Teaming Dynamics for Digital Transformation

More than half of the companies that were in the Fortune 500 at the turn of this century have either gone bankrupt, been acquired, ceased to exist, or have fallen from the ranks of the 500. All of this disruption was happening as the number of Internet users was tripling, but the challenges (and opportunities) for business were far greater than proliferating websites and e-commerce.

Increasingly, the key factor in a continually accelerating pace of change is the digitalization of business concepts, models, and operating platforms. The process is completely overturning the competitive landscape, even for early winners in the race to web-based business. In some markets, barriers to entry traditionally enjoyed by market leaders have virtually collapsed, and in others it has become more difficult than ever to survive, scale, and eventually dominate a market.

It’s clear: business success increasingly demands digital transformation. And digital proficiency is the gateway.

Stages of Digital Proficiency

When you consider the stages of digital proficiency, some interesting parallels with human development begin to emerge. From birth, socialization starts with our developing sense of the meeting place between self and other, which is really our first foray into teaming. This development happens in four distinct stages, and digital transformation – or at least, our experience of it – is comparable in the way that it unfolds. You might think of digital transformation as representing a new level of consciousness for business, collectively represented by the will of the team to drive the change needed to dominate its industry.

The first stage, pre-digital awareness, is analogous to the earliest stage of life, from birth through the first month, when – to the newborn – there is no mommy and no me. (This is called autism. At the beginning of life, it is the natural state, not a disability.) When the development of an organization is limited to this state, it is as if there is no awareness of anything outside itself. This leads to no identified cause and effect in customer acquisition, relationships, or retention, as well as little or no use of the digital environment. And, since everything is essentially self at this stage, outreach (teaming with others or collaborating with channels) is not consciously considered.

The second stage is digital competence, which maps to human symbiosis. This is the way we view the world until we are about nine months old. In essence, ‘mommy and me’ are one, in the infant’s mind. Consider the way some people react when first introduced to a marvelous new technology. It’s as if they are thinking, ‘Wow, this technology reads my mind and knows what I want.’ Without the ability to rapidly navigate and take control, their experience is analogous to an infant’s creeping and crawling. They learn bit by bit, without a coherent overview. This lack of independence supports the feeling that ‘we are one,’ and thus technology continues to seem magical. In an organization at this stage, even when technology is used, it does not necessarily map to outcomes. True collaboration is not required, only processes, so there is little conscious sense of teaming, either with other people or with the technology.

In the third stage of human relationship development, roughly corresponding to ages 10-18 months, the emphasis is on the child’s emerging understanding of cause and effect. Here the parallels with digital literacy have to do with a temporary illusion of power that comes from the first taste of independence. Indeed, it’s that same heady feeling you get when first able to navigate your environment on your own steam, whether that means getting from the living room to the kitchen, or generating a list of prospects from your new CRM. However, in both cases, the connections between action and outcome have only begun to be made. In organizations, this phase of development is often stalled by the emergence of silos. In a highly siloed organization, self-interest is elevated above the best interests of the team. Attempts at change can produce anger, resistance, or even sabotage.

And, just as parents must provide clear and consistent boundaries as they guide the development of young humans, clear requirements regarding the current and desired states of interaction and team dynamics are essential to all Digital Transformation initiatives. In this fourth stage, which occurs at the latter end of the second year of human life, there is a full realization that the individual is, essentially, alone, and that comfort, connection, and even survival are only possible through interaction with others. Appropriately, in human development this is known as rapprochement: it ushers in the growth phase often called ‘the terrible twos.’ (We prefer to think of it as the ‘terrific twos’ because – other than the fallout than happens due to shortages of parental understanding and/or patience – it’s very important to learn to say no and assert your independence!)

Organizations in a state of rapprochement have gained awareness that the digital world is much more complex than it seemed to be. In response, the organization begins to focus on relationships between people who are critical to the success of change and growth. Today, this includes attention to the idea state of digital disruption, and it marks the beginning of understanding that complex systems require sustainable, high-quality teaming. In fact, we would argue that sustainable teaming is a prerequisite for digital disruption.

