avatarharuki zaemon

Trump Is Pissing Off Judges in Georgia. Bigly. - by Jay Kuo

Shared by

Lawyers love to look at footnotes to see what the judge is really thinking, and McBurney didn’t disappoint. In footnote 2, he remarked on how Trump was making great political hay (and money) off of the multiple indictments—hardly someone suffering from the burden of them: “And for some, being the subject of a criminal investigation can, à la Rumpelstiltskin, be turned into golden political capital, making it seem more providential than problematic.”

Chef’s kiss (though I would have said “Trumpelstiltskin” for extra credit.)

Jootsing: The Key to Creativity

Shared by

(Summary via Kagi)

Creativity involves understanding a system deeply, then “jootsing” - jumping out of that system by subverting its rules in a surprising way. Limitations and constraints give us a starting point and shape to work against, fueling creativity. Understanding a system first provides a basis to build upon and makes it possible to come up with something more interesting. To foster creativity in others, we must permit exploration of ideas, even those that fail, and allow mistakes which often lead to discoveries. Giving ourselves space to experiment without an agenda allows us to have our most creative ideas.

Compiling C to printable x86, to make an executable research paper

Shared by

(Summary via Kagi)

The video describes how the author created a research paper that is also an executable program by compiling C code to printable x86 assembly instructions. This required solving puzzles like simulating non-printable operations using printable ones and loading constants into registers. The author created a compiler that transforms C code into the printable x86 code. The resulting paper is 420 kilobytes large due to using printable bytes for the header. The author used I/O ports to play music from an AdLib sound card, demonstrating that the paper is an executable program by playing Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up”.

The Surprising Reason that There Are So Many Thai Restaurants in America

Shared by

(Summary via Kagi)

There are many Thai restaurants in the U.S. despite a small Thai population. The Thai government intentionally promoted Thai cuisine abroad through programs to increase exports and tourism revenue. They provided loans, trained chefs, and published manuals to help open Thai restaurants. Their efforts worked - the number of Thai restaurants abroad doubled from around 5,500 to over 15,000, with U.S. restaurants increasing from 2,000 to over 5,000. Now the Thai government focuses on maintaining quality through certification programs and working with Thai restaurant owners. The success of Thai gastrodiplomacy shows how governments can influence local food offerings through targeted initiatives.

The stupidity of transatlantic red-eye meals - Josh Bernoff

Shared by

(Summary via Kagi)

Transatlantic red-eye flights from North America to Europe typically leave at night and arrive in the morning after 6-8 hours of flying. The author argues that serving dinner on these flights is counterproductive as most passengers want to sleep to adjust to the new time zone. Yet airlines continue the practice of serving dinner around 30 minutes after takeoff, despite the fact that few people actually want to eat dinner that late at night or that early in the morning. The author would prefer to fly with an airline that does not serve dinner on red-eye flights, as the meal and flight attendants disrupt passengers’ ability to sleep. The author wonders why airlines persist in this seemingly illogical practice.

How the Rich Reap Huge Tax Breaks From Private Nonprofits - ProPublica

Shared by

(Summary via Kagi)

  • Some wealthy donors are obtaining large tax deductions by donating assets to their private foundations, but then failing to provide adequate public access to those assets as required.

  • Private foundations are funded by a single donor or family who retain control, and there is little oversight to ensure they provide a public benefit as promised.

  • The rules defining what qualifies as a “public benefit” are vague, and IRS enforcement has been lax due to budget cuts.

  • Some donors have used their foundations to purchase homes for personal use, which experts say violates self-dealing rules.

  • Donors can obtain large tax deductions by donating valuable assets like real estate and art to their foundations.

  • Some foundations provide very limited public access to the donated assets, like only offering a few tours per year with advance reservations.

  • Some donors claim they will open donated assets like museums to the public, but then fail to do so after receiving tax benefits.

