Dave Winsborough: 0:00

we are missing a word for in English. There'll be a wonderful, you know, gigantic long German word for it. But, um, in English, you know, about how to behave well in a team, you know, we need to put aside our selfish impulses and wants and subsume those for, uh, helping make our our colleagues successful and ultimately the team successful.

Andrew: 0:23

I would propose that the word is Teamcraft.

Dave Winsborough: 0:25

Teamcraft! Love it. Love it

0:40

Today, we're joined by Dave Winsborough. Dave is a New Zealand based organizational psychologist, author, and entrepreneur. Originally working as a clinician with a master's degree in psychology, Dave became fascinated by team behavior, and has written numerous research papers and articles on the subject. Having left practice, he went on to found and chair New Zealand's largest occupational psychology consulting firm, later joining Hogan Assessments, a leading U. S. leadership assessment provider, as VP of Innovation. Not one to sit on his laurels, Dave has recently co founded Deeper Signals, a modern psychometric assessment tool for teams and coaches, and Button Psychology. Dave is also the author of one of my favourite books on teams, Fusion, the Psychology of Teams. Here's today's episode.

Dave Winsborough: 1:26

I think that organizations, that leaders are too easily in love with the, the concept of a team that we will be quote a team. So I've heard, I've heard CEOs say, oh, it's one team, our organization's, one team. And, uh, I admire the sentiment. Uh, but it's just meaningless, you know? And I, and I think to be fair, lots of people in organizations, you know, understand it to be just bullshit that comes from corporate leaders, you know, uh, fairly often. Um, more specifically, I think, uh, uh, again, in organizations, people, people go, well, let's put a team on that when they, when they have a particular problem. Um, or they organize people around the concept of, well, we have, uh, X team or Y team. Without, without really thinking through, um, or following the, the, the most basic precept, uh, which I think is, you know, form follows a function where you have a bunch of people working in proximity, all doing slightly different things. A call center, for example, um, might be an example or probably, uh, you know, you'd know more than me, mark. But in some software projects where people are coding fairly independently, um, uh, it, it, it, it doesn't require what we look for, which is interdependence. That is, I can't get, I can't finish my job without input from you. Or, you know, someone can't do their work without input from both of us. And so, you know, for me that is the simplest and easiest way of thinking about, uh, the difference between a, a group and a team. I I think in the book, I use the example of, you know, because I think, I think people often think of team more in the social sense. So, uh, you know, a group of people who are getting together to, um, you know, my book, I think I talked about knit socks for soldiers on the front line or, or something. You know, it's great that they're, they're together. They've got the same, you know, they've got the same kind of, uh, goal. They want to knit socks, but they don't need each other. You know, they're there for a company that's fabulous, but that's a group that is not a team.

Andrew: 3:55

It sounds like you're talking about the kind of team zeitgeist that's, taken hold of a lot of, uh, organizational discourse. I would say recently. Um, you know, one of the things I would. I would frame it like, teams in organizations are sort of symbolically ubiquitous, but substantively absent. They're, they're everywhere. And you said it's a social thing. I think that's a really interesting point. It's like, it's actually almost a device to, to generate an atmosphere, but, um, there's not a great deal that sits beneath the surface.

Dave Winsborough: 4:34

I think your point is completely right, you know that it is more the construct so. Uh, it is, it is ubiquitous in name, but not substantively, I think is exactly the point. It, it parallels for me. One of the other things that just drives me absolute batshit crazy, uh, which is managers always reaching for sporting analogies. Um, and I, you know, yes, you can have, uh, teams in organizations no they're not quite the same as a sports team. Sports teams, you know, the, the timeframe is fundamentally different. Um, if you have a short-lived team, maybe some of those analogies apply, you know, but we, we roll easily from concept to, um, uh, you know, like a concept, like a sports team into an organization without really thinking through, you know, how does, how does that apply? How does it really honestly apply? Or how do we make this, this sort of thing work? I think we look for them as wonderful examples that we would like to see in organizations. But, but um, yeah, the reality is that I just, I, I think partly because humans are humans and we are cooperative and, and you know, it's sort of fundamental to our psychology. just don't apply much conscious thought and there's a lot of unconscious, um, kind of activity around stuff that, you know, we just, we just assume everyone's gonna work like a team or pass the ball from one to another or, you know, fit your analogy here kind of thing. And it's, um, yeah, it's a bit silly.

Mark: 6:08

there's definitely something very powerful in that recognition that as soon as you try to the, this over demonstrative approach to teams, I think that call center example is a really interesting one or a sales team where people are very individual and actually a lot of the time not working. There is a shared intentionality, do more sales, but it is a very often a very individualistic job. Um, and sometimes trying to create teams is an absolute failure when, when you are artificially trying to stimulate whatever the catalyst for teamwork is, but leave humans alone for long enough with a big goal. This was really the core of what Katzenbach said in, in the Wisdom of Teams, which is a team, is a group of people with a big. Big challenging goal that are mutually held accountable to it. That's it. In that situation, teams just form and, and with without thought and without support because humans are naturally cooperative and, and then we do all of this stuff to try to artificially create them and fail in, in so many times as managers, I.

