748: What Really Matters for Team Success, with Colin Fisher

Dave Stachowiak [00:00:00]:
Most of us assume that the best thing we can do for our teams is to be a great coach as they’re working together. That absolutely helps. But the research says that only 10% of group effectiveness is what we do once the team is underway. In this episode, the other 90% that really matters and how we get better at it. This is Coaching for Leaders, episode 748. Production Credit: Produced by Innovate. Learning, maximizing human potential. Greetings to you from Orange County, California. This is Coaching for Leaders, and I’m your host, Dave Stachowiak. Leaders aren’t born, they’re made.

Dave Stachowiak [00:00:47]:
And this weekly show helps you discover leadership wisdom through insightful conversations. Of course, a big part of leadership is working with groups, working with teams, and as leaders. So many of us are thinking about how do we actually be effective at leading teams and groups that are going to help the organization to reach its goals and also do it in a way where people are excited and motivated in their work. I am so glad today to have a conversation that’s going to help us to look at some of the most recent research and more, more importantly, how we apply it to really help our teams succeed in the best possible way. I’m so glad to welcome Colin Fisher to the show. Since his days as a professional jazz trumpet player, Colin has been fascinated by group dynamics. Today he is an associate professor of organizations and innovation at University College London School of Management, researching the hidden processes of helping groups and teams and in situations requiring creativity, improvisation and complex decision making. He is the author of The Collective Edge: Unlocking the Secret Power of Groups.

Dave Stachowiak [00:01:58]:
Colin, such a pleasure to have you on.

Colin Fisher [00:02:01]:
Thanks so much for having me, Dave. I’m excited to be here.

Dave Stachowiak [00:02:05]:
Well, let’s start with casinos, which is maybe an odd place to start, but it’s actually a great analogy for groups. Your dad took you gambling at an age that he should not have when you were young and you ended up winning some money. But you learned a lesson since the house always wins, doesn’t it?

Colin Fisher [00:02:26]:
Absolutely. It was such a funny thing to have done where we went into this casino. And as you say, I was actually only 17, but I looked a little older than that. I had a nice big thick goatee, which I was very proud of as a 17 year old. And so we, but we still wanted to kind of sit out of the way and so we went off into kind of a less traveled corner of the casino which had machines that were only double bonus poker. And so we had to kind of figure out what’s a good strategy for double bonus poker because the odds are different than for normal poker. And so my dad kind of taught me, oh, here’s, here’s how you’d handle this. Keep aces a little more often when you wouldn’ keep actually low cards like two threes and fours.

Colin Fisher [00:03:15]:
And it worked great. We actually won $700, 1,,000. I can’t remember anymore.

Dave Stachowiak [00:03:21]:
Wow.

Colin Fisher [00:03:21]:
But yeah, I mean, it was, it was a great day. It was a lot of fun. But as I have, you know, become a business school professor and thought more about this, I thought, you know, it’s a great metaphor because the we, we came up with, we spent all this energy coming up with a great strategy and we, we played the game about as well as we could. But every time I’ve gone back since, we still lose. And the reason we lose is we’re playing a game we’re designed to lose. And I think this is a great analogy for teams because on some level, when we coach people to change their process, their strategy, what we’re doing is we’re coming up with that best possible way to play double bonus poker. But if you’re playing a rigged game, coming up with the best strategy isn’t going to help you because eventually the structure of that game is going to win. And so in the book, I draw this analogy to the structure of teams and how the structure of teams rig the game so that when we’re trying to manage our moment to moment process, we may be trying to make best of a rigged game.

Colin Fisher [00:04:41]:
And so I’m encouraging leaders of teams to really think carefully about the game they’re playing before they spend all their energy focusing on process.

Dave Stachowiak [00:04:50]:
You write, “if your goal is to maximize your chances of winning money, you’ve already lost. The second you walk into the casino, you’re playing someone else’s game, one that is structured for you to lose in the long run.” I think about those two sentences and what you just said and how often we think about groups and teams and where we put our energy. And you draw a very clear distinction in your work and research between structure and coaching. Could you tell me about that distinction?