  • The IRS has struggled to crack down on abusive foundations due to lack of resources and political pressure.

  • Experts say the issue of ensuring adequate public access for foundation assets has been controversial in the past but led to few meaningful changes.

  • Some donors plan to eventually donate foundation assets to public institutions, but retain control for many years while enjoying tax benefits.

Tech debt metaphor maximalism - apenwarr

Shared by

(Summary via Kagi)

The author uses financial debt metaphors to explain technical debt. High-interest technical debt like code without tests allows faster shipping but should be paid back quickly. Too much technical debt slows development, so companies aim for an optimal debt-to-income ratio. When growth slows, companies take on more technical debt to keep revenue rising, but this increases risk. If growth stops, companies may have to “refinance” by abandoning projects. When a company fails, its technical debt disappears along with its financial debt in “technical bankruptcy”. However, “bug bankruptcy” destroys trust as people stop reporting bugs.

Mastodon is easy and fun except when it isn't - Erin Kissane's small internet website

Shared by

(Summary via Kagi)

Many people who tried Mastodon but left cited feeling unwelcome and scolded by other users. Improving discoverability and making it easier to find and follow people would help make Mastodon more accessible. The federation model and process of selecting an instance was confusing for many. Some found Mastodon too serious and lacking in fun. There are complex decisions around whether to include features that could enable both positive and negative behaviours. If Mastodon wants to scale up, its developers will need to grapple with these issues and listen closely to users’ needs. For now, Mastodon remains an impressive achievement that struggles with the complexities of mass scale.

Quick links

Shared by

When I share links to articles I’ve read (what I used to called bookmarks when I used Pinboard), I like to add value with my own perspective. This can be a relatively time-consuming process, and because I’ve wanted to follow it for everything, I’ve effectively stalled. So, I thought I’d try something different.

For articles that I think are worth the effort, I’ll still keep publishing longer takes. For others that I want to share but that don’t necessarily warrant going the extra mile, I thought I’d try publishing the link with a brief summary using Kagi Universal Summariser. I’m hoping it will help me get back into the habit of sharing links.

As an aside, our whole family has been using Kagi Search across all our devices for about a month now and the unanimous verdict is that it’s a keeper!

Anyway, here goes…

How One F-35 Fighter Pilot Makes Decisions Under Pressure

Shared by

I always enjoy reading about how people in real-world impact professions build high-performing teams. There’s a lot of food for thought in the whole article. As I was reading (well, listening) I just had to stop and pause and reflect when it came to debriefing (or what we might call retrospectives and post-mortems):

the debrief is one of the best tools that people can use to help improve their decision-making, their assessment phase, because if you debrief, you’ll be able to see where the errors came from [..] It is a sacred place for us. It’s a sterile environment. It’s nameless, rankless, faceless. We’re not worried about the person. We’re worried about the action that happened.

The sheer amount of time dedicated to analysing, reflecting, and learning is incredible:

we’ll fly for about an hour to an hour and a half […] And when we come back, we will debrief that sortie for two to six hours […] Ultimately what you’re trying to do is trying to see what you did well and then what you did wrong, and then not make those same mistakes twice.

Too often I see people dominate conversations because of their perceive seniority or expertise. If the Air Force can manage this, then so can we:

rank is stripped in the situation, so nobody outranks anybody in the debrief.

As leaders, we must participate in ways that encourage others to speak up:

The debrief is critical and there are a lot of best practices associated with it because it is not a stable system. We have egos as people, as humans. You don’t like to call yourself out for making a mistake […] It needs to start with the highest ranking person in the room or the most experienced pilot. They need to be willing to call themselves out because as soon as one person starts trying to shirk their responsibility, everybody clams up.

It’s not just enough to talk about what went wrong, we need to understand why, and critically, at what stage of the decision-making process it went wrong:

did they make a mistake during the assessment phase, did they hear the wrong radio call and then made the right decisions after that? […] Did they assess the problem correctly and then choose the correct course of action incorrectly? […] Did they choose the correct course of action, and then did they just botch it?

