<\/p>\n
ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m Alison Beard.<\/p>\n
ADI IGNATIUS: I\u2019m Adi Ignatius, and this is the HBR IdeaCast.<\/em><\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: All right, Adi, tell me about the best team that you ever worked on. What were the people like? How was the dynamic? What made it great?<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So, it\u2019s actually team that you have been on, and that is Harvard Business Review\u2019s virtual events team. And it sort of started probably during COVID. We started doing virtual events and this all-volunteer army came together and the esprit was incredible. It was really in addition to everybody else\u2019s normal job, but it came together. Our focus was clear, and it was so much fun. There were glitches, but it worked, and the team spirit was the best I\u2019ve ever experienced.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: That is giving me chills because I actually think the same thing. My favorite team is our events team here at HBR. Feel like we\u2019re all united toward a goal. We\u2019re trying new things, we\u2019re working to get better, and we all really, really trust each other. So, our guest today might call the team that we\u2019re talking about, a super team. These are groups that don\u2019t just perform well together, but they also enjoy themselves while doing it. He studied a bunch of them and identified the traits they have in common, as well as the leadership behaviors that allow them to become as good as they are. Essentially, the ingredients to create and maintain a super team at your own organization.<\/p>\n ADI IGNATIUS: So, it reminds me a little bit of Jack Welch\u2019s comment that wherever you are in a company, whatever team you\u2019re on, make it the best it can possibly be, which I always thought was great. I\u2019m guessing super teams are not a bunch of superstars.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah, I mean we\u2019ve written a lot about getting the right people on the bus, but he argues that it\u2019s about things like managing time and focus, the right way to give and get feedback, and how to enable continuous learning. So, Ron Friedman is a social psychologist and author of the HBR article, How to Build a Super Team that Keeps Getting Better, as well as the book Super Teams, The Science and Secrets of High-Performing Teams. Here\u2019s our conversation. Ron, welcome to the show.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Thanks for having me.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So, let\u2019s start with how you identified super teams to study. Is that measured by performance, or engagement, or something else?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Over the last few years, my team, we surveyed thousands of workers in a variety of industries and asked them two key questions about their teams. The first was, how effective is your team at reaching its goals? And the second was, compared to other teams in your industry, how would you rate your team\u2019s performance?<\/p>\n And then, we took the teams with a perfect score, a group called super teams, and it\u2019s about 8 percent of the population. And we analyzed what they do differently, and the patterns were striking. The same habits turned up again and again.<\/p>\n Super teams share three key strengths: They get more done by better managing their time, energy, and attention. They don\u2019t just collaborate well, they actively make one another better, and they\u2019re not satisfied producing great work. They\u2019re constantly building their skills and improving over time. And the great news is every single one of those strengths is learnable, which means by building the right habits, any team can dramatically improve its performance.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And is that really the case that any team can be a super team? Because I would imagine that a lot of people would say, \u201cWell, you need to have A players or at least pretty strong talent first.\u201d<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Yeah, it\u2019s a great question. And I think a lot of the conversation around teams is centered around getting the right people on the bus. I\u2019m not going to deny that\u2019s important, but most leaders aren\u2019t building a team from scratch. They\u2019re working with people they already have. And so, instead of focusing on individual talent, we looked at how successful teams actually get work done. We looked at things like how they spend their time at the office, how they structure their meetings, and how they collaborate, and even how they recharge outside of work. And that allowed us to identify the precise habits that drive performance and make them actionable for any team that wants to improve.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: \u00a0Okay. So, why don\u2019t we dig into some of the ways that leaders turn average or even underperforming teams into super teams. How do they experiment beyond what one might normally see in any team or organization?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Well, one of the key differences we found in our research is that super teams, they run nearly 48% more experiments than the average teams. Now, those experiments can be as small as AB testing a landing page or they can be much bigger like launching a new product line. When you look at the most innovative companies in the world, companies like Amazon, and Netflix, and Meta, they\u2019re experimenting all the time.<\/p>\n On Amazon, they\u2019re experimenting with the price of a particular product, the page layout as well. Anytime you go on the app, you\u2019re seeing one version of Amazon, other people are seeing a different version. Same goes for Netflix, where they experiment with the different thumbnails associated with a show to see if it gets you to watch. They\u2019re experimenting with the types of shows they\u2019re producing and the movies as well.