Colin Fisher [00:05:22]:
Yeah, I mean, this is such an important distinction that it goes back to research that my mentors, Richard Hackman and Ruth Wageman did, about how you structure groups to create the conditions for them to succeed. And the main elements of group structure are the composition of the group, the goals that the group has, the tasks that it’s given, and the norms it has for interacting. And those, those are really powerful that’s like the, the game itself that creates the odds. But coaching are trying to affect the moment to moment process of the group, which usually has to do with the effort that members are putting forth or the strategy for coordinating or doing the task that the group is using. When we think about trying to directly manage motivation or strategy, those are things that if you imagine a sports coach, those are the things that happen. The rousing halftime speech where you come in and you’re like, okay, let’s really go get them this time or I’ve noticed a weakness in their defense, let’s attack them here. But those things, if that’s the only way that we intervene to help a team, we’re often still playing that rigged game. And that what research has shown consistently is that if you’re pitting structure against process, structure is going to win every time.

Colin Fisher [00:06:56]:
And so getting people to pay more attention to the structure of their group is really one of the important messages of the book.

Dave Stachowiak [00:07:05]:
Indeed. And I was really struck by several of the points you make and the research on this. And one of them is that if an effective structure isn’t there, good coaching doesn’t help as much as we think it does. And the opposite is also true. If a good structure is there, bad coaching doesn’t harm nearly as much as we think it does either. The structure really does trump everything else that the processes, the daily tactics of leading a group.

Colin Fisher [00:07:41]:
Yeah, absolutely. This is one of my favorite studies and it was done by Ruth Wageman at Xerox and she got this really rare opportunity to really measure the coaching behaviors of leaders of these self managed teams of Xerox tech technicians. And of course we know there’s good coaching behaviors like trying to foster self management and help the team to motivate its members or help them to develop a better strategy. But there’s also bad coaching behaviors like micromanaging, like yelling at people, like you know, kind of breaking the team apart and trying to just manage individuals. And so she, she got really detailed measures of both these good coaching behaviors and bad coaching behaviors. And what you found was really striking that for the teams that were well structured, so they, they were well composed, had clear shared goals, they had good tasks, good norms, those teams benefited from good coaching significantly. But the poorly structured teams, there was almost no change when you would coach them well. And for the teams that were exposed to bad coaching, the well structured teams, they weren’t hurt hardly at all.

Colin Fisher [00:09:05]:
I mean they were hurt a little bit. Right. There’s a very non significant difference in their performance. But the ones who were really hurt by this micromanaging, abusive leadership were the poorly structured teams and their performance just plummeted. So it’s really a case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, where the well structured teams benefit from good coaching and the poorly structured teams are harmed by bad coaching, but not the reverse. But it also shows that structure is necessary for coaching to have its effects. If you try and coach your way out of a poorly structured team, it’s just not going to have that much of effect.

Dave Stachowiak [00:09:50]:
Yeah, huh. You write, “work on fixing structural problems before you focus on fixing process. Otherwise you’re just making the best of a rigged game.” And you mentioned two of your mentors, researchers, Richard Hackman, Ruth Wegman, and they have a rule that’s emerged in the research, the 60, 30, 10 rule. This strikes me as like so critical to what you’re saying. Could you tell me a bit about that rule and how those, those percentages play out?

Colin Fisher [00:10:23]:
Yeah. The 60, 30, 10 rule is a great rule of thumb to think about how you can have influence as a team leader. So the 60 is that 60% of team performance is determined by structure. And that’s usually stuff that happens before a group ever meets it’s who you’re putting on the team, what the goal is, what work you’re giving the team. 30% of team performance is determined in the launch meeting. Now, that may seem like a lot, actually, that this one meeting, that the beginning, is so influential on team performance. But that’s because of two reasons.

Colin Fisher [00:11:05]:
One is that what happens in these early moments of a team is really, really sticky. So we’ve all experienced a time where wherever we sit in the first meeting with a new team, that becomes our spot.

Dave Stachowiak [00:11:21]:
Right.

Colin Fisher [00:11:21]:
Like we sit there for the rest of the time.

Dave Stachowiak [00:11:24]:
Yeah.

Colin Fisher [00:11:24]:
And actually everyone does this. Right. Like there’s kind of a norm that emerges right at the beginning. But other norms also emerge in those early moments of a team’s work together. Norms for how we communicate. Who speaks most, who doesn’t speak at all? How engaged are we? Are we really all paying attention or people kind of secretly fiddling with their phones underneath the table? Those kinds of norms don’t change easily once they’re established. So because norms are sticky, there’s a lot going on there. And also, whether a team really buys into the purpose it’s brought together for is also largely determined in that first meeting.

Colin Fisher [00:12:11]:
And so a really important thing that leaders do at launch is to articulate the goal in a way that’s going to say, you know, here’s where we’re trying to get to, here’s why it’s important to do that, and here’s what’s going to be challenging about that. And if we don’t kind of get that coming together around a common goal in the first meeting, it actually turns out to be surprisingly hard to rally people to that goal later on. So that’s the 30% and then the 10%. The 10 at the end is the real time coaching. The offering helps guidance, support, feedback, sometimes motivation, those kinds of things actually roughly account for about 10% of the variance in team performance. And that’s still a lot. Like, if you can improve every team 10%, that’s a big improvement in your organization. Yeah, but you know, it’s again, not going to overcome these other forces that, that are just more powerful.

Colin Fisher [00:13:17]:
So that’s the 60, 30, 10 rule. And the funny thing about it though is that’s not how we allocate our attention as leaders. Indeed, most leaders spend much more than 10% of their attention on the kind of coaching. It’s very rare you get somebody to spend 30% of their time and attention on the launch of a team. And it’s even rarer that you would get somebody to spend 60% of their energy on thinking about how to put the team together in the first place.

Dave Stachowiak [00:13:50]:
That is exactly what struck me when I was going through your research and thinking about this and I was reflecting on both my own behaviors and also thinking about leaders that I talk with in team dynamics and helping support team effectiveness and where do people spend their time. And when I look at this model, 60% structure, 30% the launch, and 10% coaching, it’s almost reverse, if not even more reverse. Like, 80 to 90% of the conversations I have tend to be the coaching conversations. And to your point, that’s important, right? Like, and especially if the team is structured well, coaching really does help over time. But boy, we miss so much time and thinking about the launches and the structure. And I think this begs probably the obvious question of like, wow, the 60%, that’s really important. And you’ve mentioned the four things that you highlight as far as structure. And I’m wondering if we could dive into a few of those in detail of like, what that 60% really looks like and how we can get better.

Dave Stachowiak [00:14:58]:
And one of the things you highlight is goals like making that really clear and also helping people understand why it’s important. What is it about getting a goal right, with a team that is most critical.

Colin Fisher [00:15:15]:
Yeah, I mean on some level we know, we’ve all heard that clear goals are so important for any kind of work, but they’re particularly important for groups and teams. And that’s because when we’re in a group we need to not only be motivated towards some kind of important goal, but we also need to coordinate our action. And if we’re not all trying to get to the same place, it’s really, really hard to coordinate. And so I like to call this the California tomorrow problem. And that the way I explain it is if I say to you, hey, let’s meet in California tomorrow, we’ve got almost no chance, right, that I’ve given you two things that are both too vague. Obviously California is a big place, we’re not going to find each other in that big state. But even tomorrow is probably too vague that we’re not going. Even if I specify the street corner, we, there’s a pretty good chance we wouldn’t find each other.

Colin Fisher [00:16:27]:
But teams and organizations are often creating goals at that level of specificity that they want to make the client happy with an on time delivery. And it’s like, well, that’s not nearly clear enough for us to really coordinate our actions and that we’re going to have to really work harder to, to create a shared vision of the future where we can all envision it. So when we’re not immediately talking to one another, we’re keeping our actions as coordinated as possible. So usually people are under specifying their goals and they don’t realize that this is an ongoing process throughout their work together. That one military leader I’ve talked to as part of telling people about the book said he was told by a great commander that being a leader means being the repeater in chief. And that I think that’s really true that a key leadership function in teams is just to keep reminding people of where it is we’re trying to get to, why it’s important and what it is that we all need to do together. Because as we do our work, that kind of shared mental picture of what we’re trying to accomplish starts to come apart just slightly. We all develop slightly different versions.

Colin Fisher [00:17:51]:
And so you need to keep talking about this throughout your work in order to stay aligned.

Dave Stachowiak [00:17:56]:
Another key part of the 60% of structure is tasks. When you say the word tasks in the context of team being effective, what do you mean by tasks?

Colin Fisher [00:18:10]:
So task means the work that the team is given. And so the a well designed task has a few different qualities but one of the main qualities is it’s a whole piece of work where we see it through from the beginning to the end, and we can see the results of our own labor in the final product. And ideally, we’re even then seeing its impact on the world. And so I’ll give you an example of a poorly designed task to kind of underscore this.

Dave Stachowiak [00:18:47]:
Oh, please.

Colin Fisher [00:18:48]:
So if we treat, you know, like if you’re on a committee and your task is to write a report, and then you send the report up the chain and you. You’re sending it to the vice president, but you actually don’t know what the report is for, you don’t know what they’re going to use it for. No one gives you any feedback on whether it was good or it was bad or if they even read it. And that that’s an example of poorly designed work where you’re kind of put in the middle. You don’t know exactly why you’re doing what you’re doing. You don’t see the results of it at the other end. And that those are the kinds of tasks that teams don’t do.

Colin Fisher [00:19:30]:
Well, they’re inherently demotivating. So we want to give teams, whether they’re making a toaster or whether they’re producing a report, we want to give them this kind of beginning to end autonomy over it to the extent that we can and that we want to allow. We want to design work so people can see progress as they’re doing it. And if we think about the things that we’d like to do, whether it’s playing sports, whether it’s video games, whether it’s even reading a book.

Dave Stachowiak [00:20:03]:
Right.

Colin Fisher [00:20:03]:
There are things where we kind of see our progress as we go and we see these indications that we’re closer to finishing later. But a lot of work that we do doesn’t naturally have that quality. It’s not like we’re playing Pac man and we can see the dots going away as we’re playing the game.

Dave Stachowiak [00:20:22]:
Yeah.

Colin Fisher [00:20:23]:
And so we as leaders have to kind of imbue work with that sense of progress. And so when I talk about task design, I’m talking about how can we give people this sense of a whole piece of work that how can we give people the sense that they’re making progress as they’re doing the work? And how can we make sure that they understand the importance and the contribution they’re making by seeing its impact on whoever is receiving this work at the other end?

Dave Stachowiak [00:20:52]:
Huh. When you see someone do that, well, what is it they do as a team leader that helps to illuminate that a bit or make that more apparent for folks that they can see that progress that what you just described. I’m just curious what you’ve seen work.

Colin Fisher [00:21:13]:
So progress, it really varies how easy it is to see progress in your work. So if you’re doing something, and this is true for the kind of work I do, so when we have research teams, there’s a lot of effort that’s going in. You’re reading papers, you’re coming up with ideas, but that it’s often hard to tell if you’re any closer or not. Right. And so there’s a couple ways you can do it. One is just whoever is sort of taking these leadership roles to say, hey, I think this was a real breakthrough or we’ve really made progress here and to try and articulate why they think so. Another is to try and break down the process into smaller tasks so you can have this kind of sense of what one of my other mentors, Teresa Amable, called small wins. And that if we can keep breaking down tasks into their components and say, all right, we’re not going to get all the way to having a published paper today.

Colin Fisher [00:22:23]:
What can we do today so that we don’t lose, lose ourselves in this vast years long project? Well, I may not be able to publish a paper, but I can write a paragraph. I can not just. And so let me say one other thing about this. So like one task that at least in my world, where you don’t see progress very well is you can review literature and read papers forever, right? And it’s hard to tell if you’re done or not. So I like to turn that into a task that we can see by saying, okay, reading a paper, that’s kind of a bad task, but writing a three sentence summary of how that paper is relevant for this project, that’s something we can see. And so turning invisible tasks into visible tasks that the rest of the team can see is an important way. And that I’ve also seen. You know, there’s plenty of project management software and experts where you’re trying to, you know, kind of have some project progress bar built into your shared workspace.

Colin Fisher [00:23:36]:
Anything you can do where you can celebrate these small wins, where you can point them out when they’re happening, and that these often are things that I would consider to be mostly that 10% of coaching behaviors. But now the coaching is bearing on making the task better and tapping into that 60% can be really valuable things.

Dave Stachowiak [00:23:57]:
One of the other key components of the 60% of structure is composition of the group. And a word that comes up a bunch in this, in the book is diversity. And I’m curious how you think about diversity because oftentimes we think about diversity only from the demographic lens of gender and race. And of course, all of those are key components of diversity. And when it comes to group composition, there’s a deeper diversity that you’re thinking about too that may be even more impactful.

Colin Fisher [00:24:28]:
Yeah, so, yeah, I mean, obviously diversity can mean a lot of different things and that as researchers, we often differentiate between surface level or kind of demographic diversity, which are these things like race, gender and age are probably the most common ones. And then, but then the reason those are important for teams is because they’re proxies for different information skills and perspectives. And that when we want a team to be more than the sum of its parts, to actually have this potential for literal synergy, that we need to have at least some of this deep level diversity of different knowledge, different skills, different perspectives. It’s the same reason we don’t have bands of all drummers very often, that we don’t have basketball teams with all centers or all point guards, that groups just work better when people have complementary knowledge and skills and that their perspectives can bring out something in, in the other that they didn’t know before, that we can kind of learn from one another. So this deep level diversity is essential when you’re composing teams. And that may correlate, especially different perspectives may correlate with demographic diversity. But we’re using that as a means to get deep level diversity. If what we care about is this kind of synergistic effect of teams, how.

Dave Stachowiak [00:26:09]:
Do you know as a team leader that you’re moving beyond just the surface level diversity? And you really have gone into also the depth of diversity of what people think and know and do as far as experience.

Colin Fisher [00:26:27]:
So I think the first thing it goes back to the 60% at the beginning is that you do an analysis of the goal you’re trying to achieve and the task you’re giving the group and you work backwards and say, okay, what knowledge, skills and often perspectives are going to be needed for us to achieve that? And I’m going to think carefully about whether we’re getting those on the team or we’re not. And honestly, if you’ve already thought that you’re ahead of most people, that often teams are composed with the rubric of who’s available. Yeah, or, oh, who do I have to include to avoid offending anyone? And that those rubrics are, obviously, they’re not thinking about, well, what do I need to achieve this? And so we see so many teams where they have to do some kind of technical task and they don’t have someone who’s very good at it. And it’s because there wasn’t sort of this foresight at the composition stage. But the other part is that human beings have a tendency to affiliate with those who are kind of similar to them. And that tendency is called homophily. And that’s basically birds of a feather flock together. And that people often justify this as like, oh, I have really good rapport with these people.

Colin Fisher [00:27:52]:
I really like them.

Dave Stachowiak [00:27:54]:
Yeah.

Colin Fisher [00:27:54]:
And if you’re composing teams like that, that’s kind of a warning sign that you may not be trying to maximize exposure to different perspectives, to different knowledge, to different skills. And that if everybody already is really, really buddy, buddy, they’re all from the same part of the organization, or often they all do look the same or have the same kinds of backgrounds, those are signs that you may not be challenging yourself as much as you can in the way you’re composing these teams and giving them a better chance of becoming more than some of their parts.

Dave Stachowiak [00:28:33]:
The final area of structure, the 60%, is norms, team norms, group norms. What does that look like?

Colin Fisher [00:28:42]:
Well, it’s hard to say because they’re invisible. So they’re invisible on the surface, and that that’s why a lot of times we don’t notice them. But the group norms are just literally what feels normal to us in a group, and that they’re the things that we were talking about that emerge at launch. They’re things like who talks the most? Who doesn’t speak in a meeting? Is it the leader who’s dominating all the time and that everybody kind of goes along with them? And so they can be things that are relatively low stakes to the task, like whether we make small talk at the beginning of the meeting, or whether we all kind of look at our phones and ignore each other. But they also can be really consequential things like how do we make decisions, like whether or not we speak up when we disagree. And these kinds of social norms for decision making, for communication and for coordination turn out to be really important. Because if we have to negotiate how we do these tasks every time, that’s a big cost to us. If we don’t know what communication channels we’re going to use, if we don’t know where we’re storing information or even if we don’t have a shared understanding of how quickly we’re going to respond to emails, sometimes that creates problems in teams.

Colin Fisher [00:30:14]:
So we want to have explicit norms for communication and decision making, but we also want to create an environment where people are contributing that diverse knowledge and expertise and perspective and that that requires that we have norms for speaking up and contributing and asking questions. Often it’s good to have norms where making mistakes is okay and not punished, especially if we’re doing something creative or something unfamiliar. So social norms can look all kinds of different ways. And what we need to do as leaders is learn to pay attention to, to those really important ones and not just kind of let them emerge how they will, which is how most leaders do it, but to actively try and shape them.

Dave Stachowiak [00:31:07]:
And that becomes also part of the launch piece too.

Colin Fisher [00:31:11]:
Right.

Dave Stachowiak [00:31:12]:
Of that 30% and we could have a three hour conversation just on how to launch or relaunch a team or a group. Right. But I’m, but I’m curious about that, that 30%. What’s one thing that tends to help a launch go better with it with a team that a lot of leaders, you see tend to miss?

Colin Fisher [00:31:36]:
Oh, I have to limit it to one. I mean, I think the, the thing that people miss in a launch and I think I’m going to cheat and end up saying too that’s our. But as is, you know, first a lot of leaders assume everyone knows why they’re there and they don’t take this opportunity to articulate their view of what the goal is and why it’s important and also offer a chance for people to ask questions. And I mean, honestly, this happens to me as, as a member of groups all the time where I show up to a meeting and I really, I don’t know why I’m there, I know I’m supposed to be there. And then we don’t really talk about it. And so I think that that’s one of the things that’s missed the most. And then the other one really is to make sure that we are actively talking about what the norms for this group are going to be, especially about communication and information storage. And I think in, in that first meeting, that’s the thing where I’ve seen groups end up spinning their wheels more than they have to or have kind of unnecessary conflict because they didn’t talk about, you know, what are the main communication channels we’re going to use.

Colin Fisher [00:33:02]:
And I’ll give you an example where there was a team that they all started communicating through WhatsApp really quick. They made a WhatsApp group and. And then that was where a lot of the action was happening. But there was one member who really hadn’t used WhatsApp much before, didn’t have their notifications turned on. And so they were missing all of this communication. Didn’t know what was going on for about the first week. And then everybody got upset with this person, thought they were a slacker, but it was literally just this person didn’t know how to use the communication channel. Right.

Colin Fisher [00:33:37]:
So simple things like talking about how we’re going to communicate, how we’re going to respond to one another, where we’re going to put stuff so it doesn’t get lost, those are some of the most important things. And then I’m going to cheat even more and add a third thing, which is at that first meeting, I want you to schedule a midpoint meeting where you reflect on the goals and the norms and what’s going well and what’s going poorly. And by midpoint, I mean exactly halfway between when you start doing the work and your deadline. Because there’s research by Connie Gersik that shows that teams are kind of uniquely receptive to change at this halfway point. Because we look up at the clock or at the calendar and go, oh, my God, half the time is gone. And then that kind of makes us more receptive to changing our norms for this brief period of time. So at the launch, I hope you do all those things. And I’m sorry, it’s not just one thing.

Dave Stachowiak [00:34:41]:
Well, you’re having the same challenge I am of having read the book and gotten any research and thinking, oh, my goodness, we could do like 10 episodes on this and spend hours. I mean, we are scratching the surface of like, 5% of what’s in the book. For folks leading teams, I think this is like a must read because you so often we miss, as we talked about earlier, the 60% of structure of, of beginning well and the launch, boy, just starting to do a couple of these things consistently. None of us are going to do it perfectly, but, boy, it makes such a huge difference. And when you look at the research of, like, teams that are so much more effective on this, it’s really incredible. Colin Fisher is the author of The Collective Edge: Unlocking the Secret Power of Groups. Colin, thank you so much for time and thank you for your work, too.

Colin Fisher [00:35:33]:
Thanks so much, Dave.

Dave Stachowiak [00:35:41]:
If this conversation was helpful to you three episodes, I’d also recommend one of them is episode 192, how to create team guidelines. Susan Gurke was my guest on that episode. We talked in detail about one of the key parts of this conversation, which is how to launch a team well, you can do it at any time, but it’s best, as we talked about today, to do it right at the start. Susan and I walk through step by step. How do you begin a conversation with a team about norms, expectations, guidelines and what do you actually do and say in order for that to be surfaced effectively right at the beginning? Episode 192 Step by Step on how to launch a team effectively. Episode 496 also recommended how to generate quick wins. Andy Kaufman was my guest on that episode and we talked about the importance of surfacing wins, of utilizing those wins to help everyone move forward.

Dave Stachowiak [00:36:32]:
Not in a insincere way or trying to find wins that aren’t there, but genuinely how do you actually precipitate wins, make them visible, help people to move forward? Episode 496 Andy and I talk in detail about how to do that and then also recommended episode 657, how to increase team performance through clarity. David Burkus and I talked about one of the aspects of the 60%, which is who’s doing what, who has each work product as part of the team, Clarity of conversation about what that looks like. David’s been on the show a number of times over the years. Always helpful to us on how we can do a better job of leading teams. Episode 657 A great complement to this conversation. All of those episodes, of course you can find on the coachingforleaders.com website. And if you haven’t already set up your free membership at coachingforleaders.com it’s going to give you access to the entire library, searchable by topic that I’ve aired since 2011. And one of those topics is team leadership.

Dave Stachowiak [00:37:31]:
This episode’s filed under there, but there are dozens of conversations on team leadership we’ve had over the years. It is such a critical competency for leaders. Many other resources there go over to coachingforleaders.com, set up your free membership and you’ll be off and running with whatever you’re looking for right now that’ll help you elevate in your season of leadership, whatever that is. Coaching for Leaders is edited by Andrew Kroeger. Production support is provided by Sierra Priest. Next Monday, I’m welcoming Mark Crowley to the show. We’re going to be talking about the key ratio that supports well being for your team and organization. Join me for an insightful conversation with Mark, and I’ll see you back on Monday.