The fifth and final stage – Digital disruption – aligns with social maturity in humans. It features a constant awareness of self-in-the-team. The organization has developed a transformational business vision that integrates present disruptive technologies, and is prepared to integrate future disruptive technologies as they arise in the marketplace (and/or, as they are developed in-house.) This requires a sustainable, coherent culture and teaming capabilities that are resilient enough to address and process future unexpected and unknowable business disruptions and resulting opportunities.

The Seven Rules for Digital Business and Digital Transformation

Ray Wang** has given us The Seven Rules For Digital Business and Digital Transformation. Each of Ray’s Rules presents a specific challenge to organizational Coherence and team dynamics, and for each one, we see a linkage to organizational needs for more resilient, productive, and meaningful teamwork. These needs are precisely what Teamability®, a completely new technology of teaming, was engineered to fill. The technology not only identifies and organizes person-to-person teaming behaviors, but also the different ways that people seek to serve the team itself, as a living entity. As such, it can provide strong planning, development, and decision support in any transformational situation.

Rule 1: Digital disruption is more than just a technology shift. It’s about transforming business models and how organizations engage.

First movers need visionary leaders who can create transformational business models, and who can lead effectively through challenging situations. Teamability can absolutely identify the correct teaming behavior and the ability to withstand the ordinary and extraordinary stresses and ambiguities of change.

Rule 2: We move from selling products and services to keeping brand promises.

Keeping a brand promise isn’t just a directive or a script. A cultural example needs to be built and maintained. There is a certain kind of leader, called a Vision Former, who embodies the conscience, the ethos, of an organization. He or she need not be the CEO, but one or more will be essential on C-level teams. Sadly, that is not always the case – but in the course of Digital Disruption, the absence will be a serious liability.

Rule 3: We serve five generations of customers and workers, by digital proficiency, not by age.

The divides between millennials, Gen-X, Gen-Y, baby boomers and others are certainly relevant in some ways. But the urge to team with others is fundamental to human nature. How well a team interacts with a given technology is related to the way a person seeks to serve team needs (which we call Role, with a capital R) and Coherence (which is the orientation to teaming for a common purpose, no matter the level of stress). How well we share what we know is related to the integrity of the human infrastructure and the Coherence Ratio of the organization.

Digital disruption doesn’t happen around the campfire. It happens across time and space. The teams that make it happen need to be able to work that way.

Rule 4: Data is the foundation of digital business. Every touch point, every click, every digital exhaust is relevant insight.

The clarity and relevance of the data at the foundations of digital transformation, plus the analytics derived from data systems, will only be as reliable and useful as the development of a human infrastructure allows.

Information drives insight, but the use of insight depends on team awareness (the team being the organization, which includes the elements of teaming it needs to serve its mission, meet customer needs, create brand ambassadors, etc.) The Vision Movers and Vision Formers in organizations focus on applying information that is big picture and long term, while Action Movers and Action Formers focus on applying tactical information. And, incidentally, both will apply what they learn more effectively and productively when the Coherence ratio within their teams (and the entire organization) is strong.

Rule 5: If 20% of your revenue is not an insight stream by 2020, you won’t have a digital biz model.

Transforming an insight stream from information source to revenue will require organizations to develop a solid Vision Mover/Vision Former culture that can anticipate and answer the questions of differentiated customer experiences, data brokerage, and other insight-oriented business opportunities.

Rule 6: You need more than a Chief Digital Officer to infuse digital into your organization. You need a broad bench of Digital CXO’s.

The Chief Digital Officer may be leading the charge, but without a broader bench of Digital CXO’s, any digital initiative is in danger of having to fight for resources. It takes more than a General to battle digital stagnation!

At minimum, the C-level team needs to include both Vision Movers and Vision Formers. Vision Movers connect with the vision and drive it forward forcefully, but without a strong Vision Former somewhere on the team, the charge may go in the wrong direction. Someone needs to be the high level arranger /refiner of disruptive strategies, so that they can be rolled out in elegant and efficient digital initiatives.

