Dedication

Toallofourteammatesthroughtheyears—andallthattheytaughtusaboutcreating

somethingbiggerthanourselves

Contents

Dedication

Introduction:ThePowerofTeams

1:ChangeKills—IfYouDon’tHavetheRightTeams2:TheMagicNumbersBehindTeams3:TheNewScienceofTeams4:ThePowerofDifference5:ManagingTeamstoGenius6:ThePowerofPairs7:SuccessfulPairing:TheBuildingBlocksofTeams

1.0–GotYourSix2.0–ThisMagicMoment3.0–ChainedTogetherbySuccess4.0–HereandThere5.0–Together,We’reMoreThanTwo6.0–CastorandPollux7.0–Lifeboats8.0–YinandYang8.1–TheArtistandtheAngel9.0–Counterweights9.1–Inside/Outside9.1.1–FinderandGrinder9.1.2–PitcherandFielder9.1.3–ExplorerandNavigator

10.0–RemembertheForce11.0–TheDistantIdol12.0–TheSwordandtheShield

8:Trios:ThePlutoniumofTeams1.0–2+12.0–ParallelTrios3.0–SerialTrios4.0–InstrumentalTrios

9:FourandMore:TheWildBunch7±2Teams15±3Teams

10:ScalingUpwithoutBlowingUp11:TheBirthandLifeofTeams12:TheRetirementandDeathofTeams

AcknowledgmentsNotesIndexAbouttheAuthorsAdditionalPraiseforTeamGeniusAlsobyRichKarlgaardandMichaelS.MaloneCreditsCopyrightAboutthePublisher

Introduction:ThePowerofTeams

Successfulteamsareatthecoreofpowerfulorganizations.Butwhatexplainsgame-changingteams—start-upteams,creativeteams,R&Dteams,projectteams,andsalesteams?Whatmakesthemstandout?Canwedecodetheirwinningalgorithms?Canweapplythisknowledgeatdifferentcompaniesandindustries—evenacrossdifferentculturesandgenerations?

Theauthorsofthisbookhavespenttheirlivesinthepetridishofsuccessfulteamformation—inboth our home base of Silicon Valley and around the world. We have started companies, sat onboards,andobservedwinningandlosingteamsupclose.ButinTeamGenius,we’vegonefurtherthananecdotal observation.We’ve tested our observations and theories against cutting-edge research inanthropology, sociology, neuroscience, and cognition science. We will explain our research andmethodology later and in copious footnotes.Readers of this bookwill be the beneficiaries of thiswork.

Webelieve that thepaceof technological innovationplusrapidchanges in theglobaleconomy,combinedwithhugedemographicshiftsnowunderway,willraisethestakesforteamperformance.Averagewilldie.Highmediocritywon’tbeenoughtowinandsustainsuccess.

Letusbeclear.Whenwetalkaboutteams,wearenottalkingaboutformalteamsasdepictedincompanyorg charts and those “About theCompany”Web pages.TeamGenius is about howworkreallygetsdone.Thesumofourexperiencesaysthattheworld’smostcreativeandimpactfulwork—at start-ups, inside large organizations, in sports, and within creative operations in arts andentertainment—getsdonebyinformalteams.

Businessliteratureisremarkablyclearaboutthis.AfterNaziGermanyputtheworld’sfirstfighterjet—theMesserschmitt 262—into action in 1943, beforeWorldWar II’s outcome was known, theAllies faced a problem.Lockheed’s chief aircraft designer,Kelly Johnson, promised anAmericanfighterjetinsixmonths.Today,asthen,itwouldnormallytakesixmonthsjusttowriteaproposalforfundingthejet.ButJohnsonpickedateamofLockheedrebelslikehimself,installedtheminatentnexttoasmellyplasticsfactory,anddeliveredtheP–80ShootingStarrightonschedule.SteveJobsfamouslyputhisinformalMacintoshdevelopmentteamawayfromAppleheadquartersinalow-risebuilding next to a Good Earth organic restaurant. IBM built its first personal computer not inArmonk,NewYork,butinafewrattybuildingsinBocaRaton,Florida.TwitterwasdesignedlargelyonabusheadingfromSanFranciscotoAustin,Texas,forthe2007SouthbySouthwestconference.

In theyearsahead,willvirtual teamsandcrowdsourcingchangethewaywethinkabout teams?Well,itsohappensthatMikeco-wroteabest-sellingbookcalledTheVirtualCorporation...in1992.His answer is yes—but it doesn’t change everything, as some futurists like to assert. The deeperansweriswhatneuroscienceandanthropologyhavetosayaboutteams...andyouwillbesurprisedbytheirfindings.

Aswebeganputtingthefinal touchesonTeamGenius,bothofuswerestruckbyconversationswe’drecentlyhadonapairofthemes.Onewasspeedofchangeintheglobaleconomyandhoweven

themostdynamiccompaniesarechallengedtobuildteamsthatcancope.Richhaddinnerwithatopexecutive of Lenovo, theUS $40 billion-annual-revenue Beijing-headquarteredmaker of personalcomputers,laptops,tablets,andphones.(Lenovo,ifyourecall,boughtIBM’sPCdivisionin2005.)

Lenovo is known for its nimble management—much of it based in the United States, in theResearchTriangleParkareaofNorthCarolina—aswellasforitsrapidresponsetoopportunitiesandthreats.Lenovo isa rareelephant thatcandance.Andyet theLenovoexecutiveexplainedatdinnerhowaChinesephoneupstart,Xiaomi,hadoutmaneuveredLenovo inAsianmarkets.Howso?Wasthis a case of the “innovator ’s dilemma,” as defined by Harvard Business School’s ClaytonChristensen?Intheinnovator ’sdilemma,aprofitableincumbentcompany(Lenovo,inthiscase)canseeadisruptivethreat.Itjustcan’tfigureoutwhattodoaboutit.MatchingthepricesoftheXiaomi’sproductswouldsurelyhurttheprofitmarginsofLenovo’s.Wasitthat?

No,LenovohadseenXiaomicoming. IthadseenXiaomi’sproductsgaining fastacceptance inAsianmarkets.AndLenovowasperfectlywillingtogetinapricewarwithXiaomi.Theproblemwasmore practical. Lenovo just couldn’t build local market teams fast enough to stop Xiaomi’smomentum.

Thesecondconversationweheardagainandagainwasthatofseniormanagersworriedaboutthedemographicshifttothemillennialgeneration.Andtheirconcernwasn’taboutmarketshifts,producttastes,socialmedia,andtheotherusualsourcesofconcern.Rather,itwasaboutwhethermillennialscould actually lead companies andmanage other people. For all that generation’s known skills inscience, technology, social media, and risk taking, senior managers in large organizationseverywherecomplainaboutagenerallackofmanagerialtalentcomingupintheirranks.

Let’s stop here. Is this the perennial phenomenon of a grouchy older generation complainingabouttheshortcomingsofup-and-comers?Abit,perhaps.Butinthemainwedon’tthinkso.Absentinthesecomplaintswasanyof theusual carpingaboutworkethic, education, creativity, andabilities.Rather,thecomplaintswerespecifictomanagementexperienceandteam-buildingskills.

What we do know is that millennials will soon be populating the management ranks ofcorporations around the globe. They will preside over a world that is so fast-changing andcompetitivethattheywillhavetodomarkedlybetterjobatbuilding,managing,andmotivatingteamsthanhasbeendemandedofanypreviousgeneration.Thestakeswillbethathigh.

That’swhy one of our chief purposes inwriting this bookwas to bring together both the bestpracticesof todayand thepast,with the latest inscientific research, toshowthenextgenerationofleaders inevery fieldhowtobuild thedynamic, robust,andgreat teams theywillneed inorder tocompeteinthisnewworld.Theirlearningcurvewillbeshockinglysteep—andwewanttohelpthemsurvivetheclimb.Iftheycansucceed,itwillbenefitusall.

TWENTYQUESTIONSTeamscomposealargepartofourprivateandpubliclives.Wedependonthemforbothoursuccessandourhappiness.Isn’titoddhowlittlescrutinywegivethem?Theteamsthatmakeupourlivesarecreatedmostlybyluck,happenstance,orcircumstance—butrarelybydesign.

Success by serendipity is risky enough in the small matters of our life—a bowling team, theleadershipofaneighborhoodgroup,aholidaypartycommittee.Butitcanbedownrightdangerouswhen it comes to actions bymajor corporations, nonprofit institutions, and governments. No onewouldlaunchabillion-dollarproductintotheglobalmarketplacewithoutmonthsofproducttesting,

customer polling, and analysis; or without establishing distribution and retail channels,marketingcampaigns, sales kits, and so forth.Yetwe are likely to place this entire project in the hands of aleadershipteamthat,rightfromthestartandbyitsverynature,isdoomedtofailure.

Aswe’llshowinthechaptersthatfollow,theplanningforanddesigningofgreatteamsnolongerhavetobeablackart.Tohelpyougetstartedthinkingdifferently,perhapsevenmorescientifically,herearetwentyquestionsyououghttobeaskingabouttheteamsyoumanageandthosetowhichyoubelong:

1. Is your organization, and the teams that compose it, up to the challenges they face in ahypercompetitiveglobaleconomy?

2. Ifnot,istheresomewaytoaccelerateyourunderstandingofteams?3. Canyouapplythatnewknowledgeinawaythatletsyoubuildteamsbothfastandappropriately

fortheever-changingchallengesthatfaceyou?4. Canyoufindtherightteamattherightmoment?5. Can you identify the right moment when one team needs to be dissolved to create another,

perhapsinaverydifferentform?

These first five are not idle questions.They are very real and their implications are imminent.Everyorganizationyouareapartofiscomposedofteams,andeveryoneofthoseteamsiscurrentlyatsomepointinitslifecycle.Someofthoseteamsareclearlydysfunctional;othersaresuboptimalintheir performance; and still others are approaching the end of their usefulness. Even great teamsaren’talwaysbeingchallengedtodoallthattheyarecapableofdoing.

6. Ifthefateofyourorganizationdependedonit,couldyouidentifythosegreatteams?7. Doyouknowhowtostaffateamforaspecifictask?8. Ifyouwereassignedthetaskofreorganizingthesubparteamstoensuretheirtopperformance,

wouldyouknowhowtodoit?9. Wouldyouevenknowwheretostart?10. By the same token, if you were to look at the top-performing teams in your company—in

management, manufacturing, R&D, sales—would you be able to identify which ones werereachingtheendoftheirlifespan?