<\/p>\n And at Meta, they\u2019re constantly experimenting with the order of your newsfeed and the ads that they\u2019re showing you. The key is to always be working on something that you\u2019re not 100% sure is going to work out and to share those findings with your team because even if you occasionally fail and the experiment doesn\u2019t work, chances are you\u2019re going to learn something that makes you and your team better.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And so, leaders who maybe aren\u2019t in organizations that are inherently experimental like Amazon, or Google, or Meta, they can do this too just within the confines of their own group?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. And I think the key is normalizing mistakes, is just making people understand that mistakes are part of learning. One of my favorite examples is taken from Reid Hoffman at LinkedIn. One of the things that he would tell his team is, \u201cI don\u2019t expect you to be perfect. In fact, I want you to fail 15 percent of the time.\u201d And his thinking on this was that if people are getting everything right, it doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019re doing a perfect job. What it means is they\u2019re likely moving too slowly.<\/p>\n That sentiment is also reflected by something that Reed Hastings at Netflix would say back when he was with that organization. He would often be thrilled when most of their shows were doing well, but if too many of the shows were doing well, he\u2019d take that as a red flag because it would tell him that the team wasn\u2019t taking enough risks. And so, what both of those examples I think really nicely illustrate is that on the best teams, perfection isn\u2019t the goal. Progress is the goal, and the only way to achieve some progress is to make some mistakes along the way.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: What about showing curiosity and asking questions? We\u2019ve covered that quite a bit in HBR over the past few years. How do leaders of super teams do that in a different way than other managers?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: I think more than anything, it\u2019s not just about asking questions, but it\u2019s about being open and receptive to what your team has to say. So, one of the findings that we uncovered in our research is that on super teams, leaders are much more receptive to learning from the people they lead. And what that does is it sends a signal that at this organization, learning new things and great ideas can come from anywhere, and it\u2019s less about hierarchy than it is about insight.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And are there particular questions that you encourage leaders to ask?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: There\u2019s a question that jumped out in the research, which is something that the best leaders ask at meetings. And that question is, what are you stuck on? And it\u2019s a deceptively simple question, but it is remarkably effective because what it does is it normalizes challenges. And so, at most meetings, what often happens is it\u2019s basically an event where people talk about various status updates.<\/p>\n And I think a lot of what makes meeting feel like a waste of people\u2019s time is that that information can be exchanged over email. On super teams, when a leader asks, what are you stuck on, it raises challenges that people are facing and it turns the room into a collaborative forum because now, teammates are jumping in and helping people solve the problems that they\u2019re facing. And so, it does a few things that are very important for moving the team forward.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And that\u2019s usually a question that people avoid because they want to show that they\u2019re making progress and that they\u2019re able to handle problems themselves.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Yeah. It tells people that when you\u2019re doing hard things, experiencing obstacles and setback is a normal part of that experience. And it reframes the experience of feeling stuck as something that is desirable because when people have nothing to say to the leader\u2019s question of what are you stuck on, instead of suggesting that they\u2019re getting everything right, what it really suggests is they\u2019re not tackling the right challenges.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So, you also talk about the importance of well-delivered feedback. What\u2019s new here?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: What\u2019s interesting, I think, is that on super teams, they\u2019re just receiving way more feedback than on average teams. Their leaders deliver feedback more frequently, and they do it in a way that\u2019s more than twice as likely to be experienced as motivating rather than critical. But here\u2019s what really jumped out at us is that on super teams, they\u2019re not just getting feedback from the top down, which is typically what you see on average teams. They\u2019re getting peer-to-peer feedback at a much higher rate.<\/p>\n And it\u2019s not because teammates are constantly giving each other pointers, it\u2019s because they\u2019re higher in something called feedback seeking. People on super teams are more likely to proactively go to one another and ask for input. They\u2019re sharing their work, they\u2019re getting input early, and they\u2019re making revisions before the work ever gets to the manager or to the client. And so, when you\u2019re surrounded with great feedback, it\u2019s much easier to get better because you have all the right insights pointing you in the right direction.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So, I have a few follow-up questions on that. First, how frequent is frequent?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: On the best teams, feedback isn\u2019t something that happens at the end of a project or on a performance review. It\u2019s built into how the work gets done. And so, super team leaders are in constant conversation with their team about how to improve. So, it\u2019s not something that comes with set points. It\u2019s an ongoing conversation.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Okay. And then, you said that they make feedback motivating, not critical. How specifically do they do that?