Showing posts with label teams. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teams. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

Group, Team or Ensemble?

I attended the Premier CIO Forum in the Twin Cities last week. Among the many speakers during the day was Kimi Hirotsu Ziemski, of KSP Partnership She and her firm seem to be focused on helping organizations work more effectively. Kimi shared an intriguing take on teams (among other topics, including workplace culture and more - but today I'm just going to ruminate on her little aside about teams vs. ensembles).

To set the context, let's consider four ways that we humans organize ourselves and perform actions:
  1. Individual
  2. Group
  3. Team
  4. Ensemble 

Individual

Perhaps this term is self-explanatory? You, me, anybody capable of independent thought or action - we are individuals. I realize that no one (except maybe for a few hermits) actually lives a life that is entirely "individual", but I would argue that even the most group-oriented person still exists as an entity, an individual, with unique experiences, emotions, thoughts and actions. In the workplace, the individual manifests in, well, gettin' assignments done! Head down, focused, putting in the effort needed to succeed. Haven't we all experienced something like this: I'm at my desk, up against deadline, hammering away on a document or other content, intently focused ... at some point I finally take a breath and look up, only to realize that everyone in the office has left for the day and I'm here all alone!

Group

A group is more than one individual, together making up some kind of identifiable unit. In the workplace, that might be a department, division, or even the entire enterprise. Groups are simply people who have been put together - and the fact is that they may or may not really work well together at all. If I understand the distinction, people may belong to a group but still generally work independently of one another (e.g, you do your stuff, I'll do mine). Sometimes a group is a long-term arrangement (in your workplace, your activities may vary, but you generally don't switch departments very often - if at all); other times a group may be formed for a limited time or focused campaign, especially when individual tasks - while important - may not have much impact on each other. If you dig around the available information about groups, you'll find that most researchers agree that a group is generally in need of supervision, or else it can veer off-course quickly. Groups are also most-effective when individual goals are clear to each person.


Source: http://bit.ly/2yf6Nyn












 

Team

Let's move on to teams. Again, a team is made up of more than one individual, but the distinctions are: everyone on the team has shared goals and works together to achieve them - the old "whole is greater than the sum of the parts" paradigm. Historically, teams were formed to focus on a short-term deliverable, although in today's workplace I am increasingly seeing "team" thought of as a longer-term commitment to strong collaboration, particularly when the work is cross-functional - bringing talents together from across an organization's departments. Ideally each person on a team recognizes the expertise and talents of the others. A strong team is reactive and capable. It is assembles the talent needed to gets things done efficiently. A team probably need less supervision than a group, especially if the team is clearly high-performing.

For most us, the idea of a well-formed and high-functioning team is the pinnacle of workplace dynamics. Hooray!

Interestingly, Kimi took a different tone. She mentioned teams, but saved her reverence for ensembles.

Ensemble

As I understood Kimi, she was referencing an Ensemble as a sort of elevated form of Team.
Dictionary.com says that Ensemble is a noun, with several related meanings. I'll pick and choose a couple to support the concept here:
1. All the parts of a thing taken together, so that each part is considered only in relation to the whole.
2. In music - the united performance of an entire group of singers, musicians, etc.

Kimi talked about an ensemble as a unit that seemed to have a natural and almost effortless collaboration. She noted that people in an ensemble have a full and deep commitment to one another and are mutually supportive - they know that they need each other, they anticipate needs (proactive), and they achieve top performance. She even implied that an ensemble has an intuitive dynamic, where the people seem to sense where they are going next even if it's a new direction. That made me think about music and Jazz Ensembles - sometimes the ensemble is just jamming away, riffing on themes but essentially making it up as they go along - and yet to the audience it all seems flawless. I think that's the kind of ensemble performance she was thinking about in a workplace.

As I was listening to her, I was associating her ideas of the ensemble to two different concepts that I've thought a lot about over the years: self-organizing teams, and Tuckman's ideas on how teams form and perform.

Self-organizing Teams

  • A group of motivated people working together toward a goal (sounds familiar).
  • Have the ability and authority to make decisions (wait, that's different).
  • Manage their own work as a group.
  • Don't wait for a leader to assign work.
  • Have a stronger sense of ownership and commitment.
  • Communicate with each other, and make commitments to the team.
The modern-day workforce is very different than preceding generations. We tend to be knowledge workers, not drones doing repetitive tasks. And knowledge workers expect—fairly, in my opinion—to have a say in what they are focused on (initiatives) and how they do their work (methods). That attitude requires flatter, non-siloed structures and cross-functional collaboration the likes of which organizations have never really seen before. Effective leadership in this environment is fundamentally different—it is no longer about being “in charge” and much more about empowerment and transparency - movement toward lean and agile practices—an evolution that will continue to be a challenge for the next few years.