11. Wouldyouhavethecouragetoshutthemdown?12. Would you know how to handle that retirementwithout creating acrimony and killingmorale

amongsomeofyourmosttalentedemployees?13. Wouldyouknowhowtorecomposeareplacementteamtobejustaseffectiveandwithoutlosing

anytime?

Thirteen,andwe’veonlyjustbegun!Thosewerequestionsaboutyourownskillsincreatingandmanagingteams.Herearesomequestionsaboutyourorganization’scapabilitiesthatyouhavelikelyneverconsidered:

14. Canyourcompany’steamsstayaheadofthechangesaffectingyourindustryandcustomers?15. Areyour teamsable toanticipateandrespond tosuddendisruptions in technology,economics,

andcustomerbehavior?16. Areyourteamsleveragingglobalismandmulticulturalvaluesasstrengths?17. Ismobiletechnologyhelpingorhurtingyourteam’sperformance?Howareyouperformingin

thisarearelativetoyourcompetition?18. Areyourteams’missionsandvaluesbeingsupportedorundercutbysocialmedia?19. Doyouhavetherightpeopleintherightpositionsintherightteams?

Last but not least, here’s a question that almost no one asks and even fewer organizations getright:

20. Areyourteamstherightsizeforthejob?

Thegoalofthisbookistohelpyouanswerallofthesequestions—andmore.Andtohelpyoudoso,we’ve brought together acquiredwisdom that is as old as humankind, alongwith some of thelatestandmoststunningresearchjustnowemergingfromthebrand-newfieldofsocialneuroscience.Manyofthesefindingswillsurpriseyouandchallengeyourprejudices.Weguaranteetheywillmakeyouabettermanagerofteams.

SOMESURPRISINGNEWTRUTHSAsapreviewofwhatistocome,herearesomeoftheideaswewillexplorethatcontainsurprisingtruthsaboutteams:

• Whatsciencesaysaboutracialandgenderdiversity.Warning:it’sprovocative.• Whycognitivediversityyieldsthehighestperformancegains—butonlyifyouunderstandwhatit

is.• Howtofindthe“blisspoint”inteamintimacy—andbecomethreetimesmoreproductive.• Whytoomuchconformitywillkillyou—aswilltoolittle.• Howtocreate“whole-brainteams”withtherightamountof“creativeabrasion.”• Howtoidentifydestructiveteammembersbeforetheyharmyou.• Why small teams are 40 percent more likely to create a successful breakthrough than a solo

genius.• Whygroupsof7(plusorminus2),150,and1,500aremagicsizesforteams.• Whyeverythingyouknowaboutperformancecompensationisprobablywrong.• Howtokeepasuccessfulteamfreshandwhentobreakupteams.• Howtoidentifytheonepersonyoushouldneverlayoffwhendownsizing.

All that we ask is that you keep an openmind as you read the pages to come. Some of thesetheories anddiscoveriesmay seemcounterintuitive, at least, andperhaps even impossible, the firsttime you encounter them.We felt the sameway.But if you look back into your life youwill findsuccessfulteamexperiencesthat,atfirstencounter,seemedequallyunlikely.

Forexample,ifyoutookpartinsports,youprobablyplayedatleastonceforateamthatlookedgreatonpaper,buton the field justnevermeshed—and fell far shortof itspotential.On theotherhand,youmayhavebeenassignedapartnerincollegeoronthejobwithwhomyouhadnothingincommon,whosepersonalitywas incompatiblewithyours, andwithwhomyou sharedno skills orexperience.Yetthetwoofyouprovedtobesurprisinglyproductive.Howdidthathappen?

And how many times were you part of a team that did well—until the wrong members wererewarded—or that continued tooperate longafteryouandyour teammates stopped respectingone

another?And,ofcourse,howmanytimeshaveyoubeenpartofateamthatwouldhavebeenperfectifyouhadjustkickedoutthatonepersonwhowasadestructiveforce?

TEAMS:TOMORROW’SNEWPERFORMANCELEVERWebeginbyofferingfourimperativesthateveryleadermustrecognize:

First,yourteamsmustbecapableofsurvivingwhatevertoday’sbrutaleconomythrowsintheirpath.Indeed,today’steamswillhavetobeabletosurviveontheirown,oftenwithlittlesupportfromheadquarters.Theywillhavetotakeseriousrisksandmakedecisions,sometimesfatefulones,veryquickly.

Second,yourteamsmustbedesignedtoworkwith,notagainst,yourmembers’brainstructures.Why?It’stheoldestreasonofall,onewe’velongsuspectedbutonlyrecentlyprovedscientifically:Humansaregeneticallywiredforteams.Thisisthemessageemergingfromthelatestbrainresearch.What’smore,asmanyofuslearnedaschildren,beingonateamcanrewireourbrainsandmakeusbetter as people. In other words, we are meant to be part of teams. This imperative is not someexternalsocialconstruct,butaninnatepartofwhoweare.

Third,your teamsmustbegiven thesupport theyneed toreach their fullpotential—rather thanputtingtoomuchfaithinanyoneindividualinyourorganization.Businesspeoplearoundtheworldshareacommonmisbelief.Itisonepromotedbythemediaforitsownreasons.Itisthis:thefaithinthepowerofsolitaryentrepreneurs,leaders,andtrendsetters.Confession:Bothauthorsofthisbookaremembersofthemedia,butwehavealsostartedcompaniesandservedonboardsofdirectors.Wecanstatewithauthority:Boardsandinvestorsalmostalwaysoverrateindividualgeniusandunderrategeniusteamcontribution.

Fourth, the sizeandcompositionofyour teamsmattergreatlywhen setting strategicgoals.Wewillshowyouthatwhenteamsfail,theyarealmostalwaystoobig.Wewillshowyouthatalargesizeironicallyworks against diversity, which itself is a very poorly understood concept.Wewill alsoarguethatmanyofthemostsuccessfulendeavorshavedependedonthesmallestteamsizeofall:thepair—acouplingthatoccursinmoreformsthanyoumayhaveeverimagined.

If thisbook teachesyounothingbut (1)how to thinkabout teamsize, and (2)how to staff andmanagefordiversity,youwillbepleasedandsowillwe.

Areyouuptoimprovingyourteammanagementskills?You’dbetterbe!Howyoubuild,manage,and reconfigure teams ina fast,disruptive,and turbulenteconomywillplayanever larger role inyoursuccessor failure.Toprepareourselves for theworld tocome in the restof thiscentury,weneedtofindthegeniusthatresidesingreatteams.

Itistimetorevisittheideaoftheteams—andnotjustinstoryandlore(andperhapsafewrulesofthumb).It’s timeto takea lookat teamssystematically,scientifically,using the latestdiscoveries inanthropology,sociology,cognition,andneuroscience.Toprepareourselvesfortheworldtocomeintherestofthiscentury,weneedtofindthegeniusthatresidesingreatteams.Andtodothat,weneedtodevelopanewscienceofteams.

ChangeKills—IfYouDon’tHavetheRightTeams

Talkingabout therapidpaceof technology-drivenchangehasbecomecommonplace.Thesedays,even schoolchildren are taught about the power ofMoore’s law, that measure of semiconductormemory chip development that has now become the metronome of the modern world. But ouracceptanceoftherealityofthischangedoesn’tnecessarilymeanthatweunderstandit,orthatwehavedevelopedeffective strategies tocopewith it. In fact, the realityof thisever-acceleratingchange isstrangerandmorechallengingthatwecanimagine.

GordonMoore, a cofounder of Fairchild Semiconductor (and later of IntelCorporation), firstdevisedhislawin1965inanarticleforElectronicsmagazine.ThepointMoorewantedtomakewasthatmemorychips,inventedjustafewyearsbefore,wereimprovingatadizzyingspeed.Hetriedtoplot their price and performance points on regular graph paper, but they took off too fast, so heswitchedtologarithmicgraphpaper(thatis,toshowexponentialgrowth),andhegotanicestraightandshallowline.Itshowedthattheperformanceofthesechipswasdoublingeverycoupleofyears(eighteenmonthsatthetime,twenty-fourmonthsnow).

It was an impressive graph, but no one then, not evenMoore, realized that this graph wouldcontinue toholdfor fiftyyears andset theblisteringpaceofchange for themodernworld.Weallnow live in theworld ofMoore’s law, andwe likelywill for at least another quarter century. It’sinterestingtonotehowshallowthatcurveisforthefirstfortyyears,untilabout2005.Yetalongthatcomparativelyflatcurvecanbefoundthebirthsoftheminicomputer,themicroprocessor,thedigitalcalculator, computer gaming, the personal computer, the Internet, robotics,wireless telephony, thesmartphone,andelectroniccommerce.After2005,asweracetowardtwenty-fivebilliontransistorsperchip,thecurvegoesalmoststraightup,headingtowardinfinity.Arewereallypreparedforthis?If the entire digital age occurred in the foothills, what happens now that we are entering theHimalayas?

WehavegrownsoaccustomedtolivingintheworldofMoore’slawthatweforgetwe’redealingwithoneofthemostexplosiveforcesinhistory.We’vebecomesoadeptatpredicting,incorporating,and assimilating each new upward click of the curve that we assumewe have thismonster undercontrol.Wedon’t.

There is a second great exponential law that has emerged out of the digital world to redefinemodern life:Metcalfe’s law. It says that the value of a network is proportional to the square (or asimilarmultiple)ofthenumberofusers.Inotherwords,eachnewadditionaddsvaluetotheWeboutoftheusualproportiontoitspresence.AndwiththeemergingInternetofThings,those“users”maysooninclude100billionnewsmartdevicesaswell—sensors,cameras,robots,drones,andthelike.Asfarbackas2005,Google’sCEO,EricSchmidt,estimatedtheInternet’sdatasizetobe5million

terabytes (that’s eighteen zeros).1 Today, the Internet is 60,000 times larger, at 300 exabytes. JohnChambers,CEOofCisco, says the “Internet ofEverything” isworth $14.4 trillion, growingmorethan20percentperyear.

But,aswithMoore’slaw,theexponentialimplicationsofMetcalfe’slawarelessnoticed.Fifteenyears ago, about a billion people regularly jumped onto theWeb. Even then, that number alreadymade the Internet the largestmarket inhumanhistory.But thatwas just thebeginning.Asof2010,another billion people had joined the global marketplace. By 2012, 2.5 billion people around theworldhadjoinedtheglobal,Internet-basedmarketplace.2Todaythatnumberlikelyexceeds3billion.Andthatnumberhasyettoincludethosescoresofbillionsofsensorsandsmartdevicesthatwillalsosoon be joining the Internet. Thus, according to Metcalfe’s law, the number of possible digitalconnections among people and sensors will grow into the trillions times trillions—a practicalinfinity.

