This could be a post about my brother-in-law's laptop, but in fact it's about advanced research into various team dynamics.
Ross Siler of the Salt Lake Tribune writes about a recent story from This American Life. Host Ira Glass talks to a professor at the Rotterdam School of Management, called Will Felps. Siler describes what then happened:
He organized four-person teams of college students who were given 45 minutes of management tasks to perform. There was a $100 per person prize for the team that did the best, so there was a healthy incentive for everyone involved.
As part of the experiment, Felps had an actor step into a team with another three unsuspecting members at times. The actor was trained -- and I love this -- to be a jerk, a slacker or a pessimist.
The jerk would put everyone else down in the group, saying things like, "Have you ever taken a business course before?" The slacker text messaged throughout and started eating in the middle. The pessimist acted as if his cat had died (seriously).
The thinking was that the group would be able to overcome this one individual. The opposite was true. Even with smart and talented people, the groups that included the bad apple performed 30 to 40 percent worse in completing tasks, according to Felps.
I will admit to finding stuff like this fascinating. Immediately I started to think about all the jerks, slackers and pessimists you can find in NBA locker rooms. How much do they actually succeed in dragging down a team?
Are there a bunch of .500 teams out there with the talent to win 55 games if they only got rid of the one bad apple in their locker room? It's a fascinating question. Felps' groups also didn't have coaches trying to point things in the right direction like NBA teams do.
I believe there is a lot to do this. Isn't this what the Celtics are talking about when they talk about Ubuntu? Isn't this what Pat Riley and his team were doing with their talk of 15 strong? Isn't the Spurs careful method of character screening all part of weeding out those super bad personailities?
Sure, it might not be huge to have the 15th guy play well. But it's huge to have him on the same page, pulling for the team to succeed.
I have also noticed over my life that title-winning teams tend to be teams where everybody can give 100% just about all the time. That means you can't have super talented players who are not really contributing. In other words, I'd argue you're better with Mr. "Go Team" Mark Madsen as your 11th man, instead of a really talented player who can only give 100% if somebody gets hurt. It's your protection against the bad apple syndrome.
This, I'd argue, is the flaw with the Bob Whitsitt style of management where you assemble as many stars as possible. When there aren't enough basketballs to go around, some of your good apples might go bad. And, it turns out, that can change everything. Another part of the story mentions that in some research, across many industries, the best predictor of a team's success came from assessing the worst person on the team. As in, that person has a bigger effect than the leader or an average player. That's something, huh?