Bruce Tuckman on Team Formation

All the way back in the 1960s, Bruce Tuckman was conceptualizing stages of team building. I'd wager at some point along the way you've encountered the famous forming-storming-norming-performing paradigm

Source: https://performancelifestyle.com/2017/04/25/tuckmans-four-stages-of-team-development/

I think it's interesting to compare this to Kimi's hierarchy. Is it possible that - in her estimation - a Team is essentially in the Norming phase, while an Ensemble has reached the Performing stage?  There does seem to be overlap, particularly in the language that each is using to describe their framework. I think the two points of view are actually mutually reinforcing.

So where does this get us? I'm not entirely sure, because honestly this post is more of a rumination than some kind of a lesson. I think we can observe that leaders and researchers have been thinking and writing about people working in groups for a long time, and (at least in my view) have come to rather similar conclusions. It takes more than just putting people together to make a high-functioning team. However, when you select the right individuals, put them in a group, establish clear goals that everyone buys into, give that team the autonomy and responsibility to organize and complete their work, then we observe the best performance.

I hope to help form many ensembles before I ride off into the sunset!

Further Reading
Differences Between Groups and Teams
Tuckman's Stages of Group Development
Self-organizing Teams

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Griot: An Open Source Toolset for Sharing Engaging Stories

Update, January 2018: This post (below) from 2015 describes the initial phase of a project to build and utilize an open source storytelling platform. Since that time, Mia has initiated a second phase of this initiative, backed with funding from the Knight Foundation, to re-imagine and upgrade the platform. The new software, called Lume, is scheduled for release in Summer 2018.

Original post:


The Minneapolis Institute of Arts (MIA) has created an open source toolset for crafting and sharing engaging stories. The software tools – which create an optimized website - were developed in-house as part of the museum-wide project called The Digital Experience (nicknamed TDX).

Screenshot: ArtStories, published on the Griot toolset, featuring highlights from the Minneapolis Institute of Arts

TDX is a cross-functional effort to delight our visitors by delivering interesting and accessible stories based on the museum’s vast collection using digital platforms. The MIA will continue to refine and implement the tools, while at the same time sharing them with the wider community in hopes of finding collaborative partners who will use and expand the functionality going forward.

The first phase of the TDX project was launched in November 2013, to coincide with the re-opening of the MIA’s African Art Galleries. Phase 2 was launched in February 2015, expanding the range of stories to include museum highlights across the entire collection. The museum branded the digital delivery as “ArtStories” to help visitors locate and recognize each installation (they can also access the stories on their own devices, onsite or offsite). The roll-out has been met with positive response from audiences and the press. The stories are accessed every day - engaging people, driving social interactions and shared experiences, as well as allowing individuals to dive deeply into the content on their own.

The development team has dubbed the software toolset "Griot" (a West African term for a wise story-teller). The toolset provides user-friendly methods for crafting stories, and incorporating multimedia content (e.g., images, audio, and video). The stories are presented online or in-gallery via an internet browser (works best on Chrome).

The Griot package includes three specific tools for (1) authoring content, (2) presenting stories, and (3) tiling & annotating large images to enhance zooming, panning and to highlight particular details. The tools can be used to produce mobile device-ready experiences and/or to develop websites.  Because the software is open source, it is available for free and can be used by many different types of organizations. In addition, open source enables any skilled developer to modify the software and to contribute those modifications to the project, enhancing Griot for all who use it.

Griot open source software that created the ArtStories responsive design website is one major deliverable of The Digital Experience (TDX) project. TDX was initiated in 2013 to deliver new interpretive media and technology projects that inspire and delight audiences and support deeper visitor engagement. All TDX projects meet the following strategic goals:
  • Interfaces are quickly and easily navigated
  • Provide multiple layers of content for varied audiences
  • Enable self-guided exploration and learning
  • Content has the greatest impact – audiences remember the stories, not the technology
  • At the museum, encourage users to engage and/or re-engage with the collection
  • Enable and encourage lively social interaction
  • Accessible to all ages, cultures, education level and socio-economic standing
  • Develop products using iterative cycles that include direct audience input
A survey of available software to accomplish TDX goals showed a paucity of open source options for audience engagement and storytelling. The MIA endeavors to be a leader in the cultural heritage field, developing software to meet needs beyond its own walls. By sharing the software tools openly and at no cost, the efforts of the TDX project are available to support museum interpretation and delight audiences widely.