Dave Winsborough: 7:08

look, I couldn't agree more. I mean, I think that we do see, um, where a situation calls for something that someone can't do themselves, especially if, and we we're gonna, I know we're gonna end up talking about the work of Michael Tomasello later when we talk about shared intentions. But if, if, if, you know, three or four people see a car accident occur in front of them, they will coordinate their actions in order to, um, in order to help. Uh, and they don't need a manager to, you know, tell them what to do or to give them a pep talk, uh, because the, the need is kind of clear and present and we couldn't do it. By ourselves. So, um, yeah, I, I despair sometimes, uh, you know, what do you do with corporations? Man, you know, they, um, everyone reads Harvard Business Review and they all go to the same courses and they all walk out, you know, sounding like managers. Um, that's a little cynical. I shouldn't, I shouldn't be so quite, so cynical,

Andrew: 8:07

I like your example of sports teams because actually kind of referring a bit to one of the things you talk about in your book, I. Is, I wonder if when you hear leaders, uh, conscripting a sports metaphor to motivate their team, they're sort of conflating two things, which is, it's called a team. Good. We wanna use the word team. But what they're really referring to is the commitment that fans have towards teams. You know, so they're looking for people to refer to the feeling they have about how powerful it is when you're following a team that you love and that's what they're looking for, the commitment. Because I think one of the things you're saying with sports teams is. In or compared to organizations, sports teams have a completely salient goal. You've gotta beat the, beat the opponent, and the rules of the game determine the purpose of your existence in black and white, with without, without any without any, um, ambiguity, which is not something that can be set for the goals that organizational teams have to have to focus on.

Dave Winsborough: 9:15

I think, uh, managers certainly would like to, uh, see kind of fan responses, but I think they wanna see it from inside the team. They wanna, the level of commitment that you see rugby players put into, you know, smashing their bodies, one against another. Um, is the kind of, you know, I want to see you die in the ditch for our software project. And, um, you know, I, I understand that that's what they want, but no sane person is, is it's, look at just a software project. It's just a job. And, um, let's, let's not, uh, as you said, conflate the kind of effort and commitment, um, that you see. Which isn't to say that you don't see that at work because I think, I think you can. Um, it's hard to sustain over longer periods of time. You know, it's a, it's a 90 minute game. It's like, okay, you know what, you can really go hard, but, but it's a six month project. Well, that's, you know, that's different. they're they're just, yeah, they're different.

Andrew: 10:18

So you mentioned Tomasello, that that concept of shared intention, how does that fit into the, to the things that managers and leaders are trying to get the, uh, to, to motivate their, uh, their teams to, to, to, to die in the ditch, so to speak?

Dave Winsborough: 10:36

one of the things you'll see in, uh, you know, any of the models, team models is that, um, quite rightly, researchers identify that a shared goal is, um, is essential, you know, and, and we've, we've been talking about, and that goal is something that, you know, one or two people just can't do by themselves. You need the inputs from other people. I think what, uh, Tomasello's work, uh, he did work with primates and, um, and then young human primates with, with kids. What his work showed was that. Where, uh, you know, two or three people share the same intention. You know, it could be a goal, it could be a number of goals. Maybe the goal is not well specified, and we have to figure out the goal that that is where some of the magic really begins to, um, to turn up. you know, we could turn that into, there's a really simple trick that I think lots of managers could, could do instead of turning up at a team meeting saying, I've just come back from management and here's the, here's the goal and here's the timeframe and the budget and stuff. Instead of doing that, you know, they could frame it differently. Um, they could frame Frame things as a question and leave the team to kind of engage. If you, you know, you wanna see commitment, you wanna see people begin to generate the kind of interactivity that that good teams show, don't give them a complete easily packaged goal. Leave it kind of vague and fuzzy and, and, you know, that's, that's when I think we see human beings really begin to kind of cooperate and to figure things out together.

Mark: 12:23

I was actually reading a, uh, an article yesterday, which I think I shared with and about, uh, fake psychological safety. Uh,

Dave Winsborough: 12:31

in the, yeah.

Mark: 12:33

I think it was Ron Carucci writing in, in HBR and, um, I, that, that he, he said something very, very similar to that, which was in this situation, he very specifically gave an example of a manager who goes into a room intending to give his team psychological safety by trying to, um, trying to give them the freedom to come up with an answer. But everybody in the room knows that he, in that situation knows the answer. In, in this particular example that Carucci gave and, and it falling flat because there wasn't, um, it, it. was really interesting. Yeah, it, it, they, they saw straight through it. It didn't, uh, it, it didn't ring true and it was obvious what he was doing in that situation. And I think it's, it's, so interesting to reflect on, um, on how those things work in teams.'cause we talk about psychological safety in teams and we talk about. The importance of goals and how the team is going to going to come together. And even reflecting on myself, I'm really aware of this difference between, with, with my small team, um, uh, I'm really aware of either over or under communicating. And it's such a difficult trap to fall into where I think I, I trust my team implicitly, but where is, where is the difference where I just give a bad instruction? And what is the difference between me saying this is interesting. In passing, wouldn't it? You know, here, here's something that I think you might be interested in. I'm sharing this with you because it is, um, it's germane to the work that we do as opposed to, please, can you do this thing? And I know that e even trying to be reflective on teams and communication, as, as I do that I constantly screw that up and, and, get it wrong and the instruction isn't clear enough. And we work in this, in this very small team that, that we have, there's five of us working in the team. I try to be clear and we try to get the team to be clear, but it's really interesting that all of these things are very linked and part of it is you gave that example of the a car accident. The goal is very obvious in that situation, or at least it, the, the tasks will be disseminated and probably there's an emergent leader in that situation as well because I, I think there's something in that. It's really interesting to reflect on things like Teal organizations and the lack of managers that difference between a leader and a manager. And I've seen lots of people claim that egalitarian completely equal organizations are good, but humans need leadership and they need tasks to be disseminated. So you, so you have that task interdependence. So there's, there's this thing, I, I realize I've sort of gone off on a track, but just thinking through what, what you said, Dave, there is, there are all of these things that are required for a team. What is the goal? What are the independent tasks? How do we distribute them? What responsibility am I going to take? And that feeling that we're all trying to deliver something together and. That, that, that point about to come back to that sports teams and work, it is really different because at work, you come into work and often I see thinking about a lot of the businesses that I've worked with, not, not just the teams, the teams often have a complete absence of any strategy whatsoever. There might be a financial goal and somebody talking about revenue and profit, which doesn't mean anybody to the people, people on the floor. Um, but people are just coming in and working by numbers. They're doing what they did yesterday. They're not inspired to work to towards some actual goal.

