential situations (what happens if someone is injured?) requires us all to constantly re-assess and evaluate where we are in our day, what we are doing, and what we are trying to do. We need to ensure that we are fully aware of what is going on around us, and what is supposed to be going on around us.

Decision-Making. Early in the day our ability to decide on which routes to climb and which partners would climb/belay in what order was affected by stress, but as the day wore on and the stress of working together in a new team diminished, fatigue and the potential for complacency set in. Our ability to make the right decisions in important situations such as who climbs next, when to clean the route and move, who leads, where and when to relocate, when to take a break, and when to stop for the day, hinged on our ability to communicate well, maintain our situational awareness, and maintain focus on our primary goal – a safe return.

Agility. Many people talk about being Adaptable, however I prefer the term Agility. Agility, I’ve heard said, is Adaptability in a timebox. We had no sooner hiked around the corner to our climbing site to begin execution of our plan to climb the first two pitches (which were not challenging by design), then we had to adjust our plan due to the fact that both routes were already being worked by the local fire department, also out for a day of cliff rescue training in some gorgeous weather. So we quickly re-planned and moved to an alternate site.

Leadership. In a team of peers, leadership is often a revolving position. In a team with three experienced climbers and three beginners, we needed to rotate leadership responsibilities at different times based on the situation. Yet what most people get totally wrong is what the leader actually does. The leader isn’t there to make decisions and pass out orders, rather to pull the team together, ensure everyone understands what is occurring and what the plan is, solicit feedback and invite constructive dissent, to support assertiveness, and to leverage the collective wisdom of the team in analyzing goals and making collective decisions. Leadership is not about being right, it is about what is right. As each of us moved through moments of assuming leadership, our interactions were all similar: does everyone understand and agree with the plan? Does everyone understand what is being asked of them? Are you ready to move forward? Are we all ready for the next step?

Empathy. The ability to recognize and respond appropriately to the emotional state of others is a fundamentally human skill which powers every other social interaction skill. Looking at my climbing partner who is about to start on the route, I ask “ready?” The novice climber looks back tentatively and responds “ready.” However I see in his stance, face, and eyes that he is struggling with fear, doubt, and uncertainty. I encourage him to begin the route by pulling the rope tight and responding “on belay – I’ve got you.” This gives him some confidence. I don’t want to take his fear and uncertainty away – I want him to work through it on his own, which I know he can. This is empathy in action.

The skills required to enable and power high-performance teamwork are grounded in our fundamental ability to interact with other humans. This statement will continue to be true until the day arrives when we need to team with robots or aliens, at which point it is conceivable that other skills might be required. However for the entirety of human existence, people have needed to work together and have, unsurprisingly, evolved to do just that. The amazing thing in our growing technological age is that some of those natural, instinctual, basic social skills are incredibly difficult to recall and apply. Yet train, learn, and apply them we can, and in doing so we can actually help build and become the incredibly high-performing teams we’ve always envisioned.

 

Chris Alexander is a former F-14D Flight Officer, the co-founder of AGLX Consulting, High-Performance Teaming™ coach, Agile coach, and Scrum Master, and has a passion for working with high-performing teams. Learn more at https://www.aglx.consulting.

Share This:

17 Ways to Stop Your Organization’s Agile Transformation

In 1944, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), now known as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), published the Simple Sabotage Field Manual which provides organizational saboteurs—let’s call them managers and employees who are on the wrong bus—a guide on how to interfere with organizational development and transformation.

As an Agile and High-Performance Teaming™ Coach, I have observed the following 17 tactics found in the Simple Sabotage Field Manual skillfully employed by managers and employees who clearly do not want their organizations to survive and thrive in today’s knowledge economy:

  1. When training new workers, give incomplete or misleading instructions.
  2. To lower morale and with it, productivity, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers, complain unjustly about their work.
  3. Hold [meetings] when there is more critical work to be done.
  4. Demand [documentation].
  5. “Misunderstand” [documentation]. Ask endless questions or engage in long correspondence about such [documents]. Quibble over them when you can.
  6. Make “Speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great lengths.
  7. Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
  8. Insists on doing everything through “channels” [and email].
  9. When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible–never less than five.
  10. Spread inside rumors that sound like inside dope.
  11. Contrive as many interruptions to your work [and team] as you can.
  12. Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment.
  13. Never pass on your skills and experience to anyone.
  14. If possible, join or help organize a group for presenting employee problems to the management. See that procedures adopted are as inconvenient as possible for the management, involving the presence of large number of employees at each presentation, entailing more than one meeting for each grievance, bringing up problems which are largely imaginary, and so on.
  15. Give lengthy and incomprehensive explanations when questioned.
  16. Act stupid.
  17. Be as irritable and quarrelsome as possible without getting yourself into trouble.

