The Science and Secrets of Superteams with Dr. Ron Friedman

Speaker A: Foreign.

Speaker B: Hey everybody, welcome back. This is DJ Hillier and you are listening to episode 578 of the Mindset Advantage podcast. This week I get to chat with Dr. Ron Friedman. Dr. Friedman is an award winning psychologist who helps leaders build high performing teams. He's the best selling author of the Best Place to Work and Decoding Greatness. He's also the founder of Superteams, where he delivers keynotes, workshops and executive advisory services to senior leaders all around the world. If you've been following me or this show for any amount of time, you've probably gathered that I have a passion for learning about how great teams operate. Whether it's a healthcare team, a, uh, military team, an athletic team, or even a small team like a, uh, family. I love learning what makes great teams great. And that's what this conversation is all about. We tapped into Dr. Friedman's decade of research, looking at over 6,000 teams in a variety of sectors in a variety of industries. In the conversation, we first started with what makes a super team? His brand new book that just came out is titled Super Teams the Science and Secrets of High Performing Teams. So I first wanted to understand what makes a super team. And then the obvious follow up is how do we build one of those? After that, we talked about how elite leaders and coaches give and structure their feedback. Then we talked about psychological safety, belonging, and making intelligent mistakes. Then we talked about why super teams experiment 48% more than average teams. Fun little part of the episode there. And then at the end, we talked about the psychology of great teammates. Because in order to have great teams, we need to have great teammates. And although that wasn't his intention with his research, there's a lot of lessons that became a byproduct of researching the best teams in the world. If you enjoyed this conversation, be sure to share it with somebody else who, you know, has a passion for building amazing super teams. But without further ado, let's jump into this insightful conversation full of science and also secrets of super teams, with none other than Dr. Ron Friedman. Let's go. Let's start with some definitions. I think first. So super teams, Ron, why super teams? What does that word mean? Let's kind of create some frameworks and set the table before we dive into specifics.

Speaker A: Yeah, so let me, let me give you some background on me and how I got into studying this work. So I started off as a psychology professor, teaching at, uh, colleges and universities. And then I went off into the corporate world and I got into academia. I liked learning new things One of the tragedies of being a professor, you're just kind of teaching the same thing over and over again. So I love learning new things. So I became a pollster. My job was to measure public opinion, figure out what it is that people believe, and then advise organizations using psychological principles to shape those opinions. And when I got to the corporate world, I was really surprised because a lot of the research that we psychologists have uncovered about the factors that make people creative and engaged and motivated, all those things are being ignored. And everything from how people, how companies hire, to how managers motivate, to the basic layout of the modern office, all of it just appeared blind to a wealth of research. So I decided to write a book. That book became my first book, the Best Place to Work. And in it, I took over a thousand academic studies, translated them into plain English, so that regardless if you're a CEO or just someone starting out, you have access to the best research on how to create a great workplace. But there was something missing from that book. And what was missing is that I wasn't addressing what the best teams do differently, because even within the best organizations, you have a lot of variability when it comes to teams. Some teams are great, some teams not so great. So what are the best teams do differently? So to find out, My team studied 6,000 knowledge workers in a variety of industries, everything from legal to finance to sales. And we asked them two simple questions about their teams. The first question is, on a scale of 1 to 10, how effective is your team at achieving its goals? The second is, compared to other teams in your industry, how would you rate your team's performance? And then we took the people with a perfect score. It was a very small, small percentage of teams qualified. About 8% of teams are super teams. We call them super teams because they have a perfect score on those two items. And we look to see what are the super teams doing differently. And we looked at everything from how they structure their day to how they run their meetings, to even how they recover in their off hours. And what we found is very particular habits that super teams have that average teams don't. And there are three habits. The first is they get more done by better managing their time, energy, and attention. That's the first strength. The second strength is they don't just collaborate well. They actively make each other better. And the third strength is even when things are going well, they're constantly looking to build their skills and improve over time. There's this element of continuous improvement. And when you have those three things, you are Getting more done because you're managing your time, energy and attention. You're collaborating well, but also making each other better and you're improving over time. That's when you have a super team. And the great news is any team can do this. These are learnable skills that any team can learn over time. And that's what I now teach people, is how to build these skills that create super teams.

Speaker B: You just whipped through some absolute gold mines when it comes to building an effective team. Let's double click on each of them if we can. So I think the first one, super teams get more done by managing time, energy and attention. I love those three attributes. See coaches, uh, Ron, they're, they're notorious for more film, longer practices, early mornings as, as if that's going to be the answer to every problem. But you'd argue that that's actually working against the team. So what, what do you think a high performing program or team looks like when the coach starts treating the athlete's attention as a limited resource rather than just a void to fill?