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: What that research suggests is they place much more weight on what needs to change as opposed to what went wrong. And so, they don\u2019t focus on who\u2019s to blame, they focus on lessons learned. And if you can make your feedback future focused, it\u2019s much easier to accept because it doesn\u2019t involve accepting blame for the thing that went wrong, and it gives people something tangible they can do to improve in the future.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: On the topic of motivation, how do you push people who are already performing at a high level to do more and do it faster? Is there a limit to how much you can push people to be super?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: I don\u2019t think that it\u2019s about pushing people at all. I actually think it\u2019s more about removing many of the barriers that get in the way of work. So, let me give you a snapshot of how the average team operates. The average worker spends 18 hours a week in meeting. They then lose another 11 hours digging themselves out of email. So, what does that leave for real work? It\u2019s about a day. What happens when you have to cram a week\u2019s worth of work into a single day? You look for ways to create more time. You come in early, you stay late, you work weekends, and that approach can serve you in the short term, but over the long run, you\u2019re going to burn out. Super teams are much more deliberate with their time at work. They are 50% better at avoiding unnecessary meetings. They\u2019re 54% less likely to schedule recurring meetings, which often become a time sink because they\u2019re so difficult to remove.<\/p>\n The other thing they do is they set aside dedicated focus hours during the day for real work. They do things like meeting-free days where people can focus on moving projects forward instead of having to sacrifice their times for meetings and monitoring messages, but except they don\u2019t call them Meeting-Free Days. They call them Get Things Done Days because they want to reinforce the purpose behind the initiatives. So, if I were to sum up everything that high-performing teams do to get more done into a simple formula, it would be this: minimize distraction, maximize focus.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. And you talked about the importance of purpose in motivating people, whether they\u2019re A players or D players, and that helps in creating a supercharged team. But metrics also matter too. So, at the end of the day, you do need to focus on the purpose behind what you\u2019re doing, but then also, delivering on the performance. So, how do leaders of super teams balance those two things?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: I think it\u2019s not one or the other. I think it\u2019s providing people with a greater sense of purpose for what it is that they\u2019re achieving that goes beyond meeting quarterly profits that makes the work meaningful. Now, I will say that that is not a substitute for a high-performing team. One of the findings that we identified in our research is that the source of people\u2019s meaning at work differs depending on whether they\u2019re on an average team versus if they\u2019re on a super team. On average teams, the number one source of meaning for workers is providing a salary that they can take home to support their family. But on super teams, the number one source of meaning came from being part of a team. We had people rank order, what makes their job meaningful, and that\u2019s what rose to the top. And so, what I think that tells us is that when you work on a team that really clicks, when people around you are making you better, when you feel like you\u2019re getting your most important work done, and when you feel like you\u2019re constantly growing, the team itself becomes a source of meaning.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: What behaviors do leaders exhibit to create that sense of belonging?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: There are a couple of things that leaders can do to bring a team closer while making the team more effective. The first is when someone comes to you for feedback, don\u2019t just simply offer that feedback, but encourage them to get some feedback from their teammates. And what that does is it normalizes the idea that we make each other better. It\u2019s not just the leader who has all the insights. The other thing is, and this is something that we also see in our research, is super team leaders are far more likely to roll up their sleeves and do the actual work. They\u2019re not comfortable simply deciding and delegating. They invest in the day-to-day operation. And that does a couple of things. One is very clearly, it helps people feel a deeper sense of collaboration because when they\u2019re working shoulder-to-shoulder with their leader, they can feel like they\u2019re all moving in the same direction, but it also gives leaders a clearer view of what\u2019s actually happening on the ground so they can spot challenges and opportunities way faster than leaders who are managing at a distance.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. That tracks with that conversation that we previously had on the IdeaCast with Scott Cook, the founder of Intuit, about the fact that leaders need to be in the trenches to understand. And that doesn\u2019t mean micromanagement, but it does mean being part of the team, not just the person running it. So, do you have examples of bosses who have taken underperforming teams and turned them into super teams?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: The Oklahoma City Thunder managed to do something pretty incredible, which is they went from near the bottom of the NBA to the very best of the NBA in under three seasons, which is practically unheard of. And the remarkable thing is, this isn\u2019t even their first time doing it. They followed a very similar trajectory a little over a decade ago. And how they did it is through a number of different ways. One is they experiment constantly. And a prime example for the Thunder is their starting lineup. Most teams start the same five players in every basketball game. With the Thunder, you have almost no idea who\u2019s going to be starting. They\u2019re constantly trying new combinations and saving the best ones for the playoffs. So, constant experimentation is one feature.