Find six things to take away, three that went well, and three that went wrong and over the course of a year or two, you’ll be surprised at how much improvement you make:

try to isolate it to three things that they did well because as we talked to you earlier, confidence is really important. You don’t want to just tear them down because they need to be engaged and they need to be excited about learning more about being a fighter pilot. It’s not just a two-week course, it’s a 10, 20-year career […] also finding three things that they did wrong and writing those things down. Anytime I have my flight suit on, I have a small black notebook in it, and I have those three mistakes that I’ve made on each flight

Let me finish by repeating this quote because I think it’s so important, and powerful:

It is a sacred place for us. It’s a sterile environment. It’s nameless, rankless, faceless. We’re not worried about the person. We’re worried about the action that happened.

Divergence required

By

Sunrise over Shelly Beach, Ballina, New South Wales, Australia.
Sunrise over Shelly Beach, Ballina, New South Wales, Australia.

In a genuine desire to move fast and innovate, leaders can become frustrated when people don’t “just get” what they mean. I can still remember my first management role when I’d spend time “briefing” people on their tasks, then come back to find they hadn’t done what I had expected. I assumed the way forward was for me to either explain harder, or when that failed, to do it myself.

The temptation is then to hire in “like-minded” individuals who presumably require less effort to get on the same page. People who look like us, sound like us, have similar experiences and cultural backgrounds to us. I’ve certainly perceived a genuine connection with a candidate when in reality it was the comfort of sameness.

Some leaders may turn to what they think of as coaching, “I’ll lead them to my idea by making them think it’s their own.” I’ve experienced first-hand managers who were trying to coach me and ended up playing what might be described as a “guess the number in their head” game. I can also think of times I’ve naively done the same.

We reflexively seek homogeneity based on the (often implicit) premise that it is the differences and the effort required to align and remain aligned that create friction and slow things down. The problem is, if you want innovation, divergence is good. The differences aren’t the problem; they’re the catalyst for making better choices and finding better solutions:

Modern leaders embrace complexity, tolerate uncertainty, and manage tension in searching for creative solutions to problems […] managers feel a huge temptation to relieve tension by chopping out complexity and ignoring some of the variables that cause complexity at the outset of the thinking.

Building teams and communities of practice around people with divergent yet complimentary skills, thinking, and ways of working definitely comes with challenges:

It is therefore important to consider – and compensate for – potential negative consequences of team diversity on communication, cohesiveness, and consequently performance.

Taking the time to slow down and consider differences leads to innovation and improved effectiveness:

research has shown that when members of a diverse team proactively take the perspectives of others, it enhances the positive effect of information sharing and increases the team’s creativity.

when a team contains members who all feel included (that is, accepted and valued for their unique characteristics), the team becomes significantly more cohesive, which in turn has a positive impact on its effectiveness.

Interestingly, and perhaps counterintuitively, people don’t necessarily need you to agree with them to feel included. Once people feel and have genuinely been heard and understood, they are much more likely to be open to hearing and understanding others, including you.

I’ve really come to appreciate making the time to practice, facilitate, be aware of, and genuinely value:

  1. Divergence: Creating the space for people to come together and unpack and understand their differences;
  2. Emergence: Holding the space for others when things become uncomfortable in order to develop understanding and insight; and
  3. Convergence: Knowing when and how to help them synthesise concrete outcomes and next actions.

I’m still learning how to be effective at it, and I’m also looking for ways to enable others to do this for themselves.

Why companies stop innovating - Andy Walker

Shared by

I’ve pulled out and summarised a few things, and it’s definitely worth reading the whole article.

When companies stop innovating then it’s the fault of their leaders.

As you progress through your career into a leadership role your job changes. Instead of being the one innovating you are, instead, responsible for creating an environment where innovation can happen. Eventually, your need to innovate becomes the problem. Then you try to fix it and make things worse.

