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.

Got a bad apple on your team? Read on to find out what you can do about it.

In one of my first jobs out of college, I had a co-worker who was the classic drama queen. She complained—about management, about clients, about her co-workers. She was chronically late and often absent so that others were stuck doing her work. She gossiped and was usually mad at someone or taking up their time with her tales of woe.

Three things make her interesting. First, she did all this in such a way that she was able to skate right below the surface of actionable offense. She drove management crazy, but it took them forever to address her issues because her excuses were good enough or she managed to do enough to get by. Second, she had a huge effect on morale. She managed to keep the office stirred up—when she was around someone was always upset about something or people weren’t speaking to each other. We all started complaining and gossiping. Third, there are far too many people like her in offices around the country. Maybe there’s one in yours.

The American Public Radio program, This American Life (www.thisamericanlife.org ) chronicled an experiment that offers hope to any office stuck with a dysfunctional drama queen. In the show, host Ira Glass interviewed Will Phelps, currently an assistant professor of management at the Rotterdam School of Management. Dr. Phelps wanted to know if one person could destroy the productivity of a group. He set up a series of experiments where he paid an actor to engage in one of three “bad apple” behaviors in a group. The “bad apple” behaviors were attacking or insulting others, doing less than they could, or acting depressed and pessimistic.

The results. Every group—but one—where the actor was present performed 30-40% worse than the control groups. Even more surprising, people in the group—initially enthusiastic and engaged—started taking on the actor’s behaviors. If he was insulting and attacking, they began attacking each other. If he slacked off, they did too. All this took place within the 45 minute time allotment for each group.

That’s powerful stuff, isn’t it? But if you’ve ever been in an office with a drama queen or a bad apple, the results of this study aren’t surprising. Bad apples can spoil the whole bunch.

But wait. One group managed to resist. What happened there? Dr. Phelps said that in this group, one person, a natural leader, turned the whole thing around. During the group exercise, he asked questions, listened, engaged others. He was able to diffuse the conflicts that arose. That group performed well, despite the bad apple behavior.

So what could this mean? It means that listening to each other, making sure everyone is heard, soliciting opinions, trying to understand each other is powerful too. It means that it’s as possible to reach our better selves as it is to appeal to our baser instincts. And it takes leadership. Someone willing to step up to the plate to help the group perform.

Plum Cluverius is an executive and leadership coach in Richmond, Virginia. Contact her at plum@vedereconsulting.com for a free half hour consultation.

Labels: Teamwork

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