Leading

 Teams:  
Opportuni3es  and  Challenges    

L.  Michelle  Benne;,  PhD  

Howard  Gadlin,  PhD  
 
Stanford  
April  2,  2015  
 What  Brought  Us  Here?  

• Interested  in:  
– Conflict  and  how  to  resolve  it  
– Implemen3ng  strategies  for  
avoiding  conflict    
– Understanding  what  makes  great  
collabora3ons  and  teams  
successful  
– Sharing  those  elements  that  
contribute  to  successful  
par3cipa3on  in  and  leadership  of  
collabora3ons  and  
mul3disciplinary  research  teams  

teamscience.nih.gov
 Diversity  of  Cultures  
Physicians  vs  Basic  Scien3sts  
• Need  for  immediate  ac3on  vs  avoiding  a  rush  to  judgment  
• Adherence  to  standards  of  prac3ce  vs  encouragement  to  challenge  
exis3ng  paradigms  
• Respect  for  hierarchy  and  expert  authority  vs  encouragement  to  
cri3que  accepted  wisdom  
• Errors  as  mortal  threats  vs  inevitable  manifesta3ons  of  the  crea3ve  
process  
• Applica3on  of  scien3fic  knowledge  vs  discovery  of…  
• Focus  on  unique  vs  focus  on  common  
• Uncontrollable  studies  vs  controllable  studies  
• Commitment  to  the  physician's  oath  vs  commitment  to  the  search  
for  truth  
• Suits  and  3es  vs  jeans  and  t-­‐shirts  
• Percep3ons  and  frames  of  reference    Adapted  from:  Barry  S.  Coller,  Mount  Sinai  
Journal  of  Medicine:  75:  478-­‐487,  2008  
 Part  of  a  Great  Team  
When  you  ask  people  about  what  it  is  like  being  
part  of  a  great  team,  what  is  most  striking  is  the  
meaningfulness  of  the  experience.  People  talk  
about  being  part  of  something  larger  than  
themselves,  of  being  connected,  of  being  
genera=ve.  It  becomes  quite  clear  that,  for  
many,  their  experiences  as  part  of  truly  great  
teams  stand  out  as  singular  periods  of  life  lived  
to  the  fullest.  Some  spend  the  rest  of  their  lives  
looking  for  ways  to  recapture  that  spirit.    

(The  FiCh  Discipline:  The  Art  and  Prac=ce  of  The  Learning  Organiza=on,  1990)  
 Morning  Session  
• What  is  a  Team?  
• Stages  of  Team  Development  
• Cri3cal  Elements:  
– Trust,  Vision,  Seeng  expecta3ons  
• What  gets  in  the  way?  
– Conflict  and  Produc3ve  Collision  
– Barriers  to  Speaking  Up  
• Iden3fying  Strengths  
 What  is  a  Scien3fic  Research  Team?  
…..think  of  it  as  a  con3nuum…..  

Low   Level  of  Interac.on  and  Integra.on   High  

Inves&gator-­‐ Research  Collabora&on   Integrated  Research  Team  

ini&ated  research  
•  Group  works  on  a  scien3fic   •  Team  works  on  a  research  
Inves3gator  works   problem,  each  bringing  some   problem  with  each  member  
on  a  scien3fic   exper3se  to  the  problem.     bringing  specific  exper3se  to  the  
problem  –  largely   •  Each  member  works  on  a   table.  
on  his  or  her  own.   separate  part,  which  are   •  There  are  regular  mee3ngs  and  
integrated  at  the  end.     discussions  of  the  team’s  overall  
•  The  interac3on  of  the  lead   goals,  objec3ves  of  the  individuals  
inves3gators  varies  from  limited   on  the  team,  data  sharing,  and  next  
to  frequent  with  regard  to  data   steps.    
sharing  or  brainstorming.   •  One  person  takes  the  lead  while  
other  members  have  key  leadership  
roles  in  achieving  the  goal.  
6  
 Collabora3on  Introduces  Threats  

High  Interac.on  
Group-­‐ and  Integra.on  
Iden&ty  

Mul.ple  Inter-­‐
dependent  Leaders  
Status  

Power  

Autonomy  
Self-­‐
Iden&ty  
Independent   Interdependent  
Dr.  Bench  and  Dr.  Klinik  

CASE  STUDY  
 Discussion  
• Trust  

• Vision  

• Expecta3ons  
Model  of  Team  Development  

Adjourning  
and  
Transforming   Forming  

Performing   Storming  

Norming  

10  
Bruce  Tuckman,  1965,  1977  
Model  of  Team  Development  

Adjourning  
and   Threats:  
Transforming   Forming  •  Power  
•  Status  
•  Autonomy  

Performing   Storming  
 Challenges:  
•  trust,  personality  
styles,  style  under  stress,  
style  in  conflict,  
Norming   compe33on  for  power,  
autonomy,  status,  
language,  culture,  and  
poor  listening  

11  
Bruce  Tuckman,  1965,  1977  
 Storming  

“We  felt  we  had  built  up  a  

beLer  understanding  by  
clarifying,  jus=fying  and  
arguing.”  