Speaker A: That's really a great question because you're making me think about applying it to a very particular industry. Let me just, um, explain how this applies to the workplace first and then we could take it to sports. Sure. So in the workplace, what we now have is we have a lot of organizations saying we need more collaboration. And what they're getting instead is they're getting constant togetherness. And constant togetherness is not the same thing as effective collaboration. In fact, when you look at the most successful collaborators, what they do is they toggle between individual focus work and then coming together as a group to refine those ideas. So in the average workplace, uh, what we now see is people are spending 18 hours a week in meetings and, and another 11 hours a week digging themselves out of emails and slack. So that's 29 hours of their week gone before they've completed a single task. Super teams protect people's individual focus time. They do things like dedicated focus blocks where nobody has to monitor emails for like 90 minutes a day. They'll do meeting free days where people can really focus on getting work done during the regular work hours without having those constant interruptions. Um, and so that's really key is protecting people's individual focus time. Now, when you're asking about really the tragedy of adding more and more and more and not allowing people to recover, I mean, I think we all know listening to this podcast that recovery is just as important as what you do on the field. Uh, being able to Recharge that battery is key. We have evidence showing that past a certain number of hours, it really depends on the industry, but some states as few as 55 hours a week, there's a diminishing returns. So the more you work, the more mistakes you make. And the more mistakes you make, the more you lengthen your workday. So it's actually working against you to work past a certain point. And so making time to recover isn't just something that physical athletes need to do. It's what we all need to do as mental athletes.

Speaker B: The second bucket was super. Teams make each other better. And I think conceptually that that makes a lot of sense. Uh, how can a leader or a coach. Ron, how can we facilitate that peer feedback? So I think that's kind of what you're talking about here is we make each other better with fear. Uh, peer feedback. How do you facilitate a room with peer feedback without disrupting chemistry?

Speaker A: Okay, so this is a really key piece of the puzzle, uh, because what we find in our research is that on average, teams, feedback tends to flow top down. It's from the manager to the employee. On super teams, you're getting more feedback feedback from the manager, but you're also getting way more feedback from peer to peer. So it's flowing sideways. Now, why is that happening? It's not because teammates are going to one another and saying, hey, you messed this up. Here's how you should do it. They're not pointing each other's mistakes out. What's happening is people are proactively going to one another and they're asking for feedback. So they're higher in feedback seeking. You want teammates who go to one another and say, hey, what do you think of this? How do I improve this? Make those changes and then apply the changes before they get to the manager or to the client. That's what you get when you have higher feedback seeking. So you asked, how do you make that happen? It starts with the leader, and the leader needs to model this. In other words, one of the things they need to do is they need to go to their team and ask for feedback. That's part of it, but another part of it is when somebody submits a project, don't just go and give your feedback. Take a second and say, hey, did you ask Henry what he thought of this? And the more you do that, the more it teaches people that that's an expectation, is that we work together here as a group to make each other better.

Speaker B: Let's talk a little bit more about feedback. This is A huge part of coaching, something I'm really passionate about. In one of your articles you say on super teams, this is a big one. 90% of workers say their leader delivers feedback that motivated improvement. I highlighted improvement without coming across as critical. So one more time on super teams, 90% of workers say their leader delivers feedback that motivated improvement. Improvement without coming across as critical. So I think step one is, hey, how can we create a team where there's peer to peer feedback? But then on, um, in addition to that, the best coaches are also really good at giving feedback. Talk to me about what you've learned about from the top down approach on feedback.

Speaker A: So one of the things we know, looking at meta analyses, meta analysis, just a fancy way of saying, you know, looking at a whole bunch of studies together, what we know for feedback is that 97% of feedback fails to improve performance. And that's pretty remarkable. Wow, 97% of feedback fails to improve performance. So what's different about the feedback that works? By the way, before I get to that, I should note that a third of feedback actually makes performance worse. It's because it's so demotivating that uh, people's performance actually improves. So we tend to think more feedback better. Actually not necessarily. Not if it's delivered effectively. So how do you deliver feedback effectively? Well, part of it is simplifying. In other words, when you see someone who could benefit from feedback, there's a temptation to tell them to do eight things differently. And that's overwhelming people. When people get overwhelmed, they shut down. What you want to do is focus on one simple thing that they can do better. The other part of it is to focus on the future, not the past. Don't talk about, hey, when you did that thing, it really undermined your performance for the following nine reasons or this is the impact it had on me. And this is why I don't want you to do it again. Because when you focus on the past, people become m again defensive. They shut down because now they have to. They feel like they need to justify why they did what they did. But if you focus on the future and you say, hey, the next time we do this together, could you do this differently and then finally make it a conversation? So those are the things. Simplify to one thing, make it future focused and make it a conversation. And if you can do those three things, your feedback will be much better

Speaker B: received during your time researching. Ron, who do you think is the best? Who's the best leader that you've witnessed give feedback and what made them so special. Maybe a story or a moment where you're like, wow, that is, that's world class feedback giving.

Speaker A: In an article I wrote for the Harvard, uh, Business Review, I talked about Mark Dagnault from the Oklahoma City Thunder. And he had a game where the team made a tremendous number of turnovers. Uh, and what he did was super counterintuitive. He put on Bruce Springsteen as they watched a replay of all the turnovers. And he said, this is going to be painful, but if I have to watch this, at least I'm going to be listening to Bruce. And why did he do that? He did that because he knew that the fe. The players already knew that they screwed up. They didn't need that reinforced. What they needed was they need to have a learning mindset. And the only way to get to a learning mindset is, is to be optimistic and in a good mood. Because when you become downtrodden and just burnt out with all the mistakes you make, you don't need a coach who's going to yell at you. You need a coach who's going to get you back in learning mode. And I just thought that was brilliant.