But wait, there’s more… because planning a fabulous digital strategy doesn’t get you there without the help of the right people, the ‘digital artisans.’

Rule 7: We must invest in digital artisans.

Once the strategic plan is completed, and funded, the digital artisans take over. They not only manage the development cycle and provide the content, but it’s also their job to sell everyone on using the value created. This, of course, requires a team, because digital artisans, like their pre-digital forebears, are specialists. And, this is the challenge that organizations will continue to face: the attraction, development, engagement, integration, and retention of these digital artisans. Their value has not previously been fully recognized, but as more organizations vie for them, the market will respond. There will be scarcity, and especially there will be scarcity of the best in their digital crafts.

To a significant degree, digital artisans who are convinced that organizations do not understand or appreciate their value will exacerbate the shortage. Many of these will have had experiences in larger organizations where they felt, like Dilbert, that they were working for a Pointy Haired Boss. (Understanding someone’s Role gives you management insights, especially on how to respect, appreciate, and communicate with them, so they don’t experience you as a PHB.)

Key among these digital artisans will be the Explorers, who bring new technologies, methods, and ideas into the organization. Expect a serious shortage of Explorers in your organization – unless you can figure out how to keep them. (Explorers search for treasures and bring them back to benefit their team.) Expressing a sense of wonder and gratitude when they present you with treasure is the appropriate way to show thanks and respect to an Explorer. Failing to do so is tantamount to inviting an Explorer to find a new giftee!

Communicators, those lovable people who feel that their mission is to build communities, online and off, may be easier to retain. However, you will need to identify the right ones – not just for where your organization is now, but also for where you’re expecting it to go.

And so on and so forth, because digital artisans are not of a single stripe.

Assembling teams in which the Roles are a particularly good match to the mission of the team will automatically improve team coherence, and is essential when team members are virtual. Having great Role-fit and Team-fit supports retention efforts too, (demonstrated by the total elimination of a 30% rate of new-hire turnover at Preferred Sands, recognized by a 2011 Supernova Award.)

Balanced teams, with a coherence level appropriate to the amount of stress and challenge and contextually useful Teaming Characteristics, will recognize and support each team member while integrating their value into the whole. The results: positive engagement, productive collaboration, resilience, quality, and exceptional productivity.

The Many Roles of Digital / Social Technologies

As an aside, good digital/social technology can fill or support a specific Role – just like people do – on a team. Truly great digital/social technology can fill and support more than one Role. Here are some examples, and the Role-support they provide:

  • Waze, as Explorer and Curator, and it can also function as Communicator;
  • Evernote, in support of everyone, but especially the Vision Roles, acts as Action Former and/or Curator, depending on how you primarily use it;
  • Twitter can function as your Conductor, with its quick give and take, which connects you to crowdsourced quick fixes;
  • LoseIt is a Watchdog that minds best interest of your health, as do similar Internet of Things technologies;
  • Just about any to-do list app is the Action Mover’s best friend, almost as good as a real live Action Former; and
  • Any community-building app, such as LinkedIn, ultimately functions as a Communicator.

Using Teamability to Build a Culture of Digital Artisans

Prior to the emergence of Teamability, you could measure what occurs inside people – what they think they’re thinking, what they think they value, what they think they’re like, and how they think they will behave. But, you often needed a licensed psychologist to sign off on it.

Teamability is disruptive technology in the form of a deceptively simple serious game. It doesn’t ask you what you think you know or what you think you feel or value. It puts you in a situation – a simulation of teaming – and as you interact with other characters in the scenario, the boundaries between your world and the digital world begin dissolve. This makes it possible to directly access and measure teaming behavior.

The end product will be a coherent human infrastructure, achieved through the Teamability experience and proprietary team analysis and management methods. It will guide the selection, development, and nurturance of digital artisans, engaging them in work that aligns with their deepest desire to make a meaningful team contribution, and virtually ‘gluing’ them in place.