Braken  and  Oughton,  Trans  Inst  Br  Geogr,  2006  

 Trust  

Jože  Gal  [Public  domain],  via  Wikimedia  Commons  

 Types  of  Trust  

• Calculus  based  trust  –  built  on  calcula3ons  of  the  

rela3ve  rewards  for  trus3ng  or  losses  for  not  
trus3ng  
• Iden=ty  based  trust  –  built  on  an  assump3on  of  
perceived  compa3bility  of  values,  common    
goals,  emo3onal/intellectual  connec3on  
• Competence  based  trust  –    built  on  the  
confidence  in  people’s  skills  and  abili3es,  
allowing  them  to  make  decisions  and  train  
others  
 Trust  and  Risk  Taking  
“  Intellectual  egos  may  be  fragile  and  within  
our  group  we…felt  that  we  were  taking  risks.”  
 
“It  was  important  to  be  able  to  expose  
disciplinary  ignorance,  acknowledge  
weaknesses,  and  build  on  strengths.”  

Braken  and  Oughton,  Trans  Inst  Br  Geogr,  2006  

Trust  
 Trust  and  the  Team  

• Trust  goes  hand-­‐in-­‐hand  with  your  scien3fic  

confidence  in  the  results  generated  by  your:  
– Postdoc,  Fellow,  Collaborator,  Colleagues,  etc…  
• If  trust  is  never  established  or  damaged  once  
formed…confidence  will  slip  
• The  rela3onship  itself  drives  your  percep3on  
of  other’s  technical  and  intellectual  abili3es  
 Vision  

By  Tamugreg  (Own  work)  [Public  domain],  via  Wikimedia  Commons  

 Developing  a  Shared  Vision  
• Everyone  can  describe  the  “big  picture”  
• Each  team  member  can  state  his/her  research  goal  and  
how  it  relates  to  the  “bigger  picture”    
• Have  the  group  discuss  each  members  accomplishments  
and  challenges  in  achieving  the  goal  –  and  how  they  relate  
to  the  overall  mission  
• Ins3ll  ownership  of  roles  and  responsibility  for  a;aining  
goals  
• Team  accepts  responsibility  and  accountability  for  both  
accomplishments  and  failures  –  without  blaming.  

19  
 Leaders  Set  Clear  Expecta3ons  
Provides a scaffold for building deeper trust
There are no secrets or surprises and there is a strong
platform for discussion

• Communication
• Regular Meetings with Clear Agendas
• Conduct of Investigation, Research…
• Authorship
• Technical Support
• Career Development
• Evaluation Criteria, etc….

Photo  by  mark  goble  (Flickr:  2005-­‐07-­‐18  17-­‐32-­‐30)  [CC  BY  2.0  (h;p:// 20  
crea3vecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)],  via  Wikimedia  Commons  
 Seeng  Expecta3ons:    
The  “Welcome  To  My  Team”  Le;er  

Provides a scaffold for building deeper trust

• What I expect of you

• What you can expect of me

• What to do if we disagree

21  
 Prenup3als  for  Scien3sts:    
Collabora3ve  Research  Agreements  
Categories  to  cover  
• Goals  and  Vision  of  the  Collabora3on  
o Including…when  is  the  project/collabora3on  “over”?  
• Who  Will  Do  What?  
o Expecta3ons,  responsibility  and  accountability  
• Authorship,  Credit  
o Criteria,  a;ribu3on,  public  comment,  media,  IP  
• Con3ngencies  and  Communica3ng  
o What  if  …?  and  Rules  of  engagement  
• Conflict  of  Interest  
o How  will  you  ID  conflicts?  And  resolve  them?  
 
22  
 All  Teams  Face  Obstacles  
Different  paradigma3c  or  opera3ng  assump3ons  

FRAMES  -­‐  Stereotypes  that  privilege  one  way  of  knowing  

and  doing  over  others  

Lack  of    recogni3on  of   Mistrust  

others’  exper3se  

Ins3tu3onal   Lack  of  process  

disincen3ves     skills  

Conflict,  misunderstanding  &  dismissal  of  others’  views  

Imagine  you  have  just  formed  a  new  team….  
• How  would  you  begin  to  build  trust?  
– How  would  you  work  to  sustain  it  over  3me?  
• What  steps  would  you  take  to  develop  a  shared  vision?  
– Ini3ally?  One  year  from  now?  
– Who  will  be  involved?  
• What  process  would  you  use  to  start  seeng  
expecta3ons?  
– How  will  they  be  communicated?  
– How  would  team  members  hold  each  other  accountable?  
• What  other  conversa3ons  do  you  need  to  have  or  
decisions  do  you  need  to  make  as  a  group  ini3ally?  
 Communica3ng  
• Who  is  Leading?  Co-­‐Leading?  
• When  are  we  mee3ng?  How  frequently?  
• Format  of  mee3ngs  and  expecta3ons  
• Accountability  –  what  if  someone  doesn’t  deliver?  
• Logis3cs  –  who  is  responsible?  
• Decision  making  –  how?  Who  is  involved?  
• Sharing  informa3on  throughout  the  team  
• Geeng  input  from  all  team  members  
• Scien3fic  Management    
• Project  management    
 Productive Collision