Speaker B: Well, that's awesome. So a couple of things on feedback. Future, uh, focused, trying to create a learning environment, uh, keeping it simple as well. If I were to tug for one more. What's one more thing you think that you see from the elite? I love feedback. I think it's something everybody, parents too, everybody, everybody listening gives feedback at some point in their life, some sector of their life. Is there another piece you think either coaches or leaders get wrong or another piece that would be a friendly reminder.

Speaker A: A friendly reminder. I don't know how many of your listeners have heard to this. To me personally, I feel like it's always nice to be reminded of, uh, some of the essentials. So one of the things that we know from the research is when the feedback is preceded with a statement that conveys confidence and belief in the other person's abilities, it's far better received. So you could say, let me give you some feedback and just get. Dive into it. Or you could say, I'm going to tell you something. And I'm telling you this because I have really high expectations for you and I know you can meet them. And then you go into the feedback. Now, because of that compliment, because of that affirmation again, you're creating much more fertile ground for the feedback to land appropriately.

Speaker B: I think one of the most powerful words that parents and leaders can say to their kids or athletes is I Believe you. I believe in you. I mean, as a student athletes young kid, I mean, that goes so far. I love that you use the word believe. I mean, it really feels good. Hey, I believe you can do this. Here's what I see. I believe in your ability. When you cast upon belief to somebody else, especially at that pivotal age, from 10 to 18 years old, man, that can go a long way. Can it?

Speaker A: Absolutely. And it goes as far as, you know, putting people in those situations where they're being stretched, where they're not necessarily ready to perform, but having that opportunity also gets them there, because without those stretch opportunities, you really have no way of proving to yourself that you could do it. And so part of being a good leader is putting people in stretch situations before they're 100% ready.

Speaker B: Okay, so let's start. We're going so fast here. I love it. Uh, so the main buckets here, so super teams first, get more done by managing time, energy, and attention. Second, super teams make each other better. Talking about feedback, the third bucket was super teams are always looking to improve, even if things are going well. So, you know, winning covers a lot of these cracks. If we're winning, it's like, hey, we're already at the top here. Why do we need to keep pushing? Don't, don't try to, uh, fix something if it isn't broke. And a lot of coaches, you know, they. It's a hard. It's hard to stay in the growth mindset when everything is fine. So how can programs, how can coaches keep their programs within that growth mindset when the results say out loud, everything's fine here?

Speaker A: Well, one of the things I think the best coaches recognize is that what worked last year is not necessarily going to work next year. And so if you're not evolving, you're falling behind. That's just the reality, because people are going to be studying the tape. They didn't always have tape. Now we have tape of everything. And they're going to figure out the holes in what it is that you were executing. And so you can't assume that just because things are going well now, they're going to be going well in the future. And the same applies to anyone in the business world, because with the rise of AI, the new tools that we all have, anything that was successful before, at the very least can be improved. And so part of it is just having that appetite for continuous improvement. And the simplest way is just to create a mindset that is just more receptive to experimentation. And I talked about this in the research, when you look, when you compare super teams to average teams, super teams are experimenting 48% more often than average teams on. In the workplace, that can simply mean, you know, testing an ab, testing a landing page, comparing one version to another to see which one is converting at a higher level. Or it could be much bigger. Like, some of the best organizations will start trying to sell a product or service before it exists to determine if there's actual demand for it. It's actually one of the worst things you could do is spend years developing a service that then you then launch and nobody wants to buy and you just wasted a year. Far better to just set up the landing page to see if anybody signs up for it, create a waiting page to see if anybody's interested before you invest any time in creating it. Now, how does that apply to a sports team? Well, it can apply. You know, in the. In the, uh, article about the Oklahoma City Thunder, I talk about how they experiment with their starting lineup. One of the. One of the criticisms that Mark Dagnault often received is that he's experimenting with his lineup way too often. But you know what, it's in those experiments that Dagnault uncovers these different combinations that, uh, then he pulls out during the playoffs. So having that understanding that, yeah, it may not be the traditional way of doing things, but through these experiments, we're going to learn what works. That's key. And that applies to just far more than starting lineups. You know, if you look at the Thunder more broadly, they're also the first to experiment with trading an All Star for future draft picks today. That's accepted wisdom. It's like, everybody understands that's what you do, right? We just see today, uh, I don't know. I don't know when this is going to air, but Giannis Atendokubo, uh, was just traded for a round of draft picks from, uh, Miami Heat. And that's because the Bucks understand that you don't build a championship team in one year. It takes years upon years upon years. And so just having an open mind to trying new things is key.

Speaker B: You write in that article that the best leaders do more than just encourage experimentation. They also make it safe to try, easy to conduct, and rewarding to learn from. So it sounds to me like the experimentation is, uh, table stakes to say that gets us in the game. But. But the second half of the quote might be just as important, if not more. They make it safe to try, easy to conduct, and rewarding to learn from. Can you break down the second Half of that. Cause I think that's crucial.