Butjuststickingtohumans,wefindthatthethirdbillionisverydifferentfromthefirsttwo.Mostofthiscohortlivesinthedevelopingworldandprobablyinateemingmetropolisthatbarelyexistedtwentyyearsago.Theseusersmayneverseeanannualincomeofmorethanafewhundreddollarsperyear,andmayhaveneverdriveninanautomobile,muchlessflownonanairplane.Nonetheless,eveniftheyarejustsellingitemsoneBayfromacellphonerentedbytheminuteinacornerofsomeThirdWorldcity, theyareaddingvalue to theglobaleconomy. Just as important, theyarehelpingcreateyet onemorenewsubmarket in addition to themillions springingup throughout theworld.Evenindevelopedcountries,theInternet’scontributiontoglobalGNPisnow21percent,doublewhatitwasjustfiveyearsago.3Itisgrowingatanevenfasterpaceinthedevelopingworld.

Let’s keep going—because waiting out there is a fourth billion, about which we know almostnothing.They live in someof thepoorest andmost isolatedplaces in theworld,with little contactwitheventheproductsofthedevelopedworld—manyhaveneverusedmoneyorbeeninacar,andhave seen an airplane only from afar. But they will join the global economy when the planet iscompletely covered with wireless connectivity. They will do so through minutes rented on asmartphone offered from a cardboard hut on a corner in some teeming Third Worldsupermetropolis, or from one of the free phones handed out by the millions by the big telecomcompanieslookingfornewcustomers.

SoonthesethirdandfourthbillionswillbepartoftheInternet-basedglobaleconomy.Companies,desperate for theirbusinessand thebenefitsofMetcalfe’s law,willusecreativenewmeans toseekthem out and bring them onto the Web—even as the nature of that Web will be continuouslytransforming,thankstoMoore’slaw.

TWOLAWSBUTNOGUARANTEESSowheredoesthatleaveus?Massscaleand,withit,globalreach,willbeincrediblyvaluableinthetwenty-firstcentury.Butwilltheybeenoughtocapturethehugeopportunitiesofferedbythethirdandfourthbillions?Ourconclusion:no.That’sbecausescaleandreacharerapidlybeingcommoditized.Youcanbeasmallcompany,andyouropportunitiestomakeproductsandserviceswithlarge-scaleefficiencyarebetterthanever—andwillbecomebetteryetinthefuture.AcrucialunderstandingofMoore’slawisthatitcreatesexcesscapacity—andnotjustintheworldofelectronics.Forinstance,extremelyprecisehorizontaldrillingfarbeneaththeearth’ssurfacemakesitpossibletotapnewoilsourcestrappedinshalerock.Thislevelofprecisionismadepossiblebyadvancedelectronics,itself

madepossiblebyMoore’s law.As theoilbillionaireT.BoonePickens toldForbes, “Youcandrilltwomilesdown,takearightturn,drillanothertwomiles,andpickthelocktosomeone’sfrontdoor.That’showpreciseitis.”4Moore’slaw,then,describesatendencytocreateexcesscapacitynotjustofelectronicchipsbutofoil,factories,shipping—everything.

As for global reach, youmight wish you had a billion-dollar advertising budget to reach theglobalmarketplace.Butnobudgetswillbelargeenoughinthefuture,becauseofourotherfriend,Metcalfe’slaw,whichdescribestheexponentialcreationofanearinfinitenumberofconnectionsandways to reach customers. Fast-moving small companies can findmore niches and customers thanever.Thesameistrueoftechnologypower.Thecloudisrapidlycommoditizingtheavailabilityoftop-classtechnology.Youdon’thavetobuyequipmentfromIBM;youcanrentitbythesecondfromAmazon,Alibaba,Google,Microsoft,andothers.

Ourpointistoshowyouthatalthoughaccesstoscale,globalreach,andpowerfultechnologyisarequirementforsuccess,itisnotsufficienttocreatesustainedsuccess.Itisbeingcommoditized.Itislosingitsformerstatusasabarriertoentry.Itisbecoming,aspokerplayersliketosay,meretablestakesinthegameofeconomiccompetition.Instead,itismaneuverabilitythatwillbethenewbarrierto entry, the new essential for sustained rising value. Such maneuverability will come from thecombinationofglobalreach,greattechnology,andhighlyoptimizedteams—teamgenius,aswecallit.

Here is the uncomfortable truth: Humans run to a much slower evolutionary clock than ourinventions.Touseanengineeringterm,wearethe“gatingfactor”thatkeepsaprocessfromrunningfaster.Itispeople,notscaleortechnology,whodeterminehowwellanorganizationadaptstochange.

So, whether we know it or not, the difference in our rapidly accelerating world between aperpetuallysuccessfulenterpriseandastruggling,dysfunctionalalso-rancomesdowntothepeopleinthoseenterprises—andevenmore,tohowthosepeoplerelatetoeachotherastheyformandre-formintoteams.

Thus, even as the companies that expand their reach around theworld grow bigger andmoreambitiousintheirvision,theywill,paradoxically,alsohavetobecomesmallerandmorefocusedintheirexecution.And,contrarytowhatmanybusinessprognosticatorshaveassumedforthelasthalfcentury,themoregigantictheenterpriseandthemorevirtualandwireditbecomes,themorelikelythatitwillbedependentondozens,hundreds,eventhousands,ofsmall,closelyknitinternalteams.

That’swhy,atthenexusoftwoalmostunprecedentedforcesinhumanhistory—theunrelenting,exponentialadvanceoftechnologicalperformance(speed),andtheexplosionofnewconnectionsintheglobalmarketplace(reach)—oneoftheoldesthumanculturalphenomena,theteam,findsitselfasvitalaseverbefore.

MASTERINGMANEUVERABILITYBothoftheauthorsofthisbookknewBillWalsh,thegreatSanFrancisco49ersfootballcoachofthe1980s.Walshwon threeSuperBowlsand lefthis successorwitha team thatwon twomore.Walshdied in 2007, but his playbook and team innovations redefined professional football for twogenerations.

WeonceaskedCoachWalshwhyhedraftedJerryRice,alittle-knownwidereceiveroutoftinyMississippiValleyStateUniversity.RicewentontobecometheNationalFootballLeague’sall-timescorer.Butin1985,WalshwasaloneamongscoutsandcoachesinperceivingRice’struepotentialas

afutureHallofFamer.“RicewasconsideredtobetooslowforNFLgreatness,”explainedWalsh.“Histimeintheforty-

yarddashwasonly4.7.MostgreatNFL receivers run4.4or faster.Butwhenyou studied the filmfromRice’scollegegames,yousawtwothingsdifferentaboutRice.One,hecouldturnonadime.Hecouldrunsidewaysfaster thananyoneI’dseen.Hismaneuverability leftdefenderswonderingwhathappened.Two,Ricealwaysfinishedhispassroutewithinonefootofwhereheneededtobe.LikehehadaGPSinhishead.[Quarterbacks]JoeMontanaandSteveYoungcouldcountonhim.”

Rice’sabilitiesgiveusan insight intosuccess in themoderneconomybeyondscale,reach,andspeed.Intoday’seconomy,itisessentialtobemaneuverable.

Maneuverability is more than rapid evolution. Sometimes even that is too slow. Rather,maneuverability is the capacity to turn, even reverse direction, quickly, to deal competently withwhatever new change—technology, market opportunity, or competition—has just burst onto thescene, and to do so without losing internal cohesion and breaking up. This is a challenge facingalmostallinstitutions,fromsmallretailerstothegovernmentsofgreatnationsaroundtheworld.

The exponential forces at work in today’s culture and economy reward winners quickly andpunishlosersmercilessly.Overhereyou’llfindaresurgentApple,butoverthereissad,oldEastmanKodak.Germanyontheonehand,Greeceontheother.SouthKoreaandNorthKorea,SiliconValleyandDetroit.Asthisbookgoestopress,prosperityandfutilityarebeingsortedoutmoreswiftly,anddispersed more unevenly, than at any other period in our lifetimes.Whether the global economyimprovesorworsens,thisnewunevennessisheretostay.

History,ofcourse,isfilledwithstoriesofmaneuverableteamssomehowsurvivinginincrediblydangerous situations—and even triumphing—against almost impossible odds. Xenophon’s march,Magellan’s and Cook’s voyages,Marco Polo’s journey to the East, Cortés and Pizarro, Stanley’ssearchforLivingstone,theBolsheviks,Shackleton’sexpedition,Apollo13.Thereareamultitudeofsuchstories,andnodoubtthousandsmorethatwereneverrecorded,suchastheinhabitationoftheSouthPacificislands,thefirstexplorationofNorthAmericaacrosstheBeringlandbridge,and,mostimportant of all, the survival of those few families of early humans whomanaged to avoid nearextinctiononthenortherncoastofAfricaandgavebirthtomodernhumankind.

Whatdoesthismeanforthoseofuswholeadbusinessesandorganizations?Wherewillwefindmaneuverability?One answer, and one that seems counterintuitive at first glance, is structure. Thesize andcompositionof themost successful teamsmatch archetypes that are asold ashumankind,whichsuggests(aswe’llseeinlaterchapters)thatthereisakindoforganicstrengthandstabilitytothese structures that cannot be matched by other, synthetic groupings—much less by very largeorganizations.

Stabilityenablestheseteamstomovewithacommonpurpose,sometimesevenwhenasituationdemandsthatateammoveinadifferentdirectionthantheoneforwhichitwascreated.TheSiliconValleylegendsBillHewlettandDavidPackardpursuedbowlingpinresetters,automaticflushurinals,andotherfailedideasbeforetheylituponHewlett’soldgradschoolproject,theaudiooscillator.JimClark,MarcAndreessen,andtheotherfoundersofNetscapewereoriginallyplanningtogointothecomputergamebusiness.Googlewas foundedwithnocluewhatsoeveraboutadvertising.Amazonlaunchedbysellingbooks toconsumers,notcloudservices tobusinesses.WhoknewApplewouldbecomeagiant inmusic?Organizations lackingmaneuverability find suchmoves—almost secondnaturetoproperteams—almostimpossibletoexecute.