 

** Ray Wang is the Chairman and Founder of Constellation Research, and author of Disrupting Digital Business: Create an Authentic Experience in the Peer-to-Peer Economy, HBR Press, 2015.

Advertisements

Three Ways to Fail at Managing Teams

I grew up in a home where both mom and dad were active union members, and it gave me a clear message about working life: there is labor, and there is management. Labor’s job is to make stuff happen. Management’s job is to oppress labor.

I was fine with that worldview for a long time. But eventually, I grew up and, somewhere along the line, I became management. I even got to like being management. The funny thing is that my parents, the union loyalists, are the ones I have to thank for that. Here’s why: they didn’t just teach me that oppression was a bad thing. They also made me realize that it can be just as bad for the oppressor as it is for the oppressed.

Oppression is the hallmark of bad management. It’s the butt of Dilbertesque jokes about pointy haired bosses and evil functionaries, and it’s the bane of workers at all levels of organizations. Typically, oppressors are actively engaged in doing what they do, so it’s easy to vilify them for committing crimes against the workplace.

Sins of commission by management are many. Sins of omission are few, but they can be every bit as demoralizing. Here are three that I will address ad seriatum. (That’s Latin for, ‘I’m going to do this one at a time, because hitting you with all three, and no breaks in between, would be seriously uncool.’)

First, there is failure to observe. You might remember something like this happening early in your working life. It happened to Stacy on the very first job.

The team had a serious problem. Stacy was new, and bright, and identified a solution. It was simple, and it would have worked, but the manager couldn’t see it. Boss only saw Stacy, barely 21 years old, too new to know the score, and without a resume to provide credibility. Being laughed at and chided for offering such a naïve opinion was deeply humiliating, and to this day Stacy is reluctant to make suggestions.

Second: failure to nurture. Ari works as an analyst in the innovation department of a huge maker of scientific products. Ari applied three times for the company’s ‘high potential’ program, but the manager never followed through, and Ari was passed over each time. Ari is creative, smart, and well liked. The manager is not. Did the manager feel threatened, or was it just laziness? No matter. Ari has given up.

And third: failure to acknowledge. And herein lies a particularly sad story. Morgan has been in a supervisory position in a critical function of an organization for over two years. If you ask the team members, you’ll get nothing but glowing reports. But the manager gives no recognition, or support, or praise of any kind. Morgan feels unliked, weak, and fearful of job loss. Despite having opportunities to leave, and to move up, Morgan stays. Why? Because Morgan is there to serve the team and does not give up easily. And also because, in leaving, the team would no longer have a shield from the icy chill of the boss’ indifference.

Many failures are just learning experiences, but the failure of management to team well – as exemplified here – causes real damage.

So, if your work experience resonates strongly with that of Stacy, or Ari, or Morgan… or their managers! – then beware. When leaders fail to team, they eventually lead a business to fail.

Branding Yourself – without the pain in the…

Okay, so I have to start by admitting that when I first heard the term ‘brand yourself’ I thought of baby cows. As in, baby cows receiving the very painful and permanent imprint of someone’s logo on their butts.

That image went away when I started hanging out with real branding experts. Corporate branding, I mean, where no animals are harmed in the making of the marks.

These people are really interesting, because you can dish about the stuff you buy, and they can tell you why you’re buying it. (Sometimes, of course, an incredibly soft pair of black leather riding boots are just for keeping your legs warm and your feet dry in winter…while looking sensational with the bag you scored in an online sale, and the fact that both are from Cole Haan is just a coincidence. But I digress.)

We live in a blizzard of branding, so it was a surprise to hear from my friends Dr. Natalie Petouhoff and Laura Walton that brands are having a hard time these days. Apparently it’s becoming increasingly difficult for them to deliver on their brand promises.

