zlxxm 于2019-12-25發布 l 已有人瀏覽
增大字體 減小字體

广东36选7好彩3开奖奖金多少 Amy Edmondson: How to turn a group of strangers into a team


It's August 5, 2010. A massive collapse at the San José Copper Mine in Northern Chile has left 33 men trapped half a mile -- that's two Empire State Buildings -- below some of the hardest rock in the world. They will find their way to a small refuge designed for this purpose, where they will find intense heat, filth and about enough food for two men for 10 days. Aboveground, it doesn't take long for the experts to figure out that there is no solution. No drilling technology in the industry is capable of getting through rock that hard and that deep fast enough to save their lives. It's not exactly clear where the refuge is. It's not even clear if the miners are alive. And it's not even clear who's in charge. Yet, within 70 days, all 33 of these men will be brought to the surface alive. This remarkable story is a case study in the power of teaming.


So what's "teaming"? Teaming is teamwork on the fly. It's coordinating and collaborating with people across boundaries of all kinds -- expertise, distance, time zone, you name it -- to get work done.


Think of your favorite sports team, because this is different. Sports teams work together: that magic, those game-saving plays. Now, sports teams win because they practice. But you can only practice if you have the same members over time. And so you can think of teaming . . . Sports teams embody the definition of a team, the formal definition. It's a stable, bounded, reasonably small group of people who are interdependent in achieving a shared outcome. You can think of teaming as a kind of pickup game in the park, in contrast to the formal, well-practiced team. Now, which one is going to win in a playoff? The answer is obvious. So why do I study teaming? It's because it's the way more and more of us have to work today. With 24/7 global fast-paced operations, crazy shifting schedules and ever-narrower expertise, more and more of us have to work with different people all the time to get our work done. We don't have the luxury of stable teams. Now, when you can have that luxury, by all means do it. But increasingly for a lot of the work we do today, we don't have that option. One place where this is true is hospitals. This is where I've done a lot of my research over the years. So it turns out hospitals have to be open 24/7. And patients -- well, they're all different. They're all different in complicated and unique ways. The average hospitalized patient is seen by 60 or so different caregivers throughout his stay. They come from different shifts, different specialties, different areas of expertise, and they may not even know each other's name. But they have to coordinate in order for the patient to get great care. And when they don't, the results can be tragic.


Of course, in teaming, the stakes aren't always life and death. Consider what it takes to create an animated film, an award-winning animated film. I had the good fortune to go to Disney Animation and study over 900 scientists, artists, storytellers, computer scientists as they teamed up in constantly changing configurations to create amazing outcomes like "Frozen." They just work together, and never the same group twice, not knowing what's going to happen next. Now, taking care of patients in the emergency room and designing an animated film are obviously very different work. Yet underneath the differences, they have a lot in common. You have to get different expertise at different times, you don't have fixed roles, you don't have fixed deliverables, you're going to be doing a lot of things that have never been done before, and you can't do it in a stable team.


Now, this way of working isn't easy, but as I said, it's more and more the way many of us have to work, so we have to understand it. And I would argue that it's especially needed for work that's complex and unpredictable and for solving big problems. Paul Polman, the Unilever CEO, put this really well when he said, "The issues we face today are so big and so challenging, it becomes quite clear we can't do it alone, and so there is a certain humility in knowing you have to invite people in." Issues like food or water scarcity cannot be done by individuals, even by single companies, even by single sectors. So we're reaching out to team across big teaming, grand-scale teaming.


Take the quest for smart cities. Maybe you've seen some of the rhetoric: mixed-use designs, zero net energy buildings, smart mobility, green, livable, wonderful cities. We have the vocabulary, we have the visions, not to mention the need. We have the technology. Two megatrends -- urbanization, we're fast becoming a more urban planet, and climate change -- have been increasingly pointing to cities as a crucial target for innovation. And now around the world in various locations, people have been teaming up to design and try to create green, livable, smart cities. It's a massive innovation challenge.


To understand it better, I studied a start-up -- a smart-city software start-up -- as it teamed up with a real estate developer, some civil engineers, a mayor, an architect, some builders, some tech companies. Their goal was to build a demo smart city from scratch. OK. Five years into the project, not a whole lot had happened. Six years, still no ground broken. It seemed that teaming across industry boundaries was really, really hard. OK, so . . . We had inadvertently discovered what I call "professional culture clash" with this project. You know, software engineers and real estate developers think differently -- really differently: different values, different time frames -- time frames is a big one -- and different jargon, different language. And so they don't always see eye to eye. I think this is a bigger problem than most of us realize. In fact, I think professional culture clash is a major barrier to building the future that we aspire to build. And so it becomes a problem that we have to understand, a problem that we have to figure out how to crack. So how do you make sure teaming goes well, especially big teaming? This is the question I've been trying to solve for a number of years in many different workplaces with my research.


