Power of Teaming - Handout 1

CORPORATE RESEARCH FORUM

THE POWER OF TEAMING Amy C. Edmondson | Novartis Professor of Leadership & Management | Harvard Business School

Overview 9:30-10:45

Teams and Teaming Teaming Under Pressure Putting Team Member Talents to Work Making it Safe to Team

10:45-11:15

Networking Break

11:15-12:30

Decision Making Facing Uncertainty Experiential Exercise and Debrief

12:30-1:30

Lunch

1:30-2:00

Adrian Moorhouse

2:00-3:30

Essential Interpersonal Skills for Teaming Decision Making Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry Reframing Failure for Team Reslience

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

The Allure of Teams • Recognizes that no one person has all the answers • Integrates diverse experiences • Generates creative ideas and multiple alternatives • Increases involvement and commitment to action, due to participation in decision Therefore, when teams make decisions, they leverage these benefits…

NOT SO FAST… ©2012 Cutter Consortium

Barriers to Team Effectiveness

• Cognitive/Linguistic • Social/Emotional • Procedural/Logistical

Overcoming these barriers is a leadership issue….

©2012 Cutter Consortium

The Work is Changing COMMAND & CONTROL

WORK TEAMS

TEAMING

Increasing interdependence (of the un-programed kind) Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Types of Interdependence Group Members

Pooled

Product

Sequential G1

Reciprocal

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

G2

G3

Product

Teams are a structural response to reciprocal interdependence‌

Teaming is a Verb team 窶｢ ing (v.)

Teaming is teamwork on the fly窶田oordinating and collaborating, across boundaries, without the luxury of stable team structures Teaming is especially needed when work is COMPLEX and UNPREDICTABLE

ﾂｩ2012 Cutter Consortium

Complex and Unpredictable: August 5, 2010 Sudden cave-in at Chile’s San Jose copper mine (500K tons of rock)

An unprecedented* challenge: 33 men trapped 2000 feet underground Under rock harder than granite *Robbins, R. 2007. Quecreek Rescue Still Inspires Wonder. TRIBLive News (9 miners; 240 ft. below ground)

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Two big challenges

Can we find and reach them before they die?

Can we get them out?

THE ODDS – LESS THAN6 1%

©2012 Cutter Consortium

Slide 10 6

given the text belwo, in text box, which is all accurate, the odds are WELL under 10 - really closer to 1 percent, because 1 in 80 was an overestimate‌ Amy Edmondson, 27/05/2012

Challenge 1: The Response Execs provide top cover, empower those below

Teaming up/down

Golborne spends time in field, asking and listening Sougarret speaks frankly, & listens, both up & down Assembled a diverse team

Teaming across

Selected people for soft and hard skills Encouraged constant sharing of expertise Establishes relationship of trust with families

Teaming externally Honestly addresses their unique concerns Briefs the media daily Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Challenge 2: Can we get them out?

1. Unstable ground, a hole that twisted and turned 2. Never been done before 3. Unpredictable problems—like drill bits breaking 4. Impossible trade offs: safety versus speed

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Challenge 2: The Response Anticipate risks, come up with plans A-C

Teaming up/down

Create a protected experimental context Assess ideas on the merits, not rank Innovate on the fly

Teaming across

Test, test, test Keep plans A and C going

Teaming externally

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Talk openly with families and media Elicit and address concerns directly

CHILEAN MINING RESCUE 2010

Teaming among: The Miners The Engineers & Geologists The Senior Executives

Characterized by: 1.

Innovating

2.

Multiple trials, sometimes simultaneous

3.

Process discipline

4.

Persistence despite failures and setbacks

5.

Leadership that envisions, enrolls, and enables Neither top-down, nor bottom up… but emergent…

©2012 Cutter Consortium

CHILEAN MINING RESCUE 2010

“

Leadership Makes It Happen André [Sougarret] has remarkable technical competence and is a man with a strategic view. He has a lot of patience, assertiveness, an exceptional ability to listen and reach conclusions after listening to all sides, and a tendency to speak frankly with everyone, whether they are above or below his authority.”

Ricardo Alvarez, Senior Executive at Codelco

©2012 Cutter Consortium

What does it take to produce effective

TEAMING?