“A  process  by  which  par3es  who  see  

different  aspects  of  a  problem  can  
construc3vely  explore  their  differences  
and  search  for  solu3ons  that  go  beyond  
their  own  limited  vision  of  what  is  
possible.”  

Barbara Gray, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, 1989
Productive Collision

Contain  
Conflict  

Foster  
Disagreement  
 Two  Types  of  Conflict  
What  is  cogni&ve  conflict?   What  is  affec&ve  conflict?  

• Disagreement  about  ideas  and   • Personal  antagonism  fueled  

approaches   by  differences  of    opinion  

• Issue-­‐focused,  not  personal     • Shius  ideas  from  the  focus  

to  the  person  
• Characteris3c  of  high  
performing  groups  
• Fosters  defensiveness  
 
  • Destruc3ve  to  group  
performance  and  cohesion  

Amason,  A.C.,    Thompson,    K.R.,  Hochwarter,  W.A.,  &  Harrison,  A.W.  

(1995,  Autumn).    “Conflict:  An  Important  Dimension  in  Successful  
Management  Teams.” Organiza=onal  Dynamics,  24(2),  22-­‐23.   28  
Debate   Dialogue  
Assuming  that  there  is  a  right  answer,  and  that   Assuming  that  many  people  have  pieces  of  the  
you  have  it     answer  
Comba3ve:  par3cipants  a;empt  to  prove  the   Collabora3ve:  par3cipants  work  together  
other  side  wrong   toward  common  understanding  
About  winning   About  exploring  common  ground    
Listening  to  find  flaws  and  make  counter-­‐ Listening  to  understand,  find  meaning  and  
arguments   agreement  
Defending  our  own  assump3ons  as  truth   Revealing  our  assump3ons  for  reevalua3on  
Seeing  two  sides  of  an  issue     Seeing  all  sides  of  an  issue  
Defending  one's  own  views  against  those  of   Admieng  that  others'  thinking  can  improve  
others   one's  own.    
Searching  for  flaws  and  weaknesses  in  others'   Searching  for  strengths  and  value  in  others'  
posi3ons   posi3ons    
By  crea3ng  a  winner  and  a  loser,  discouraging   Keeping  the  topic  even  auer  the  discussion  
further  discussion   formally  ends    
Seeking  a  conclusion  or  vote  that  ra3fies  your   Discovering  new  op3ons,  not  seeking  closure
posi3on        

from  Leading  through  Conflict:  How  Successful  Leaders  Transform  Differences  into  Opportuni=es  by  Mark  Gerzon  
 Barriers  to  Speaking  Up  
• In  a  word:  self-­‐preserva3on    
• While  it’s  obvious  why  employees  fear  bringing  up  
certain  issues,  we  found  the  innate  protec3ve  ins3nct  
so  powerful  that  it  also  inhibited  speech  that  clearly  
would  have  been  intended  to  help  the  organiza3on.    
• In  our  interviews,  the  perceived  risks  of  speaking  up  
felt  very  personal  and  immediate  to  employees,  
whereas  the  possible  future  benefit  to  the  organiza3on  
from  sharing  their  ideas  was  uncertain.  So  people  
ouen  ins3nc3vely  played  it  safe  by  keeping  quiet.  Their  
frequent  conclusion  seemed  to  be,  “When  in  doubt,  
keep  your  mouth  shut.”  
Why  Employees  Are  Afraid  to  Speak  
By  J.  Detert  and  A.  Edmondson,  HBR  2007  
 Barriers  to  Speaking  Up  
• In  a  word:  self-­‐preserva3on    
• While  it’s  obvious  why  employees  fear  bringing  up  
certain  issues,  we  found  the  innate  protec3ve  ins3nct  
so  powerful  that  it  also  inhibited  speech  that  clearly  
would  have  been  intended  to  help  the  organiza3on.    
• In  our  interviews,  the  perceived  risks  of  speaking  up  
felt  very  personal  and  immediate  to  employees,  
whereas  the  possible  future  benefit  to  the  organiza3on  
from  sharing  their  ideas  was  uncertain.  So  people  
ouen  ins3nc3vely  played  it  safe  by  keeping  quiet.  Their  
frequent  conclusion  seemed  to  be,  “When  in  doubt,  
keep  your  mouth  shut.”  
Why  Employees  Are  Afraid  to  Speak  
By  J.  Detert  and  A.  Edmondson,  HBR  2007  
 Psychological  Safety  
• Principles  for  open  and  honest  discussion:  
– All  input  is  valuable  
– Any  team-­‐member  can  challenge  an  asser3on  
– Any  team  member  can  raise  an  issue  or  concern  
– Every  team-­‐member  is  allowed  to  express  his  
aetudes,  desires  and  needs  
– No  speaker  should  be  prevented  from  expressing  
himself  
– All  team-­‐members  agree  to  par3cipate  ac3vely  
when  they  have  the  informa3on  to  do  so  