<\/p>\n Another feature is they make learning feel safe. If you look through the statements of their general manager, Sam Presti, one of the things he\u2019s often saying is having a tolerance for the messiness and regression of learning. And what he\u2019s really saying here is that anytime you\u2019re trying to do something new, you\u2019re going to experience some setbacks. And when the leader emphasizes that that\u2019s an expectation, it lowers the pressure on others and allows people to take the risks they need to learn new things.<\/p>\n And the final thing about the Thunder is that they are always working to get better even when they\u2019re succeeding. Before their current rise, the Thunder had a winning team. They were actually making the playoffs pretty regularly. They were doing well. They just weren\u2019t winning championship, but the leadership recognized they didn\u2019t have the caliber of talent they needed to really compete. So, they did something pretty unusual. They traded away their best players, even though they were winning, for future draft picks because they recognized that doing so would raise the team ceiling in the long term. And that\u2019s exactly what super teams do when they\u2019re looking for better ways of learning.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So, you\u2019re hurting my heart a little bit because as frequent listeners will know, I\u2019m a diehard Celtics fan and OKC will be our biggest rival in the West if we can get through the East with the NBA playoffs starting right now. But I greatly admire what they have done at OKC. Absolutely. That point you made about trades though brings me to another question. So, if you\u2019re the leader of a super team and you\u2019re doing all of these things right, and then, you see people who aren\u2019t getting better or aren\u2019t gelling with the rest of the team, aren\u2019t doing all the things that make a super team super, does that mean that you need to get rid of them?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: I think there are points in time where people do need to let go. I\u2019m not under the naive impression that you can fix everyone. I think a lot of times, as leaders, we fall for the belief very much like many people do when they get married, that I\u2019ll change them once they\u2019re here. And that\u2019s just not realistic. And so, I do think that there are certain traits you\u2019re looking for when you\u2019re trying to build a super team. And given the importance of learning, and evolving, and adapting in the age of AI, having a willingness and openness to learning new things, taking risks, making mistakes, that\u2019s a critical requirement for adapting to the world we now live in.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So, you need people who buy into the idea that we\u2019re all here for continuous improvement. We\u2019re all here to deliver on our purpose as well as our performance. You need those types of A players.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Improvement doesn\u2019t work when it is owned by one person. It works when it\u2019s part of how the team operates. And part of the leader\u2019s responsibility is making learning feel safe. We can talk all day about the importance of learning, but the reality is that in most businesses, getting better is actually quite hard. And it\u2019s because improvement requires two things that most companies aren\u2019t particularly comfortable with. It requires risk-taking, and it requires failure. And unless a team feels comfortable making those mistakes, learning becomes impossible.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: I would say that I feel like in today\u2019s current climate, a real challenge to this idea or obstacle to this idea is time and resources. So, we\u2019re all needing to do our jobs, our existing jobs, as well as we possibly can. Often multiple jobs, people are having to do at once and making space for the kind of experimentation you\u2019re talking about, the kind of failure you\u2019re talking about, the kind of ongoing feedback, learning, self-improvement, it doesn\u2019t feel like we have time for it. So, how do you address that problem?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: I love that question because one of the main arguments I make in my new book, Super Teams, is that the three strengths are interwoven. You can\u2019t expect the team to get better unless you free up their time by freeing them from meetings and email. You can\u2019t expect a team to get better unless they feel supported by their teammates and they\u2019re surrounded by people who make them better. Each strength is a necessary pre-requirement in order for the other strengths to emerge. And what we find on super teams is that it\u2019s not just having one of the strengths. It\u2019s not just better managing your time, energy and attention, or making each other better, or constantly improving. It\u2019s all three at the same time. And unless you address each one of them, you\u2019re simply not going to get results.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So, you think that leaders can do that within their own teams sometimes despite organizational constraints?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: I think the best leaders are focus amplifiers. And what I mean by that is they weed out the distractions that are eating people\u2019s time and aren\u2019t contributing to their performance. And so, it has to start with freeing up people\u2019s time so that they can focus on what matters. And yes, that\u2019s the responsibility of leaders.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Yeah. And the crazy thing about your findings on super teams is that these leaders actually create enough time so that their employees can then go do outside gigs. They can sort of grow outside the organization too, and leaders encourage that. So, how does that work? What\u2019s an example?