Speaker A: Yeah, uh, you can say, I want more experiments. But if people don't feel safe making mistakes or failing, learning becomes impossible. And it's because anytime you do something new, you're gonna make some mistakes. And unless people feel comfortable making those mistakes, they simply don't try. And so an example, as I often say, when I do keynotes to people, just relate to people who aren't in sports or, uh, who, uh, can relate to this, uh, on a regular, everyday basis. If you are experimenting with creating a new dish, the first time you did it, did you crush it out of the gate? Probably not. Second time, maybe a little bit better. By the third time, you're much better. And it's because every time you improve based on what you learned last time. And that's how learning happens, is the ability to learn from our mistakes and apply them to the future attempts. If you don't have that psychological safety, you simply don't try. And so how do the best leaders do this? Well, they do a few things differently. One is they are much more likely to open up about mistakes they've made in the past. And that tells people that it's okay to make mistakes and that mistakes are something to learn from. They're not something to hide. The second thing is when they don't know something, they admit it. They're more likely to say, hey, I'm not sure, but I know who to ask. That teaches people that no one's expected, uh, to have all the answers and that it's safe to be honest. And the final thing is that they tell their team that unless you're failing, you're not learning. And that's really counterintuitive. Uh, and to bring that home, just to give you an example from the corporate world at LinkedIn, there's a guy named Reid Hoffman. And Reid Hoffman is one of the founders and chairman of LinkedIn. And he would tell his team, I don't expect you to be perfect. In fact, I want you to make mistakes 15% of the time. And from his perspective, if the team was getting everything right, it wasn't because they were just perfect. It meant they were moving too slowly. That's a really interesting way of thinking about it. Reminds me again of Dagnault, which is in the article. And he doesn't aim for 100% right on reviews. He actually wants to get some of those reviews wrong because it means he's stretching himself. And speaking of stretching, another example is Reed Hastings from Netflix. And when too Many of Netflix's shows were hits, he would get a little despondent and because it told him that, uh, they weren't taking big enough swings. That's a great way of thinking about it. I can tell you. Like, ever since doing this research and writing the book, I reflect on one question every week, which is, you know, what was your big swing this week? If there's nothing to say, if I have no answer for that, I'm kind of disappointed in myself and it makes me want to try for something better next week.

Speaker B: It says in that article, and by the way, we keep talking about this article because it's so dang good, I'll attach it to the show notes. Uh, it said something along the lines, ron of psychological safety is the number one predictor of success. Something by Google. Something along those lines. I'm curious, on the psychological safety component, what do you think most coaches get wrong about it? What's, what's anything that maybe I think this is what it is, but really that's not right. Is there anything we need to clear up about psychological safety on what people may think it is? And m. Actually it's, it's really not that.

Speaker A: Mhm. When we talk about making mistakes and making it safe, we are not talking about oversights or lack of effort or carelessness. Sure, those are bad mistakes. You want to root those out. We're talking about intelligent mistakes. And there's a big difference between just allowing for mistakes and dialing in on intelligent mistakes. And so yeah, by all means, if someone's not giving their best, they don't have to play. But if someone is trying new things or taking the appropriate, uh, level of risk, that's something not just to be tolerated, but to be spotlighted and praised because that's what makes it safe for people to try again. The other part of it is, I think belonging is a big part of psychological safety, particularly within sports. And what I mean by that is if you are constantly worried about being cut, it's really, really hard to have psychological safety. And so it's up to the leader to make people feel like they're here regardless, and we all here to make each other better. And uh, unless you're, that's something you're paying attention to, it might be sinking your team's commitment because they're constantly in the back of their minds thinking, if I make this mistake, am I going to be cut? And that's just eating up bandwidth and preventing people from performing at their best.

Speaker B: You know, going back to the, uh, experimentation model and that, that mindset. Coaches love consistency. Coaches want routines, systems, standards. But the research that you're saying is that the best teams are constantly experimenting. So what's the advice to coach great leaders and coaches out there? To balance consistency with experimentation? How do you toggle between those two? Because they seem like they could kind of combat each other?

Speaker A: That's a really interesting question. I. I do. I'm a big fan of, of consistency. And, uh, you know, we keep coming back to the Thunder because it's in the article. Uh, one of the things that Shea Gilders Alexander said last year during his mvp, uh, winning season is he talked about my whole life is consistency. Everything I do is consistent. And I think what he's referring to is his dietary habits, his workout routines. And I think without consistency, you have nothing. Because if you're constantly reacting to your circumstance, that's a real problem. So you gotta have things you can lean on. But part of the. I think what makes the successful teams successful is that they make experimentation part of the routine. It's not separate from it. It's part of the routine. So in the same way that Hoffman talks about how I want you to make 15% mistakes because that's a good thing, I think we also need to have some metrics around. What are we experimenting on? Are we failing enough? Because if we're getting everything right, it doesn't mean we're perfect. It means we're not stretching. And so I think you can build that experimentation into part of your routines.

Speaker B: You say again in the article, the number one question that most leaders avoid. This stopped me in my tracks. I loved it. I think this would be a great topic for coaches and leaders of all fields. Number one question most leaders avoid is, what are you stuck on? I'll let you take this one for a little bit here. Why is that the number one thing we avoid? And why is that question so darn important?