Adapted  from  The  Ideal  Speech  Situa3on  -­‐  Jürgen  Habermas  

 Encouraging  Others  to  Speak  Up  
• Explicitly  invite  ideas  
• Acknowledge  input  (does  not  mean  it  needs  to  be  
implemented)  
• Ask  those  who  have  not  spoken  yet  for  thoughts  
• Dispel  myths  that  reinforce  silence  
– Open  exchange  of  ideas  is  valued  
– Respecxul  challenges  to  ideas,  asser3ons  are  expected  
– Reward  people  for  speaking  up  
• The  organiza3on  needs  ideas,  feedback  and  
sugges3ons  so  they  can  improve  
Adapted  from  Why  Employees  Are  Afraid  to  Speak  by  J.  Detert  and  A.  Edmondson,  HBR  2007  
LUNCH  BREAK  
 Auernoon  Session  
• Leadership  
• Diversity    
• Synthesis  
• Language  
• Power  
• Difficult  Conversa3ons  
• Organiza3onal  Trust  and  Communica3on  
 There  is  No  Formula    
for  the  Perfect  Leader  

Image:  h;p://www.huffingtonpost.com/len-­‐filppu/bemused-­‐by-­‐a-­‐math-­‐muse_b_5021614.html  
 Leadership  
• Self-­‐awareness  
• Awareness  about  that  around  you  
• Shared  responsibility  for  success  
• Accountability  for  issues  and  problems  
• Mentoring  others  
• Managing  up  and  across  
• Difficult  conversa3ons  
• Speaking  up,  challenging  ideas  
• Giving  your  best  everyday  
• Serving  as  a  role  model  
 Motivating Team Identity
The Sweet Spot
•Where personal strengths
and passions align with
Essential Work essential work in a setting
which provides opportunities
Division Priorities and for challenge and growth.
Objectives •Where individuals are the
most valued and their
contributions most valuable.

Passions Strengths
Maximize the Value of
each Individual:
Tasks that Engage Aim to increase the
the Mind and Spirit Competencies and
Expertise overlap among these
three circles, while
keeping in mind the
changing contents
within each circle.
Why  Focus  On  Strengths?  

   
• To  come  to  understand  more  about  
ourselves  and  each  other  
• So  we  can  operate  in  a  way  that  
capitalizes  on  our  collec3ve  strengths  
 
 
   
 Strengths  
• What  strengths  do  you  bring  to  the  table?  
– Share  one  or  two  of  your  greatest  strengths  with  
the  group  
– Tell  a  (short)  story  about  how  a  strength  
contributed  to  a  successful  outcome    
Video  Case  Study  

DIVERSITY  AND  A  TECH  TEAM  

Facial  Recogn3on  and  HP  

 Diversity  and  a  Tech  Team  
• Technology  development  is  for  “everyone”    
• If  tech  teams  aren’t  diverse,  innova3on  is  at  
risk  
• Diverse  perspec3ves  are  cri3cal  
• Diversifying  tech  teams  makes  stronger  
products  as  well  as  strategies  to  recruit  diverse  
techies  

Facial  Recogn3on  and  HP  

 Table/Group  Discussion  

• What  different  dimensions  of  diversity  are  

you  aware  of  at  work?  

• How  might  diversity  present  a  challenge  

to  effec3ve  cogni3ve  group  func3oning?  
 Managing  Diversity:  Scien3fic  and  Individual  
Differences  
• Styles  –  expressions  and  interac3ons  
• Norms  –  communica3on,  asser3veness  
• Values  –  principles,  what  ma;ers  
• Cogni3ve  framework  –  how  the  world  is  seen  

     When  group  members  share  common  goals  and  

values  cultural  diversity  leads  to  be;er  outcomes  
regarding  group  cohesiveness  and  group  
performance  
 Crea3ng  and  Maintaining  Highly  
Integrated  Teams  
• Interpersonal  skills:  
– Social  sensi3vity  /  Emo3onal  Intelligence  
– Emo3onal  engagement    
• Fuels  crea3vity  and  collabora3on  
• For  mul3na3onal  teams  language,  custom,  and  
power  difference  can  get  in  the  way  
– Every  team  member  should  share  in  the  
responsibili3es,  decision-­‐making,  and  
communica3on  of  the  group  

Cheruvelil  et  al,  Front  Ecol  Environ  (2014)  12:31-­‐38  

 Synthesis  
“…the  integra3on  of  diverse  research  in  order  to  
increase  the  generality  and  applicability  of  the  
results  of  that  scien3fic  research.”  
 
