BEM 318 Exam 1

Task work capabilities

Job related technical expertise and intellectual capacity (hard ceiling for performance)

Teamwork capabilities

Transportable knowledge, skills, and abilities enabling teams to coordinate and perform as a group

Too much talent hypothesis

In hyper independent teams, too many dominant or star performers leads to internal competition

Swaab - too much talent hypothesis

research that indicates that when elite talent exceeds 60%, team performance flattened and declined

There is an INTERDEPENDENCY EXCEPTION - teams where tasks are highly individualized do not exhibit this threshold

Groysberg - too much talent hypothesis

Star centric teams (1 big star) routinely underperformed

conflict skills

ability to disagree constructively

interpersonal skills

ability to infer teammates intent, emotions, and regulate personal reactions

leadership skills

ability to share, clarify goals and hold team members accountable

Agreeableness bottleneck

Team cooperation is not predicted by AVERAGE agreeableness, but by the LEAST agreeable member (SUZANNE BELL)

Conscientiousness Balance

High conscientiousness ensures task completion, but if 100% percent of team members are high in conscientiousness, teams lose cognitive ability

Collective Orientation

Stable, non malleable preference for working in groups. Teams must meet a minimum threshold of members with this in order to function effectively

Teamwork savvy

Understanding what drives team performance and how to be a good teammate

**MORGESEN - Teams with greater understanding of teamwork outperform other teams

Psychological Safety

shared beliefs that infer personal risk taking will not trigger harsh judgement. Behaviors include asking questions, sharing doubts, etc

**FRAZIER - primary bridge connecting leadership to performance

**GOOGLE PROJECT ARISTOTLE - analysis of 180 teams demonstrated that psychological safety was the #1 indicator of business performance

Mt Everest Disaster

When a mt everest team lost five members because they missed a 2pm deadline. Perceived power status differences precluded low ranking members from speaking up. In this scenario, low psychological safety was life threatening

Task conflict

**BRADLEY task conflict only leads to increased performance when psychological safety is high

Coach Incivility

** SMITTICK - leader incivility, public berating, etc leads to lower win percentages

Conflict Meta Analysis

***DEWIT - relationship/process conflictalways impairs team performance but TASK conflict yields limited outcomes with psychological safety is high

Quality communication

Sharing useful information clearly, accurately, on time, and to the direct recipient

Hidden Profile Trap

Teams most commonly discuss common knowledge because they assume that everyone knows. Victim of the Everybody Knows Fallacy

Closed Loop Protocol

1. Sender transmits clear message

2. receiver checks back/repeats the message

3. sender confirms accuracy

**EMPIRICALLY an analysis of 89 pediatric trauma cases demonstrated that tasks are completed 3.6 x faster with ___

Convey

Intellectual- understand personal position

Emotion - acknowledge underlying feelings

Prevents “you don’t get it defensiveness”

Boundary Spanning

Ambassadorship, task coordination, external input

**SHAWN BURKE META ANALYSIS - high performing teams exhibit higher ____

3 Key Questions for boundary spanning

1. Who outside the team do we communicate with

2. What information must be shared

3. Who holds responsibilities for comms on both sides of the boundary

Everybody knows fallacy

team member assumes something they know is common knowledge

Automaticity/Expert Blindness

compiles tasks into subconscious routines and automatic actions. To solve this, teams must ask relevant follow up questions.

**DUKE - asking relevant follow ups increase both information retrieval AND personal likeability

5 inflection points increasing risks of comms breakdown

1. member changes

2. dynamic task shifts

3. geopgraphic dispersion

4. heter0genous mix(jargod)

5. handoffs/non routine events

Shared Mental Model

shared and accurate understanding of tasks and goals

Transactive Memory System

complementary knowledge distributed across team with understanding of who knows what

Expertise directory

knowing which colleague to go to with specific technical questions

4 phases of building team cognitions

1. direction setting - what does success look like

2. preparing - roles and responsibilities

3. updating - huddles and real time situational alignment

4. assimilating - integrating new members. onboarding empirically drives alignment

noise effect

without a Shared Mental Model to interpret data, constant information tracking drives white noise

**MEDICAL TEAMS

Familiarity Paradox

U shape that indicates low familiarity (NEW PILOTS) leads to low performance because of lack of SMM and high familiarity (NBA) leads to low performance because of habitual monitoring.

Personal Familiarity

Hanging out outside work does NOT improve professional performance

Professional Familiarity

Structured awareness of teams work related strengths/weaknesses drives result