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Columbia’s Final Mission

A Cautionary Tale

17

Columbia’s Final Mission

•

Saturday February 1, 2003, 8:44 AM

•

Columbia descended back into the Earth’s atmosphere

•

Hot gases penetrated the craft, leading to its complete destruction

•

The CAIB was launched to investigate

•

This is what they found…

Columbia’s Final Mission

•

Columbia’s January 16th launch occurs, perpetuating a long history of Foam Strikes

•

Foam strikes have led to modest damage - lengthening turnaround times

•

Never causing catastrophic mission failures

•

Flight Day 5: MMT Leader, Linda Ham, comments

•

Foam “is not really a factor because there’s not much we can do about it.“

•

Ham revisits the “rationale” for flying despite the foam risk with Ron Dittemore

•

Ham is in charge of the next mission – feels the turnaround pressure acutely

•

Production Pressure at NASA is immense

•

The agency has sold their value in economic breakeven terms

•

All executives and managers are consumed by schedule pressure

•

US component of International Space Station “must” be completed by 2/19/04

Columbia’s Final Mission •

Engineer Rodney Rocha reviews launch footage

•

He gasps audibly at what he sees… but images are fuzzy; certainty is low

•

Rocha organizes a Debris Assessment Team (DAT)

•

Ad hoc group of engineers – no formal authority

•

Crater model used to run tests

•

Decides to ask for DOD to help NASA obtain images of Columbia in flight

•

Boss tells him not to “be Chicken Little”

•

Image request is cancelled by Ham

•

Rocha writes, but does not send, scathing email

• Calvin Schomburg (senior engineer) sends an email • “FYI TPS took a hit – should not be a problem.”

•

MMT On Day 8 of the Mission agrees to discuss foam issue

The Foam Strike Threat

We’ll Consider the Actual Discussion

3 key players (of many assembled): • Linda Ham, Mission Management Team Leader (the boss) • Don McCormack, Mission Evaluation Room Manager • Rodney Rocha, Senior Engineer

Mission Management Team Meeting Excerpt

McCormack:

Ham:

And the other item, Linda, that we are looking at is um, you know we took the inputs that we got from the system integration guys on um, on um the debris. ‌Okay, go ahead

23

Columbia Shuttle MMT Meeting Transcript McCormack: Okay, and also we uh received, uh received the data from the systems integration guys of the potential ranges of sizes and impact angles and where it might of hit and the guys have gone off and done an analysis. They’ve used, uh, they’ve used a tool they refer to as “Crater,” which is their official evaluation tool to determine the potential size of the damage, um . . . They went off and done all that work and they’ve done thermal analysis of the areas of where there may be damaged tiles, uh . . . The analysis is not complete, there is one case yet they wish to run, but were just kind of jumping to the conclusion of all, that, um, they do show obviously there’s a potential for significant tile damage here, but, but they do not indicate that, the thermal analysis does not indicate that there is a potential for a burn-through. There could be localized heating damage, um, obviously there is a lot of uncertainty in all this, in terms of the size of the debris and where it hit and the angle of incidence, and uh, it’s difficult.

Ham: No burn-through means no catastrophic damage, and localized heating damage would mean a tile replacement?

McCormack: It would mean possible impact to turnaround repairs and that sort of thing but we do not see any kind of safety-of-flight issue here yet in anything we’ve looked at.

Columbia Shuttle MMT Meeting Transcript Ham: No safety-of-flight and no issue for this mission, nothing we’re going to do different, there may be a turnaround?

McCormack: Right, right, it could potentially hit the RCC and we don’t indicate, other than possible coating damage or something, we don’t see any issue if it hit the RCC so . . . Although we could again, although we could have some significant tile damage, we don’t see a safety-of-flight issue.

Ham: What do you mean by that?

McCormack: Well it could be down to the uh, we could lose an entire tile, I mean, and then the ramp into and out of that, it could be a significant area of tile damage down to the SIP [strain isolation panel] . . . perhaps um, it could be a significant piece missing, but um . . .

Ham: Would be a turnaround issue only?

McCormack: Right.

Ham: We’ve seen pieces of this size before, haven’t we?

(Can’t hear the speaker. Someone tells Ham they can’t hear the speaker.)

Ham: He was just reiterating, it was Calvin [Schomburg], that he does not believe that there is any uh burn through so no safety of flight kind of issue, it’s more of a turnaround issue, similar to what we have had on other flights. That’s it? All right, any questions on that? Okay, Vanessa?

Columbia’s Final Mission

MMT sends email to the crew: • “…something not even worth mentioning… no cause for alarm…[but we didn’t want you to be] surprised by a question from a reporter… we’ve seen this phenomenon on several other flights, and there is absolutely no concern for [re]entry.”