You then get up on stage and say “we’re not innovative”. All people in the audience hear is that they aren’t working in an innovative environment and this becomes their truth. Or, worse still they start doing random things.

Phrases like “we need to be scrappy” or “we need to act like a startup” not only don’t they have the desired effect, they tend to encourage the worst behaviours. How should I be scrappier? In what way is what I’m doing stopping you? People start parroting these at each other to justify themselves without ever trying to align on a common understanding.

Nothing seems to happen so the leaders decide to step in and get things moving. Following the age-old maxim of “show don’t tell” the leaders of the organisation decide they need to be scrappy and get things moving. Rather than showing people how to innovate as they believe they are doing — what happens is they are telling their people what to do.

People need to own the problems they are working on. This is not to be confused with one of the great management antipatterns which is “holding people accountable”. People who own what they are doing build better products because they take accountability. As a leader your job is to give people the opportunity to own things, so they take accountability onto themselves.

create an environment where you get the best version of people. If you’re concerned that people are coasting (and accusing your people of slacking is never a good look) then set them up for success.

Seniority is not a proxy for success. Leaders should remember this.

people gravitate to the things that will get them recognition at the expense of the things which are critical for success.

leaders really screw things up — they try to instill a sense of urgency into people rather than asking “how can we iterate faster?”

If you can’t measure the impact you’re having then you’re missing out on one of the requirements for a high performing team. Goodhart’s Law “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” If you cannot measure success in a way that is meaningful then process becomes a proxy for success

When a leader proposes a solution (in order to get things moving) and it becomes an edict. People are going to try things that don’t work and that’s ok as long as they can learn from them. If we only reward impact and don’t include how people got there then we subject ourselves to outcome bias. This leads us to reward people who did the wrong things and got lucky or fail to recognise people who went about things the right way even though it didn’t pan out.

Every time you hire in a leader from outside you dilute your culture and, worse still, risk importing the shitty culture from wherever they came from

A leader’s job is not to make decisions (that way lies micromanagement and disempowerment) it is to ensure that decisions are made well. Your job as a leader then is to ensure decisions are made quickly and transparently so progress is possible, alignment is maintained and working relationships remain healthy.

As a company grows the number of stupid things that bring no value that people are expected to do (usually to satisfy the vanity of their leaders) increases.

One of the ways that leaders disrupt their teams is by forcing change on them without appreciating the cost of change. If you’re an exec, and you want high performing teams, you have to resist the urge to fuck with people’s org structures.

Leaders miss the immediacy of the feedback loops they had when they started out. Eventually, the input lag is so great that nothing appears to happen when you steer. At this point many leaders continue feeding input into their organisations in a desire to see a response. Too much steering input in a boat and you capsize.

Want to Be More Effective (and Agile)? Rethink Three Classic Management Assumptions - Johanna Rothman, Management Consultant

Shared by

When people collaborate as a team, they finish the work faster […] teams who plan and create and release together tend to be more effective and faster than teams where people work individually.

I’ve observed that when we come together organically, out of an innate need, we collaborate; When we institutionalise collaboration, we have meetings.

If we want teamwork, we need career ladders that reinforce teamwork, not individual work. That also means we need to reward people who aid other people in getting better.

When I was involved in building a career ladder (or “map” as we called it) we had a principle that the results of a manager meeting expectations should also be observable (and measurable) in the behaviours of the people they manage.

Vulnerability: Smart Seems Stupid to Knuckleheads - Leadership Freak

Shared by

It’s good for your soul to acknowledge your own stupidity.

I find it challenging at times to acknowledge my own flaws while maintaining a sense of self-worth. It’s much easier to either rationalise away the stupidity, or fall into the abyss of it.

Those with vulnerability explore and learn.