Dave Winsborough: 16:03

uh, it goes back to the point that Andrew was making about, you know, how do you sustain kind of interest in engagement and, um, you know, motivation, which is a loaded term. Um, and, uh, and, and do that for years on end. Uh, you know. Uh, just, just putting people in in a group and saying, you are now a team. And, you know, um, is, is not gonna do it. I mean, it, it, it, referring to a sports metaphor, calling up, you know, trying to, trying to g the group up is, um, you know, I, I think I, I would in that circumstance, you just gotta go back to basics and go, um, uh, rethink the task. What are we, what are we here to do? What are we, you know, rote work is rote work and it, it can just be shitty and boring and just'cause you're in a team isn't gonna change that. Make it any better.

Andrew: 17:05

There's, there's obviously a relationship between the amount of, I think that's something that I've really taken from your work, Dave, is you think you've got the goal nailed, go back and make sure you really, you know, you cannot be, you can't overthink making sure you know what your goal is and, and, and how you communicate to the team. I think that resonates with what Mark was saying about, you know, how, how clear are we on what our strategy is. But what you mentioned years and years there, and it made me think of, um, a sense that I get that you don't like team building days and you don't like the short termism that sometimes comes in the package with, uh, uh, attention towards teamwork.

Dave Winsborough: 17:48

it's not that I don't like team building days, you know, because they're, they're fun. And I started with, you know, the drift away from clinical work for me was when I got asked to facilitate a few, uh, team building events and I. Uh, I loved doing things like blindfolding a group and putting'em in a paddock, uh, with a big, long rope, and they had to make a circle, and then they had to make a triangle and, and, you know, it's just, it's quite, quite funny watching them stagger around and everyone laughed and, um, or doing things like, uh, you know, the classic, you've got a cross of river and it's an acid, and you've got this barrel and oh, you know, all of that's all of that teambuilding stuff. Um, the, the issue that I have with those, those things, uh, they are fun. You know, go paintballing. I mean, you know, that's fun too. But the the translation of what you do out there blindfolded in a paddock to going back to your call center is close to zero, right? The relationship between these, the two tasks is there, there's just no relationship. So, my first issue with that stuff is that there's a lot of, I think there's just a lot of marketing hype that, that, you know, is trying to sell companies on the idea that teams will be better. The evidence for that is not terribly good. Uh, you know, we do have to have a kind of relationship between what you're doing on a team building day and what you do back in the office. On the other hand, you know, going and having fun together, it is, you know, is good for, you know, social cohesion, maybe getting drunk together. Great. You know, do that. But, um, you know, I mean, just, just call it what it is. We are gonna go and have fun for a day, or we're gonna go and drink ourselves. Silly, you know, obviously I'm not advocating that that is what you should do. There's one other point about that stuff though, that that really, um, does frustrate me. And that is the idea that a manager thinks this is a good thing for the team and you get a whole bunch of people who are introverted or just don't want to spend their days socializing with, uh, you know, the kind of monkeys that they normally work with. And, but it's required, it's forced and, um, and you are gonna get a paradoxical kind of blowback. It's not gonna do wonders for that person's engagement.

Mark: 20:21

I have, I have really mixed feelings about those. I've, I've seen a lot of them done, and I've actually reflected on some of that in some of our previous episodes. Um, we, in one of the teams that I worked with, we actually did the RA Fs of the Air Force Officer selection, which was a lot of that type of activity. It wasn't quite the, the river is acid. Um, one of the things latterly, I, I have something of an issue with that approach that I see on a lot of those old, old fashioned Outward Bound executive leadership teams, because there is a heavy, heavy amount of unconscious bias in it, which is you are, you're absolutely right. Some people really don't. Like going on those things and, and I actually would consider myself one of them, like being put in that situation, you have to go away. You have to spend two or three days away from home. Uh, for some people, especially extroverts, and we'll come on to personality in a bit, you know, if you're an extrovert, going out, spending time with people is great. If you're an introvert, why do I now have to spend all my time outta my comfort zone with these people? And that's, there's a big part in there that, that's the point. But even more so, it's a very physical activity. Um, it is forcing people into, to With this mythos around it that it's putting people outside of their comfort zone. And I understand it, but it is very artificial and benefits some people more than others. I think it's very uneven. It's like you say, it is fun to stand in the field, but for some people, and I don't think a lot of the existing training like that, it recognizes that enough. There was one good thing though, so to try and be balanced in it, one of the things that I saw come out specifically the, the RAF officer selection was, it did the best job that I have seen of. Really making people think consciously. That doesn't mean that it really stuck but think consciously about followership and I don't think that, I think there is lots of leadership training, but what was nice about that, as much as I could criticize elements of it, what was nice about it is it really trained people because it was the same group rotating as five people with a leader nominated for five different tasks, and it really proved to them what the the difficulty of being the leader, if you've had bad followers, was.