Speaker A: I think in a lot of businesses, there's a lot of pressure for people to report on what's going well, especially during meetings. Supposed to, you know, you're supposed to look like you're on top of things. You're supposed to look like you're moving things forward. But the reality is that unless you are uncovering areas where you're stuck, you're not moving things forward. And this is a big part of why people hate meetings is because they don't feel like they move them forward in the work they're trying to achieve. But when a leader asks, what are you stuck on during a Meeting, it does a few things. One is it normalizes challenges. If people feel like being stuck on something means that they're not doing a good job, then they're going to avoid raising those challenges and they're going to hide them, um, you know, sweep them under the rug because they're not something to be proud of. But in fact, when you normalize challenge, what you're telling people is, it means you're. If you're stuck on something, it means you're doing something hard, which is exactly what we're trying to do here. We're trying to solve difficult problems, and so it's a good thing to be stuck. Secondly, it turns the meeting into a collaborative forum because now everyone in the room is trying to help that person solve their problem, and it's part of creating that team mentality. And finally, if when the leader says, what are you stuck on? And people say, I got nothing, I'm all good, that's not a good thing. It means, again, you're not taking big enough swings. And so you're ensuring that people are constantly stretching themselves and doing hard things. And so if you can manage all those three things, you're actually using m meeting to move the team forward instead of just eating up their time.

Speaker B: M One of my ways to ask a similar type of question, Ron, is to say this. Assume everybody is going through something. What is it that you're going through right now? And the setup is just as important as the question. Let's assume everybody in the room is working through something personal right now or working through stuck on something. Let's assume that. Great. What is it for you? So it allows this. Oh, okay, I'm not alone. Everybody is going through something as well, and then we can get more direct for you. So sometimes that setup can make people feel even more easy, included, and kind of drop the guard on. Okay, let's get into the number one thing holding me back.

Speaker A: I think that's great. And I also think that part of what's the magic of this is now, because everyone's contributing to other people's success, you're drawing the team closer. And when you draw the team closer, you create the kind of team that nobody ever wants to leave, and that's really what you're aiming for. You know, it's really hard to assess whether a team is a super team looking from the outside in. But to a person, when you ask people, what would you miss most?

Speaker B: When.

Speaker A: If you were to leave this organization, People on super teams will almost always say the people and the reason that that's so important is because it tells you what a super team provides, which is it really kind of fulfills our tribal instincts. It makes you feel like you belong. It makes you feel like you're contributing to something bigger than yourself. And it makes you feel like you're surrounded by people who make you better. And when you have those experiences again, you're creating a team that nobody ever wants to leave. And, and that is a great predictor for business success, whether it's profits or growth. Those are, uh, exactly what you're looking for to create that kind of experience as a leader.

Speaker B: Yes, yes, yes. Something that I think now more than ever, Ron, is that connected teams are competitive teams. I used to think differently. So as a mental performance coach, traveling the country, it was all mindset. We're talking mental performance now. My outlook has completely changed. Now half of my keynote, half of my workshop is trying to create some more connection within the team. And in some organizations it's a lot harder. You talk about a high school team, you're only on this team for one or two years. So our time is kind of constrained down into a smaller and, you know, in other areas it can be a little bit larger. I would love to hear from you on your research on super teams. What are some applicable practical ways that we can create more connection within the team? Do you have any go to strategy that we can take from corporate into the sports world or do those things not. Do those not mash up together?

Speaker A: Well, you know, uh, you're very fortunate to be in the sports arena, because in the sports arena you have something that most corporate teams don't have, and that's a shared goal. By definition. You're trying to win a championship, right? That's what you're trying to achieve. In most cases, not all cases, but most cases, you're trying to be the best version of yourself as you can. Most people who work on quote, unquote teams in corporate America, uh, don't have that team mindset whatsoever. I don't know if that's surprising to you or not, but it's just the reality that I'm up against because they don't have that shared goal. If my goal, for example, is to get home by 5 o' clock and your goal is to get a promotion, we have completely different goals and we're going to butt heads. Another thing that you need in order to create that team mentality, and this is something that applies both to the corporate world and to the world of sports, lacking, I think, in many cases, in both. And that's role clarity. I need to know what I'm responsible for. I need to know what you're responsible for. I need to know how those two things fit together. If we don't have role clarity, one of two things is going to happen. Either we're both going to drop balls here and there, because I think that's your responsibility, you think it's my responsibility, or we're going to have turf wars. Either one of those is a recipe for dysfunction. If you look at the New York Knicks and how successful they were this year, one of the things that's really striking is how clear their roles were defined. Everyone understood what Jalen Brunson's role was, and everyone understood what wasn't Jalen Brunson's role. If you look at the spurs, they couldn't decide what one Benyama was supposed to do. Is he supposed to be in the paint, supposed to be beyond the 33 point line, supposed to be playing great defense? Uh, they're in the championship. They still don't have a defined role for Wambanyama. Now, I'm sure that that is going to evolve and improve over time. It was the they're very young team, but I think that was a really striking difference between those two teams. So we talked about shared goal, role clarity. The third thing you need in order to create that team mentality is interdependence. And a lot of sports teams don't have this. A lot of corporate teams don't have this. Interdependence, just a fancy psychological term. All it means is we need to feel like we need each other in order to be successful. Sometimes people have it, sometimes they don't. If you have a team of salespeople and one person's bonus is tied to how well they sell, it has nothing to do with their, the other person on the team sells. They don't have that interdependence whatsoever. In fact, that other teammate is their competitor. And so you need those three things. You need to have that shared goal, role, clarity, interdependence to create that team mentality. And I think it's a great starting point. I think most corporate teams don't have it. Now you asked what can people do to build that? One of my favorite tips in the book is when you have a, uh, person on your team who excels, the temptation is to reward them. To reward them with a bonus or a weekend off or maybe to buy them a gift card. A far better approach is reward the Entire team. Take the entire team out to lunch in honor of that person's, uh, contributions. Because what that does is it sends a signal that on this team, when one of us succeeds, all of us succeed. It's an easy fix, and it works towards that shared goal mentality.