I’ve squandered many opportunities to learn through my own lack of vulnerability. Needing to be seen as smart or knowledgeable, or even being caught up in my own premature interpretation has prevented me from being genuinely curious.

Real connection demands vulnerability when real people are involved […] Being yourself requires courageous vulnerability.

Sometimes being vulnerable can mean not making it about myself.

A person who respects your vulnerability is worth being in your life […] Lack of vulnerability explains shallow manipulative relationships.

I’d like to think I don’t abuse people’s vulnerability. I’ve certainly experienced people disrespecting mine.

Reading list

By

Tokyo Dome City amusement park when we visited as a family c. 2019 (just before COVID-19) and rode the Thunder Dolphin roller-coaster.
Tokyo Dome City amusement park when we visited as a family c. 2019 (just before COVID-19) and rode the Thunder Dolphin roller-coaster.

I consume most of my day-to-day content via RSS feeds and newsletters using Unread and FeedBin. I love the aesthetic and user experience of Unread. I’ve tried so many feed readers and nothing compares. I also love the ability to seamlessly subscribe to newsletters via FeedBin. I’ve tried so many hacks, e.g. kill-the-newsletter, and I keep coming back to FeedBin. My usual workflow is to skim the summaries, skim the articles, bookmark stuff for later, take notes, then if I really liked it, I’ll publish something here as a bookmark. As of writing, I am subscribed to 249 feeds.

I use Readwise Reader as my read-later and highlighting tool. I love the seamless integration with Readwise for spaced repetition. I was a long-time Instapaper user (which also has Readwise integration) but seeing as I pay for Readwise anyway, … Most of the links I post here have gone via Readwise at some point. I also like that Readwise can read articles to me. Instapaper recently added Apple CarPlay support which looks great and if anyone from Readwise is listening, at least one customer would love CarPlay support. As of writing, I have 310 unread articles, and 42 articles waiting for me to publish a link to with commentary.

For books, I am an audiobook addict. I find I get through so much more and can take advantage of so many more opportunities to read e.g. shopping, washing, cleaning, road-trips, even coming home after dropping the kids off at school. When listening to audiobooks, 1.2x-1.5x is my sweet spot, depending on the natural cadence and the topic. Audible is my weapon of choice, which is surprising to me given I’m so far into the Apple ecosystem. If anyone from Apple is listening, if you did an audiobook subscription, I’d throw my money at you instead!

Because I’m a maniac, I’m currently reading the following books:

  1. Motivational Interviewing for Leadership. A few years back I did an MI course and it quite literally changed my life. Sadly, there’s no audiobook version so I’m reading the dead-tree version, like an animal.
  2. Accelerate: The Science of Lean Software and DevOps. It’s a little out-of-date now given the authors’ most recent research, but it’s a good fundamentals book nevertheless. Well worth reading.
  3. Scaling People. A bit of a hard slog, this one. I generally find the style off-putting but there’s enough in it to keep me going at the moment.
  4. Essentialism. Recommended by Warren. I’m finding it quite validating!
  5. Buy-In. A very short read that I only just started. So far, I’m enjoying it a lot, even though I’m normally put off by the Goldratt-style narrative.
  6. Wool. I really enjoyed the TV series on Apple TV+ and (perhaps unsurprisingly) I’m enjoying the book even more.

And yes, before you laugh (oh no, I’m too late), Essentialism (4) would suggest I’m reading 5 books too many.

So then, how and why am I reading 6 books at once? Mood, really. Depending on how I’m feeling, time of day, context, what’s just happened in my work or personal life, etc. I’ll naturally gravitate towards different topics.

What about podcasts? Surely, I’m missing out there? I used to consume a large number of podcasts as well. These days, I’ve all but given up, aside from the occasional recommended episode. I’ll probably switch back at some point. I’ve found my content consumption habits go through various ups and downs over time.

UPDATE: I’ve since switched back to Instapaper. Readwise Reader UX just didn’t work for me in the long run.

