Team Performance Enhancement and Risk Mitigation

for theOptical Society of America

2

What Caused these Failures?Hubble Space TelescopeChallenger Korean Air Lines

Thorough reviews of disasters inevitably find that flawed “team social contexts” cause failures!

Galaxy M100 before

Galaxy M100 after

3

Risk has Two Sides

The “hard-side” -- technical work and traditional

risk management.

The“soft-side” which we

name “team social

contexts.”

Which side’s limitations are more likely to cause team performance shortfalls and project failures?

You need “soft-side” risk management processes.

4

What do Teams need to Measure and Manage?

“Team social context” drives team performance (and risk) 80% of the time.

What overwhelmingly drives team performance (and risk)?

What is the effect of individuals’ abilities on team performance?

Individuals’ abilities drive team performance 10% of the time!

5

Team Social Contexts Act Like FieldsWould you change behaviors in each of these contexts?

• Context drives behavior with an invisible “field,” like a magnetic field.

• How might you measure a magnetic field?• By observing ferromagnetic materials.

• How might you measure your team’s social context?• By members’ observations of team behavioral norms.

Chapter 2: Managing Social Context Manages Technical Performance

6

Evolution of Team Social Context Management

University class a Three-day workshop including: three diagnostics, “AMBR” process to habituate Behaviors and the “Context Shifting Worksheet.”

Coaching using the Context Shifting Worksheet (“CSW”)

Team and Individual Development Assessmentsto stimulate behavioral change and measure

progress in team performance and risk reduction

“Cultivating”“Including”

“Visioning”“Directing”

7

Behavioral Norms and Contexts

Willing & Energizing

Collaboration

AddressingShared

Interests

Sustained, Effective Creativity

ExpressingReality-based

Optimism

Perceiving “Magical”Solutions

Being 100%

Committed

Outcome Focuswith no Blamers

or Victims

ResistingBlaming &

Complaining

Clear and Achievable

Expectations

Clarifying Roles, Accountability

& Authority

Chapter 4: The 4-D Assessment Process

ExpressingAuthentic

Appreciation

Mutual Respect & Enjoyable

Work

Appropriately Including

Others

Mutual Respect & Enjoyable

Work

Authenticity & Aligned,

Efficient Action

High Trustworthines

s& Efficiency

Keeping All Your

Agreements

8

Team Development Assessment Cycle

Attention: Learn the “why” for each behavior.

Discuss: With Team members.

Chapter 4: The 4-D Assessment Process

Attention: See the standard for excellence.

Evaluation: Grade each behavior.

Reflection: Write comments.

Assign and do: Action Items.

Resource: Each participant receives How NASA Builds Teams

15 min.

1 to 2 hours

9Chapter 4: The 4-D Assessment Process

Team Benchmarking

Bottom Ave. Top >

Ave.<

Ave.

Distribution of 300 teams’ first assessment scores

Victims/Blamers& Disorganized

Blind Optimism Low Commitment

Unappreciated& Conflict

Feel Disincluded& Low Trust

No Drama& Clear RAAs

Grounded Optimism& High Commitment

Mutual Respect& Collaboration

Feel IncludedWith High Trust

Seven Deadly Sins (HNBT, p. 242) High performance, low risk team

Which team would you rather work in?Which team would you rather fund as their sponsor?

10

TDAs: Our Most Efficient Developmental ProcessChapter 5: NASA's 4-D Teambuilding Results

BottomQuintile

1st Assessment

2nd Assessment

3rd Assessment

4th Assessment

We grouped the 198 teams with multiple assessments into one of five quintiles.

The image below is the ~40 teams beginning in the bottom quintile.

Hubble and Challenger

11

All 198 Teams with Multiple AssessmentsChapter 5: NASA's 4-D Teambuilding Results

BottomQuintile

< Ave.Quintile

AverageQuintile

Teams , First and Following Percentile Ranks

> Ave.Quintile

TopQuintile

53% 66% 70% 75%

66% 71% 76% 80%

72% 75% 79% 83%

77% 81%

84% 90%

These are the Most Amazing Data I Have Ever Seen

~22% Team Efficiency Increase

12

The Team Social Fields Affect Everyone

Is your team misaligned like this one?

S NS N S NS N S NS N

S NS N S NS N S NS N

Assessments f ocus attention on the eight behaviors. “Where attention goes

power flows.”

Reassessments refocus attention on the eight behaviors. “Where attention goes

power flows.”

13

Systemic Performance Improvement

~10% of NASA

engaged

~20% of MSFC

engaged

Average NASA First TDA Scores per Year

63%66%

71%69%

73%76%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Average NASA First TDA scores up 10%

Average MSFC First TDA Scores per Year

61%

65%

73% 71%

86%

80%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ave MSFC 1st TDA scores up 20%

Chapter 5: NASA Results and What You Might Expect

Correlation is not causality. Is there another test?

Marshall

All NASA

Average First TDA Scores by Year

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

MSFC

All NASA

Marshall

All NASA

Average First TDA Scores by Year

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

MSFC

All NASA

Annual increase in first team assessments ~participation!

14

Our ClosureNever doubt that a small group of thoughtful,

committed citizens can change the world.

Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.- Margaret Mead,

Anthropologist