“Synthesis  occurs  both  within  and  across  disciplines  
and  professional  sectors  and  is  therefore  not  
captured  en3rely  by  the  term  interdisciplinary  
research.”  
 

Hampton  and  Parker  (2011);  Hacke;  et  al.  (2008);  Carpenter  et  al.  (2009);    Hacke;  and  
Parker  (2011);    
 Synthesis  
• Face-­‐to-­‐face  interac=on  is  vital  to  successful  synthesis  
• Increases  the  produc3on  of  peer-­‐reviewed  publica3ons  
• Synthesis-­‐center  members  par3cipa3ng  in  
geographically  distributed  teams  contributed  to  further  
produc3vity  
• Mul3-­‐ins3tu3onal  collabora3on  was  associated  with  
increased  produc3vity  
• Par3cipa3on  in  synthesis  groups  enhanced  scien3st  
visibility,  willingness  to  collaborate,  and  posi3vely  
impacted  careers  

Hampton  and  Parker  (2011);  Hacke;  et  al.  (2008);  Carpenter  et  al.  (2009);    Hacke;  and  
Parker  (2011);    
 Diversity  of  Cultures  
Physicians  vs  Basic  Scien3sts  
• Need  for  immediate  ac3on  vs  avoiding  a  rush  to  judgment  
• Adherence  to  standards  of  prac3ce  vs  encouragement  to  challenge  
exis3ng  paradigms  
• Respect  for  hierarchy  and  expert  authority  vs  encouragement  to  
cri3que  accepted  wisdom  
• Errors  as  mortal  threats  vs  inevitable  manifesta3ons  of  the  crea3ve  
process  
• Applica3on  of  scien3fic  knowledge  vs  discovery  of…  
• Focus  on  unique  vs  focus  on  common  
• Uncontrollable  studies  vs  controllable  studies  
• Commitment  to  the  physician's  oath  vs  commitment  to  the  search  
for  truth  
• Suits  and  3es  vs  jeans  and  t-­‐shirts  
• Percep3ons  and  frames  of  reference    Adapted  from:  Barry  S.  Coller,  Mount  Sinai  
Journal  of  Medicine:  75:  478-­‐487,  2008  
 Problem  Solving  
• A  diverse  group  is  more  effec3ve  at  solving  
problems  than  a  homogenous  group  
• Random  selec3on  of  intelligent  par3cipants  
from  a  diverse  group  results  in  teams  that  can  
outperform  a  team  of  “best”-­‐performers    

• Iden=ty  diverse  teams  are  more  likely  to  run  

into  challenges  with  communica=on,  have  
more  conflict,  and  take  longer  to  build  trust  

Hong  and  Page  (2004)  PNAS  Vol  101:  16385  

More  Women:  Smarter  Teams  

“There  is  liLle  correla=on  between  a  

group’s  collec=ve  intelligence  and  the  
IQs  of  its  individual  members.  But  if  a  
group  includes  more  women,  its  
collec=ve  intelligence  rises.”  

Woolley  and  Malone,  HBR,  June  2011  

 Mixed  Gender  Scien3fic  Teams  
• Produced  research  ar3cles  considered  to  be  of  
higher  impact  than  those  comprised  of  a  
single  gender  
– Mixed  gender  teams  received  34%  more  cita3ons  
than  publica3ons  produced  by  single  gender  
teams  
• Promo3ng  diversity:  
– Enhances  inclusion  and  fairness  
– May  also  lead  to  increased  quality  science  

Campbell,  Mehtani,  Dozier,  Rinehart  (2013)  PLoS  One  

 Ethnic  co-­‐Authorship  
• 2.5  M  scien3fic  papers  from  1985  –  2008  
• Persons  of  similar  ethnicity  co-­‐authored  more  
frequently  than  would  be  predicted  
• Greater  homophily  is  associated  with  publica3ons  in  
low  impact  journals  and  low  cita3on  rate  
• Higher  diversity  is  associated  with  publica3on  in  
higher  impact  journals  with  a  higher  rate  of  cita3on  
• Diversity  of  author  ethnicity,  loca3ons,  and  reference  
lists  were  shown  to  contribute  to  greater  scien3fic  
accomplishment  

Collabora3ng  with  People  Like  Me:  Ethnic  co-­‐Authorship  Within  the  US  
Freeman  and  Huang,  NBER  Working  Paper  19905  (2014)  
 What  Would  You  Do?  