Speaker B: There's so much we can learn from coaches about what they praise. You can tell a lot about a coach by what they choose to praise or not praise. This will be an interesting kind of topic here. When you talk about that praise, keep going with what your thought was there. Ron, how do coaches kind of mess up, for lack of better words? Uh, what do they get wrong about praise per se?

Speaker A: Well, I think part of it is you'll sometimes have somebody on the team who does something that's right in the moment, but isn't the type of culture you're trying to build. So an example of this in the corporate world is somebody who's working late, working weekends. That's great. You really appreciate that effort. But if you praise them in public, that sends a confusing message because then it suggests that everyone on the team is expected to work weekends and evenings. And so you want to praise privately for things that are beneficial but aren't part of the culture that you're trying to build and praise in public the types of things that you want everyone to emulate.

Speaker B: Yeah, great, great, Great piece of advice. The, uh, other topic in the article was the great leaders. Great coaches, they roll up their sleeves even when they don't have to. You talk about the difference between, uh, getting involved versus micromanaging. Can we dive into that a little bit about what it looks like to roll up your sleeves as a head coach?

Speaker A: Yeah. So part of what we found in the research is that the best leaders are not just delegating and disappearing. They're rolling up their sleeve and doing the work. And the example from the article is Sam Presti. He does scouting personally. He'll fly around the globe, even though he doesn't have to. As a full team of scouts, he'll do it himself. Part of it is because he wants to, you know, be, be, be front and center and get a good look at prospects. But also he wants to be on the ground so that he's seeing what the problems are and solving them in real time. And so there's a difference, as you pointed out, between contributing to the team versus micromanaging. So a micromanager is someone who diminishes people's feeling of, um, ability. And so if I, for example, if you and I are Working together on a deck. And I feel like I could be doing it better than you're doing it. And I like, say, hey, do you mind if I sit in your chair for a second? And I take it over from you? That makes you feel small. But if I, um, offer some suggestions and let you handle it, that is something that feels empowering to you. Because now I've given you a new approach to evolving what you're working on. And so that's the key part of it is just the experience it creates in the other person. Does it feel like it enlarges them or diminishes them? And so you want to stay away from, obviously from the micromanagement, but you want to feel like you're contributing because what it does is it makes people feel like you've got their back and you're both working together towards the shared goal. The other part that I just want to touch on is status. Status is how we feel like we rank relative to other people on the team. And one of the things we discovered while doing the research in super teams is one of the best ways of telling whether you're on a super team is how you feel in a meeting with your colleagues. Do you feel like you have more influence, less influence, or equal amount of influence? And one of the best indicators is not more or less. It's equal. If you feel like you have, you are equally influential to the people around the table, Chances are you're on a super team. Super teams are much more likely to have equal influence. And why does having that equality of status matter? Uh, because people then feel empowered to contribute and feel like their opinion matters. But if people feel like they are more important than everyone else, they dominate the conversation. If they feel like they're less important, then they just kind of keep to themselves. Both of those are bad.

Speaker B: What do you think is a sign that a leader or a coach has become too detached from the day to day reality of the team? Is there a sign or symptom in your research that you would recognize and be like, m. He or she is probably too detached from reality?

Speaker A: It's a great question. The leading indicator in our research is simply delegating the work and not getting involved. And it's, uh, typically more problematic in the world of work than it might be on teams. Because in the world of teams, I, uh, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I would imagine most leaders and most coaches are not delegating whole segments of the offense or defense and just not really being involved at all in the world of work, it's really easy to do that, particularly when it comes to AI. We actually just did a research study on how high performing teams use AI and what we discovered is that they're led by leaders who are really involved with it. They really love to learn about how AI can help. They model that behavior for their team and then they point out people who are doing it really well. The other thing that happens with AI is that it can lengthen the workday or it can shorten the workday, depending on how a, uh team uses it. And on average teams, what ends up happening is they hide their AI use from one another and they feel guilty about using it. They feel like they're doing something wrong. On super teams, not only do they not feel guilty, they're doing it more often and they're sharing prompts with one another. So they're lifting everyone up. Everyone's getting better as a result because the team is getting better constantly. And then finally, when you ask people, are you worried about losing your job to AI average teams? Yeah, they're worried. On super teams, not only are they not worried, it's making them more confident. Cause they can feel their team getting better every day. And so it's, uh, all about creating that mentality where we lift each other up and we make one another better.

Speaker B: The last theme in the article is perhaps my favorite. So you talked about super, uh, teams. They lead with meaning, not just metrics. They lead with meaning, not just metrics. In the article, you say when people grasp how their work contributes to something larger, commitment deepens, collaboration strengthens, and the whole team moves forward together. I'm a big. I love the phrase coaching beyond the scoreboards is one of the segments that I did in, uh, this podcast and still going. It's the name of my keynote, so this really hits home for me. I'd love to hear a little bit more about leading with meaning and not just metrics in a world that really praises and looks and uh, decides salaries on metrics, especially in the sports world. Can you open that box a little bit?