Dave Winsborough: 22:32

if it's incredibly well designed like that sounds like it was, then I, I buy it, you know, where we, we have thought about the way in which a group functions that people have a chance to go, this is what it's like to be a leader. This is what it's like to have, to provide, um, you know, a goal or, you know, what do you do when some people don't seem to get it? You know, I mean, those are real kind of leadership tasks. And for a team, if you have really, uh, you know, I think very skilled facilitation that helps the team reflect on what happened. You know, we can replay it, we can, we can, um, learn from it. Uh, then yes, that, that sounds, you know, that sounds really valuable. Um, what, what I object to is the kind, you know, what I call kind of rah rah team building, you know, it's like. Okay, we went whitewater rafting. Fabulous. Have a good time. You know, no problem with that at all. But let's not really pretend that, um, it's gonna translate to what we do back in the office, unless we're all in wetsuits and we are paddling somewhere in the office.

Andrew: 23:33

Mark and I have discussed quite a lot on, on this podcast already, and, and in our conversations when we're working together is, um, the, uh, acknowledgement of the importance of simple things like eating together. You mentioned, you know, going to the pub is a, is a, is a similar thing, but this concept of just. Sharing that basic, that basic human need.

Dave Winsborough: 23:55

Yeah, because I think that that is exactly what it is. It is, you know, it's touching on that kind of basic human connection and what better way to do that than, you know, an occasional drink or, um, having lunch. It builds bonds. We get to know each other better, which is useful for teamwork. Um, so, you know, working on social cohesion is perfectly legitimate. It makes, makes good sense to me. It's just, um, you know, as I said before, I think the idea of somehow going, doing a one day thing is gonna translate into, um, you know, magic change on the ground is, is just naive at best.

Andrew: 24:34

I think one of the things that you, you're talking about, which. Uh, it resonates a bit with one of the, a little anecdote you've given in your book, in fusion is, um, actually away days. The, if you take with a pinch of salt, how instrumentally beneficial the activities you're going to do will be to your teamwork. But really foreground the fact you're having social contact, you're engaging with each other in a different way, out of context. And you talked about, um, contact in the book. You give this anecdote of as a milk powder factory that you worked in. Is this going back a while and, and, and every, before every shift everybody made a point of shaking each other's hand. I thought that was a really nice, it's a small but powerful example of, um, a commitment to contact and a, and a and a and a physical symbol of, you know, we're in this together. And I think that's a, that's something that a lot of teams could, could learn from.

Dave Winsborough: 25:36

well, I learned from, from the Shift Boss way back then. Um, you know, things like rituals, things, you know, things that we do together that, that, that help form that identity, you know, because it becomes, you know, one of the things that is desirable, I think if you wanna build a, um, a strong team is to create an identity that's bigger than just me. Um, and think things like that can help, you know, that connection with one another. And, and more than anything else, it was res, it was about respect. It was about showing that That, you know, we are kind of here to help each other. Not with words, but you know, you know, we valued, we valued, you know, it was shit work. You know, you are working in a milk. The weird thing about working in a milk powder factory is it's really hot, very hot, but you have to wear overalls and you have to wear gum boots, uh, Wellington boots, um, because there's so much milk powder in the air, it gets on your skin and you begin to sweat milk after a while, and it's awful. It's just awful. Like the smell is spectacular. I've never forgotten it. When you go to put your gum boots on it, the next shift, it's like, oh my God. Stepping into a warm bath of yogurt that's been there from the day before.

Andrew: 26:56

I wanna move on to personality and, uh, composition of teams, because I think one of the things that sits very close to the surface in, in any team is the fragility of,'cause you talked about that, um, identity, right? But there's a fragility to. Um, the integrity of the team climate isn't there. The, it's very easy for us as, uh, you know, uh, we are, uh, just dancing on the head of, of a pin, of millions of years of evolution that we revert to. We refer to just taking care of ourselves, looking after our own interests. Um, you know, talk to us about that fragility and um, the human condition in teams.

Dave Winsborough: 27:41

you know, I, I mean, that's such a lovely word, Andrew, and I think that, I think that most in organizations we are rough. People, you know, it's about the task more than anything. And, I, I think I'd go so far as say, I think organizations are sometimes, um, unthinkingly, callous about kind of the way in which we, um, we treat people in, in teams, for example, we know how easily, uh, one person can shift the balance from, you know, we all get on really well, um, and, and have a chilling effect or, or the opposite. I've seen management teams, leadership teams in organizations who have struggled under one CEO and, and yet blossomed under, uh, you know, when a new CEO comes in. I can think particularly of, uh, time working with IBM, um, a man called Nick Lambert joined, uh, probably in about 2000 or a little before. In New Zealand running IBM and Nick's style, which was, he's a very big man and he has a very big personality, but it just gave people hope and engagement and, and freedom to begin to do things on their own. Whereas previously they operated under his much more bureaucratic kind of structure, IBM's terribly, terribly bureaucratic, and it was extraordinary to see. Um, I'm frustrated always when I look in the literature at, um, uh, the, the size of the effect, the effect size of personality on measures of team performance typically is always very modest or small or sometimes non-existent. And I, it drives me mad. Uh, because my belief is that it, it has a larger effect than, um, than we've yet seen in terms of the way we measure these things. And I think it is probably a measurement error, but if you talk to any manager, you know, they take very seriously the idea that people, any good manager knows that people are different and that different combinations produce, um, you know, have the power to, um, to boost the team's performance or, you know, or, or, you know, just make a bunch of unhappy people be forced to work together.