Case  Study:  
Was&ng  Powerful  Exper&se  
 Language  
“…what  is  key  to  effec=ve  research  is  the  
development  of  awareness  of  language  
differences  and  of  the  =me  needed  to  ensure  
that  experts  from  different  disciplines  develop  
a  common  understanding.  It  is  also  vital  for  
prac==oners  to  develop  ‘ac&ve  listening’  to  
work  in  conjunc=on  with  careful  use  of  
language.”  

Braken  and  Oughton,  Trans  Inst  Br  Geogr,  2006  

 Are  You  an  Ac3ve  Listener?  
• Pay  A;en3on  
– Look  at  the  person  you  are  talking  to  and  wipe  all  other  
thoughts  out  of  your  mind  
• Show  That  You're  Listening  
– Nod,  smile,  ‘uh-­‐huh’,  etc…  
• Check-­‐in  to  be  sure  you  are  understanding  
– Paraphrase,  summarize  what  they’ve  told  you,  ask  
clarifying  ques3ons  
• Do  not  Judge  
– Don’t  interrupt  before  they  finish  their  thought  
• Respond  Appropriately  
– Be  open  and  honest,  demonstrate  respect  
 Language:  what  about  words?  
• We  tend  not  to  ques3ons  words  with  which  
we  are  already  familiar  
– energy,  beam,  fine,  wave,  cast,  base,  dynamic  …  

• Words  can  have  an  everyday  meaning  as  well  

as  a  discipline  specific  meaning  
– risk,  sca;er,  balanced,  polar,  fitness,  adop3on  …  
“risk”  
 What  did  you  say?  
M o u s e

What  did  you  say?  

Image:  Microsou  clip  art   Image:  h;p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_mouse  
Women  Ouen  Use  Powerless  Language  

“  I  would  just  like  to  say  that  I  may  not  

know  as  much  as  some  of  the  
communica3on  experts  out  there,  but  I  
feel  that  women  undermine  their  
credibility  3me  and  3me  again  by  using  
minimizing  language.”  

Forbes  (2011)  -­‐  Do  You  Sabotage  Yourself  by  Using  Weak  Language?  
Women  Ouen  Use  Powerless  Language  

“  I  would  just  like  to  say  that  I  may  not  

know  as  much  as  some  of  the  
communica3on  experts  out  there,  but  I  
feel  that    “Women  undermine  their  
credibility  3me  and  3me  again  by  using  
minimizing  language.”  

Forbes  (2011)  -­‐  Do  You  Sabotage  Yourself  by  Using  Weak  Language?  
 Speech  Style:  Powerful  vs.  Powerless  
• Powerless  includes:  hesita3ons,  hedges,  disclaimers,  tag  
ques3ons  (don’t  you  think?)  
• Powerful:  is  devoid  of  these  elements  
• Studies  were  performed  to  evaluate  status  conferral  to  
individual  leaders  in  the  context  of  independent  and  
interdependent  work  
• Results:  
– Individuals  using  powerful  language  were  conferred  more  
status  when  task  interdependence  in  the  group  was  low  
– Use  of  powerless  language  resulted  in  more  status  conferral  
when  task  interdependence  was  high  
– In  high  interdependence  groups  –  more  weight  was  placed  
on  communality  than  on  agency  
A.R.  Fragale.  Organiza3onal  Behavior  and  Human  Decision  Processes  (2006)  101:  243-­‐261    
 Basic  Elements  of  Power  
• Personal  Characteris3cs  
– language,  skills,  charisma,  work  ethic,  values  
• Performance  
– product,  results,  accomplishments  
• Reputa3on  
– view/percep3on  from  the  outside  
• Allies/Networks  
– Rela3onships  
• Posi3on  
– 3tle,  role,  responsibili3es,  authority,  resources,  ability  
to  reward/punish  
• Informa3on  
– knowledge  
“Google  Chairman  Eric  Schmidt  
is  a  brilliant  businessman  and  a  
cer3fied  billionaire  nine  3mes  
over,  but  he  doesn’t  appear  to  
have  a  clue  about  gender  
equality  or  women  in  
technology.  
 
That  much  was  obvious  
Monday  when  Schmidt  
repeatedly  talked  over  and  
interrupted  fellow  South  by  
Southwest  panelist  U.S.  Chief  
Technology  Officer  Megan  
Smith  during  a  discussion  about  
-­‐-­‐  you  guessed  it  -­‐-­‐  gender  
equality  in  technology.”  

South  by  Southwest  Interac3ve  

 
h;p://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/03/17/
eric_schmidt_at_sxsw_google_chairman_called_out_for_interrup3ng_fe
male.html  
h;p://www.nextgov.com/emerging-­‐tech/emerging-­‐tech-­‐blog/2015/03/
another-­‐gender-­‐equality-­‐fail-­‐shows-­‐top-­‐tech-­‐execs-­‐s3ll-­‐clueless-­‐about-­‐
women/107796/?oref=nextgov_cio_briefing  
 How  can  you  put  the  
difficult  issues  on  the  table  
for  discussion?  
 Difficult  Conversa3ons….  