Speaker A: Yeah. Well, first of all, I will say, just because there are metrics around, it doesn't make it bad. I think actually one of the smartest things you could do is create metrics around some of those meaning types of outcomes that you're looking for. So for example, if you're leading a basketball team and you want to have community contributions as part of what the basketball team delivers, you can create some metrics around that in terms of volunteer hours or you know, different types of things that people can contribute to make that a reality. But I want to point to a finding in the research in, in, uh, the book that I think is really fascinating to me. I mean, it's not something I was expecting. We asked people, how meaningful is your job to you? And what we found, it was a massive difference between super teams and average teams. That's not surprising. Well, what's surprising is when we ask people, what is it about your job that makes it meaningful to you? And here we saw massive differences. On average teams. The number one factor that gave work its meaning was earning a salary to support your family. And that's laudable. Nothing wrong with that. But if you look at super teams, salary didn't even crack the top three reasons. The number one reason on super teams was being part of this team. That was the number one thing that gave work meaning. And I think what that speaks to is the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. When we talk about extrinsic motivation, we're talking about doing something for reward. So that's like going to the gym because you want to shed a few pounds. We talk about intrinsic motivation. It's doing it because the activity itself is rewarding. So it's like going to the gym because you love Zumba. And yeah, you might lose a few pounds, but you're doing it because you love the activity. And that's what you have when you develop a super team, when you surround people with people who make them better, when you empower them to do their best work, when you let them get a little bit better every single day. Of course, that creates a sort of team that not only brings out the best in people, but it creates that sort of meaning that makes people want to stick around forever.

Speaker B: That's brilliant. And I think that is the real art of coaching is when you can provide meaning to a game that took to just people. Just a game. Like, uh, in what ways is this more than just a game? I think back to the article of the Oklahoma City Thunder. I think you talked about a little bit of a story about when they would draft somebody or bring somebody in. They'd take them on a two tour, they'd show them. So tell me a little bit about what was that story? How did they create meaning?

Speaker A: Yeah, so they were founded, uh, after the Oklahoma City bombing. And, uh, there's a, uh, there's a commemoration for that bombing, uh, is part of the city that was kind of like part of the influence for Sam Presti when they moved the team to OK from Seattle to Oklahoma City was. He was trying to create a team identity. And we went to that, uh, memorial. What he found was a quote from, from a newscaster about how after this bombing happened, it created this community atmosphere where really brought out the people, brought out the best in people that they kind of. Basically what we're talking about here was just make each other better. And that's what he wanted the team identity to be around. And so now anytime they bring in a new player, they take them to that memorial because they want to familiarize them with what it means to serve a community and not, just, as you say, the scoreboard.

Speaker B: I can't help. I can't go through this conversation and not ask you about great teammates. I'm going to imagine that through your research you found great team, super teams. I'm going to imagine you also found some themes about great teammates. So I know this isn't the focal point, but I'd be so curious to hear, Ron, what did you learn through your research on great teammates as well as great teams?

Speaker A: Yeah, so there's a lot I could say about this. We have a few chapters in the book about teammates and the psychology of good teammates. But one of the things that I'll point to in the brief time that we have together was we asked 2000 people to tell us about the worst teammate they've ever had. And the top three characteristics were arrogant, bad attitude, and unreliable. Unreliable was the top characteristic of a bad teammate. And then we asked another 2,000 people to describe the best teammate they've ever had. And their answers were as, uh, follows, at number three, good communicator. It's the person who, uh, opens up about information and shares updates with everyone in real time. Two was reliable. It's kind of like the opposite of the unreliable. And the third was knowledgeable. This is the person whose expertise moves the team forward. Now, what's really fascinating to me are three characteristics that didn't make the top three. They were good listener, funny. I think friendly was the third one. And I think what's really revealing is what's different between the top three characteristics, which was knowledgeable, reliable, and good communicator versus the three that were positive but didn't make the top three, which is funny, good communicator and friendly. And the answer is they don't move the team forward. They may be nice to work with, but they don't move the team forward. And so a lot of people, I think, assume that being a good employee is enough you put your head down, you do the work. That means you're a good teammate. But being a good employee and being a good teammate are completely different skills. And you know what, you're in the field of sports, which you're lucky because they teach you what it means to be a good teammate. In the world of work, nobody teaches anybody how to be a good teammate. It just does not happen. And so if you're looking to be a good teammate, the formula is simple. Don't just do a great job. Do a great job while making the people around you better.

Speaker B: Brilliant, Ron. I want to close down with one last piece of either advice or a lesson. So for the last decade you've been studying teams, individuals wrote the book on super teams. You are the person to talk to and ask this question, what's one piece of advice or a lesson that you'd want to give coaches on how they can create a super team of their own?