Mark: 30:02

Andrew was talking about that fragility of, of a team. Um, and, and I think you, you said that sometimes we're brutal with people. There, there is something that I find, and this is particularly around personality, this is one of those, to me, almost shocking, shockingly brutal, um, and unthinking, um. uses of, of a management approach, uh, or, or something that is considered best practice, which is around the, the, the act of giving feedback, but not just giving performance feedback, but specifically around personality and and behavior. And I get very, very concerned when I see the use of things like 360 feedback with people that haven't been trained, but even more brut brutally, the use of things like, um, Myers-Briggs and Belbin in teams with people that aren't fully cognizant of the power of the tool that they're using. And this isn't specifically to call out and, and I know we could get onto it. It's not specifically to call out what is inside MBTI and Belbin, but saying to someone, you are a completer finisher or you are an INTJ, or you are a red character. It immediately pigeonholes them, and I I've seen the negative outcome of those things with people immediately being dispirited. Some people would see it as a great success to be one thing or another, but most people immediately pigeonhole themselves from this feedback that they've given, and I think it does a massive disservice to the individual in, in that situation. So regardless of whether Myers-Briggs is valid or not, or Belbin is, is is a good tool to use for for teams. I'm very concerned about that use of feedback when people think they're being helpful.

Dave Winsborough: 31:47

all I can do is agree and, uh, one of the exer if I'm working with, um, with leaders, one of the exercises that I have them do is answer a series of questions that I just call"Do you know?". So, you know, do you know what this person's strengths are? Do you know what their development needs are? You know, it's kind of obvious stuff. And then it's like, you know, do you know what their home circumstances are? Do you know what they're dealing with in their lives? Where do they want to go? Um, what are the sorts of people that, um, what, what's the sorts of management styles that bring out the best in them? And, and I think it's the job of any leader to really be able to answer those questions. The utility of some of those tools is that they give you, I think, um, they give you the feeling that, you know, the person you are, an E-N-T-J, you know, I'm an ISFP or, and, uh. And, and there's a kind of formula to it. It makes people, it, it, yeah. Like I said, it gives people the illusion that you know someone, and this is how you should treat them. But it's, um, yeah, I agree with you. It's just, I, it's just a hideous kind of shortcut says a man who, uh, who produces personality tests for a living. So it is a little complicated for me.

Andrew: 33:02

it sounds though that what you're saying is the misuse of them is to think that they are I dunno what the right way to put it is, but it's an algorithm that gives you a, a, an indisputable diagnosis and path forward where, you know, this podcast called Team Craft, the Trade Craft and witchcraft of teamwork. I, I would say, you know, your personality testing is part of the trade craft, but you need to bring in the witchcraft part to, to apply it successfully. And maybe more than anything, almost going back to, you know, the, the, the original, uh, sort of forefathers of this, like Francis Galton. The original concept was about a lexicon, wasn't it? It was about, uh, the lexical framework of, of personality attributes. And what it does more than anything to my mind, is it, it gives you a vocabulary to use. It gives you a, a form of language to access conversations that are very important to the success of a team. Um, you, you knowing, like you say, the strengths and weaknesses, preferences, circumstances of your, of your team members, and then factoring that into your team composition. It doesn't give you a, a recipe and a perfect cake every time if you just plug it in mindlessly. But it does give you a, a, a, a means of engaging with something that's really important.

Dave Winsborough: 34:29

The, the job of any team leader is to, is to help the team be successful. And in order to help the team be successful, you gotta know something about what is gonna make the people on the inside of the team, uh, function at their, at their best, you know, fit them to the, help them understand the tasks that they're going to do best. Think about helping them, uh, reflect on the way that they come across to help their colleagues be successful, uh, and help them moderate and mediate some of the, you know, the, the, their ways of being or, uh, you know, aspects of their personality that none of us really want to see because, you know, you're a pain in the ass when you do that. So. Yes, these tools can help in that. But um, like you said, you know, it is, it is a starter for 10. It is not the whole story. I always try, I, the phrase that I use a lot, uh, with talking to team leaders is the map is not the territory, you know? Yes. Here's a personality report that is not the same thing as a, as a real person.

Mark: 35:31

I'd like to reflect on Deeper Signals. So this is a company that you co-founded. Um. I've, I've used, and actually quite regularly now, used that assessment and I think the, the takeaway that I have for it is, so obviously it's a Big Five, an OCEAN personality type based based tool. But the, the thing that I took away from it was the incredible sensitivity that it took to giving the feedback. And there were a couple of things particularly that, that I found very valuable from it. First that it did such. A nice job of not exact, so not dark side traits, but calling out, I think, I think the core risks in, in the, uh, in the, in the approach that what it says is, so as an example, if I reflect on, on how, how I was assessed through, through that, um, which I think is, is very fair. It would say that I'm candid, uh, and reserved, which have some strengths in a, in a team. But in a stressful situation, in a, in a, in a high emotion situation, it's very easy for those, those things to turn into risks, to turn into negative behaviors. And I think it's very obvious in the way that deeper signals, approaches, personality to see these are several spectra. So it's, it is not just one spectrum that you're on, it's several spectrums that, that you're on. And obviously they are dynamic and they can change, but those things that can be good and positive become things that are bad. I think it does an incredibly sensitive job of, of reflecting that feedback back to the person that is taking the test but the other thing is it frames that in the context of what this means to you as a leader and what this means to you as a team as well. So maybe you could talk a little bit about the work that you did on Deeper Signals, because I think it's such a great assessment tool.