Brian “Ponch” Rivera is a recovering naval aviator, co-founder of AGLX Consulting, LLC, and co-creator of High-Performance Teaming™, an evidence-based approach to rapidly build and develop high-performing teams.

Share This:

The Missing Half of Team Performance: The Social Skills Behind High-Performance Teaming™

The overwhelming majority of businesses and organizations today are incredibly focused on adopting processes, tools, and frameworks to supercharge their teams’ productivity and quality, but in doing so they are solving for only half of the problem.

Whereas the team approach is often seen as a solution to cognitively complex tasks, it also introduces an additional layer of cognitive requirements that are associated with the demands of working together effectively with others. [1]

We are incontrovertibly human. When working in teams, we are humans working with other humans. Unlike a software program, the daily inputs and outputs of our lives are far too complex and changing to conceivably map and understand in a finite way; the potential derivations of our interpretations and reactions throughout the course of simply living our lives is, literally, infinite and unknowable.

Yet in virtually every business, organization, and team across America, we are focusing our efforts on establishing and implementing process, creating standardized operating procedures, rules, guidelines, policies, and training programs to build great (productive) teams. In doing so, we are ignoring the very thing which actually creates a high-performing team: us.

It actually isn’t rocket science: the interactions of the team members, not their individual intelligence, experience, education, or technical skill, is what determines how effective and how high-performance the team will be.

[T]he number one factor in making a group effective is skill at deep human interaction. That’s a remarkable finding in itself when we consider that groups are hardly ever evaluated on that basis. Everyone seems to think that other factors— leadership, mix of technical skills, vision, motivation— are more important. They matter, but not nearly as much as social skills… Social skills were the most important factor in group effectiveness because they encourage those patterns of “idea flow,” to use [Dr. Alex] Pentland’s term. Slicing the data in another way, those three elements of interaction [short & rapid idea generation, “dense interacting,” and turn-taking on idea-sharing and feedback] were more important than any other factor in explaining the excellent performance of the best groups; in fact, they were about as important as all the other factors— individual intelligence, technical skills, members’ personalities, and anything else you could think of— put together. [2]

To put the above a bit more succinctly, the best teams are not characterized by having the most intelligent, most skilled individuals; they are characterized by the quality and quantity of the team members’ social interactions.

There is an incredibly valuable point in this: the traditional focus on an individual’s knowledge, experience, and skills in a technical or process domain is only half of the story in building high-performing teams. The other half of the story is understanding how they perform in team environments and how well they contribute to a team’s overall performance and effectiveness.

Teaming Metaphors

A useful metaphor for the technical versus non-technical and social skills is live theater. Think of technical skills, scholastic education, and work experience as simply foundational elements of your business’ or organization’s ability to perform.

They are the stage, the lighting, the seating, the curtain, the orchestra’s space. Those elements are the theater.

However, the actors’ and actresses’ abilities to perform on that stage, to create something memorable and incredible – those are the social skills, the non-technical “secret sauce” of how the team actually performs together. For that great performance to occur, you need more than just the stage and the lighting – you need the performers and the magic that happens when a great team produces what a great team can.

Or consider the difference between watching a great football player play, and a great football team play. (This applies to both types of football.) A team of individuals with a star or two will never come close to achieving what an amazing team can achieve, regardless of their star power.

As I reported in my Harvard Business Review article “The New Science of Building Great Teams,” my research group and I have collected hundreds of gigabytes of data from dozens of workplaces. What we found was that the patterns of face-to-face engagement and exploration within corporations were often the largest factors in both productivity and creative output. [3]

Learning Social Skills

So what happens when you’ve hired the most technically skilled, scholastically educated people, and their social and teaming skills are virtually non-existent? Fear not – there is great news

Growing numbers of companies have discovered what the military learned long ago, that the supposedly ineffable, intractable, untrainable skills of deep human interaction are in fact trainable… Businesses can’t even begin to get better until leaders acknowledge that these skills are the key to competitive advantage, that methods of developing them may be unfamiliar, and that measuring the results will never be as easy as gauging operating efficiencies. If companies can get past those obstacles, which in most organizations are more than enough to stop managerial innovations dead in their tracks, then they have a chance. [4]

Yes – trainable.