That’snottosaythatolderandlargerorganizationscannotmaneuvereffectivelyandevenmakestunningreversalsindirection.Butitisexceedinglyrare.Anditalmostneverhappensunlessasmall,

cohesiveteamisfoundatthecenterortopofthatorganizationandisendowedwithtwoothercrucialfactors:thepowertoexecuteitsdecisionsacrosstheentireorganization,andthetrustofitsplayersintheperipheryaroundthatteam.Indeed,eventhelargestorganizationscanmaneuverwidelyandwithstunning speed in the face of rapid change if they are built out of genius teams in support of anempoweredleadership.

APPLE’SCOMEBACKOneofthegreatestexamplesinbusinesshistoryofalargeorganization’smaneuverabilitytookplacerightbeforeoureyes:AppleInc.InSeptember2002,Apple’sfuturewasthoughttobesobleak,youcouldbuysharesinAppleComputeratapricethatvalueditsoperatingenterpriseatlessthanzero.Whatyouwerebuying,ifyouhadbeensobold,wasApple’scashreservesof$5billion.Beyondthat,youwerebuyingaprayerthatApplecoulddosomethingwiththatcash.

Remember, this was five years after the return of Steve Jobs. Contrary to myth, Jobs did notimmediately turn aroundApple’s dismal fortunes.Yet just one decade later,Applewould drop the“Computer” from its name but win the world. It would become the richest company on earth inSeptember2012,valuedat$656billion.

Meanwhile,duringthatdecadeofApple’sextraordinaryascent,othergreatAmericancompanies,stalwartsofreliablebusinesssuccess,faredpoorly.AmongthemwerePacificGas&Electric,Enron,WorldCom,Tyco,AdelphiaCommunications,USAirways,TrumpEntertainmentResorts,NorthwestAirlines, Lehman Brothers, Washington Mutual, Chrysler, and General Motors. Thus, even whileApple prospered, a greater number of American companies went bankrupt or out of businessaltogetherthaninanydecadeinthecountry’shistory,includingduringtheGreatDepression.

How did Apple do it? Why did it succeed while its bigger and (initially) more successfulneighborsfaltered?

The simple answer is that during this period Apple managed to introduce a series of fourmonumentalproductsandservices—theiPod,iTunes,theAppleStore,andtheiPhoneandiPad—thatcreatednotonlynewindustriesbutalsoentirelynewmultibillion-dollarmarketcategories.

To understand how Apple did this, we need to appreciate the real contributions of Apple’scofounderSteveJobs,whohadbeenoutof thecompany for twelveyears, andwho returnedat thebeginningof thishistoric era in the company’shistory. Itwas, in fact, awiser andmoreconfidentSteveJobswho tookcommandofApple for thesecond time in1997.And thoughhe remained thesamemercurial,rash,dangerouslyunpredictable,andimpetuousSteveJobswhohadbeendrivenoutofApplein1985,hehadlearnedtwoimportantpiecesofwisdomintheinterim:(1)Buildacompanythatrewardsriskratherthanpunishesit;and(2)Neverforgetthatallsuccessfulenterprises,nomatterhowbigandwealthy,areanaggregationofteams—largeandsmall,loyalandrenegade,stabilizingand anarchistic, from the lowliest engineers to executive row—all of themworking, sometimes inharmonyandsometimesatcross-purposes,towardthesuccessofthecompany.

Throughout Apple’s story, in good times and bad, freakishly great teams from the unlikeliestcorners of the company have arisen to play a crucial role in its future—and have often kept thecompany alive. They have come from design (the friendly competition between the Lisa andMacintosh teams), education (which gave the company a second chance when IBM captured thecorporatemarket),theAppleoperatingsystem(whichkeptusersloyalascompanyhardwaredeclinedinquality),andmarketingandadvertising(whichmaintainedtheJobsstyleafterhewasfired)...and

ultimatelytotheteamorganizedbyengineeringchiefJonRubinsteinthatdesignedandbuilttheiPodand set Apple off on its third era. Many of these teams operated independently from the largercorporation—andafewwereoutrightrenegades.Almosteveryoneshowedakindofgenius.

Ultimately, it was these teams that built the early Apple, held it together under second-ratemanagement through the hard times, and exploded with innovation in Apple’s resurrection andtriumph. So the question is, why were Apple’s teams, often with many of the same members, soeffectiveduringsomepartsoftheApplestoryandutterlyineffectualinothers?Threereasons:

Technology—Wheredid the flexibility and adaptability ofApple’s teams come from?From thetechnologyitself.Aswe’vealreadynoted,thepaceoftechnologicalchangeissofastthatifyoucanlatch on to it and hang on, itwill accelerate you past all traditional competition.Unfortunately, asmanycompanieshavelearnedto theirdismay,doingsoisa lotharder thanit looks.ButAppledidkeep up with Moore’s law. Because it incorporated the law (via microprocessors and the latestmemorymedia) into itsproducts, itbuilt rapidchangeinto itsculture,anditunleashedits teamstopursuethequickestpossiblepathstotheirgoals.

People—LikeGoogle,Facebook,andTwittertoday,Appleinitsfirsttwodecades(andinitsmostrecent decade) enjoyed an almost unmatched star quality—and it shrewdly used that charisma toattractthebestandbrightestyoungtalenttojoinitsranks.Butthat’stheeasiesthalfofthestory.Hotcompaniescanalwaysdrawtalent;therealchallengeiskeepingitwhentheexcitementends,thestockoptionshavebeenexercised,andtheculturalcachetfades.Applemanagedtocreatesuchapowerfulcultureinitsearlyyears—the“kool-aid”—thatitstillmanagedtoretainasurprisingnumberofthosetopemployeeswhentheexcitementfadedandApplesloggedthroughthedrearyearlynineties.TheywerestilltheretoleadthecompanywhenJobsreturned.

Risk—Steve Jobs’s greatest contribution to the resurrection of Apple was that he reinstilled acultureofriskwithinthecompanythathadbeenmissingforfifteenyearsunderhisreplacements.AtAppleinthetwenty-firstcentury,youwerepunishedfortakinginsufficientrisk—employeesquicklylearnedtoneverapproachJobswithacarefulplanoraconservativedesign.Itishardtoconveyjusthow rare such a risk-embracing culture really is in the corporate world. AndApple did it better,throughitsrisk-takingteamsguidedbyJobshimself,thananycompanyever.

Speed,people,andarisk-embracingculturewerejusttheingredients.WhatmadethemworkwastheirexpressionthroughApple’sarmyofestablished,loyal,andwell-composedteams.Thoseteams,inturn,feltunleashedtopursuetheirdestinies—andtoshowtheircommitmenttothecompany—withthe knowledge that their efforts, once again and at last, would be supported by the CEO himself.Together they enabled Apple to maneuver like no giant company ever had before. And for thatopportunity, theywerewilling even to labor in near anonymity and let thatCEO takemost of thecredit.

The result was historic. Unfortunately, the reality of howApple and Steve Jobs achieved suchastonishing results has been overshadowed by an irresistiblemyth that portrays Jobs as a brilliantlonewolf,executingonemiracleatAppleafteranother,asolitaryherofightingagainstthehigh-techstatusquo.Thereisalotoftruthtothatimage—exceptfortheword“solitary.”

Foronething,youcan’tignorethethousandsofAppleemployeeswhobroughttheirideastoJobs(hehadfeworiginalproductideasofhisown)andwho,oncetheygothissupport,madethoseideasreal. But more than that, a careful look at Jobs’s remarkable career shows that he almost neveroperatedsolo;therewasalwaysatleastonepartner,somefamousandothersallbutinvisible,whomhecoulduseasaresidentgenius,asarealitycheck,asaprotector,toexecutehisideasortocalmthechaosthatheoftenleftinhiswake.Infact,SteveJobscanbeseenasaserialpartner,pairingupwith

different business partners who best served each phase in his career: Apple’s cofounder SteveWozniak (“Woz”), chairmanMikeMarkkula, JohnSculley,BudTribble atNeXT, JohnLasseter atPixar.Someofthesepairingsworkedbrilliantly,forawhile;othersfailed,eitherbecauseJobschosesomeone too much like himself, or because he retained too much power and overwhelmed hiscounterpart.

But one of Jobs’s greatest strengths was his ability to learn, not least about himself and hisweaknesses.Thus,hislastchoiceforabusinesspartnerwasarguablyhisbest:Apple’sCOO(andnowCEO)TimCook,abusinesspartnerwhocompletedhisskills,andwhomhegrewtotrustcompletely.

Cook,acomputer industryveteranfromIBM,hadbeenhiredbyJobssoonafterhereturnedtoApple. It was a team pairing of opposites. Low-key, disciplined, and organized, Cookwas almosteverything Jobs was not. Better yet, Cook seemed to understand Jobs, creating an environment atApplethat,ontheonehand,kepthimawayfromthedailyfunctioningofthefirm,whileontheotherimplementedstructuresthatmadeAppleinstantlyresponsivetoJobs’slatestcreativeimpulse.

Finally, Cook had to accept that he would have to work almost anonymously and behind thescenes.That’sbecauseJobsalwaysinsistedthroughouthiscareer—bothbecauseitgavehimgreatercontroloverthecompanyandbecauseitreducedemployeeraiding—thathetakealmostallthecreditforthecompany’ssuccesses.Indeed,manypeoplestillbelievethatJobsinventedtheApplecomputer,theiPod,andtheiPhone—andevenmanyindustryveteranscan’ttellyouwhoactuallydid.Thetrade-offwasthatJobswasoftenintenselyloyalto,andrewardedwell,thosepeoplewhoacquiescedtothisarrangement.

TimCookwaswillingtolivewiththatarrangement.SteveJobsrewardedhimmorethananyonebyentrustinghimwithhiscompanyintheend.Together,theymadethemostpowerfulbusinesspair-teamoftheirgeneration.AndtheworldlearnedofitonlywhenJobsbecametoosicktocontinue.

RECONSIDERINGSTEVEJOBSThemoreyoustudythecareerofSteveJobs,themoreobviousitbecomesthatJobs,themostfamoussolobusinessmanofmoderntimes,waspartneredateverystepalongthewaywithanotherindividualor team,most of them all but unknown to the outsideworld. Further,when he teamed upwith thewrongpartners,hiscareerwentintoatailspin;andwhenhefoundtherightpartner—anindividualorateam—hesucceededbeyondanyone’sdreamsbuthisown.