Difficult  conversa3ons  challenge  something  

about  the  way  we  see  ourselves  or  the  way  we  
want  to  be  seen.  
 
“We  don’t  see  things  as  they  are,  we  see  them  
as  we  are.”    
-­‐  Anais  Nin  
 
 Each  difficult  conversa3on  is  really  three  
• The  “what  happened?”  conversa3on    
–  truth,  inten3ons,  and  blame  
• The  “feelings”  conversa3on    
–  an  intrinsic  part  of  difficult  conversa3ons  
• The  “iden3ty”  conversa3on    
–  Am  I  competent?  Am  I  a  good  person?  Am  I  
worthy  of  recogni3on  for  my  efforts?  

From:  Difficult  Conversa3ons:  How  to  Discuss  what  Ma;ers  Most  (2010)  
By:  Stone,  Pa;on,  Heen  of  the  Harvard  Nego3a3on  Project  
 Approaching  the  Conversa3on  
• Ba;le  of  Messages  
– Persuading  the  other  person,  in  an  a;empt  to  get  
your  way  

• Learning  Conversa3on  
– Understand  what  happened  from  the  other’s  
point  of  view,  explain  your  perspec3ve,  figure  out  
how  to  move  forward  
 The  “What  Happened?”  Conversa3on:  
The  situa3on  is  more  complex  than  either  side  can  see  

A  BaXle  of  Messages   Learning  Conversa.on  

• I  know  all  I  need  to  know  to   • Each  side  brings  perspec3ve  
understand  what  happened   to  the  table  
– Persuade  them  I’m  right   – Explore  each  other’s  stories  
• I  know  what  they  intended   • I  know  my  inten3ons,  not  
– They  are  wrong   theirs  
• It’s  all  their/my  fault   – What  impact  has  this  had  on  
both  sides?  
– Get  them  to  admit  blame/
take  responsibility  for  making   • We  have  both  probably  
amends   contributed  to  this  situa3on  
– How  do  our  ac3ons  interact  
to  create  this  result?  
From:  Difficult  Conversa3ons:  How  to  Discuss  what  Ma;ers  Most  (2010)  
By:  Stone,  Pa;on,  Heen  of  the  Harvard  Nego3a3on  Project  
 The  “Feelings”  Conversa3on:  
the  situa3on  is  emo3onally  charged  

BaXle  of  Messages   Learning  Conversa.on  

• Feelings  are  irrelevant   • Feelings  are  at  the  heart  of  
• They  are  not  important  to   the  situa3on  
share   • They  are  complex  
• How  I  am  feeling  is  their   • I  may  have  to  work  to  
fault     understand  mine  
– Avoid  talking  about  feelings   – Address  feelings  on  both  
sides  without  judgment  or  
a;ribu3on  
– Acknowledge  feelings  before  
problem  solving  

From:  Difficult  Conversa3ons:  How  to  Discuss  what  Ma;ers  Most  (2010)  
By:  Stone,  Pa;on,  Heen  of  the  Harvard  Nego3a3on  Project  
 The  “Iden3ty”  Conversa3on:  
the  situa3on  threatens  our  iden3ty  

BaXle  of  Messages   Learning  Conversa.on  

• I’m  competent/ • There  may  be  a  lot  at  stake  
incompetent,  good/bad,   psychologically  for  both  
likeable/unlikable   sides  
• There  is  no  in  between   • Each  person  is  complex  
– Protect  the  all/none  image  of   • No  one  is  perfect  
self  
– Understand  the  iden3ty  
issues  on  the  line  for  each  
side  
– Maintain  be;er  balance  
through  understanding  the  
complex  self-­‐image  
From:  Difficult  Conversa3ons:  How  to  Discuss  what  Ma;ers  Most  (2010)  
By:  Stone,  Pa;on,  Heen  of  the  Harvard  Nego3a3on  Project  
 The  Difficult  Conversa3on  
• Step  1:  Define  the  purpose  of  the  conversa3on  
– Think  strategically  
• Step  2:  Make  your  purpose  clear  
– Start  from  the  third  story:  explore  both  sides  
• Step  3:  Understand  the  other’s  perspec3ve  
– Acknowledge  feeling  
• Step  4:  Problem  Solving  
– Plan  for  moving  forward:  Iden3fy  op3ons/set  
standards  
 Ba;le  of  Messages  
vs    
A  Learning  Conversa3on  
Case  Study  

DISCUSSION  WITH  CHRIS  

 Difficult  Conversa3on  Exercise  
• Discuss  the  two  possible  approaches  to  the  
conversa3on:  
– A  Ba;le  of  Messages  or  
– Learning  Conversa3on  
• What  are  the  major  elements  of  the  
conversa3on  from  each  side  
Team  Dynamics  
“It’s  not  the  science  
you  need  to  worry  
about,  it’s  the  team  
dynamics”  
ORGANIZATIONAL  TRUST  AND  
COMMUNICATION  
 Is  there  a  Gorilla  
in  the  Room?  