Speaker A: Mhm. Man, that's a tough question to bring down to a single item. Let me think about that. I think that the factors that make for a great team also are just genuinely satisfying to people. On a psychological level, if you think about what it is that people want from everyday life, there's three basic psychological needs. This is from the research of DC and Ryan. I studied with them in grad school. Dan, uh, Pink wrote a book called Drive. Those were my advisors. And so the three things that people want from life in order to be happy, healthy and productive are as follows. One is they need to feel like they're growing. They need to feel like they're good at what they do, but they need to feel like they're growing. It's called mastery. Second thing is they need to feel like they belong. They need to feel like they're valued, respected, appreciated, all the good things that happen from belonging. And the third is they need to feel like the work they're doing is their choice. They need to feel like they have some autonomy. So those three things to me map on really well to the three strengths of super teams. So we talked about mastery. That's that third bucket, which is they get better over time. We talked about belonging, that's uh, being surrounded by teammates who make you better. And we talked about autonomy, feeling like the work they're doing is their choice. That's that desperate need for feeling like your time, energy and attention is well spent. And most people go into work and they feel like, man, I don't know where these hours went. If your kid asks you when you what would you do today when you come home from work, just kind of give them a blank stare because it was just kind of like a barrage of meetings and messages and commuting and you don't feel like you got anything done. But when you empower people to use their time effectively at work, you give them that sense of autonomy back. And so, you know, I, uh, think a lot of times we write, we read, uh, tons of articles and we read tons of books and it all comes down to the fundamentals. When you give people their psychological needs, they just perform at a far higher level. And what my focus was in super teams is to bring that to leaders so that they can apply it to their teams. Because I think a lot of the advice has centered on individuals. What can we do to improve the way we work? And so, you know, we talk about productivity advice. I'm sure, uh, you talk about here on your show. A lot of productivity advice is centered on the individual. So what is the quintessential productivity advice is turn off your notifications, uh, check your email only three times a day. And those types of things might help the individual, but they don't work when you're on a team because one person's focus time becomes another person's bottleneck. And so we really need to solve these issues on a team level or they're not going to be addressed. And in fact, the more individual productivity tips we apply ourselves, the longer the workday becomes for everyone.

Speaker B: So good, Ron, I'm going to put you on the spot for one little quick one here. If a, uh, lot of coaches that are listening, they like to reflect and journal. If you were to leave us with what's a question that coaches should start thinking about, what's a question that they could start journaling on today either to bring them close, closer to super teams or question they should be asking themselves. What's a question you would encourage them to wrestle with this week?

Speaker A: Man, I appreciate you asking that because this is something I do myself. I journal every night. I've got one of these five year journals. Uh, I don't know if you're familiar with these, but it's kind of like you have a paragraph for this that you can write what you did today. And then the beautiful thing about it is that it's got this same day a year before. So you're constantly being reminded, oh, that's cool. The previous year at this time. And so you can see not only are you kind of reflecting on lessons you've already learned, but you can see how Far you've come. Oh, that's awesome. And so, yeah, five year journals. I'm a big fan of them. But the question I try to focus on is, what did I learn today? And how am I going to apply in the future? And it does a couple of things. One is it forces you to reflect on how you can improve in the future. But the other is it also, I think you can learn something from any experience, literally any experience. But unless you're asking yourself that question, you're not going to draw out those lessons. And so, um, a final thing I'll say about this, which is the moment you identify one thing you could do differently in the future, setbacks become way less painful. So, for example, if you find out that someone, uh, who's a competitor is doing something you wish you had been doing, that can make you feel real bad. But the moment you think about, okay, how do I apply this? And it get better the next time? Now you feel empowered. You don't feel jealous, you feel empowered. And that's the key, is turning those momentary step backs into lessons. And the more often you do that, the more you experience that forward momentum.

Speaker B: And you're always in learner's mindset, which is something I talk about all the time with athletes, is what did you learn? I never ask after a game, did you win? Did you? What did you learn? And so for you, creating that prompt every single night gives you a chance to always put on the glasses of the learner mindset. I love that. That's fantastic.

Speaker A: Yeah, no, you nailed it.

Speaker B: Cool, Ron, thanks for your time. This has been great. Uh, I'm gonna hand the mic over to you. Is there anything that you would like to promote? Obviously the book. Anything else you got going, the floor is yours.

Speaker A: Well, you know, one of the things I tried to do when I wrote this book was I really wanted people to apply the lessons, not just read the words. And so I created a resource that anyone can use. It's on super teams masterclass.com when you get the book, you get a course. And that course teaches you the book's best lessons in under 20 minutes. And it comes with a discussion guide. So if you want to share some of the insights with your teams, this is a way to do it. So superteamsmasterclass.com, the resources are completely free.

Speaker B: Oh, man, I'm going to do that this weekend. I didn't know that. Thank you, Dr. Ron. Hey, appreciate you taking the time. Thanks so much for being here, man. I learned a ton from you. The book is phenomenal, you guys. If you're interested, like me, in building teams, whether it's in healthcare, even your own family, we're all leading teams in one way or another. There's something in this book. There's more than some. There's a lot in this book. So go get it. I highly recommend it. It's fantastic. Dr. Ron Friedman, thank you so much for taking your time today. I really appreciate you.

Speaker A: My pleasure. Thanks. DJ.

Speaker B: Are you an athlete that's curious about how to build your mental game? You know the importance of having a strong mindset, but you just aren't sure the correct steps to get there? I've got you covered. I just released, uh, a free 60 minute masterclass where I peel back the curtain and give you an inside look at my favorite drills, skills and strategies for you to attack the gap from where you are now to where you want to be. Head over to dj hillier.commasterclass so you can start your journey in learning how to use your mindset to your advantage.