We’vechosentodirectlyaddress thestoryofSteveJobsbecause,forbillionsofpeoplearoundtheworld,he is theveryembodimentof themaverickentrepreneurwhocastoffall tieswith thosearoundhimtotaketheunconventional,high-riskpathtoglory.Hissolitary,heroicimagestandsasarolemodel touncountedyoungentrepreneurs in thegenerations that have followedhim.He is theultimatecounterpointtoallofthosecompromising“teamplayers,”theworkadaydrudgeswhomustforever make nice to their coworkers; to all those mediocrities who are tied down by chains ofprofessionalcourtesy,friendship,andpartnership.

And yet in real life, Steve Jobs proved to be as dependent—indeed, evenmore dependent—asmost of us on those chains.And, rather than tie himdownor hold himback, the partnerships andteams in Jobs’s professional life (and in his personal life as well, but that is another story) werepreciselywhatliberatedhimtounleashhisgenius,whatempoweredhimtosuccessfullyrunApple,and,notleast,whatprotectedhimfromtheexcessesinhisbehavior.

IfthatistrueforSteveJobs,ofallpeople,whyisn’titalsothecaseforalmosteveryotherloner

wehonorinourculture?Mightitbethattheloneheroisactuallytheexception,andthetwo-or-more-person team the secret rule? Bill Gates?Well, he had Paul Allen, then Steve Ballmer. GE’s JackWelch? Numerous field generals. Facebook’sMark Zuckerberg? Sheryl Sandberg. Alibaba’s JackMa?JonathanLu.Invariably,whenyoulookbehindthegreatmanorwomanofindustry,youfindoneormoreotherkeyplayerswho,foronereasonoranother,stayintheshadows.

Finally,didSteveJobsseehimselfasalonehero?Perhaps,butit’shardtoignorewhathetold60Minutes:“MymodelforbusinessistheBeatles:Theywerefourguysthatkepteachother ’snegativetendencies in check; they balanced each other.And the totalwas greater than the sumof the parts.Greatthingsinbusinessareneverdonebyoneperson;theyaredonebyateamofpeople.”

TheMagicNumbersBehindTeams

Nowweturnourattentiontoanotherforcebehindthepowerofteams,whetherteamsfromahunter-gatherertribeofprehistoryortoday’sleading-edgetechnologystart-ups.Teams,itturnsout,arenotstrictlypracticalresponsestoimmediatechallengesandsituations.Teamsareat theheartofwhatitmeanstobehuman.

Putanotherway,ashumanbeings,wemustformteams.ItisencodedintoourDNA.Ithasprovedtobethecriticalfactorintheriseofcivilization.

Thehumandrivetoformteamsisalsoasurvivalmechanismforindividuals.Psychologistshavelong noted that solitary individuals, from hermits to unattached adults, typically have shorter lifespansthantheirmoresocial,matedcounterparts.

Thearchaeologicalevidencesuggeststhateventheearliesthominidsalwaysgroupedtogethertoliveandhunt.In1975,the2.3-million-year-oldremainsofwhatappearstohavebeenahuntingpartyofhominidswhodied togetherwere found inHadar,Ethiopia—suggesting that teamsexisted evenbefore the members were fully human. In the Omo Kibish dry lake bed a few miles away, theanthropologist Richard Leakey found the nearly 200,000-year-old remains of another group ofhumanswho,basedontheirtoolsandotherartifacts,livedtogetherasafamilygrouporasmalltribe.

Similarteambehaviorcanstillbefoundintheworld’ssurvivinghunter-gatherers.Forexample,the San Bushmen of the Kalahari almost always hunt in teams, not least because their primaryweapons(poisonedarrowsandspears)necessitatealongtimespenttrackinganddrivingtheirprey,sometimes requiringdaysofpursuitbymultiple trackers looking for signs.Theprey is large—anelandcanweighaton,anelephanttentimesthat—socanrarelybetakenbyasolitaryhunter.Whentheanimalisbutchered,multiplehandsareneededtotransportthemeat(andthenecessarycaloriesforthegroup’ssurvival)forwhatcanbemanymilesbacktothevillage.

This team hunting technique is at least as old as Neanderthals hunting mammoths, and likelymuch,mucholderthanthat.Itisalsoasrecentaslastnight’smilitarypatrolinawarzonesomewhereintheworld.

Theagriculturalrevolutiontookteams—andthedivisionoflabor—toanewlevel.Notonlyisitalmostimpossibletoconductplantingandharvestingasasolitaryfarmer,butwithoutasurroundinginfrastructuretoprocess,store,distribute,andtradethefruitsoftheharvest,thesystemjustdoesn’twork.Consider the special skills needed for a successful agricultural society: planting, harvesting,milling,baking,brewing,shippingandtrade,animalhusbandry,policingandprotection,adjudicationofdisputes,marketplacemanagement,building,taxation,anddistribution.

Withagriculture,webegantoneedthedifferentiatedskillsofourfellowhumanbeingsmorethanever.Thisdivisionoflabor,formedoutofaggregationsofsmallteams,isolderthanhumanhistory.

Babylon,thefirsttruecity,exhibitedallofthesecharacteristicssixthousandyearsago.Bythetimeofthe Sumerian, Egyptian, and Chinese civilizations, the process of division and aggregation hadalreadybecomehighlysophisticated.Thepharaohsruledageographicallyvastempireofmillionsofcitizensthroughlayersofbureaucracy,theirruleultimatelyreachingdowntosmallteamsmanningdistant and isolated outposts. The Egyptian army fought in a team structure, and it wasn’t anundifferentiatedmassofworkersandslaveswhobuiltthepyramids.

Whatiscrucialtonoteisthatthisdivisionhasneverstopped.Atnopointinthedevelopmentofcivilization, and across six millennia, have small, fundamental teams ever been abandoned asunnecessaryorobsolete.Rather,theyremainessentialbuildingblocksinthestructuresofever-largerinstitutions.Eventhelargesthumangroupingsevercreated—Xerxes’sPersianarmy,theSovietRedArmy inWorldWar II, China’s People’s LiberationArmy today, the RomanCatholic Church, themillionemployeesofWalmart—areaggregationsofanuncountednumberofsmallteamsmanagedbyanever-largersuperstructureoflargerteams.

Thus the modern army has its army groups, corps, divisions, battalions, and companies. Yetarmies still come down to teams, elements, and squads. Great corporations may have country orregionalorganizations,divisions,andoffices.Buttheytooultimatelydevolvetopartnerships,salesteams,departments,workgroups,andpairs.Thesameistrueforthegreatreligions(fromtheofficeofthepopetotheparishpriests)andnationalgovernments.

Overandover,thesizeandstructureoftheseteamsarerepeatedthroughhistory,betheyCaesar ’slegionsorIBM.

WHYDOTEAMSFORMTHEWAYTHEYDO?Thiskindofconsistencyanddurability,notjustintypebutalsoinform,throughthecourseofhumanhistorysuggeststhatsomethingmuchmorethanonlycoincidence—orevenpracticality—isatwork.It suggests something deeply human.With few exceptions, human beings don’t dowell alone.Wethrivewhileoperatingincertainorganizationalschemes.

Whyshouldthisbeso?Webelievethereareseveralexplanations.One is the nature of leadership itself. Researchers into the nature of leadership recognized

decadesagothateventhebestleadershavealimittotheirsuccessfulspanofcontrol,usuallysixtotenpeople—the number of individuals whom they can personally manage at the highest levels ofproductivity. Beyond that, even the most talented leaders simply don’t have enough intellectual,emotional, or temporal bandwidth to provide the requisite personal attention. Thus, smart leadersbegin to divide up their direct reports intomultiple teams, eachwith a subordinate emplaced andempoweredtoserveasthenewteamleader.

Asa result,multiplesof thisbasic spanofcontrol—withanyaddedcommandsuperstructure—consistentlyappearinlargerorganizationsthroughouttime.

Asecondforceatworkincreatingteamarchetypesisstructuralstability.Hereonecandrawananalogy with atomic theory. Certain molecules, particularly simple ones (atmospheric oxygen,cyanide,carbonmonoxide,benzene),areinherentlystableduetothenatureoftheiratomicbondsandtheirstructure.Othersaremuchmorevolatile(isotopes,ions,radioactiveelements,andsoforth)andunless constantly maintained in their unstable condition, they will quickly revert to more stablestructures.

Humanteamsexhibitthesamecombinationofstabilityandvolatility.Someteams,mostobviously

pairs,butalsolargegroupingssuchasthe150–160peopleinatypicaltribalvillage,areconsiderablystable.They are, in fact,what unstable teams typically collapse into.Pairs, of course, are themoststableofall,notjustbecauseoftheirsimplicity,butalsobecausetheymanifestthosemostbasicofallhuman relations: friendship and marriage. Living things have been genetically wired for pair-bondingeversincethefirstspeciesexhibitedsexualdifferentiationandmating.

But add a third team member and things become much more complicated—sometimes evenexplosive. Trios work, of course, but often it seems they do so only by serial pairing. After all,historydoesn’tshowmanytriumviratesandtroikas,especiallyamongrulers,thathavesurvivedforlong. Intelof the1970sand1980swasanotedexception,with its famous trinityofRobertNoyce,GordonMoore,andAndyGrove.Morerecently,Google’striumvirateofLarryPage,SergeyBrin,and Eric Schmidt has worked well. China’s telecom giant Huawei uses an office of three CEOs,rotatingeachforsix-monthstintsat the top.Stability isprovidedbehindthescenesbyitspress-shyfounder,RenZhengfei.Whentrioswork,it’sbecausetheirindividualmembers’skillsaresodifferentyet dovetail perfectly. Google’s cofounder Sergey Brin plays the role of futurist. His fellowcofounder,LarryPage,istheCEO.ChairmanEricSchmidt,fifteenyearsolderthantheothertwo,isthediplomaticambassador.

OPTIMALSIZEANDTHEMAGICFORCEBeyondthreemembers,thenextoptimalteamsizehasbeenthesubjectofconsiderabledebate.

Here’sSusanHeathfield,ahumanresourcesexpert:“So,optimumteamsizeisnotaneasyanswer.Fromexperienceandresearch,theoptimumteamsizeis5–7members.Theteamsizethatcontinuestofunctioneffectivelyis4–9members.Teamsareknowntofunctioncohesivelywithasizeupto12members.”1

Remember that two-million-plus-year-old hominid hunting team? Twelvemembers. The smalltribediscoveredbyLeakey?Twodozenmembers.Thissuggeststhatsmallteamsofaconsistentsizeare not only intrinsic to being human, but historically are among humanity’s most enduringcharacteristics. Even in the age of global wireless coverage and theWorldWideWeb, it’s hardlysurprisingthatsmallteamsaren’tgoingawayanytimesoon.Indeed,theywilllikelyremainintrinsictohumanbeingsaslongastherearehumanbeings.