To develop Griot, the TDX project considered:
  • Visitors seek concise information that offers context, to help them understand and engage with the objects nearby.
  • Museum tour guides can use the interface effectively.
  • Art works will be presented with engaging stories, differing in tone to traditional museum didactics (more friendly, less formal, readily accessible).
  • While visitors are increasingly bringing their own smart devices along on museum trips, the museum will continue to provide devices for those who do not.
  • Content is shared via the internet to anyone who has ability to connect.
Of course, one of the most-important aspects of digital story-telling is each story itself. To empower the MIA's professional curatorial staff, a series of collaborative writing workshops were held over time.
Curators work with media production staff to craft engaging and intriguing content, published via the Griot toolset.
The second phase of Griot/ArtStories was completed museum-wide in February 2015. Announcing it to the public, the museum noted ArtStories invites you into an interactive, in-depth conversation about great artworks, from hidden details to secret backstories. Zoom in. Dive deep. ArtStories is a web app. It’s available on iPads in the MIA galleries, and it’s also optimized for your smartphone or computer. Try it on your personal device as you explore the galleries or from the comfort of home.”

All ages can enjoy ArtStories, and the content is crafted to enable and encourage social interaction.
Griot specifications
Griot toolset components and documentation
Building Griot: How We Work
The TDX project embraces and depends upon cross-functional teams to deliver engaging content. A Core Team is made up of producers and developers, and a wide array of vital stakeholders provide guidance, content, and feedback at every step along the way. As always, it starts and ends with the Audience.


 The TDX project uses an iterative approach to software development. This begins with early prototypes – often sketches on paper – brought to the public for formative testing. Visitors are asked specific questions about the interface design, and their responses are collected, collated, and turned into action plans. From this feedback, working versions of digital interactives are built, and the cycle is repeated: visitors try them out, respond, and those responses are taken into account to build out the production version. For any given project, the team will go through from 3 to 6 cycles.

Museum visitors respond to an iteration of ArtStories, recording their impressions for developers to review.
This ongoing, iterative approach enables the museum to deliver experiences that the public has helped shape. Once final versions are installed and in-use at the museum, MIA conducts formal evaluations using standard evaluation methods (observation, timing and tracking, interviews). The data is analyzed and shared with the team before they begin the next production cycle. Combining formative testing, multiple iterations and summative evaluation empowers to team to work directly with the public in order to deliver engaging and inspiring content.
Is Griot Successful?
In 2014, the MIA contracted with Audience Viewpoints Consulting to evaluate the integration of in-gallery technology from the visitor viewpoint. Primary findings of the summative evaluation included:
  • MIA visitors will use technology in the galleries. They will spend a significant amount of time with the technology, and will read aloud and discuss as they do so. The technology was used effectively and with positive response by individuals and groups.
  • The use of technology does not detract from visitor focus on the art. The technology was transparent, allowing audiences to focus on the collections and their context. When visitors left the gallery, the descriptions of their visit were almost exclusively about the art, and notably not about the technology.
  • People who used the technology spent more time in the exhibit than those that did not use the technology (even after subtracting the time spent using the technology).
Future plans for Griot include:
  • Continue improving Griot tools using iterative cycles based on audience input.
  • Grow the network of collaborative partners who implement and possibly extend Griot for the benefit of all.
  • At the MIA, add more content to ArtStories for deeper and richer engagement with the collection.
The team at the MIA hopes that this software package, and the demonstrated results of using it to delight our audiences, helps all museums to continue to achieve their missions - all of which include making sure that all people can access, learn from, connect with, shared, and be inspired by the amazing collections entrusted to the institutions in our field.

More information and links for Griot.

