Vedere Consulting
There's a sweet spot where fulfillment and productivity intersect. My blog is dedicated to helping leaders find it for themselves and their employees. --Plum Cluverius,Executive CoachTuesday, February 16, 2010
What Every Leader Should Know About How Teams Work
In the mid-1990’s, researcher and business consultant Marcial Losada built a board room where corporate teams met to conduct typical meetings—planning and strategy sessions, etc. But there was a twist. The room was equipped with one-way mirrors where Losada and his assistants tracked every behavior that occurred in those meetings. As a result, Losada was able to build a mathematical model that delineates the factors that create a high performing vs. a low performing team with unusual precision.
Losada used three criteria to determine the performance level of the teams he was studying: profitability, customer satisfaction and evaluations by peers, superiors and subordinates. Using these indicators, Losada found that 25% of the teams he studied were high performing, 30% were low performing and the remainder had mixed success.
Losada plotted the moment by moment data he had collected on all the teams, and when he compared the high performing and low performing teams, there were striking differences. First, the high performing teams had a much higher percentage of positive statements to negative statements—or positivity ratio—than the low performing teams. High performing teams had a positivity ratio of 6:1, compared to below 1:1 for low performing teams. Mixed performance teams had a positivity ratio of around 2:1. In addition, high performing team members connected to each other more frequently, they were attuned to each others’ mood and thoughts, than the other two teams. High performing teams balanced advocacy (defending your point of view) and inquiry (asking questions) and the number of statements that were self focused or other focused. The low performing teams asked almost no questions and showed very little outward focus and had much lower levels of connectivity.
What was even more telling is that teams that maintained a positivity ratio of at least 3:1 (three positive statements for every one negative statement) were able to sustain the characteristics of high performance and top level results over long periods of time. They continued to flourish even in difficult times. They remained open to new ideas, they were flexible and creative, and they were resilient in tough times. The results were very different for the other types of teams. They floundered under pressure. The mixed success teams were able to be creative and open, but when faced with difficult challenges they tended to regress to a lower level of functioning—they became inflexible and stuck in a rut. Team members stopped asking questions and focused on defending their positions. The low performing teams spiraled downward to a stalemate, where nothing got done.
What every team leader needs to know is that there is a tipping point, a precise point where teams head in different directions—either toward openness, flexibility, creativity, resilience and success, or toward closed, internal thinking, stalemate and failure. A tipping point is the point at which an entity changes dramatically, like ice changing to water at precisely 32 0F. Losada calculated that the tipping point for teams is a positivity ratio of 3:1. Any positivity ratio between 3:1 and 11:1 will produce the characteristics of a high performing, self correcting team. Below that ratio and teams will flounder, especially in tough times.
There is more about Losada’s research in Positivity by Barbara Fredrickson, www.positivityratio.com .
Plum Cluverius is an executive coach with over 30 years experience in leadership development. She lives and works in Richmond, Virginia.
Losada used three criteria to determine the performance level of the teams he was studying: profitability, customer satisfaction and evaluations by peers, superiors and subordinates. Using these indicators, Losada found that 25% of the teams he studied were high performing, 30% were low performing and the remainder had mixed success.
Losada plotted the moment by moment data he had collected on all the teams, and when he compared the high performing and low performing teams, there were striking differences. First, the high performing teams had a much higher percentage of positive statements to negative statements—or positivity ratio—than the low performing teams. High performing teams had a positivity ratio of 6:1, compared to below 1:1 for low performing teams. Mixed performance teams had a positivity ratio of around 2:1. In addition, high performing team members connected to each other more frequently, they were attuned to each others’ mood and thoughts, than the other two teams. High performing teams balanced advocacy (defending your point of view) and inquiry (asking questions) and the number of statements that were self focused or other focused. The low performing teams asked almost no questions and showed very little outward focus and had much lower levels of connectivity.
What was even more telling is that teams that maintained a positivity ratio of at least 3:1 (three positive statements for every one negative statement) were able to sustain the characteristics of high performance and top level results over long periods of time. They continued to flourish even in difficult times. They remained open to new ideas, they were flexible and creative, and they were resilient in tough times. The results were very different for the other types of teams. They floundered under pressure. The mixed success teams were able to be creative and open, but when faced with difficult challenges they tended to regress to a lower level of functioning—they became inflexible and stuck in a rut. Team members stopped asking questions and focused on defending their positions. The low performing teams spiraled downward to a stalemate, where nothing got done.
What every team leader needs to know is that there is a tipping point, a precise point where teams head in different directions—either toward openness, flexibility, creativity, resilience and success, or toward closed, internal thinking, stalemate and failure. A tipping point is the point at which an entity changes dramatically, like ice changing to water at precisely 32 0F. Losada calculated that the tipping point for teams is a positivity ratio of 3:1. Any positivity ratio between 3:1 and 11:1 will produce the characteristics of a high performing, self correcting team. Below that ratio and teams will flounder, especially in tough times.
There is more about Losada’s research in Positivity by Barbara Fredrickson, www.positivityratio.com .
Plum Cluverius is an executive coach with over 30 years experience in leadership development. She lives and works in Richmond, Virginia.
Labels: Teamwork
Click for more information on executive coaching with Vedere Consulting. You can also follow Plum on Twitter.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