Now, to begin to get just a glimpse of the answer to this question, let's go back to Chile. In Chile, we witnessed 10 weeks of teaming by hundreds of individuals from different professions, different companies, different sectors, even different nations. And as this process unfolded, they had lots of ideas, they tried many things, they experimented, they failed, they experienced devastating daily failure, but they picked up, persevered, and went on forward. And really, what we witnessed there was they were able to be humble in the face of the very real challenge ahead, curious -- all of these diverse individuals, diverse expertise especially, nationality as well, were quite curious about what each other brings. And they were willing to take risks to learn fast what might work. And ultimately, 17 days into this remarkable story, ideas came from everywhere. They came from André Sougarret, who is a brilliant mining engineer who was appointed by the government to lead the rescue. They came from NASA. They came from Chilean Special Forces. They came from volunteers around the world. And while many of us, including myself, watched from afar, these folks made slow, painful progress through the rock.


On the 17th day, they broke through to the refuge. It's just a remarkable moment. And with just a very small incision, they were able to find it through a bunch of experimental techniques. And then for the next 53 days, that narrow lifeline would be the path where food and medicine and communication would travel, while aboveground, for 53 more days, they continued the teaming to find a way to create a much larger hole and also to design a capsule. This is the capsule. And then on the 69th day, over 22 painstaking hours, they managed to pull the miners out one by one.


So how did they overcome professional culture clash? I would say in a word, it's leadership, but let me be more specific. When teaming works, you can be sure that some leaders, leaders at all levels, have been crystal clear that they don't have the answers. Let's call this "situational humility." It's appropriate humility. We don't know how to do it. You can be sure, as I said before, people were very curious, and this situational humility combined with curiosity creates a sense of psychological safety that allows you take risks with strangers, because let's face it: it's hard to speak up, right? It's hard to ask for help. It's hard to offer an idea that might be a stupid idea if you don't know people very well. You need psychological safety to do that. They overcame what I like to call the basic human challenge: it's hard to learn if you already know. And unfortunately, we're hardwired to think we know. And so we've got to remind ourselves -- and we can do it -- to be curious; to be curious about what others bring. And that curiosity can also spawn a kind of generosity of interpretation.


But there's another barrier, and you all know it. You wouldn't be in this room if you didn't know it. And to explain it, I'm going to quote from the movie "The Paper Chase." This, by the way, is what Hollywood thinks a Harvard professor is supposed to look like. You be the judge. The professor in this famous scene, he's welcoming the new 1L class, and he says, "Look to your left. Look to your right. one of you won't be here next year." What message did they hear? "It's me or you." For me to succeed, you must fail. Now, I don't think too many organizations welcome newcomers that way anymore, but still, many times people arrive with that message of scarcity anyway. It's me or you. It's awfully hard to team if you inadvertently see others as competitors.


So we have to overcome that one as well, and when we do, the results can be awesome. Abraham Lincoln said once, "I don't like that man very much. I must get to know him better." Think about that -- I don't like him, that means I don't know him well enough. It's extraordinary. This is the mindset, I have to say, this is the mindset you need for effective teaming. In our silos, we can get things done. But when we step back and reach out and reach across, miracles can happen. Miners can be rescued, patients can be saved, beautiful films can be created.


To get there, I think there's no better advice than this: look to your left, look to your right. How quickly can you find the unique talents, skills and hopes of your neighbor, and how quickly, in turn, can you convey what you bring? Because for us to team up to build the future we know we can create that none of us can do alone, that's the mindset we need.


Thank you.




I started teaching MBA students 17 years ago. Sometimes I run into my students years later. And when I run into them, a funny thing happens. I don't remember just their faces; I also remember where exactly in the classroom they were sitting. And I remember who they were sitting with as well. This is not because I have any special superpowers of memory. The reason I can remember them is because they are creatures of habit. They are sitting with their favorite people in their favorite seats. They find their twins, they stay with them for the whole year.

我17年前開始教授 MBA課程。有時,我會在幾年后巧遇我的學生。當我巧遇他們時,有個很有趣的現象。我不僅記得他們的臉,也記得他們坐在教室的哪個位置,和誰坐在一起。我能記住這些,不是因為我記憶超群,而是因為他們是跟著習慣走的人。他們總會與最喜歡的人坐在一起,坐他們最喜歡的座位,找和自己極相似的人,然一整年都和這些人待在一起。

Now, the danger of this for my students is they're at risk of leaving the university with just a few people who are exactly like them. They're going to squander their chance for an international, diverse network. How could this happen to them? My students are open-minded. They come to business school precisely so that they can get great networks.


