Teams on the Way Down
• People shield those in power from grim facts, fearful of penalty and criticism for shining light on the harsh realities.
• People assert strong opinions without providing data, evidence, or a solid argument.
• The team leader has a very low questions-to-statements ratio, avoiding critical input and/or allowing sloppy reasoning and unsupported opinions.
• Team members acquiesce to a decision yet do not unify to make the decision successful, or worse, undermine the decision after the fact.
• Team members seek as much credit as possible for themselves yet do not enjoy the confidence and admiration of their peers.
• Team members argue to look smart or to improve their own interests rather than argue to find the best answers to support the overall cause.
• The team conducts “autopsies with blame,” seeking culprits rather than wisdom.
• Team members often fail to deliver exceptional results, and blame other people or outside factors for setbacks, mistakes, and failures.
Teams on the Way Up
• People bring forth unpleasant facts—“Come here, look, man, this is ugly”—to be discussed; leaders never criticize those who bring forth harsh realities.
• People bring data, evidence, logic, and solid arguments to the discussion.
• The team leader employs a Socratic style, using a high questions-to-statements ratio, challenging people, and pushing for penetrating insight.
• Team members unify behind a decision once made and work to make the decision succeed, even if they vigorously disagreed with the decision.
• Each team member credits other people for success yet enjoys the confidence and admiration of his or her peers.
• Team members argue and debate, not to improve their personal position, but to find the best answers to support the overall cause.
• The team conducts “autopsies without blame,” mining wisdom from painful experiences.
• Each team member delivers exceptional results, yet in the event of a setback, each accepts full responsibility and learns from mistakes.