Dave Winsborough: 37:22

It was very kind of you to say that because we, yes, we have taken a lot of care to try and position what we are doing as a means to an end. Right. It's the, the point of the, you know, these things are not ends in themselves. It is why I dislike the MBTI.'cause I think the MBTI, um, well, several things. One, it puts you in a box and. You know that, that's just really unhelpful. That just says, well, you know, you aren't gonna be X or Y and that's just not what we know about human psychology. You know, people do vary their behavior. I may be really extroverted and a little insensitive, uh, and speak loudly, um, and talk over people. But if you put me in a church and a service, for example, if a funeral, then I will behave. You know, my behavior will be constrained. So, so just because I have those traits, tendencies does not mean I will display them all the time. The point about, um, you know, it goes back to what Andrew was saying is that, you know, we are trying to give individuals, uh, and, and managers, leaders, tools so that we can get a result, get a, an end. So here is some information about you. This says that you may or may not, but mostly we think you will behave in these ways. And then, and then it's like, now what are we gonna do about that? You know, here's some questions to think about. Or, I mean, the other thing that I, that we tried very hard with, um, Deeper Signals to do was to give people ways of, of thinking about a team as an entire unit. So if I have, you know, eight people, and lo and behold they're all candid, um, that has some applications for the, the way the team is, is gonna perform and show up, or if there are differences between people, maybe we should spend time, you know, trying to understand what those, you know, what we might call those deep level, um, uh, you know, kind of. Diversity actually means, well, how it's gonna show up for the team. So, yeah. Thank you. Um, it is a big five test because that is right now the, you know, the most robust and, um, best validated way of understanding human psychology. And as Andrew alluded to, you know, there's a lexical model. It's derived from the words that people use to describe other people. And that tells us something about the psychology of what happens, um, you know, to, to how you know, how, how other people see you show up.

Andrew: 40:10

uh, is gonna sound like I'm kind of beating down on MBTI now, or we all are piling in on it, but I think in, in reference to teamwork.'cause I think that's one of the things we're talking about here is, well, um, Dave, you've already mentioned people behave differently in different contexts. Teams operate in context and those contexts are dynamic in themselves. Um, one of the things I think is important when you're thinking about a team, a team configuration, uh, is that the members of that team, they have to, they have to be able to go from what they understand about themselves and then. Plug those characteristics into a team dynamic and make the team work. And I think one of the things that can happen when you have this idea of being in a box is that it actually retrenches your attitude towards how you relate to your, your fellow team members. Right. As opposed to going, okay, well I'm a bit, I'm, I'm generally introverted and, um, I, you know, I'm, I'm a bit neurotic about certain things. Um, that means that I need to work hard in situations of high stress to ensure that I don't exacerbate the, the anxieties or the, or the tensions for the team as opposed to going, well, I'm neurotic, so you guys just have to leave me alone in a crisis. Okay. Um, which is not good for the team. So is it, I think there's that thing of, does it give you a platform from which to improve how you contribute to that overall, uh, entity? Or does it actually pull you away from, uh, working on that?

Dave Winsborough: 41:49

It's so cogently put I think, um, again, one of the things that drives me mad about the MBTI or any, any, um, you know, any tool that puts you in a role, you know, you are a plant or you are a, it's like, well, you now, I don't have to worry about doing the other stuff. You know, I'm, I'm a plant, therefore, you know, I think creatively and, and all that, all that admin stuff, you know, that's not for me, that's someone else. And it's like that, that just is, is antithetical to what. What good teamwork actually is. So, you know, thanks for making that point. It's, it's, uh, extremely useful part of your job. You know, that's what Mark said before. It's about followership is probably, you know, there's, we are missing a word for in English. There'll be a wonderful, you know, gigantic long German word for it. But, um, in English, you know, about how to behave well in a team, um, you know, we need to put aside our selfish impulses and wants and subsume those for, uh, helping make our our colleagues successful and ultimately the team successful.

Andrew: 42:55

I would propose that the word is Teamcraft.

Dave Winsborough: 42:57

Teamcraft! Love it. Love

Andrew: 43:00

you know, as someone that's, uh, kind of comes at this from a language point of view, I think that's a really good point, is the, the, the linguistic tools that you have to make sense of what's happening, have a shaping effect on, on how you perceive that your environment and your relationships. Um, and in the absence of a word that, that, that, that gives you that tool, then you can revert to other more well established words that maybe move you further away. Um, so. What about teams' capacity to reflect on themselves? Um, that's something that I know that you, you care a lot about as well, and I think it follows on from the conversation we've just had is, um, the, the ability that a team has to work on itself and reflect on, on its performance.