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Well, what we see in super teams is that they actually invest over an hour a week more than members of average teams in hobbies. Some of them have side gigs. And we find in our research is that the best leaders are more supportive of moonlighting than our average leaders. And it\u2019s because they are supportive of the employee\u2019s growth and development, and they\u2019re authentic about it. They\u2019re not just doing it because it serves the team.<\/p>\n And what both of those things point to is that how we spend our off hours determines the quality of our performance at work. A lot of people think that when they\u2019re not working, they\u2019re automatically recovering, but that\u2019s not the case. Passive activities like scrolling Instagram or binging Netflix, they can help us unwind, but they rarely help us recover our energy.<\/p>\n What actually helps people recover their energy are mastery experiences. It\u2019s doing activities that stretch your skills and challenge you in new ways. And so, depending on your interests, that can mean learning a new song on the piano, or trying out a new dish, or entering a pickleball tournament, or even yes, taking a side gig. The takeaway here is that recovery doesn\u2019t mean slowing down. It requires accelerating in a different direction.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: That sounds like a lot. I\u2019m not going to lie.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Hold on. Why does that sound like a lot?<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: I guess it\u2019s because I have two teenagers at home, and so, that\u2019s my acceleration that I have to deal with.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Got it.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Maybe when I\u2019m an empty-nester, I\u2019ll take up knitting or pickleball.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Fair enough. I completely appreciate the desire to unwind and to relax. What this research points to is that investing an hour or so a week in something that moves you forward outside of your career will benefit your performance at work.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: So, the job of the leader is simply to encourage people when they express interest in outside pursuits.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: That\u2019s part of it. And another part of it is encouraging people to disconnect in their off hours. We actually have data showing that the best leaders are more than twice as likely to encourage people to disconnect from work in their off hours. And so, part of it is encouragement. Part of it is highlighting and recognizing people when they achieve things outside of work. It\u2019s really about being authentic in developing your employees, whether that benefits your team in the short term or not, because ultimately, it\u2019s going to lead people to be more invested in you as a boss and in your company as a whole.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And then, when you have a super team, when you\u2019ve created one, how do you ensure that no one becomes complacent and you stay super?<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: A defining feature of super teams is the pursuit of continuous improvement. So, it is built into how the team operates. And that\u2019s what we see in the Thunder. It\u2019s what we see in all the examples of the various teams that we\u2019ve discussed, which is that getting better is part of how they operate. And so, it\u2019s not a one-time event. It\u2019s not something they have to talk about in their offsite. It\u2019s an ongoing conversation.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: And so, that\u2019s a culture that you create.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Absolutely. And it starts with your attitude towards learning things from your employees. It\u2019s about sharing insights that you uncovered. It\u2019s about reacting to things in a way that\u2019s positive when someone presents an alternative viewpoint. It\u2019s all of those features, and it\u2019s having that curiosity mindset and having the intellectual humility that demonstrates that you\u2019re authentically interested in developing the people around you.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: Terrific. Well, Ron, thank you so much for your time.<\/p>\n RON FRIEDMAN: Glad to be here.<\/p>\n ALISON BEARD: That\u2019s Ron Friedman, a psychologist and author of the HBR article, How to Build a Super Team that Keeps Getting Better, and the book Superteams: The Science and Secrets of High-Performing Teams.<\/p>\n Next week, Adi speaks with Charles Duhigg about creating the right habits to move the needle on culture at your organization.<\/p>\n If you found this episode helpful, please share it with a colleague and be sure to subscribe and rate IdeaCast <\/em>in Apple Podcast, Spotify, or wherever you listen. If you want to help leaders move the world forward, consider subscribing to Harvard Business Review. You\u2019ll get access to the HBR mobile app, the weekly exclusive insider newsletter and unlimited access to HBR online. Just head to hbr.org\/subscribe.<\/p>\n Thanks to our team, senior producer Mary Dooe, audio product manager, Ian Fox, and senior production specialist, Rob Eckhardt. And thanks to you for listening to the HBR IdeaCast<\/em>. We\u2019ll be back with a new episode on Tuesday. I\u2019m Alison Beard.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n #Sets #Superteams #Rest<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ALISON BEARD: I\u2019m Alison Beard. ADI IGNATIUS: I\u2019m Adi Ignatius, and this is the HBR IdeaCast. ALISON BEARD: All right, Adi, tell me about the best team that you ever worked on. What were the people like? How was the dynamic? What made it great? ADI IGNATIUS: So, it\u2019s actually team that you have been […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3277,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7045","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-management"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n