What makes a good team great
And how managers lose this edge the higher they move up a ladder
|Oct 16, 2019|
How would you classify each of the expressions above? Skeptical? Aghast? Cautious? Apparently how well you're able to identify a person's mental state (and act on it) can determine how successful your team is.
It seems top execs are failing these tests as findings show EQ decreases as rank increases, the lowest being among CEOs.
Cr: Talent Smart
The Task(s) at Hand: Tech / digital / ecom turn-over rates are higher than any other business sector and 77% of the incoming workforce Gen Z prefer a millennial manager over Gen X and Baby Boomers, who typically should have more experience in successful people management. What's the gap?
The Solution Proposed: The gap is due to work's current multi-generational nature - older generations aren't tuning into the needs of their direct reports. Individuals raised to embrace their uniqueness - i.e. today's younger workforce - are driven by unique motivators that need to be identified to produce output.
One way to judge the success of a team is the manager's ability to 'tune in' to the mental state of direct reports as measured by studies like above "Reading the Mind in the Eyes" test.
Building off this test is a Carnegie Mellon and MIT study that found two factors are shared by good teams: 1) Equal contribution of speaking during meetings and 2) a high average social sensitivity. Smart people don't make a smart team, strong collaboration does.
What are your thoughts?
Answers to the expression exercise (left to right, top to bottom)