Dave Winsborough: 43:45

So, so I do a lot of work with senior leadership teams, one of the, one of the, I think, abiding differences, I mean, it comes back to some of the stuff that Tomasello was saying. You know, if we have a shared intention, we can reflect on how is that going. Uh, and if we reflect on how is it going? It has this, you know, this wonderful kind of, um, uh, uh, you know, it has this, this refractory effect on, we can alter our behavior. We can begin now to think about the task in, in different ways. Um, the goal of anyone coaching a team is to have the team able to do that for themselves. So, uh, I I think it's, it's, you know, of the first order despite slagging off sports teams before one of the great, you know, one of the great strengths that they, you know, they review every, every game. Um, I know in the software world, you know, we have, uh, the, the equivalent of, of, you know, some work I've done with the Army after action reviews or pre-mortems, like when it goes wrong. But what, what might happen? How might things, um, fall out? So those kinds of group shared mental model building, um, I, I just, you know, it's a, it's a fundamentally important skill. It's, you know, I can't commend it highly enough.

Andrew: 45:03

So is that something, is that something that you see a distinctive feature of, of teams that you would regard as high performing? Is that they find a way of making the time? Because I think a lot of teams would say, we don't get the time, and I think the, the response that we, no, you don't make the time. It's not that you don't get it because in investing that time in reflection, adjourning, pre-mortems, post-mortems, however you want to call it, um, it actually buys you time in the long run through improved team effectiveness.

Dave Winsborough: 45:37

A hundred percent. Of course it does. You know, um, any you, I, I, get that organizations are busy. I get that, you know, everyone's a bit short of staff or, you know, money's tight and you've gotta be highly productive. But, um, um, thinking more about outputs than inputs, you know, just doing, doing more and doing it faster or doing it for longer time is not gonna get you there. So, yeah, a hundred percent reflect, think, let's see how, you know, how do we go? I think, I think surgery is a really good example. Um, uh, that is not a sporting analogy, but is is quite useful. You know, people who repeat the same operation often with the same crew. really good practice is, and it comes back to, I know we just briefly touched on psychological safety, but it's where Amy Edmondson came up with the whole notion that someone can call out the surgeon and say, you know, when you do that, you know, people die or we run a risk or, you know, and the team learning together, um, is, is what reflection and review is all about.

Mark: 46:44

one thing I'd, I'd like to reflect on is the use of how to correctly use personality, uh, awareness of personality in, in teams, um, in Deeper Signals. It does a really nice job of talking about where, where your traits are and how they may impact, um, impact your be behavior in a team. And this, I was reading an article last night that was authored by, uh, Suzanne Bell and others, uh, and I know it's something that, that Andrew has looked at. And, um, and I'm sure you all both know much better than I do, but in in the paper, uh, it talked about compositional and compilation factors for teams specifically around personalities and almost how some teams will be very strong in certain personality types and, and how other teams will actually level personalities. And obviously personality is complex and, and adaptive and having personality types where they're all the same in the team or they're balanced against team members leads to very different behaviors. So just quickly with your expertise, what is the right way for us to think about personality in teamwork?

Dave Winsborough: 47:51

let me say, uh, to start with, I, if there, there are two cases. The first case is you, you have a team, like, you know, you, it's the team that turned up or it's the people who have been assigned to you. And I would, I would say always play the hand you are dealt and the use of personality. And that c you know, it's in that circumstances to is to understand them. Better and to think about the task and, and the processes that are required. And so if, for example, we have a, um, uh, a team of extroverts, uh, but the work that that we are doing requires moments of, um, uh, you know, kind of careful thought and reflection. You're gonna want to practice some of those skills much more overtly and concretely rather than just leaving them, oh, let's brainstorm, or let's just throw ideas around the second cases where you are lucky enough to be able to build a team and, uh, and maybe select people onto it. And, and the evidence, uh, is clear that there are some, there are some thing having people who are going to be good at, at the kind of social oil, it's smoothing. Smoothing relationships at, at pulling people together is really useful. So in personality terms, we'd say, um, you know, they're highly agreeable. Those kinds of people on the team are, are really useful, as are people who are well disciplined and thorough. So, conscientiousness, the evidence is really clear that those, you know, conscientiousness is, is, is a very useful trait on a team. If you need to do, uh, a lot of creative work, then obviously people who are high on openness is gonna be useful. Beyond that, um, uh, you know, I would, I, I, I think that the idea of, of, uh, using personality. Uh, tools as a way of just understanding the people and, and find helping them fine tune their behavior and fine tuning processes and systems and things around them. Is, is the, is the, is the best use One caveat. People like me who are um, tend to be, you know, anxious, fairly highly strung, prone to look on, uh, pay more attention again, give more weight to negative news. IE people who are neurotic or in the modern parlance, you know, low on emotional stability. The bad news is that you have a lot of those people on a team. It, it, we do know, uh, that, that's not, that it's not hugely useful. I wouldn't make a mission to Mars, uh, because. Uh, I would be too wearing to be around, you know, for other people to be around me. yeah. And I don't think a lot of extroverts on a mission to Mars would be a fabulous idea either. And just drive everyone absolutely fucking bonkers to be stuck in a tin can for a whole year with someone who can't shut up. So, you know, it's, it's, um, I, I still think it's an extremely powerful tool. tool use well.

Mark: 51:11

where you started that I absolutely love because we don't, we don't ever in, in reality except maybe a mission to Mars get the opportunity to really carefully attempt to select on personality, nor should we. So I think that that advice that you should play the hand you'll dealt. And then there, there is that real sensitivity back for leaders in the organization to, um, you can use it as a tool to help the team perform, but the, the idea that you can select on personality is, is I think, really, really dangerous.