One thing I’ve known for a very long time is that delivering on promises is pretty important. I hadn’t given much thought to making promises via an abstract intermediary, but, as Dr. Natalie and Laura pointed out, brands are very much like people, in the way that companies are sort of like people…in the legal sense. So it follows: sometimes companies make promises, and if the promises aren’t kept, trouble ensues. Often, that kind of wrangling happens in a back room – or a courtroom. But when a brand makes (or carries with it) a promise, and doesn’t keep it, the whole mess can happen right out in front of everybody, via Twitter, on Facebook, in the blogosphere, and in the media.

Now, having been raised to a new level of branding-awareness, I asked the esteemed legal advisor and intellectual property expert, Fred Wilf about promises. (Fred, by the way, is the guy who put the ® in Teamability®, for which we love him forever. And although he’s an attorney, he speaks in a way that the rest of us who aren’t can readily understand.)

Sayeth Fred, “In the legal context, a promise is a statement or declaration of intent. It can be written or oral. A written promise can be signed or unsigned. It can be unilateral or bilateral/multilateral (mutual). It can be made in exchange for something of value or the promise of payment of something of value (‘consideration’). It can be made in exchange for another promise that does not include payment. Under the law, whether a promise becomes an enforceable contract depends on each of these facts, and a few more.”

And as it always happens, Fred got me thinking about things I hadn’t been thinking about, to wit, what if all brand promises had to meet the legal standard? What if what my brand – what I promise you – was an enforceable contract?

So, for any one of you who have taken the widely recommended advice to upgrade your image to a brand, I just want you to know one thing: Your brand promise may be the most important promise you ever make – and keep.

Keeping your brand promise isn’t just a directive, a script, or a process. It’s more like a world-view. You need some way of building and sustaining a living model of what you are and what you stand for. For organizations, that’s usually called culture, but for a brand – or a person with a brand – there just isn’t enough time to get something that big into a small package. Business or person, there’s only one of you – and nothing to hide behind.

Your brand – and your brand promise – will stand or fall based on credibility. And despite all those assurances of privacy and confidentiality made by top-level-friends-and-followers-only infochannels, this is a social media world. There are no secrets.

So whether you’re maintaining a company or a personal brand, you must maintain currency in keeping your promises, because people are watching and deciding all the time. Including me…and Fred.

Here’s some basic advice:

First, make sure you know what you’re promising.

I’m going to be blunt here. If you borrowed the concept for your brand promise from someone’s website whose product is ‘pretty similar’ to yours, you blew it before you even got out of the gate. Promises – at least the good ones – arise from the heart and survive through integrity. (Perhaps you are old enough to remember the inherently equivocating “Promise her anything, but give her Arpége” campaign. If so, you’ll understand why it drove me to use any perfume BUT that brand.)

Second, make sure you are promising the right promise: the one your potential customer really wants.

Begin by drafting your promise; then reflect on it, and then air it out through your preferred channels. Are you promising a starry night where the earth moves? Something that ends happily ever after? Or is it just your ‘thing’ that’s helpful and reliable? Before you set the promise in stone, you had better be sure of its connection – and its connotation. Remember the 5M rule: Mixed Messages Mostly Make Messes.

Finally, figure out how you’re going to convince your potential ‘consumer’ that you really will be keeping your promise.

These days, few people take time to read all the copy. It’s your brand that gets you up close and personal, and it’s in that very tight space that the truth comes out. Not just with your followers and not just with your Facebook friends, but with everyone.

Adopt a platform of respect, appreciation, and gratitude – and make sure that the people on your team treat each other that way. If your brand gets mixed up in any one or more of the fifty shades of miserable management, you’ll soon be sporting a danger sign that glows in the dark.

Brand credibility is something you have to earn on the shop floor, in the board room, in the middle of the late night scrum session, in every conversation, every text, and every face-to-face, every day.

No matter how hard we try to connect with our customer, if we can’t first connect with each other, no brand – personal or otherwise – will ever rise to the standard of being a promise.

Three Questions for Performance Management

Ask any manager about their least favorite tasks, and more than likely they’ll put performance evaluations at or near the top of the list.