Certainly,smallteamsareasimportantaseverinthemodern“huntingparty.”Initssmallestunits,theBritishArmyoperatesatthelimitsofHeathfield’snumbers,withasingle“fireteam”composedoffoursoldiers,anda“section”oftwofireteams—eightsoldiers—commandedbyacorporal.IntheUSArmy,asquadistwofireteamsoffourriflemenandastaffsergeantincommand,foratotalofnine;intheMarineCorps,itisthreefour-manfireteamswithamastersergeantcommanding,foratotal of thirteen. In real life, however, such as in Vietnam or World War II, attrition, delays inreplacements,andshortagesofpersonnelmeantthatthetypicalsquadwasalwaysshorttwoormoremembers. Comparable unit sizes can be found in armies throughout the world (for example, theRussianarmyunitisninemembers;theChinesePeople’sLiberationArmy,twelve).

Whythisparticularsize?We’vementionedthenormaleffectivespanofleadership.Buttherearemore everyday and pragmatic reasons as well. Once again, they are as old as human beings andcombat.Forexample,asquadwas thenumberofsoldierswhocouldeffectivelyhear theordersoftheircommanderintheclashofbattle.IntheRomanlegions,thesizeofasquad—eight—wasdefinedbythenumberofsoldierswhocouldshareastandardtent.

Two thousand years later, long after the constraints of tent size are gone and soldiers cancommunicate incombatvia radio toanaudienceofanysize, thesquad—thatbasicunitofmilitaryorganization—remains the samesize.This suggests a force fardeeper than traditionor immediatepracticalityatwork,butsomethingdeeplyhuman.Anyorganizationformingsmallteamsshouldbewaryofignoringthismagicforce.

WHYSEVENPEOPLEBEATAHUNDREDWhatisthatforce?Itmaybe,aswe’llinvestigateindepthinupcomingchapters,thattheverynatureof the human brain—in particular, short-term memory—revolves around what the psychologistGeorgeMillerfamouslycalled“themagicalnumberseven,plusorminustwo.”Thatis,humanshort-termmemoryiscapableofcapturingandbrieflyholdingbetweenfiveandnineitemsofinformation—forexample,zipcodes—andhasonlyalimitedrepertoireoftrickstoenhancethatpower(notably,“chunking”smallclustersofdata, suchas thewayweconceptualize telephonenumbersasa three-digitareacode,athree-digitlocalprefix,andafour-digitdirectnumberattheend).

Thattheoptimalsizeofsmallteamsisthesameastheeffectiverangeofshort-termmemoryinourbrainsisunlikelytobeacoincidence.Ourmindsseemtoworkbestinpairsandinthatzoneofsevenplus twoother entities.Below that, the teamoftendevolves intopairsor trios; above that, itmovestowardsplittingdowntothestablequintetorsextet.

It’snot surprising then that,whereveryouencounter small units and teamseven in themodernworld, they rarely deviate from the basic half dozen or the aggregated-dozen-member archetypes.Thisstrategyisasoldashistoryandasnewasthecreationofnewproductteamsatthemostcutting-edgetechnologycompanies.Here’stheCanadianteammanagementconsultantMishkinBerteigonthepriorityoftherightteamsize:

Imagine that you have just been “given” a software development group consisting of 100developers.Now imagine that you are given a really important project towork on.Whichwouldbebetter?

a.Getall100peopleworkingontheproject(withgoodprojectmanagement,leadership,etc.),or...

b.Find the7strongestpeople in thegroupwhoarewilling toworkon theproject (inotherwords, the seven strongestpeople that are actually interested in theproject) andget themworkingontheproject,firetherestofthem,andspendthesavingsongivingthe7peopletheabsolutebesttoolsandenvironmenttheyneedandwant,andspendingtheresttomakethemhappy/comfortable.

Personally,despitetheseverityofscenario(b),Iwoulddefinitelybetonitandnotonscenario(a).2

Thenotionofoptimal teamsizeshasgottenconsiderablesupport fromotherquarters,someofthemquiteunlikely.

For example, consider Parkinson’s law, first formulated in 1955 by theBritish naval historianCyrilNorthcoteParkinsoninanarticleintheEconomist.3Init,Parkinsonarguedforaruleaboutthebehavior of organizations—particularly government bureaucracies—that has now become part of

ourlanguage:

Workexpandssoastofillthetimeavailableforitscompletion.

Parkinsonwrotethearticleassatire,butitcapturedaprofoundtruthabouthumanorganizationalbehavior,andithasposedachallengetosociologistsandhumanresourcemanagerseversince.

Parkinsonevenproposedtworeasonsforthisphenomenon:4

• Anofficialwantstomultiplysubordinates,notrivals,and• Officialsmakeworkforeachother.

That’swhy,Parkinsonnoted,eventhoughtheBritishEmpirewasshrinkingrapidlyashewrotehisessay,thetotalnumberofpeopleemployedintheBritishgovernmenttomanagetheempirewasstillgrowingby5to7percentperyear“irrespectiveofanyvariationintheamountofwork(ifany)tobedone.”5

Besidesprovidingadevastatingindictmentofunconstrainedgovernmentgrowth,Parkinson’slawhad an interesting secondary effect: it forced social scientists, if they were to defeat the negativeimpactofthelaw,todeterminetherightnumberofbureaucratsforanygiventask.

Parkinson himself was fairly flexible. He believed that almost any team of fewer than twentymembers could bemade towork effectively, arguing that adding anymorememberswould, onceagain,devolve thegroup intomultiple smaller teams.Hedid,however,makeoneexception: inhisexperience,hesaid,a teamofeightmemberswouldnever reachaconsensusdecision—apparentlybecause(as4×4or23) therewasnotiebreaker.Thatwouldseemtocontradict theubiquitouseight-manmilitaryunits—untiloneremembers thestaffsergeantormastersergeant incommand,whosedecisionisfinal.

THEMYSTERYOFDUNBAR’S150AND1,500DrivenbythedemandsofParkinson’slaw,socialscientistsandanthropologistsfannedouttostudyeverything from factories to primitive tribes—and made some stunning discoveries. StudyingeverythingfromHutteritereligiouscommunitiestotheYanomamopeopleoftheBrazilianjungle,aswell as ethnographic literature, the British anthropologist Robin Dunbar discovered that the samehuman group sizes appear over and over.He called them “clusters of intimacy,” and he identified“cliques”offivepeople,“sympathygroups”oftwelvetofifteenpeople,and“bands”ofuptothirty-fivemembers.6

ButDunbar ’s biggest discovery, now named after him,was that there appeared to be an upperlimit to team size. Precisely: 147.8, normally rounded up, as the “Dunbar number,” to 150. It is anumberthatappearswithstunningregularity.Forexample,theYanomamopeoplehaveconsistentlyover thecenturiesdivided their tribeswhenever theyapproach200members.As for theHutterites,they long ago learned to split their colonieswhen their population reaches 150. In theDomesdayBook,theaveragesizeofWelshandBritishvillagesatthetimeoftheNormaninvasionwas...150residents.

Almosteverywhereyoulook,youcanfindtheDunbarnumber.Forhundredsofyears,thatbasicunit of almost every army in Western civilization, the company, has consisted of roughly 150

members. The likely number of “friends” you will have on Facebook or regular followers onTwitter?150to190.ThetotalpopulationofhouseholdstowhomBritssentChristmascardsin2000(thatis,beforeemailgreetings)?153.5.Dunbar ’sexplanation?Thefigureof150seemstorepresentthemaximumnumberofindividualswithwhomwecanhaveagenuinelysocialrelationship,thekindofrelationshipthatgoeswithknowingwhotheyareandhowtheyrelatetous.Toputitanotherway,it’sthetotalnumberofpeopleyouwouldnotfeelembarrassedaboutjoininguninvitedforadrinkifyouhappenedtobumpintothemindividuallyinabar.7

RobinDunbarhasn’tstoppedat150asanarchetypicalteamsize.ThereareotherDunbarnumbersaswell:

• 3 to 5: This is the circle of our very closest friends. Here Dunbar agrees with other socialscientists.

• 12to15:Thegroupoffriendsandfamilywhosedeathwewoulddeeplymourn.Again,Dunbaragreeswithotherresearchers.Healsoaddsaninterestingexampleofagroupofthissize,borninhistoricalexperience:juries.Thisgroupisalsoconnectedwiththenotionofdeep trust—that is,it’sthenumberofpeoplefromwhomyoucanacceptasmallamountofbetrayalwithoutseveringties.

• 50:This isanewnumber.Dunbarderives it,asusual, fromhistoricalsources; it is“the typicalovernightcampsizeamongtraditionalhunter-gatherersliketheAustralianAboriginalsortheSanBushmenofsouthernAfrica.”8

• 150:TheDunbarnumber.InthewordsofDaveSnowden,aWelshknowledgemanagementexpert,theDunbar number is “the number of identities that you canmaintain in your headwith somedegree of acquaintances that an individual canmaintain. It does not necessarily imply that youtrustthem,butitdoesmeanthatyoucanknowsomethingaboutthemandtheirbasiccapabilities.Inotherwordsyoucanmanageyourexpectationsoftheirperformanceandabilitiesindifferentcontextsandenvironments.”9

NotethatthesenaturalgroupsinDunbar ’stheoryseemtoscalebyafactorofthree.Todate,nooneseemstohavecomeupwithanexplanationforthisunderlyingmultiplier.

• 1,500:ThislargestDunbarnumberappearstobesomethingofanoutlier,oneforwhichDunbarhimselfdoesn’tseemtohaveanexplanation.Arethereoneortwostill-missingDunbarnumbersinbetweenthelasttwo,whosevalueandpurposeareasyetundiscovered?Dunbarhassuggestedthat there might be one at 500, which would correspond to the average person’s number ofacquaintances.Then comes this number, 1,500,which once again has a number of historic andcontemporaryexamplesandanunderlyinglinktobasichumanbehavior.

Intermsofexamples,1,500membersisroughlythesizeofalargemilitarybattalion,thesmallestunitcapableof independentoperation.It isalso,asDunbarhasnoted, theaveragesizeofa tribeinhunter-gatherer societies, and the number of people who speak the same language or dialect. Butperhapsthemostcommonandcompellingexampleoftheuseof1,500asalimitongroupsizecanbefoundinthecorporateworld.