Credits:
The MIA wishes to thank a long list of contributors to the success of Griot and ArtStories
The TDX cross-functional project team members included staff from the following museum divisions: Curatorial, Learning Innovation, Audience Engagement, Visual Resources, and Media and Technology. The project team ultimately extended to include several other departments of the museum. (Please see below a link for Supporting Document 4: TDX Project Team.)
Douglas Hegley: Executive Sponsor, Director of Media and Technology, project conception
Karleen Gardner: Steering Committee, Director of Learning Innovation, interpretive writing
Matthew Welch: Steering Committee, Deputy Director and Chief Curator
Mike Mouw: TDX Project Manager, project coordination
Alex Bortolot: Curatorial Content Strategist, research, content creation, interpretive writing, story editing
Paige Patet: TDX Project Assistant, project coordination, content creation, interpretive writing, story editing
Amanda Thompson Rundahl: Head of Interpretation, content creation, interpretive writing
Andreas Marks, Chris Atkins, David Little, Dennis Jon, Eike Schmidt, Erika Holmquist-Wall, Jan-Lodewijk Grootaers, Jennifer Komar Olivarez, Jill Ahlberg Yohe, Liz Armstrong, Nicole LaBouf, Patrick Noon, Rachel McGarry, Risha Lee, Thomas Rassieur, Yang Liu: Curators, research, content creation, and interpretive writing
Dawn Fahlstrom, Heather Everhart, Kristin Lenaburg, Kristine Clarke, Natasha Thoreson, Nicole Soukup, Nicole Wankel, Roma Rowland: Curatorial Administrative Assistants, WordPress authoring, image and video acquisition, rights coordination
Britta Jepsen, Camille Erickson, Elise Poppen, Laura Scroggs, Laurel Gramling, Zachary Forstrom: Curatorial Interns, research, interpretive writing
Meaghan Tongen: Media and Technology Project Coordinator, agile software development ScrumMaster, rights coordinator, WordPress training
Jennifer Jurgens: Graphic Designer-Web/Interactive Media, interface design and layout, art direction
Tom Borger: Web Developer, WordPress plugin development, front end integration
Kjell Olsen: Web Developer, image tiling / annotation development, front end integration
Andrew David: Head of Software Development, API development, infrastructure design
Tim Gihring: Editor, content creation, interpretive writing
Amanda Hankerson, Ana Taylor, Charles Walbridge, Dan Dennehy: Photography
Josh Lynn: Digital image processing, metadata coordination, image file preparation
Heidi Raatz: Image rights consultation
Mike Dust: Video and audio producer/director
Ryan Lee, Xiaolu Wang: Videography, video editing, installation
Mike Tibbetts, Rose Nelson, Ryan Jensen, Steve Scidmore: IT support, installation, maintenance
Frances Lloyd-Baynes: TMS consultation
Michael Lapthorn, VJAA: gallery iPad furniture design
Al Silberstein, Shawn Holster, Tom Myers: iPad furniture construction
Steve Johnson: Electrician

Monday, December 22, 2014

6 Leadership Lessons from the Worst Basketball Team Ever


Life's lessons may come from almost any direction or experience. Often when and where you least expect it. More than 30 years ago, I was part of a high school basketball team that may have been the world's worst. Well, I suppose many unsuccessful teams could lay (reluctant) claim to being the worst-ever, so let's dial it back to say that my experiences on that team added up to (a) being deeply enmeshed in a dysfunctional and destined-for-failure environment, and (b) learning some lessons that still resonate with me today as I do my best to provide effective leadership from a senior business position.

I don't want to make any particular individual feel blamed or persecuted in this post. In fact, I don't think the failures of the team could be blamed on any one person. Many had their hands in the debacle, including me. So, I'll keep many details vague, and look instead to causes and understanding, leading to lessons learned.

Some background: It was the late 1970s. Disco was dying, punk rock had almost arrived, basketball players still wore tight shorts and knee socks.
*NOT* the team I played on, but a representative of the style of the era
I played on a high school team from a small midwestern town. Our talent was basically average for the region, on paper we weren't any better or any worse than most of the teams we'd be playing through the season. We practiced hard, and we sincerely wanted to succeed. But we never came together as a team, there was no cohesion and little shared vision. Failure fed failure like fuel on a fire, and by season's end we'd managed to win only 3 out of 21 games. The rare wins were nail-biters, and most of the losses were blow-outs. We were bad. Really bad. And the thing is, we should not have been.

I look back on that season not with the anger and frustration I felt at the time, but through the lens of my graduate-level training in psychology and my years of experience in trying to provide leadership to teams of various sizes and character. With the advantage of hindsight, even that season of humiliating defeat and struggle was able to provide me with a few building blocks for professional success.