Why? Lots of reasons, not the least of which is the ‘Gotcha!’: an assumption that you need to find something deficient in each staff member, and come up with a prescription for fixing it, thereby improving performance. All too often, you’re going to find something that the person thinks they are doing very well (and they may be right), or something they have no interest in doing better. At worst, you’re expected to assign tasks or reassign job responsibilities to develop one person’s undesired something, which may well be a task or a job that someone else on your team really enjoys (or would enjoy) doing!

Here’s an even better approach. Just ask these three questions:

  • Are you doing enough of what you like?
  • Are you doing too much of what you don’t like?
  • What can we do to change these things and make them better?

If someone isn’t doing enough of what they really like, they are probably:

(a) in the wrong job,

(b) looking for another job,

(c) not very productive, or

(d) all of the above!

If someone on your team is doing too much of what they don’t like, the problem may not reside in the individual, but rather, in the team. The causes: a team that is missing people with key needed Roles; the team’s vision, mission, or goals have not been communicated clearly enough; or, there is less-than-optimal coherence on the team.

The good news is that you can change these conditions and make the team work better for everyone.

Start with a little team analysis: Teamability® Self-coaching reports for the whole team, yourself included. Then compare who you have (the Roles) with what you need (the right Roles for the team’s mission). Finally, look at what needs to be done, figure which person is best prepared (by Role) to achieve each need, and confirm with people that they have the right tools – and teammates – to do their job better.

The whole point of performance evaluation is to improve performance. Try this approach and the improvement will be obvious to management, to your staff, and to you!

The Downside of Power

Ok I’ll admit it: I like power. I like to have it, I like to exercise it, I like it a whole lot. And I even like the responsibility that comes with it.

Sometimes it gets me places I didn’t think I’d ever be going.

Take powers of attorney, for instance. I’ve had a few in my life, especially from relatives who trusted my judgment in an emergency. That’s usually when good judgment is needed, so that the emergency can be addressed without a detailed think-through of potential consequences and if-thens and maybe-buts.

But now I have an emergency of my own, and it has a lot of moving parts. I need to construct a whole end-of-life scenario for someone dear who can’t.

As you get down into the details of something as delicate as this, there are tough decisions to be made. Sometimes basic values apply cleanly. Sometimes they don’t. My usual approach to this kind of ambiguity is to look for situations that are somewhat similar and use them to identify an answer.

That’s how I got to thinking about how end of life is very similar to end of job – also known as termination, downsizing, and outplacement. Having made this connection, three guiding principles came into view. They are:

  1. Maintain a ‘least restrictive’ environment.

In the healthcare world (particularly mental health) this means allowing the person the latitude to do what they need or want to do, as long as it doesn’t compromise their own, or other people’s, safety. For the end of lifer with a cognition-limiting diagnosis, it means no tying them down or stopping them from eating as much ice cream as they want.

Comparably, in the employment world, it means that when you’ve decided to fire someone, don’t pile on a terrible evaluation or otherwise spirit-damaging experience on the eve of their impending separation.

  1. Make the transition as painless as possible.

In the healthcare world, I am talking about paying attention and taking action to ease pain, boredom, or distress, in whatever manner that drugs, comfort accommodations, and/or companionship will be effective. Because anything that takes the mind off doom dwelling, at least for a little while, is a blessing.

In the employment world, I’m saying that when people are on the way out, even if no one really likes them, please provide the courtesy of a farewell lunch or cake and/or group card…whatever. It feels lousy enough to have been cut from the team, especially when you enjoyed and appreciated the job. Don’t compound the pain by omitting the niceties.

  1. Avoid false hope, but be sympathetic.

In the health world, this refers to the DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) order. Helpful staff people usually want those who have power of attorney over someone’s final days to sign the DNR yesterday. Any reluctance to do so is generally met with an air of suspicion. (Fear of liability is apparently as strong a motivator to action as, say, a tiger loose in the lobby.) Since this was the most difficult principle for me to define, I tried out a lot of scenarios from other fields. Again, comparison to the world of work was the most enlightening.

