Vedere Consulting

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.

Labels: Teamwork

Click for more information on executive coaching with Vedere Consulting. You can also follow Plum on Twitter.

One of the questions my clients ask most frequently is how to develop their people more effectively. Often they ask it because they are stuck solving problems for employees for the better part of the work day—and then are forced to work extra hours to get their own work done. I always recommend the Situational Leadership Model, a tool I have shared with leaders for over 30 years. Clients tell me it is the most practical model they ever learned.

Developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard in the late 1960’s, Situational Leadership provides a roadmap for effective employee development, delegation and performance management. It identifies two key leadership behaviors, giving direction and providing emotional support, which followers need in varying amounts if they are to successfully learn or complete a task. It then demonstrates how the two leader behaviors are combined to create a variety of leadership styles. What makes the model so practical is that it shows leaders when to use the different styles for maximum impact. If, for example, you have an employee who turns in sloppy work that you have to review and correct before it goes out, the model will help you diagnose the leader behaviors you are currently using that aren’t working and identify the leader behaviors that will probably be more effective.

The key to successful diagnosis is to identify what leader behaviors the follower needs in order to be productive. This is determined by identifying the follower’s development or readiness level—that is, how competent (do they have the requisite knowledge and skills) and committed (are they confident they can be successful and do they think the task is important) the follower is. Blanchard labeled four development or readiness levels: the eager beginner (little knowledge and skills but some level of commitment), the disillusioned learner (some knowledge and skills but somewhat discouraged or uninterested), the capable, but cautious performer (significant knowledge and skills but lacks confidence or commitment) and the self reliant achiever (high levels of competence and commitment). Click here for images of the model: http://images.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=situational+leadership&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=YqFpS5izO4aelAf7oKyRCA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCoQsAQwAw

Each of these four development levels requires different leader behavior. The eager beginner needs a lot of clear direction, the disillusioned learner needs direction and emotional support. The capable, but cautious performer (often an underachiever) frequently gets, but does not need, a lot of direction. Instead, they require supportive leader behavior to determine what will help them recognize the importance of the task or develop more confidence in themselves. The self reliant achiever needs little direction or support from the leader.

Strong leaders match their leadership styles to the needs of the follower they are trying to influence. Dysfunctional leadership occurs when leaders use more directive or supportive behavior than needed (overleading) or less directive or supportive behavior than needed (underleading).

Going back to our employee who turns in the sloppy work, the leader should first assess—either alone or by talking with the employee—if the problem is a lack of skill, a lack of confidence or commitment, or both. If the problem is a lack of skill, the leader needs to give clearer direction, guidance and feedback. If the problem is a lack of confidence or commitment, the leader needs to give more emotional support by asking questions, giving praise and encouragement, and explaining how the task fits into the big picture.

To learn more about how this works and for a free diagnostic tool, contact Plum at www.vedereconsulting.com or go to the source: Paul Hersey at http://www.situational.com/?_kk=situational%20leadership&_kt=800c4946-eeed-432e-a65c-1ea085df15ff&gclid=CPP98eHH1p8CFR6dnAod-WIvaQ or Ken Blanchard at http://www.kenblanchard.com/Issues_Organizational_Development/Effective_Leadership_Solutions/One_to_One_Talent_Management/Management_Situational_Leadership_Training/ .

Labels: Leadership Development

Click for more information on executive coaching with Vedere Consulting. You can also follow Plum on Twitter.