Confirmatory vs. Exploratory Response Modes

Confirmatory Response

Exploratory Response

Presumed state of process knowledge

Complete, precise and certain

Bounded, ambiguous, or uncertain

Conception of work

Execution

Learning

Norms

General pressure to conform

Active seeking of variety and dissent

Leadership approach

Directive on content, not process

Directive on process, not content

Natural

Takes Leadership

Team Leaders must UNDERSTAND the nearly irresistible PULL of the

Confirmatory Response

Leading the Team Investigator:

As a manager, how do you seek out dissenting opinions?

MMT Chair:

Well, when I hear about them

Investigator:

By their very nature you may not hear about them

MMT Chair:

Well, when somebody comes forward and tells me about them

Investigator:

But, what techniques do you use to get them?

Apparently, the MMT Chair offered no response to this final question SOURCE: Langewiesche, Atlantic Monthly, November 2003, pg. 82

29

Reflection Question Is an exploratory mode always better?

What kinds of meetings call for an exploratory mode?

When is a confirmatory mode appropriate?

Putting the Exploratory Mode into Action FRAME: set the stage by explicitly stating goal of discovery LEAD a discussion to systematically and creatively consider: 1. What do we think we know about this situation?

2. What do we NOT know about this situation (and wish we knew)?

3. What might we be missing altogether in this portrayal of the situation?

4. What are the implications of the above for our current (default) plan? n If we recognize uncertainties that we cannot resolve in the moment, but must better understand better before taking action, then: DESIGN a test: Articulate a crucial question that could not be resolved with the information already at the table.e implications for future actions of the results

31

The Psychology of Speaking Up. “I just couldn’t do it [speak up in a meeting about the foam strike risk]. She [senior manager Linda Ham] was way up here [gestures with hand overhead] and I was way down here [gestures with low hand].”

- Rodney Rocha, NASA engineer (in ABC News interview, trying to explain why he didn’t speak up during the Columbia mission)

©2012 Cutter Consortium

Be Aware of Interpersonal Risk

NONE OF US WANT TO LOOK:

IT’S EASY TO MANAGE!

IGNORANT

DON’T ASK QUESTIONS

INCOMPETENT INTRUSIVE NEGATIVE

DON’T ADMIT WEAKNESS OR MISTAKE DON’T OFFER IDEAS DON’T CRITIQUE THE STATUS QUO

Interpersonal risk is natural in hierarchies – but it can be exacerbated or ameliorated by the behavior of leaders…

Edmondson, A. (2003). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams.

In International Handbook of Organizational Teamwork and Cooperative Working, M. West (Ed.). London: Blackwell, pp. 255-276 ©2012 Cutter Consortium

Psychological Safety

Psychological safety is a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes.

IT’S ESSENTIAL TO TEAMING.

©2012 Cutter Consortium

Hierarchy and Psychological Safety Me a n Ps y c h o l o g ic a l s a f e t y

6.4 6.2 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 4.8 Ph y s ic ia n s

nur ses

r e s Pir a t o r y t h e r a Pis t s

N=1100 clinicians Nembhard, I. and Edmondson A.C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in healthcare teams, Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Inclusive Leadership n Leaders who:

• Are accessible • Proactively invite input • Acknowledge their own fallibility

Inclusive leaders lower the psychological costs of speaking up and raise the psychological costs of silence

©2012 Cutter Consortium

Sacrificing Accountability

PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

ACCOUNTABILITY

Is it a matter of finding the right point on a balance beam?

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Psychological Safety & Accountability

PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY

high

Comfort Zone

Learning Zone

Apathy Zone

Anxiety Zone

low low

high ACCOUNTABILITY

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

Accountability Systems n Formal Performance Management • Feedback systems • Reward systems n Informal Norms and Culture • Leveraging the desire to belong (and the desire to make a difference) • Making it acceptable and expected to check in on each other’s work and progress Which do you think is more effective?? ©2012 Cutter Consortium

Some Teaming Challenges

Diversity

Distance

Unfamiliarity

Variety

Uncertainty

* Edmondson, A.C. (2012). Teamwork on the fly. Harvard Business

Review, 90, no. 4 (April, 2012): 72-80

Š2012 Cutter Consortium

“Going to School” in the Project

Learn about other disciplines; Gain broader perspective on the business

©2012 Cutter Consortium

Gain insight Develop into other interpersonal cultures; skill Build network of colleagues around the world

Import ideas from one context or project to another; expand one’s repertoire

Learn to experiment; Gain project management skills