Now, all of us socially narrow in our lives, in our school, in work, and so I want you to think about this one. How many of you here brought a friend along for this talk? I want you to look at your friend a little bit. Are they of the same nationality as you? Are they of the same gender as you? Are they of the same race? Really look at them closely. Don't they kind of look like you as well?




The muscle people are together, and the people with the same hairstyles and the checked shirts.


We all do this in life. We all do it in life, and in fact, there's nothing wrong with this. It makes us comfortable to be around people who are similar. The problem is when we're on a precipice, right? When we're in trouble, when we need new ideas, when we need new jobs, when we need new resources -- this is when we really pay a price for living in a clique.


Mark Granovetter, the sociologist, had a famous paper "The Strength of Weak Ties," and what he did in this paper is he asked people how they got their jobs. And what he learned was that most people don't get their jobs through their strong ties -- their father, their mother, their significant other. They instead get jobs through weak ties, people who they just met. So if you think about what the problem is with your strong ties, think about your significant other, for example. The network is redundant. Everybody that they know, you know. Or I hope you know them. Right? Your weak ties -- people you just met today -- they are your ticket to a whole new social world.


The thing is that we have this amazing ticket to travel our social worlds, but we don't use it very well. Sometimes we stay awfully close to home. And today, what I want to talk about is: What are those habits that keep human beings so close to home, and how can we be a little bit more intentional about traveling our social universe?


So let's look at the first strategy. The first strategy is to use a more imperfect social search engine. What I mean by a social search engine is how you are finding and filtering your friends. And so people always tell me, "I want to get lucky through the network. I want to get a new job. I want to get a great opportunity." And I say, "Well, that's really hard, because your networks are so fundamentally predictable." Map out your habitual daily footpath, and what you'll probably discover is that you start at home, you go to your school or your workplace, you maybe go up the same staircase or elevator, you go to the bathroom -- the same bathroom -- and the same stall in that bathroom, you end up in the gym, then you come right back home. It's like stops on a train schedule. It's that predictable. It's efficient, but the problem is, you're seeing exactly the same people. Make your network slightly more inefficient. Go to a bathroom on a different floor. You encounter a whole new network of people.


The other side of it is how we are actually filtering. And we do this automatically. The minute we meet someone, we are looking at them, we meet them, we are initially seeing, "You're interesting." "You're not interesting." "You're relevant." We do this automatically. We can't even help it. And what I want to encourage you to do instead is to fight your filters. I want you to take a look around this room, and I want you to identify the least interesting person that you see, and I want you to connect with them over the next coffee break. And I want you to go even further than that. What I want you to do is find the most irritating person you see as well and connect with them.


What you are doing with this exercise is you are forcing yourself to see what you don't want to see, to connect with who you don't want to connect with, to widen your social world. To truly widen, what we have to do is, we've got to fight our sense of choice. We've got to fight our choices. And my students hate this, but you know what I do? I won't let them sit in their favorite seats. I move them around from seat to seat. I force them to work with different people so there are more accidental bumps in the network where people get a chance to connect with each other. And we studied exactly this kind of an intervention at Harvard University. At Harvard, when you look at the rooming groups, there's freshman rooming groups, people are not choosing those roommates. They're of all different races, all different ethnicities. Maybe people are initially uncomfortable with those roommates, but the amazing thing is, at the end of a year with those students, they're able to overcome that initial discomfort. They're able to find deep-level commonalities with people.


So the takeaway here is not just "take someone out to coffee." It's a little more subtle. It's "go to the coffee room." When researchers talk about social hubs, what makes a social hub so special is you can't choose; you can't predict who you're going to meet in that place. And so with these social hubs, the paradox is, interestingly enough, to get randomness, it requires, actually, some planning. In one university that I worked at, there was a mail room on every single floor. What that meant is that the only people who would bump into each other are those who are actually on that floor and who are bumping into each other anyway. At another university I worked at, there was only one mail room, so all the faculty from all over that building would run into each other in that social hub. A simple change in planning, a huge difference in the traffic of people and the accidental bumps in the network.


Here's my question for you: What are you doing that breaks you from your social habits? Where do you find yourself in places where you get injections of unpredictable diversity? And my students give me some wonderful examples. They tell me when they're doing pickup basketball games, or my favorite example is when they go to a dog park. They tell me it's even better than online dating when they're there.


So the real thing that I want you to think about is we've got to fight our filters. We've got to make ourselves a little more inefficient, and by doing so, we are creating a more imprecise social search engine. And you're creating that randomness, that luck that is going to cause you to widen your travels, through your social universe.