For me, there are six primary takeaways:

Lesson 1: Even Bad Leaders are Leading (Unfortunately)
Like it or not, authority is often bestowed on those who perhaps don't deserve it. In the team's case, the head coach was inexperienced and insecure, which led him to a posture of defensiveness and resistance. In pop psychology, they call this the Napolean Complex. To compensate for feelings of inadequacy, the individual attempts to control everything and comes across as arrogant and close-minded. Hardly inspiring. The poisoned atmosphere around the team allowed no room for input except from sycophants (a group that included several meddling fathers pushing for playing time for their sons). The decision-making by the coach was wildly inconsistent and unpredictable. The team was at the mercy of an anxious tyrant, and pleas to the athletic director led nowhere. The was no real trust, no room for independence or creativity, no empowerment, and swift vindictiveness could happen at any moment. Case in point: early in the season, we were playing against a good team and actually keeping the score close. Midway through the second quarter, the opponent went on a 10-0 run, and the game was about to get out of hand. I was sitting on the bench, just feeling the momentum draining away. I caught the eye of our point guard, and gestured for him to call a timeout. Right thing to do, correct? Wrong. Coach saw me do it. I was benched for the next three games, with no discussion or explanation. Punished for trying to help, the punishment made more severe because the leader knew he should have been the one making that call. Lesson? Authority can be the source of failure when it's ill-placed, and even a great leader must be open to input from the front lines.

Lesson 2: A Failure to Keep Things Simple Leads to More Failure
As the season progressed and the losses mounted, frustration and desperation set in across the team. If I recall correctly, we lost our first 8 games and frankly the scores weren't even close. Our leaders' response to this was to continually install a brand new offense, with increasingly complex, multi-step plays requiring greater degrees of precision and timing. As you can probably guess, things got worse. We never got back to fundamentals at any point during the season; instead, every week was a new surprise with some sophisticated new scheme gleaned from a best-selling sports book. We never knew what to expect, and during games our own players were often confused and overwhelmed trying to remember what to do. As we failed to score on what seemed to be every trip down the floor, the coach got more and more angry and chided us loudly for not executing his brilliant plans. Lesson? Effective leadership is not about making things extra-fancy or complex, and it's certainly not about changing everything in a desperate attempt to find something that works. Start with the basics. Build a foundation. Find a small success, and build on it. Then repeat.

Lesson 3: Incremental Success Should NOT be Overly-celebrated
This point is nuanced, but I might boil it down to "winning one battle does not win the war". After 8 consecutive losses, the team finally secured its first win. It wasn't easy, it was a close game that came right down to the wire, but a raucous home crowd helped the team stay energized and eke out a win. As the final horn sounded, the coach went nuts, leaping all over the floor and whooping it up, as if we'd just won a major championship. The message? That's the best we'll ever do. Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't acknowledge and be proud of each accomplishment along the way; in fact, to do so is to lay down the path toward greater success. The nuanced point here is that wildly celebrating 1 win and 8 losses communicates the wrong message. Even as a teenager, I instinctively knew this. During the coaches leaping and shouting display, I was quietly shaking hands and patting the backs of two of our players who had done well. The next thing I knew, the coach had me by the back of my jersey, and yanked me into his office, slamming the door. He lit into me for "not being happy for the team". I was a bit shell-shocked, and mumbled something about being happy for the team but hoping for more now that we'd finally gotten into the win column. Result: I was benched for the next 2 games (big surprise). Lesson? Each success is one step on a larger journey toward a much greater accomplishment. Be happy and proud together at each success, but save the confetti and champagne for the big win.

Lesson 4: No Team Means No Success
I suppose there are some instances in life where one can truly solo to victory, succeeding only on one's own merits. Personally, I think those instances are pretty rare. Even in so-called individual sports like running, tennis, gymnastics, etc. there is almost always some sort of team involved: coaches, teammates, trainers, supportive parents, etc. When all are clicking, success is much more likely. On our basketball team, intense competition within the team was encouraged and praised. We were often required to play long, intense scrimmages against each other during practice. As we competed madly, throwing elbows and and even getting into a couple of fist fights, we grew to despise each other! It was a complete distraction from the real goal of winning actual games. It left us exhausted - I think we played harder against each other than we did against the competition. In addition, this approach resulted in the formation of cliques and rivalries within the team. When you can't rely on - and don't even like - your own teammates, it becomes every-man-for-himself during the real contests. Add in our complex offensive schemes that required multiple passes, and the recipe for selfishness was complete. We had several athletes who rarely threw a pass, instead they simply heaved up shots whenever they touched the ball, in an attempt to score points and stay in the line up. As you could predict, the losses mounted. Lesson? When personal politics and internal battles take top priority, a team will inevitably fail when faced with real world tasks. Teamwork must begin with the team; start with team-building and mutual trust, everything else can wait. Case in point: there was another team in our conference that regularly waxed the floor with us. They were no more talented across the board - another bunch of scrawny white kids like us - but their approach was as amazing as it was simple: all 12 players got in the game in a complete rotation, and all 12 absolutely played their hearts out, exhausting themselves for each other. As soon as one got winded, he'd signal for a replacement. They rotated in and out so frequently that it was hard to keep track of who you were supposed to be guarding. Playing against them felt like being in the middle of an angry swarm. They seemed to be everywhere, and they played with total abandon and unselfishness, sacrificing themselves for the team win, diving for loose balls, throwing crisp passes in an offense that literally only had 3 plays! You'd know what was coming, but they executed it so fast and so well that you still couldn't stop them. And they shellacked us by double digits every time we played.

