[MUSIC] Now, you know, the characteristics of coaching conversations, the culture that supports coaching, the skills needed to coach and the coaching process. Leadership and management theorist J. Richard Hackman wrote that, while a manager can and should coach their direct reports, leaders and members of self managed teams, should coach the full team as well. Hackman says that, over the long term a manager will gain great value, in helping a team develop ways of working together that engage. And sustain the commitment of all of its members and foster remember learning in the process, we've talked before about, how psychological safety. Is the most important condition for team success, teams are formed because no one person can do all of the work, and not just because they don't have the time. But because they don't have all the needed knowledge, skills and abilities, we expect the synergies of a team to ensure, that the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts. This saying derived from several different quotes by Aristotle effectively means that, when we combine one individual's work with other people's work. The result will be something greater or better than simply the two pieces of work added together, it is as if 1 plus 1 equals 2 and half, we will refer to this as process gain. However many teams operate at a processed loss, that is the less is hold on the some of the teams parts, psychologist Garold Strasser. Has documented that this is often due to the fact that, information privately held by individuals is less likely to be shared with a full group and when it is shared. It is less likely to be discussed or given the same weight as information already known by the majority of group members, in one of my courses. I run a simulation in which students work in teams of five, while some information students receive is the same for all teammates, some information differs. I then give them a series of problems to solve, the only way to solve many of the problems is, to combine knowledge from every member teams usually. Correctly answer the problems that rely on information, they all have and most teams incorrectly answer the problems, that rely on privately held information, why? Because individual members do not share information, that the entire team doesn't seem to already know and when they do, the teams don't give that information. As much weight in their decision making, most work teams are not meeting their potential because members, do not share their privately held information. Why don't individuals share information they privately hold with their teams? Partly It's just that we take for granted that, if we know something, probably everybody else does too and if no one brings it up, maybe it's not that important. One student when asked, why he did not share information that was relevant, necessary to answer one of the questions? Responded with, I didn't think anybody cared about what I had to say? But Strasser says, it's also because members are judged as more competent and credible, after discussing commonly held instead of individually held information. Commonly held information is judged as more accurate and decision relevant than, information held by only one member as we've discussed. A lack of psychological safety leads people to be more concerned about their peers and bosses judgment, in the activity I described student teams. That earned the lowest scores on the problem set, often rate their team's effectiveness higher, than do those teams that get more problems correct. Teams often misperceive effectiveness based on, how harmoniously they work together, Psychological safety does not mean team harmony. In fact, there might be more conflict on psychologically safe teams, but the conflict is managed well, preventing processed losses. As the team uses the conflict to surface disagreements, that lead to a deeper understanding of the work, highlight potential pitfalls in decisions. And creatively solve problems, coaching both by a team lead and by team members themselves supports, the maintenance of a psychologically safe team. One where the hole is likely to be greater than the sum of its parts, team members can help each other learn ways they can strengthen their personal contributions. While as Hackman rights, exploring ways the team as a whole can make the best possible use of its member resources. Hackman suggests, that we get more attraction by focusing on the team task, then on interpersonal relations other than airing and overcoming serious grievances. Keep everyone focused on the work and the team's process when something goes wrong, do not assume group members have a personality difference? Often conflicts arise because of miscommunications and different understandings of key issues so, what does inter team or peer coaching look like? The team can coach an individual or the whole team at once, and one team member can coach another team member, one on one. Or one team member could coach the whole team, the only thing that really matters is, that the people being coached except the person who is coaching in that role. Here are some examples of statements, anyone on the team can make that effectively facilitates the team's process, general comments to a whole team. We have a team norm that we would not interrupt each other and right now, we're losing a lot of information because people are talking over each other. How can we capture everyone's ideas? The stated goal for this meeting was to select an option from those, we brainstormed on in our last meeting and devise an action plan to implement it. Right now, we seem to be brainstorming new ideas, do we believe we surface the most useful options already? Or should we go back to the brainstorming phase? What is working well? What might we do differently over the rest of the project to improve our group's process? Coaching statements that keep the team on track, summarize as the team moves through the different stages. Okay, we've discovered that we have three different opportunities and we have fully explored the costs and benefits of each one, I think we're ready to choose one. What do others think? Okay, we have decided on option one, Suki will lead task A, I will lead task B, and Marcel will lead task C, did I miss anything? Summarizing takes maybe 30 seconds and when no one does it, you find that later people have a different understanding of, what the outcome was? You go to a meeting two weeks later and somebody has done something that, someone else thought they were supposed to do. Or someone hasn't done something that the group expected them to do, oftentimes it is just a misunderstanding of, what was resolved in a meeting. Ensure all team members are involved by, amplifying the voices of those whose comments are not given full weight by the group, Mary-Ellen suggested earlier. That we approach the other team to see if they'll collaborate on this with us, I think the idea has merit, what do others think? Reflect and ask open ended questions, we have identified several reasons the instrument is out of sync, might these reasons have a common cause? We have decided to use a matrix structure for our three biggest projects, how can we ensure our shared employees don't get overloaded? How will our decision, to reduce costs affect customer satisfaction? None of these questions attacks any individual, they all helped the team focus on the work and support productivity, and teams generally respond positively to them. When the speaker even appear, or a lower level team member focuses on the future outcome the team seeks.
