Working in a Group

Working in a group/team is common. In recent months I’ve been reading a lot about leadership & team dynamics, mainly in creative fields.

I’ve been most interested in PIXAR, Disney, & Apple — mainly due to the deep connection the three companies have and the shared system of belief’s when it comes to leadership/group dynamics. Much of what I’ve learned from the readings I’ve implemented within my own team and things have been working well, so far. I’ve organized thoughts from different courses/readings into 5 points that I rank:

1- Psychological Safety (free to express criticisms);

2- Knowledge synthesis (integrate ideas from group members);

3- Group Cohesion (i.e., group gets along and reaches goals);

4- Knowledge negotiation (compare different ideas);

5- Process monitoring (follows the processes)

A lot of times when a team/group is being built each person has a different level of experience. Some are considered the experts and others are novice to the topic at hand. This dynamic can prevent some group members from speaking up because they feel they’re not the expert. But, I am a firm believer in that experts or novices all have something to bring to the table. We’re all looking at problems from a different lens. Often times experts become so focused that they have blinders on the task at hand. Novice team members don’t have that focus so they bring new insights into the project that the experts may not have thought of. Without having an environment that is clearly safe for new ideas (i.e., an environment built on candor) the team might just keep spinning the same wheels.

Secondly, a team must be able to utilize each others ideas to help complete the task. Working in creative environments I’ve seen time and time again, 2 or 3 bad ideas combined together create the best solution. Only a candid environment can help create these ideas that may never have been.

Thirdly, group cohesion brings all of this together. Respect for the shared goal helps tie everything together. Once you have a group who is comfortable with one another, free to express ideas, debate (as they understand the idea is critiqued, not the person offering the idea), it’s easier to follow my 4 & 5 (Knowledge Negotiation and process monitoring). I would also argue that ‘process monitoring’ is more than just following processes — it’s trusting the people who follow the process. So, as long as there is psychological safety and knowledge synthesis first, the process will flow nicely.