But in fact, there's more to it than that. Sometimes we actually buy ourselves a second-class ticket to travel our social universe. We are not courageous when we reach out to people. Let me give you an example of that. A few years ago, I had a very eventful year. That year, I managed to lose a job, I managed to get a dream job overseas and accept it, I had a baby the next month, I got very sick, I was unable to take the dream job. And so in a few weeks, what ended up happening was, I lost my identity as a faculty member, and I got a very stressful new identity as a mother. What I also got was tons of advice from people. And the advice I despised more than any other advice was, "You've got to go network with everybody." When your psychological world is breaking down, the hardest thing to do is to try and reach out and build up your social world.


And so we studied exactly this idea on a much larger scale. What we did was we looked at high and low socioeconomic status people, and we looked at them in two situations. We looked at them first in a baseline condition, when they were quite comfortable. And what we found was that our lower socioeconomic status people, when they were comfortable, were actually reaching out to more people. They thought of more people. They were also less constrained in how they were networking. They were thinking of more diverse people than the higher-status people. Then we asked them to think about maybe losing a job. We threatened them. And once they thought about that, the networks they generated completely differed. The lower socioeconomic status people reached inwards. They thought of fewer people. They thought of less-diverse people. The higher socioeconomic status people thought of more people, they thought of a broader network, they were positioning themselves to bounce back from that setback.


Let's consider what this actually means. Imagine that you were being spontaneously unfriended by everyone in your network other than your mom, your dad and your dog.




This is essentially what we are doing at these moments when we need our networks the most. Imagine -- this is what we're doing. We're doing it to ourselves. We are mentally compressing our networks when we are being harassed, when we are being bullied, when we are threatened about losing a job, when we feel down and weak. We are closing ourselves off, isolating ourselves, creating a blind spot where we actually don't see our resources. We don't see our allies, we don't see our opportunities.


How can we overcome this? Two simple strategies. One strategy is simply to look at your list of Facebook friends and LinkedIn friends just so you remind yourself of people who are there beyond those that automatically come to mind. And in our own research, one of the things we did was, we considered Claude Steele's research on self-affirmation: simply thinking about your own values, networking from a place of strength. What Leigh Thompson, Hoon-Seok Choi and I were able to do is, we found that people who had affirmed themselves first were able to take advice from people who would otherwise be threatening to them.


Here's a last exercise. I want you to look in your email in-box, and I want you to look at the last time you asked somebody for a favor. And I want you to look at the language that you used. Did you say things like, "Oh, you're a great resource," or "I owe you one," "I'm obligated to you." All of this language represents a metaphor. It's a metaphor of economics, of a balance sheet, of accounting, of transactions. And when we think about human relations in a transactional way, it is fundamentally uncomfortable to us as human beings. We must think about human relations and reaching out to people in more humane ways.


Here's an idea as to how to do so. Look at words like "please," "thank you," "you're welcome" in other languages. Look at the literal translation of these words. Each of these words is a word that helps us impose upon other people in our social networks. And so, the word "thank you," if you look at it in Spanish, Italian, French, "gracias," "grazie," "merci" in French. Each of them are "grace" and "mercy." They are godly words. There's nothing economic or transactional about those words. The word "you're welcome" is interesting. The great persuasion theorist Robert Cialdini says we've got to get our favors back. So we need to emphasize the transaction a little bit more. He says, "Let's not say 'You're welcome.' Instead say, 'I know you'd do the same for me.'" But sometimes it may be helpful to not think in transactional ways, to eliminate the transaction, to make it a little bit more invisible. And in fact, if you look in Chinese, the word "bú kè qì" in Chinese, "You're welcome," means, "Don't be formal; we're family. We don't need to go through those formalities." And "kembali" in Indonesian is "Come back to me." When you say "You're welcome" next time, think about how you can maybe eliminate the transaction and instead strengthen that social tie. Maybe "It's great to collaborate," or "That's what friends are for."


I want you to think about how you think about this ticket that you have to travel your social universe. Here's one metaphor. It's a common metaphor: "Life is a journey." Right? It's a train ride, and you're a passenger on the train, and there are certain people with you. Certain people get on this train, and some stay with you, some leave at different stops, new ones may enter. I love this metaphor, it's a beautiful one. But I want you to consider a different metaphor. This one is passive, being a passenger on that train, and it's quite linear. You're off to some particular destination. Why not instead think of yourself as an atom, bumping up against other atoms, maybe transferring energy with them, bonding with them a little and maybe creating something new on your travels through the social universe.


Thank you so much. And I hope we bump into each other again.




 1 2 下一頁