Hewlett-PackardCo.inthe1950sand1960sissometimesdescribedasthegreatestcorporationofall time. It was as technologically innovative as Apple was fifty years later, it offered moreprogressive employee programs (stock options, profit sharing, flextime, and so forth) than any

companybeforeorsince,and—notsurprisingly—itsetrecordsforemployeehappinessandmoralethathaveneveragainbeenmatchedbyalargecorporation.

Interestingly, in 1957, as the company approached1,500 employees, the two founders began tosensethatsomethinghadchangedintheirrelationshiptootherHPers—andsomethingradicalhadtobedone.WroteDavidPackardinhisautobiography,TheHPWay,“It[was]increasinglydifficultforBillandmetoknoweverythingwellandtohaveapersonalknowledgeofeverythingthatwasgoingon.”SotheydecidedthatitwastimetobreakupHPfromamonolithiccompanyintoadivisionalone.BillHewlettsaid,“Outofthiscametheconceptthatwhatweshouldprobablydoisdivisionalize.Wehad[nearly]1,500peopleatthatpointandwethoughtitwastoobig.Bydividingupintotwoorthreesmallunits,wemightbeabletokeepthatpersonaltouch.”

From that day to the present, HP’s divisions have traditionally split upwhen they reach 1,500employees.ThatdecisioniscreditedwithmakingHewlett-Packardinthe1960sand1970soneofthemostnimble largecompaniesofall time.WhatBill andDavesensed intuitively,andexecutedwiththeir typical decisiveness, has been imitated by countless other companies in the years since. The1,500-employeedivisionisoneofthemostcommonorganizationsontheglobalbusinesslandscape.

WhatHewlett and Packard sensed on the ground has also been described byDunbar in humanterms:

Youhaveaninner,innercoreofintimatefriendsandrelations,ofaboutfive,andthenthere’sthenextlayerout,it’sabout15.Ifyouliketothinkofthoseasbestfriends,perhaps,they’rethepeopleyoumightdomostofyoursocialSaturdayeveningbarbequeswith,andthatofcourse,includesthefiveinside.Andthenthisnextlayeroutis50(youmightthinkofthoseasgoodfriends), and the 150, your friends. And then we know there are at least two more layersbeyondthat:oneat500whichyoumightthinkofasacquaintances,soagainthisisincludingeverybodywithinthe150aswell;finally,oneat1,500whoarebasicallythenumberoffacesyoucanputnamesto.10

WHATDAVIDPACKARDANDBILLHEWLETTKNEWAnotherwayoflookingatDunbarnumbersisthatfiveisthenumberofyourmostintimatefriendsandpartners (“clique”)and isanumber that,notcoincidentally, correspondswith the limitsofourshort-termmemory.Fifteenisthenumberofpeoplewithwhomwecanhavedeeptrustinthefaceofalmostanyturnofevents(“sympathygroup”).Fiftyisafamilialgrouping,asmalltribewithwhomwe can securely travel in dangerous country (“band”).One hundred fifty is the optimal size for agroupofpeoplelivingtogetherinacommunity(“friendshipgroup”);itcorrespondstothenumberofpeoplewhoseindividualcharacteristicsandbehaviorsthehumanbraincaneffectivelyremember.Fivehundredisthenumberofpeoplewithwhomwecanremainnoddingacquaintances(“tribe”).Andfifteenhundred is the limitofour long-termmemory, the totalnumberofpeople towhomwecanmentallyattachafaceifwehearhisorhername(“community”).

Whythislastnumber,1,500,worksisself-evident.Ifyouliveinacommunityof150people,youfeelprettycomfortablewalkingdownthestreet,becauseyouknoweveryonein town.Astranger—thatis,apotentialthreat—isinstantlyobvious.With500membersinthecommunity,thatcomfortisstrainedalittle,becauseyouarelikelytorunintopeoplewhomyouknowbuthaven’tspokentoinalongtime.Butstill,strangersstandout.Butwith1,500neighbors,thatcomfortends.Nowyoubegin

encounteringpeoplewhoyouarenotquitesureifyou’veevermetbefore...andtheworldsuddenlybecomesamuchriskierplace.

ForBillHewlettandDavePackard,thefirstthresholdwaspassedinthelate1940s,whentheyhadto end their traditionof personally handingoutChristmasbonus checks andgreeting everyonebyname.Bytheearly1950s,everyonewasstillinthesamebuildingcomplexonPageMillRoadinPaloAlto,but the twofoundersnowfoundthemselvesnoddingatemployeeswhosefaces theyknewbutcouldn’t name. The tipping point came in the late 1950s, whenBill andDave began encounteringemployeestheyhadneverseenbeforeandwhoseonlyproofofemploymentwastheirnamebadge.Andthat’swhentheymadetheirmove.

Bytheendofthe1980s,HPhadmorethanfortydivisions,allofthemconsistingofabout1,500employees—and was regularly creating new ones. The company even developed a standardarchitecturaldesignforitsdivisionalfacilities,accommodatingforamaximumcapacityof...1,500employees.

Othercorporations—inemulationofoneoftheworld’smostsuccessfulcompanies,orviatrialand error—soon found themselves replicating this model. The PC division of Sony in Japan, forexample, has 1,500 employees. Interestingly, but probably not coincidentally, 1,500 is usuallyconsidered the maximum employment of a medium-size company. And a surprising number ofcompanies—suchasFacebook,Google,andTwitter—hitthe1,500-employeemarkintheramp-uptotheirinitialpublicoffering...suggestingthattheremaybeanevendeeperlinkbetweengoingpublic,with the inevitable transformation in employment that takes place inside a company betweenemployees of a private versus a public firm, and the boundaries of a natural community. Manyemployees of private firms remark, oftenwith despair, that their “company is no longer the sameplace” after the IPO, that it is no longer abig “familybut nowan anonymousorganization that isfillednotwithtruebelieversbutwithsalarymenandwomenintentontheirbenefitsandrésumés.”

THEHARDMATHOFIMPOSSIBLECONNECTIVITYBeforewecloseoutthissectionaboutthemanifoldforcesatworkinmakingteamsofcertainsizesboth inevitable anddesirable, there is one last structural force, beyondgenetics, that appears tobedrivingthecreationofteams.Itisthemathematicsofnetworks.

ThereasontheInternetissopowerful—andMetcalfe’slaw,asdiscussedinchapter1,souseful—is that each new user arriving on theWeb doesn’t just add his or her solitary new node, but thebillionsofnewconnectionsthatarethencreated.Tounderstandthemagnitudeofthiseffect,let’slookatthesmallestnumberofconnectionsinateamandprogressforward,showingthetotalnumberofconnections:

2members=1connection3members=3connections4members=6connections5members=10connections6members=15connections16members=120connections32members=496connections

Notice thatafter the low-digitnumbers, theequationsettlesdowntoN(N−1)/z,whereN is thenumberof teammembers.Thesheercomplexityof thenetworkgrowsmuch,much faster than thenumber of team members does (at the Dunbar number of 1,500, the number of interconnectionsreaches1,124,250).

And that creates an obvious problem. Human beings can handle, much less maintain, onlycomparatively small numbers of connections. That’s why relationships degrade so quickly as thenumberofteammembersgrows.Mostofusareprettygoodatremainingincontactwithfiveorsixotherpeopleonaconstantbasis.Butdoingsoisawholelottougherwithadozenormore.Atfifty?Not even those rare individualswith a photographicmemory for faces andnames can still stay intouchwiththeteaminthesamewayastheydidwithahalfdozenothers.Evenwiththetoolsofsocialnetworks,texting,wideareanetworking,andglobalwirelesstelecom,westilldon’thavethetimeorthebandwidthtocontinuouslymaintainhundredsorthousandsofclosepersonalconnections.

That’swhybiggerteamsalmostnevercorrelatetoagreaterchanceofsuccess.ThenotedHarvardpsychologist J. RichardHackman once said, “Big teams usuallywind up justwasting everybody’stime.”11Heexplainedthat

[the]fallacyisthatbiggerteamsarebetterthansmallonesbecausetheyhavemoreresourcestodrawupon.AcolleagueandIoncedidsomeresearchshowingthatasateamgetsbigger,the number of links that need to bemanaged amongmembers goes up at an accelerating,almostexponentialrate.It’smanagingthelinksbetweenmembersthatgetsteamsintotrouble.My ruleof thumb isnodoubledigits. Inmycourses, Ineverallow teamsofmore than sixstudents.Bigteamsusuallywindupjustwastingeverybody’stime.That’swhyhavingahugesenior leadership team—say, one that includes all theCEO’s direct reports—may beworsethanhavingnoteamatall.12

We are driven not only by biology to form teams of certain predetermined sizes but also bymathematics—or more precisely, combinatorics—to choose the smaller of those sizes wheneverpossible.And,conversely,combinatoricsdrivesthequalityoftherelationshipsinteamstodegradesoquicklyfromcloseacquaintancetomererecognition.

Italsoexplainswhy,aswehaveseenoverandoveragaininrecentyears,companiesandotherinstitutions can spend fortunes on the hottest and coolest new information tools and the latest newmanagementtechniquesonlytoendupevenlesscompetitive.Toooften,eventhemostambitiousandenlightenedschemescrashon therockyshoreofhumannature—that is,whateverotheradvantagestheseschemesenjoy,theyhavefailedtobuildtheappropriateteamstoemploytheirstrengths.

FROMTEAMARTTOTEAMSCIENCEIf the laws of networking constrain the behavior of human teams, the reality of networks—particularlytheInternet—mayhelpusconstructthemmoreefficientlythaneverbefore.

One of the most compelling new industries created by the intersection of the Internet, sensortechnology,andsoftwareanalyticsisBigData.

Though Big Data has lately suffered the overhyping that comes with any powerful newtechnology,therealityisthatitrepresentsarevolutionarynewapproachtoourwaysoflookingatthenaturalworld.Inparticular,itsignalstheendofsampling.Historically,becausemeasuringallcases

ofaparticularphenomenonwasallbutimpossible,humansdevelopedthescienceofstatistics:thatis,taking samples and then using mathematical tools to measure correlation and chance of error,blowinguptheresultstocoverallcases.

BigDataturnsthisupsidedown.Usingeverythingfromhigh-resolutionsatelliteimagerytotinysemiconductorsensorstothecloud-basedcollectionofmillionsofdailytransactions,wenowfinditpossibleforthefirsttimetomeasureeverything—everyfishpassingapointintheocean,everytreeintheAmazon,everypurchasemadeateveryWalmart,everysteptakenbyeveryshopperinaretailmall...andsoon,everygustofwindonearth,andeverybloodcellinourbodies.