Dave Winsborough: 51:45

Yeah. And, and I would concur that, so it's useful. Um, but yeah, I think it's for, because it's just not the be all and end all, you know, it's about, it's about skills as well. You know, obviously you're gonna select on skills.

Andrew: 51:58

And Mark mentioned that, uh, that paper. Bell et al 2018 I think we're referring to. And you just talked about configuration and compilation, and that's interesting. And you talk, I mean, I think we need a whole other interview about talking about mission to Mars, but, um, you talked about the, the longer interval life of a team and reflecting on that because compilation, team compilation, this is where, you know, I think we, we would do well to educate ourselves on the, the specifics of the, of the language around, uh, around our understanding of teamwork.'cause compilation is about the emergence of, of a team dynamic over time, and personalities feature heavily in that. Um, uh, and they need to find ways of adjusting and integrating, but thinking of personalities as inputs that, and you stop there, is probably unhelpful to, to setting up a, a, a successful team.

Dave Winsborough: 52:57

I think you're a hundred percent right if it's short term, it, it, it kind of barely matters. If it's long term, then you should, you know, yes, we should be thinking carefully about, about that, but of course it's not just, you know, yes, you, you know, you have a personality, but you've got a life history as well. Um, and, uh, that has a huge impact.

Andrew: 53:17

we like to finish with a, with a few quick fires, Dave, if that's okay. Um, so three questions for you. Um, and the, the first one is, what is your best team memory?

Dave Winsborough: 53:28

I think my best team memory is, um, you know, we alluded to, uh, the company that I formed with, um. three other people, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Uri Ort and Reese Akhtar, uh, Uri Reese and I worked together in a WeWork office in Brooklyn. Um, we didn't know each other and, uh, we were in a tiny, a tiny room, kind of, you know, uh, maybe three meters by four meters for the best part of 18 months. And working incredibly closely, uh, on, uh, projects that were very ill-defined. I'm, I'm old, they are young, you know, I'm dumb. They're really quite smart. And one of the three of us was incredibly good looking. Um, we bonded, uh, so well, uh, and worked together so well. It was, it was a, you know, one of the peak experiences of my life was working with those two guys. If they're listening, they will end up listening to this. Um. I'll deny it in the real world, but working with them was one of the peak experiences of my life. Um, I got married, uh, earlier this year, and both those young men were my best men at my wedding. So yeah. Went well beyond just effectively working together and thinking together and, uh, creating together. Uh, yeah. Fabulous experience.

Andrew: 54:56

That's wonderful. Um, I, you can see in your face the happy, the, the, the happiness it brings, recalling it. Um, the other side, what are your team red flags?

Dave Winsborough: 55:07

I think there are two, um, that, you know, there's a kind of obvious one, which is, you know, mood I think is a really good indicator if people are down or, you know, bummed out or, or. Not, uh, not giving of that, that kind of, uh, not giving of themselves. It's just a big, fat red flag, you know? Yes, it could be to do with, um, one individual, but, uh, that would be a, that would be a sign for me. So I think mood, uh, and, and we shouldn't ignore the fact that leaders' mood or mood is contagious in, in small groups, right? So, um, and I think, I think the second thing is we talked before about working for the good of your colleagues and for the team. So there are, you know, team craft. Uh, and I think when people begin to, um, follow their own kind of selfish needs or put those needs a uh, ahead of the group would be another flag for me that we haven't got something quite right. Um, so yeah, tho those two things, you know, mood and, and the behavior of someone. Someone beginning to, um, think more selfishly. Teams are not places to think selfishly.

Andrew: 56:26

And finally, we give you a chance to share a resource podcast. Anything that, um, you think is a, a valuable tool to, to anyone that wanted to, to look further into teamwork, what would that be?

Dave Winsborough: 56:38

Um, the book, uh, you know, we were talking before about Michael Tomasello, uh, and he, he, his 2009 book called Why We Cooperate, uh, was really influential for me. I really enjoyed it and found it very stimulating. Uh, and then there's another book, which is kind of nothing about teams, well, not much, but it, but it, it, uh, I think it taught me a lot about emergent systems and it had a. A, a, a very useful effect on the way that I began to think about dynamics over time in working in coaching teams. Uh, and it's by a a guy called Douglas Hofstadter called Godel, Escher, Bach" about some of the themes that bind, you know, the, um, the work of, um, Godel, Escher and Bach. It's, it's deep, it's a deep book, and it's, it's an odd book. Um, and so, you know, anyone who's got 700 pages worth of time to, um, to get into it, it, it's, it's absolutely fascinating. Really, really interesting.

Andrew: 57:47

Dave, it's been an absolute pleasure and a joy, uh, you taking us on a tour through personality and teamwork and your experiences. So thank you so much for giving us your time.

Dave Winsborough: 57:58

Thanks. Thanks guys.

58:01

Dave's Pass It On resources were Michael Tomasello's book, Why We Cooperate, and Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. In this episode, you also heard us reference an excellent 2018 paper by Suzanne Bell et al. called"Team Composition and the ABCs of Teamwork". Andrew and I loved reading Dave's own book,"Fusion: The Psychology of Teams", which we strongly recommend. And I would also urge anyone interested in the psychology of personality to check out the assessment that Dave co created, Deeper Signals, at www.deepersignals.com. We hope you enjoyed listening today and will join us on the next episode of TeamCraft.