Awareness  
 Organiza3onal  Trust  
• Trust  between  the  team  and  the  organiza3on  
• Also  referred  to  as  “presump3ve  trust”  
• Provides  plaxorm  for:  
– Effec3ve  Communica3on  
– Sharing  Vision  
– Implemen3ng  Change  
– Managing  Conflict  

Kramer  and  Lewicki,  2006  

 Organiza3onal  Trust:  Three  Elements  
• Iden3ty-­‐based  trust  
– Shared  ins3tu3onal  iden3ty  
• Role-­‐based  trust  
– Focused  on  the  roles  people  play  in  the  organiza3on  
– trust  of  the  role  as  opposed  to  the  individual  
• Rule-­‐based  trust  
– Codifies  norms  of  conduct  
– Sets  expecta3ons  for  behavior  based  on  shared  
understanding  

Kramer  and  Lewicki,  2006  

 Procedural  Jus3ce:  One  Pillar  of  Trust  
• Percep3on  that  procedures  by  which  decisions  
are  made  are  fair  
• Four  dimensions  
– Formal  decision  making  rules  
– Quality  of  treatment  people  receive  under  those  
rules  
– Fairness  of  decision-­‐making  by  one’s  supervisor  
– Quality  of  treatment  by  the  supervisor  

Tyler  
 Judging  Fairness  
• Four  criteria  are  used:  
– Consistency:  like  cases  treated  alike  
– Unbiased:  those  implemen3ng  procedures  should  
be  impar3al  and  objec3ve  
– Par3cipa3on:  those  impacted  by  a  decision  should  
have  a  voice  in  the  process  
– Transparency:  open  procedures,  no  secrecy  or  
decep3on,  clear  unbiased  criteria  

Tyler  
Tenure  Review  for  Collabora3ve  Scien3st  

CASE  STUDY  
 Group  Discussion  
• What  is  happening  with  trust  at  the  organiza3onal  
level?  
• What  vision  and  messages  are  being  communicated  
by  leadership?  
• How  do  the  various  aspects  of  power  manifest  
themselves  and  impact  the  situa3on?  
• What  must  an  organiza3on  do  to  both  encourage,  
support,  and  reward  highly  integrated  research  
teams?  
 Model  of  Team  Development  

Adjourning  
Review,  recogni3on,  
and   Top  Down  Support  
reward  oTransforming  
f  the  team   Forming  
Required  
members  

Performing   Power,   Buy-­‐in,  Support,  Trust,  

Storming  
Assuring  policies,  criteria,   Autonomy,  Rela3onship  
procedures  are  in  place  to   between  PI  and  Leadership,  
support  the  team’s   Organiza3onal  Self-­‐Awareness  
func3oning     Norming   (team  vs  its  rela3onship  with  
organiza3on)  

84  
Bruce  Tuckman,  1965,  1977  
 The  Learning  Organiza3on  
• The  basic  ra3onale  for  such  organiza3ons  is  
that  in  situa3ons  of  rapid  change  only  those  
that  are  flexible,  adap3ve  and  produc3ve  will  
excel.  For  this  to  happen,  it  is  argued,  
organiza3ons  need  to  ‘discover  how  to  tap  
people’s  commitment  and  capacity  to  learn  at  
all  levels’.  

(The  FiCh  Discipline:  The  Art  and  Prac=ce  of  

The  Learning  Organiza=on,  1990)  
 Collec3ve  Learning  
• Asking  ques3ons  
• Sharing  informa3on  
• Seeking  help  
• Experimen3ng  with  unproven  ac3ons  
• Talking  about  and  learning  from  mistakes  
• Seeking  and  offering  feedback  

A.  Edmondson  
 Build  and  Maintain  Trust  
• Develop  scaffolds  for  establishing  trust  
• Wri;en  agreements  serve  as  scaffolds  
– Prenup3al  agreements  
– TT  offer  le;ers  or  pre-­‐tenure  agreements  
– Team  review  agreements  
• Develop  policies  that  support  collabora3on  
• Provide  support  
– Training  and  educa3on  about  the  policies  
– How  they  will  be  implemented    
– Informa3on  dissemina3on  about  criteria  about    
– What  to  do  if  there  is  disagreement  (ADR)  
• Ins3tu3onal  self-­‐awareness  
 Leadership  
• Self-­‐awareness  
• Awareness  about  that  around  you  
• Shared  responsibility  for  success  
• Accountability  for  issues  and  problems  
• Mentoring  others  
• Managing  up  and  across  
• Difficult  conversa3ons  
• Speaking  up,  challenging  ideas  
• Giving  your  best  everyday  
• Serving  as  a  role  model  
 Thank-­‐you  

L.  Michelle  Benne;  
LMBenne;@nih.gov  
 
Howard  Gadlin  
[email protected]