I'm still a Doozer at heart

By

Your's truly after running a selfie through Stability AI's DreamStudio with the prompt "Workman wearing a safety helmet and welding goggles" in the style of "Fantasy Art".
Your's truly after running a selfie through Stability AI's DreamStudio with the prompt "Workman wearing a safety helmet and welding goggles" in the style of "Fantasy Art".

Aside from helping my 15yo debug their latest Unity game bug, server firewall issue, or infrastructure provisioning dilemma, I’ve been “off the tools” for a long while. My day job would (hopefully) not be described as Individual Contributor.

That doesn’t mean I don’t write code. It’s more that the code I write is mostly for my own use, fix a bug in some software I’ve written in the past, or maintain my blog.

For the longest time, I’ve hosted my blog, my dojo, and whatever else I needed on GitHub Pages using various incarnations of hand-rolled HTML and CSS, and various incantations of CSS.

Recently, I redid my blog using Hugo. That was a journey back into templating, and GitHub Actions and Docker containers and things I’d either forgotten, or hadn’t existed when I first started the blog.

Then, as everyone does, I decided that what I needed was a way to generate short links for posting to social media. If you’ve wondered where all the Yaks in the world went these past few days, I’ve been shaving them…

A little scripting-fu to generate a mapping file in Hugo each time the site is deployed, and a few hours reading the Cloudflare Docs figuring out how to move my blog and spin up a serverless app to do link expansion, and I’m done!

OK, so building out a static website using Hugo and deploying to Cloudflare Pages alongside a Cloudflare Worker in 35 lines of TypeScript is not exactly “on the tools”, but it’s still a lot of fun.

I’m still a Doozer at heart.

Leadership & the Art of Hosting

Shared by

(via Chris Corrigan)

I found this interview super validating. It’s short so don’t rely on my dot points, go watch it!

People will hold themselves accountable and achieve great things when you practice participatory leadership:

  • Develop process skills.
  • Move from hero to host.
  • Manage your own expectations.
  • Empower people to be themselves.
  • Hold the space for others to do what they know.
  • Let go and allow things to play out.
  • Sit comfortably with the process that can sometimes seem like it meanders.

Iatrogenics: Why Intervention Often Leads to Worse Outcomes

Shared by

(via Jason Cornwall some years ago now)

Iatrogenics has come to mean “any effect resulting from intervention in excess of gain.”:

Nassim Taleb calls [people who create more harm than good] interventionistas. Often these people come armed with solutions to solve the first-order consequences of a decision but create worse second and subsequent order consequences.

People tend to create harm through intervention for a number of reasons:

The first flaw is the inability to think through second and subsequent order consequences. They fail to realize that the second and subsequent order consequences exist at all or could outweigh the benefits. Most things in life happen at the second, third, or nth steps.

The second flaw is a distance from the consequences. When there is a time delay between an action and its consequences (feedback) it can be hard to know that you’re causing harm. This allows, even encourages, some self-delusion. Given that we are prone to confirming our beliefs—and presumably, we took action because we believed it to be helpful—we’re unlikely to see evidence that contradicts our beliefs.

The third flaw is a bias for action. Social norms make it hard for you to say, “I don’t know.” You’re expected to have an opinion on everything.

The fourth flaw is one of the incentives, they have no or little skin in the game. They win if things go right and suffer no consequences if things go wrong.

As leaders, we need to work hard against our bias towards intervention:

A simple rule for the decision-maker is that intervention needs to prove its benefits and those benefits need to be orders of magnitude higher than the natural (that is non-interventionist) path.

[…]

We must also recognize that some systems self-correct; this is the essence of homeostasis. Naive interventionists, or the interventionista, often deny that natural homeostatic mechanisms are sufficient, that “something needs to be done” — yet often the best course of action is nothing at all.