In employment world, termination is very much like a DNR. There’s an order stating that a person or persons have to go, and usually the person who carries out the order isn’t the one who made the decision in the first place. (Think about that for a moment. The power of attorney holder is not the one making the decision that the person will be let go. That decision takes place at a higher level, so to speak.) Primarily for this reason, it’s important for the bearer of bad news to depersonalize the whole process. Sad to say, many do a great job of the depersonalization part, but of the rest, not so much.

What if, instead, we made it clear that at least one person in the room really wanted the soon-to-be-departed to stay? In the health world, that would involve an effort to connect at the very end, as a sort of social resuscitation. In the employment world, it could be as simple as adding one small word of regret by the terminator.

Will you ‘love people out’ or will you just leave them behind?

You have the power to choose.

You want ‘Team Chemistry’? Start with Biology and Physics!

Forbes’ publisher Rich Karlgaard drew a line in the sand when he launched an article entitled Teams Matter, Talent Is Not Enough. And then along came the brilliant research of Adam Grant, set forth in his NY Times best-seller Give and Take. Dr. Grant proved that, contrary to a particularly nasty old adage, nice people frequently finish first.

I see these two writings (and waves of commentary along the same lines) as the beginning of the end of the ‘hire-only-the-best-and-brightest’ era. For the longest time, hiring has been all about talents, traits, skills, education, and experience. Now, we’re returning to a more complex and enlightened place in which the way a person ‘teams’ is gaining attention and awareness for its critical value.

People speak wistfully about ‘team spirit’, as if it were a kind of magic spell that could be cast by only the most enlightened of leaders or coaches. Now the phrase ‘team chemistry’ is coming back into vogue, and that’s a lot closer to the truth. Teamwork does indeed embody chemistry.

Not ‘I like you” chemistry. Real hard-science chemistry, and biology, and physics.

Biology has given you some inborn drives. One of them drives you to learn and master your world. Another drives you to connect with other people. Put the two together and you get the basic reason humans form teams. Including, by the way, that most basic of teams: the twosome.

Physics, which is essentially the science of how stuff works, explains a lot about the way to build a physical structure (or infrastructure) that won’t collapse when an earthquake or tornado hits. Think of what that takes. Strong parts connect with other strong parts in a very strong way. (Okay, that won’t get you an engineering degree, but it’s at the core of building anything complex. And you can’t have a team with just one person, right? You’ve got the drift, right?)

For the moment, let’s just focus in on that ‘very strong connect’ part. In human beings, that’s called interdependency. It’s what causes us to lean on each other and not topple over when bad things happen – like economic tremors causing our employer’s ‘Richter scale’ to register above 4.5.

So, just to review before we get to the midterms…

We have people with fundamental biological drives, which vary. (We can measure that variance, thanks to a new ‘team science’ that applies to any team in any kind of organization.)  And these drives operate within the framework of a team, and fundamental elements of teamwork, which follow the rules of physics.

Now we’re ready to tackle chemistry.

Even if high school or college chemistry is just a faded memory for you, you might be familiar with the principal of valence, aka covalent bonding. Or (depending on when you went to school) molecular orbital theory, which begat modern valence bond theory. No matter the name, or the level of detail in scientifically explaining how atoms form molecules, valence is about attraction. The most important thing you need to know about attraction between two entities is that it happens because there are physical forces that come into play to balance out an unstable imbalance. This creates ‘completeness.’

When you understand the teaming energy that is inherent in each person on the team, then you can predict how they will handle adversity, change, or just plain old stress. You can also predict the focus and drive they will apply to the fulfillment of a team mission. In the language of Teamability® these attributes are called ‘Role’.

Ready for team chemistry? Here’s the formula:

In humans, ‘completeness’ happens on a team after you get the right biology, e.g., people motivated to do something big with a team, into the right physical configuration.

Since each Role exhibits a complementary (balancing and energizing) influence on one other Role, add only the Roles that are most appropriate to the team’s mission, and introduce them all to each other so that each can find their ‘Role-pair’.

Then step back and watch the sparks fly!