better results through better thinking thinkabout teams the business of thinking ®

better results through better thinking

ThinkAbout Teams

The Business of Thinking®

02-10©2010 Herrmann International

Purpose

To use the power of Whole Brain® Technology to make the most of the thinking preferences and potential of all team members.


Four levels of Application of Whole Brain Technology®

Time

Mea

sura

ble

Succ

ess

Foundation

Application

Adoption

Transformation


Why Spend Time on This?

Discuss why it makes sense for you personally to learn about the thinking preferences of your team.


Agenda

Warm-up Activity

What the Experts Say About Teams

Your Team Profile

Is Your Team Ready for Action?

Applying Whole Brain Thinking to Your Own Team’s Work

Next Steps


What the Experts Say…


Are committed to a common goal. Outperform all reasonable expectations. Have team members that are deeply committed to one another. Share leadership within the team. Have team members that are able to develop interchangeable skills giving them greater flexibility.

According to Jon Katzenbach in The Wisdom of Teams, high performing teams:


Stereotyping of others is a major impediment to team development (he's a "this" or she's a "that").

The more heterogeneous a group is, the more they need a multi-dominant leader/facilitator.

Heterogeneous groups can be extremely creative and successful OR they can "crash," unless they take the time necessary to find synergy.

Strive to encourage "heterogeneous thinking" even in a homogeneous group.

Cultural differences can make working as a team even more challenging--more process time and consistent communication are especially important. Size does matter: 7-8 members is the "ideal" team size.

Source: Herrmann International, 2004

Key Learnings from 20 Years of Whole Brain® Team Application


When people are more than 50 feet apart, the likelihood of them collaborating more than once a week is less than 10%. These are the findings from an MIT research study that focused on the distances between engineers' offices and how much regular technical communication they engaged in.

From research conducted on workplace architecture by Thomas J. Allen, former Director of MIT's International Center for Research on the Management of

Technology

Close Collaboration


A six-year study focused on factors that increase the productivity and efficiency of teams found that:

Teams that are balanced in terms of thinking preferences (e.g., whole brained teams) are more effective; they consider more options and make better decisions. Whole Brained Teams were 66% more efficient (e.g., did things right). 70% or more of the teams were "successful" when whole brained (versus 30% or less when not whole-brained).

From "How to Improve Group Productivity: Whole-brain® Teams Set New Benchmarks” by Charles G. DeRidder and Mark A. Wilcox.

For the entire article, click here.

Team Power:A Six-Year Study

http://www.hbdi.com/uploads/100024_articles/100367.pdf


Two Key Questions

1. How is this data representative of what happens on this team in terms of interactions and performance?

2. How can we use this data going forward?


Insert Composite Profile Slide Here

(request from Herrmann International)


Insert Average Profile Slide Here



Insert Rank Order Slide Here



Insert Process Flow Slide Here



Insert Profile List of Scores Slide Here



Insert Preference Map Slide Here



Insert Preference Map Scores/Adjective Paris Slide Here



Insert Work Elements by Quadrant Slide Here



Insert Rank Order of Work Elements Slide Here



Insert Key Descriptors Slide Here



Insert Rank Order of key Descriptors Slide Here



Two Dimensions Of Team Effectiveness

How the team interacts

How the team performs


Ready-for Action Team Assessment

A clear common purpose, goals and performance objectives?

An understanding of our budget and financial resources?

All the data and research we need?

Technology that can enable us?

Clear measurements?

Guidelines, agendas, and ground rules to help us use our time together effectively?

The resources we need?

Agreed-upon processes?

Clear priorities, a plan and a timeline?

Clear responsibilities and accountabilities?

An understanding of each other?

Facilitation skills available to us?

An understanding of our "Customers?”

Clear understanding of each other's roles and how we interact?

Agreements on how we'll communicate with each other and with our customers?

A vision of our successful future?

An idea of how our work fits into the larger organizational strategy?

A willingness to take risk?

New ideas and solutions that challenge the status quo?

An idea of how we fit into the big picture and global perspective?

To what extent do we have? To what extent do we have?

To what extent do we have? To what extent do we have?

SmallExtent

GreatExtent

SmallExtent

GreatExtent

SmallExtent

GreatExtent

SmallExtent

GreatExtent

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

1 2 3

A

B

D

C


Ready-for Action Team Plan Overview

Each person will share his or her ratings for that quadrant. The Team will select one item from that quadrant to discuss and take action on. The process will be repeated for each quadrant.

You’ll be discussing the assessment items—one quadrant at a time.


Ready-for Action Team AssessmentStep-by-Step

Step 1: Select a Facilitator and Scribe for the first quadrant. Step 2: Each person shares his or her ratings. Step 3: Team selects one item to discuss based on low or varied ratings.Step 4: Team discusses reasons for the ratings. (4 min.)Step 5: Team identifies and assigns action item(s) to raise the rating. (2 min.) Step 6: Repeat for other quadrants.

8 minutes per quadrant.


Team Planning Walk-AroundActions Who/By When Actions Who/By When

Actions Who/By When Actions Who/By When

A

B

D

C


Instructions: Use this checklist to identify action items related to the project or task.

ACTION CHECKLIST : WHAT DOES THE TEAM NEED TO DO?Does the project/task require actions related to:

Goal and objectives? Efficiency? Financials? Technology? Past Trends? Research? Performance? Measurement?

Does the project/task require actions related to:

Methods and Regulations? Quality? Risk Reduction? Resources? Control? Timing? Policy? Procedures?


Training & Development? Teams & Relationships? Community Relations? Customer Relations? Recognition? Communications? Culture and Values?


Competition? Environment? Future Trends? New Concepts? Nation and World? Vision and Purpose? Long-term strategy?

A

B

D

C


FROM INSIGHT TO ACTION What's one insight or thought you had as a result of today's session?

What actions will you take as a result of today's session?

Research shows that learning sticks and grows when it is applied within 24 hours.

Think about what you've learned today and identify one or more opportunities to use it.

Is this d o n e ? Action Start Date / Completion Date

The next 24 hours


In Closing…

Questions?

Comments?


Optional Slides

Better Results through

better thinking

Better Results throughbetter thinking

Case Study: Thinking Styles in Exile

Review the case study on page 14 to

learn about the team. Answer questions on page 14 Select a spokesperson to share 2 or 3

recommendations.

Better Results through

better thinking


Keep your eye on the ball


Case Study: Thinking Styles in Exile

Review the case study on page 14 to learn about the team.

Answer questions on page 14

Select a spokesperson to share 2 or 3 recommendations.


It’s Tough Being Different!

better results through better thinking thinkabout teams the business of thinking ®

Documents