Inversion: The Power of Avoiding Stupidity

Shared by

I’m a big believer in success-seeking rather than failure-avoidance (or as a friend recently put it, “professionals play to win; amateurs play not to lose”). However, pure success-seeking, bias-to-action behaviour often results in some perverse outcomes:

Despite our best intentions, thinking forward increases the odds that you’ll cause harm. Thinking backward, call it subtractive avoidance or inversion, is less likely to cause harm.

What can we try instead?

Say you want to improve innovation in your organization. Thinking forward, you’d think about all of the things you could do to foster innovation. If you look at the problem by inversion, however, you’d think about all the things you could do that would discourage innovation. Ideally, you’d avoid those things.

In my experience the smartest and most successful people I’ve worked with do this naturally, because:

Inversion helps improve understanding of the problem. By forcing you to do the work necessary to have an opinion you’re forced to consider different perspectives.

High-performing teams: An evidence review: Scientific summary

Shared by

I can’t recall how I came across this paper from the “Center for Evidence-Based Management (CEBMa).”

I found it engrossing, even though it was quite long, especially for something itself described as a summary.

Naturally, there’s a whole lot of nuance and context I haven’t captured, so I highly recommend reading the original:

Most researchers summarise a team’s basic defining characteristics as: a group of employees who are:

  1. formally established
  2. assigned (some) autonomy
  3. interdependent

[…]

Most studies included consider team effectiveness as synonymous with team performance. As such, team effectiveness is broadly defined as task performance, contextual performance, and/or adaptive performance (eg learning, creativity, decision-making).

[…]

This review identified a large number of high-quality studies that indicate that effective teams are not so much determined by their composition, but rather by the emergence of socio-affective (in particular trust, psychological safety and social cohesion) and cognitive states (in particular cognitive consensus, information-sharing and the transactive memory system).

Some thoroughly unsurprising findings:

  • Intra-team trust is positively related to performance.
  • Group-level psychological safety has a moderate to large positive impact on team performance.
  • Team cohesion has a moderate to large impact on team performance.
  • The emergence of intra-team trust and social cohesion is critical for virtual teams.
  • Team cohesion is strongly associated with team inclusion.
  • Team identification has a positive effect on social cohesion and consequently team performance.
  • Turnover has a negative effect on social cohesion and consequently on team performance.
  • Team cognition – in particular information-sharing, transactive memory systems and cognitive consensus – has a large positive impact on team performance.
  • Team learning does not automatically lead to team performance improvement.
  • Team reflexivity moderates the effect of team cognition on team performance.
  • Teamwork training has a large positive effect on team performance.
  • Debriefing sessions and guided team reflexivity have a moderate to large positive effect on team performance.
  • Setting group goals that are challenging (in terms of difficulty) and specific (rather than non-specific ‘do your best’ goals) has a moderate to large positive effect on team performance.

Some moderately surprising findings:

  • The link between team effectiveness and team diversity dimensions such as age, gender, ethnicity, religion, functional background, educational background, organisational tenure and experience is small and sometimes negative.
  • Of the Big Five personality traits, only agreeableness and conscientiousness are (somewhat) positively related to team performance. Other personality traits, such as emotional stability, extraversion and openness to experience, were not related with team performance.

One hard-to-swallow finding was around team building. I’ve never felt team building exercises were of much value, but the science is against me:

A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies shows that, in general, teambuilding interventions have a moderate positive indirect effect on team performance, and a moderate to large positive direct effect on trust, social cohesion and internal communication.

Turns out, I’ve never really experienced the necessary conditions:

Results indicate that the effect of teambuilding is larger when:

  • the initiator is external (rather than internal) to the team
  • the rationale is corrective (rather than preventive)
  • team members are not involved in the planning
  • the focus is on both the team’s goals and interpersonal relations
  • team building is planned together with other interventions
  • team building is led by both internal and external consultants
  • the focus is on the group (rather than on individuals)
  • team building is supported by (higher) management