Although it should come as no surprise, due to the fact that we all share the common trait of being – well, human – it is good to know that we can actually focus on and learn those critical skills which enable us to team effectively with other humans.

The military and commercial aviation have been doing this for decades already.

Yes – decades.

The fact that the social and non-technical skills teams need to reach high-performance are trainable and able to be improved upon over time, just as one would improve their knowledge of emerging coding practices or new technologies, is not conjecture or hypothetical experimentation. In fact, it has been operationalized and regularly improved for years.

High-Performance Teaming™

Founded in Crew-Resource Management (CRM) fundamentals, High-Performance Teaming™ provides teams at every and any level with the social, non-technical skills they need to perform at the highest levels. It targets exactly what makes effective teams – the ability for team members to engage in regular, high-quality interactions and input-feedback cycles to build the Shared Mental Models (SMMs) and communication loops which drive team performance and output.

Specifically, High-Performance Teaming™ builds the critical social skills teams need in:

  • Communication – the mechanics behind speaking and listening, non-verbal signals and cues, the human factors (culture, language, personality) which influence our communication patterns, and how to affect them through awareness.
  • Assertiveness – the behaviors behind respectfully asserting knowledge and opinion, and how to handle those assertions in a team.
  • Situation Awareness (SA) – the team’s ability to build a shared conception of their environment, and the degree to which it matches reality; requires Shared Mental Models, operational analysis, spatial awareness, etc.
  • Goal / Mission Analysis – the ways in which the team plans, executes, and learns based on their shared model of tactical to strategic goals; driven by alignment, communication, SA, and powers Decision-Making.
  • Decision-Making – utilizing collective intelligence of the team and leveraging the team’s SA combined with Goal / Mission Analysis to build consensus on solutions to complex problems, which in turn will drive execution and directly impact performance.
  • Agility – the ability to remain flexible and adapt to change; resilience in the face of a changing environment and rapidly evolving problem-set.
  • Leadership – one of the critical enablers to team effectiveness in non-flat environments, effective leadership is vital to creating Assertiveness, leveraging team collective intelligence in building SA and Goal / Mission Analysis, and getting to the correct decisions which enable organizational execution in a time-critical manner.
  • Culture – another enabler of team cohesiveness and resiliency; purposefully constructed and monitored through Shared Mental Models, Culture is a powerful contributor to Alignment, which is critical to reducing waste/churn and helping teams remain resilient and goal-oriented.
  • Empathy – the foundational element in every social skill; the ability to recognize and respond appropriately to the thoughts and feelings of others.

If you’ve gone through multiple team processes (traditional project management, Scrum, XP, SAFe, etc.), and you’re still wondering why your teams are not producing and improving, ask yourself if you’ve been solely concentrating on the Technical Skill & Process side of the equation – the side which only effects what processes teams are using to organize and conduct their work.

If you have, perhaps it is time to start giving your teams the social and non-technical skills they need to actually improve how they work together. Scrum (for example) is a great process which sets the stage for the performance, but High-Performance Teaming™, grounded in the science behind Crew Resource Management and team effectiveness, is the tool set your teams need to actually perform.

Contact AGLX Consulting today to bring those social skills to your teams!

 

Chris Alexander is a former U.S. Naval Officer who flew the F-14 Tomcat, and is Co-Founder and Executive Team Member of AGLX Consulting, creators of the High-Performance Teaming model.

  1. Cooke, N. J., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., & Stout, R. (2000). “Measuring team knowledge.” Human Factors, 42, 151-173.
  2. Colvin, Geoff (2015-08-04). Humans Are Underrated: What High Achievers Know That Brilliant Machines Never Will (pp. 126-7). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
  3. Pentland, Alex (2014-01-30). Social Physics: How Good Ideas Spread – The Lessons from a New Science (p. 93). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
  4. Colvin, 2015 (p. 204).

Share This: