Share these talks and lectures with your colleagues
Invite colleaguesWe noted you are experiencing viewing problems
-
Check with your IT department that JWPlatform, JWPlayer and Amazon AWS & CloudFront are not being blocked by your network. The relevant domains are *.jwplatform.com, *.jwpsrv.com, *.jwpcdn.com, jwpltx.com, jwpsrv.a.ssl.fastly.net, *.amazonaws.com and *.cloudfront.net. The relevant ports are 80 and 443.
-
Check the following talk links to see which ones work correctly:
Auto Mode
HTTP Progressive Download Send us your results from the above test links at access@hstalks.com and we will contact you with further advice on troubleshooting your viewing problems. -
No luck yet? More tips for troubleshooting viewing issues
-
Contact HST Support access@hstalks.com
-
Please review our troubleshooting guide for tips and advice on resolving your viewing problems.
-
For additional help, please don't hesitate to contact HST support access@hstalks.com
We hope you have enjoyed this limited-length demo
This is a limited length demo talk; you may
login or
review methods of
obtaining more access.
Printable Handouts
Navigable Slide Index
- Introduction
- Team effectiveness
- The leader attribution error
- Our approach
- What conditions?
- The six conditions - real team
- Caution - real team
- Team stability and performance over time
- Positive condition - real team
- The six conditions - compelling direction
- Caution - compelling direction
- Specifying means vs. ends
- Positive condition - compelling direction
- The six conditions - right people
- Caution - right people
- Derailers
- Why wrong people end up on leadership teams
- Positive condition - right people
- A Greeble
- The Greebles experiment
- Team performance by condition
- Does talking it over help?
- The three essentials conditions
- The six conditions - sound structure
- Caution - sound structure
- Links among members as team size increases
- Positive condition - sound structure
- Caution - next aspect of structure
- Full use of member expertise
- The simulation scenario
- Hanta virus was stolen from MIT lab
- A counterterrorism simulation - details
- Evidence 1: cryptic email
- Evidence 2: degraded facial pictures
- Evidence 3: security camera footage
- Evidence 4: building photos and blueprints
- Team task
- Experimental design
- Counterterrorism teams at work
- Findings
- Conclusions
- Positive condition - next aspect of structure
- The six conditions - supportive context
- Caution - supportive context
- Organizational context checklist
- Best teams have ample organizational supports
- Positive condition - supportive context
- The six conditions - team coaching
- Caution - team coaching
- The team life cycle
- Appropriateness of coaching interventions
- Positive condition - team coaching
- Coaching by itself is not enough
- The interaction of team design and coaching
- Summary: conditions for team effectiveness
- Conclusion: what is a team leader to do?
- Role of the team leader
- Do it all in your own way
- Further reading
- Thank you
This material is restricted to subscribers.
Topics Covered
- Team effectiveness
- The “leader attribution error”
- Conditions for team effectiveness
- Real team
- Team stability and performance over time
- Compelling direction
- Specifying means vs. ends
- Right people
- The greebles experiment
- Team performance by condition
- The three essentials conditions
- Sound structure
- Links among members as team size increases
- A counterterrorism simulation
- Supportive context
- Organizational context checklist
- Team coaching
- The team life cycle
- The interaction of team design and coaching
- What is a team leader to do?
Talk Citation
Hackman, J.R. (2017, February 27). What makes for a great team? [Video file]. In The Business & Management Collection, Henry Stewart Talks. Retrieved December 3, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.69645/CVBO7829.Export Citation (RIS)
Publication History
Transcript
Please wait while the transcript is being prepared...
0:00
What Makes for a Great Team?
0:05
To start to frame
and answer to that question,
I'd like to start
with a little thought experiment.
I'd like you to think
of a really great team
that you've been in;
one that was just a wonderful team!
Now, we need to say something about
what we mean
when we say a wonderful team.
Different people mean
different things, when they say,
"That was a great team."
So here are three things
that we look at in our research
to try to identify
what's really a great team
and what's not.
The first thing is the task output.
Whatever it is that the group is
creating a product, a service,
a decision or whatever it is,
is at least acceptable
and maybe better than that
to people who receive,
review or use it.
And every once in a while,
it's magic!
So as you're thinking
about this team,
did it do a good job in terms
of serving those
whoever it was to serve?
The people who it served,
did they find it
a superb performance?
Okay, that's one of
three indicators
we want to look at.
The second indicator is,
what happened to the team itself?
Did people in the team become
increasingly competent
working together as a team?
Or did the team
just kind of burn itself out,
as it created this good product?
And third,
what happened to the individuals?
Did they grow and learn,
as a result of having
been in the team?
Now if this is a really great team,
the people it serves
are going to be very happy with it.
The team is going to have gotten
better over time.
And the individuals
are gonna learn something
and find the experience
more fulfilling than frustrating.
So you got a team
that meets those criteria.
Okay.
Now, you know the second part
of the thought experiment.
I also want you to think of a team
that was awful,
that did really poorly
on these three criteria.
See if you can come up with a team
that didn't serve its people well,
got worse over time
rather than better,
And individuals walked away
feeling frustrated or alienated.
And you know what's coming next.
What in your view
was the main difference
between that first team,
the great team,
and that second team,
the one that was a disaster?
What accounts for how come
that first one was so good
and that second one was so bad?