Lesson 5: Wounds Heal Slowly
Once you've created damaged goods, it's very hard to repair them. The players that came out of that program were scarred. They'd learned to be selfish, not to trust teammates, and to be extremely wary of leaders. They'd also learned that speaking up with one's own ideas will put you on the bench, so better to stay quiet and keep in the game, even on a losing team. In a sense, the entire program became scarred: its reputation and tradition became steeped in a environment of in-fighting, rival cliques, and the bitterness of losing. It took years for the program to get back to winning, and it took a total shake up at the top to enable that to happen: new coach, new athletic director, new approach. We players stayed angry about that season for years. There were just so many missed opportunities, and a sense of failure and embarrassment. To top it all off, those cliques stayed in place. There were no jovial reunions, no laughing off a tough season, no decompression and forgiveness. Just lots of mutual frustration and blame. Losing begets losing, and it's very hard to break the cycle. Lesson? An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Set things up the right way, build a strong foundation and a team that is cohesive, then the rough sailing can be dealt with together. Otherwise, drowning is more likely for everyone.

Lesson 6: Managing Up
In this last lesson, I want to focus on my own failures as part of that under-performing team. Looking back, I can see that I was more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. Like everyone else, I let frustration rule, and participated whole-heartedly in the divisiveness and talking-behind-people's-backs behavior that was rampant. I thought that I was trying to "manage up" by making suggestions to the coach, particularly around simplifying the offense and increasing player rotations - but I made these suggestions loudly and in front of the entire team. That is not an effective way to manage up. Unsurprisingly, he heard my suggestions as personal attacks on his power and authority, and thus not only ignored the advice but also punished me for having shared it in the first place. There could have been a better way. What if I had taken one big step back and let go of my anger and replaced it with curiosity? The coach must have felt embattled, criticized from all angles: above, below, sideways, in the press. He needed allies, not critics. Part of managing up is finding common ground, a shared set of principles. I have no doubt that the coach wanted to win basketball games. He wasn't failing on purpose! I could have worked much harder to enable his success. This would have involved private meetings, and making sure to give him credit for any kind of improvement. Unselfishness. Leading by example, particularly by building bridges between the cliques, something I was actually fairly good at doing. Lesson? Leadership depends as much on those being led as it does on authority and position.

Lessons Applied
More than 30 years later, these six lessons continue to inform my approach as a leader and my management practices. Here's how:
Lesson 1: Listen. Encourage the team to share insights and input. Everyone on the team must be involved and feel ownership of the strategic direction and even the determination of workload. Effective leadership is less about herding and more about supporting.
Lesson 2: When stress inevitably arises, simplify. Step back and ask, "Okay, what are we trying to accomplish here?" Break the complex down into achievable steps and move forward.
Lesson 3: Praise must match achievement. Spread gratitude and credit widely, but never lose sight of the really big goals. I much prefer "We are on our way!" over "We did it! Hooray!". Keep one eye on the horizon while still patting everyone on the back along the journey.
Lesson 4: A strong team will overcome great odds, a weak team will fail. Creating and nurturing a strong team involves many aspects, perhaps I'll write about that later. We must concentrate on that team first and foremost, all other priorities take a back seat. Want everyone to work really hard? Make them part of a team of smart people that has a clear mandate, is mutually-supportive, is given credit, and is motivated to perform.
Lesson 5: Build nothing until the foundation is in place. Once the course has been set, it takes a lot of energy to change it, so it's vitally important to start in the right direction.
Lesson 6: Everyone contributes to the success of the team. Make that clear, reward those who contribute in whatever way they can, and don't get caught up in pettiness and taking everything personally. Want others to recognize your contributions? Then be very quick to credit everyone on the team.