Evenbetter, all of thesemountainsof rawdata, includingmetadata, canbe crunched, using thelatestcomputer-basedanalyticaltoolstodiscovertruthsaboutthenaturalworld(forexample,long-term trends in climate, animal species, human behavior, and epidemiology), and nonintuitiveconnections(forexample,theconnectionbetweenchildhoodbehaviorandcancersixtyyearsintothefuture)neverbeforeevenimagined.

One of the most interesting consequences of the Big Data revolution is its ability to conductmassivesearches,usingmultiplecharacteristics.Notsurprisingly,thisabilityhasearnedconsiderableattentioninthecommercialworld.

In particular, a brand-new industry has sprung up to useBigData to aid in the hiring process.CorporationsandgovernmentagenciesnowcontractBigDatafirmstolookforthebestcandidateforapositionbynot justdoingaglobalsearchbutalsobygatheringandprocessinghugeamountsofavailableinformationaboutindividuals—fromschoolgradestopersonalityteststopastperformance—to determine the very best fit for the job.Begun just a few years ago, this industry has alreadygrowntoabillion-dollarsize...notsurprisingly,asthevalueoftheperfectcandidateforagivenjobismanytimesthatofrollingthediceonanewhireafteracoupleofinterviews.

“Recruiters and hiringmanagers rely heavily on instincts, hunches andmemory to choose therightcandidates,”saidMarkNewman,theCEOofHireVue,toForbesin2014.“Butthereisn’talotofdata tohelp thempredictwhowillbecomea topperformer,ordecidewhoshouldbe interviewingcandidates.”TheWallStreetJournalandEntrepreneurmagazineransimilarstorieshailingthebrightnewdawnofalgorithmichiring.

ButasvaluableasusingBigData tohire individual employeescanbe—countus skeptical—itsvaluepalesagainst thevalueofawell-designed,high-functioning team.Thatsaid,untilnow, teamshavebynecessitylargelybeenrecruitedandformedbyhunch,intuition,andexperience,withlittletonoempiricalsupport.

Thatisabouttochange.

TheNewScienceofTeams

Thinkofallofthedysfunctionalorbarelyfunctionalteamsthatyouhaveknown—orworse,beenapartof—overthecourseofyourlife.Painfulmemories,aren’tthey?

Let’sgoinamorepleasantdirection.Thinkofthoseoneortwoteams—achildhoodsportsteam,a best friendship, a Scout patrol, a college study group, a department in your company—that justseemedtogel.Theteamyoufeltsomuchapartofthatitwaslikeanextensionofyourself.Ateamthataccomplished—andhelpedyouaccomplish—farmorethanyoueverthoughtpossible.Theteamthatremainstheidealagainstwhichyouhavejudgedallsubsequentteams.Theteamwhosemembersremainedfriendslongafteritstenureended.

Now imagine if every team of which you’ve been a member had been that successful, thatproductive, and that rewarding. Imagine you at your best, surrounded by teammates at their bests,sharingpersonalexperiencesthatwillberememberedfondlydecadeslater.

HARDWIREDTOWORKANDIMPROVETOGETHERThemost fundamentalquestionsonecanaskabout teamsare,Arehumanbeingsdesigned toworktogether?Andcaneachpersongrowandperformathisorherbestifproperlyfitintotherightteam?Someofthemostcompellingnewresearchinbrainscienceinthetwenty-firstcenturysaysyes.

Infact,thehumanbrainisevolutionarilydesignedsothatindividualscanadjusttooneanother ’sperspectivesandemotionsinordertoengageincooperativeactivity.1Suchadaptationdoesnotoccurat a “software” level; rather, as the noted psychologist Daniel Goleman has shown, humans areactuallywiredtoconnect.Thatis,whenweengagewithanotherperson,weare,infact,embarkingonanintimatebrain-to-brainconnectionwiththatperson.

Hintsof thedepthof that connectionpopup inour everyday language—for instance,whenwe“don’tlaughatsomeone,butwiththem”orwhenwesayweare“ofonemind”withanotherperson.The deeper that engagement—love, friendship, a partnership of complete trust—the greater thatrelationshipaffectsourbrainsandourwell-beingtothepointofactuallyactivatinggenescontrollingourimmunesystems.Thus,nourishingrelationshipsreallyarebeneficialforourhealth,whiletoxiconescanactuallybephysicallydestructive.

Wetendtothinkofourbrainsaspurethoughtandourbodiesasphysicalentities(exceptwhenwesufferaconcussionorendureahangover).Butinfact,ourbrainsmakeup2percentofourtotalbodyweight—the high relative number being one of those things that distinguish us from most otheranimals.Andthatbundleofnervecellsisespeciallyhungry:ourbrainsareresponsiblefor25percent

of our body’s total glucose use, 20 percent of its oxygen use, and 15 percent of our total cardiacoutput.2

Thishungerforfuel—whichwetypicallycredit to that thinandwrinkledbedsheet-size layerofcerebralcortexthatgivesushigherthinkingandconsciousness—alsoappearstocomefromourneedto socialize. Thus, the correlation between brain size and group complexity appears to be thestrongestforpair-bondinganimals.3

Onepopularexplanationforwhythisissoisthatteamworkmadeusthisway.Thisisthe“socialintelligencehypothesis,”whichstatesthatadvancedcognitiveabilitiessuchasthosefoundinhumansand other primates are a result of the selection pressures from the varied demands of their socialinteractions.Inotherwords,wehavebigbrainsbecauseenvironmentalforces—huntingontheveldt,near-extinctionevents,theIceAges—inourdistanthistoryforcedustoworktogetherincomplicatedways.Ourlargebrainsizeistheoutcomeofthatteamwork.4

Simulationexperiments conductedby theevolutionarymicrobiologistLukeMcNallyofTrinityCollege Dublin and his team found that when groups were faced with cooperative problems,organismsinvariablyselectedforgreatercognitiveabilities.5Inotherwords,we’resmarterpreciselybecausewehadtoworktogether.

Thisfindingissoimportantthatwewanttogiveyouabitmoredetailonhowtheexperimentwasconducted.Thesimulation,doneoncomputers,beganwithfiftysimple“brains,”eachwith threetosixneurons.Eachbrainchallengedtheotherstoaclassichumansocialinteractionscenario:eithertheprisoner ’sdilemma(eachindividual,withoutanyinformation,eitherhastobetraytheothersortrustthem) or the snowdrift game (a.k.a. playing chicken to seewho swerves first). In otherwords, thebrainscouldeithercooperateorcheat.

The “brains” that did well in these games were then programmed to be more likely to haveoffspring—that is, “winner begets all.”After each game, the brains reproduced asexually. In thesenewgenerations,all thebrainshadachancetoundergoarandommutation, inamannersimilar toreallife,thatcouldchangethebrain’sstructureorthenumberorconnectivityofitsneurons.

Thesimulationranfor50,000generations(aboutasmanyaswe’vehadassomethingresemblinghumans). The slow transition to a more cooperative society resulted in the evolution of morecomplexbrains.Thus,teamshaveliterallyhelpedmakeuswhoweare.

Suchcooperativebehaviorwas induced in this experimentbyexternal forces (the researchers),butwhere, youmay ask, does cooperative behavior come from in nature?Now it gets evenmoreinteresting. It turns out that cooperative behavior appears everywhere among living things—fromgenes to multicellular organisms to societies.6 Some have even speculated that this cooperativebehavior may have been necessary for the emergence of all complex biological systems, fromgenomestotheglobalhumancommunity.7

But even if cooperative behavior is ubiquitous in the animal kingdom, this still doesn’t quiteexplainwhyitnotonlyexistsamonghumans,but—considernation-stateswithhundredsofmillionsofcitizens—isalmostunimaginablycomplex.

WHYWECOLLABORATEBEYONDKINOnelikelyexplanationforthedepthofcooperationfoundinhumansocietiesiskinrelations.Humanshave lived as foragers for 95 percent of their history—there is evidence of australopithecine kinbehavior dating back one million years. The simple answer is that people cooperated in hunter-

gatherergroupsbecausetheywererelatedtooneanother.But it turns out that this isn’t exactly correct: analyses of coresidence patterns in the

archaeologicalrecordhaverevealedthatkinrelationsweretoofewinhumanhunter-gatherergroupstohavebeenthedrivingforcefortheevolutionofhumancooperation.Inotherwords,thereweren’tenoughdistantcousinsinthesegroupstodriverealgeneticchange.Rather,ittooklargeinteractingnetworks of unrelated adults to evolve capacities for social learning—which in turn createdcumulativeculture.8

Theimplicationsofthisdiscoverygointwodirections.Thefirstisthat,perhapsfromthestart,humanbeings teamedupwithpeoplebeyond theirkin.And that in turnunderscores thenotion thatthosehumansdidn’thavetolearnhowtobringnonkinmembersintotheirteam,butthattheyalready,naturally,hadthatinclination.

Intheotherdirection,justwherethatinclinationcamefromisnotsoobvious.Forexample,inacomparativestudyofsequentialproblem-solvinggroups, researchersassembled teamsofcapuchinmonkeys,chimpanzees,andhumanchildren.Eachweregivenanexperimentalpuzzleboxthatcouldonly be solved in three stages.As an incentive, successful problem solverswere given ever-betterrewardstheclosertheygottowardthesolution.

So,whathappened?Well,eachmemberofthecapuchin(thelowerleveloftheintelligencescale)and the chimp (themiddle level) teams tried to solve the problemon its own.By comparison, thegroups of children worked as teams, teaching each other, exchanging advice, and sharing theirrewards.Themoretheycooperated,thebettertheydidatthetask.Indeed,byworkingtogether,manyoftheteamsofchildrenactuallysolvedtheirpuzzles.9

Asitturnsout,contrarytoamoreselfishnotionofhumankind—thatis,peopleareonlyinitforthemselves—cooperationmaybethedefaulttendencyinhumans,andself-interestmaybesomethingyouwillyourselftoward.Thispositionisunderscoredbytheresultsofso-calledresourceallocationexperiments inwhichsubjectsare forced tomakedecisionsquickly.Thesesnapdecisions result inmorecooperationamongsubjectsthanisfoundwhentheyaregiventimetodeliberateandreflectontheirdecisions.10Giveustime,itseems,andwe’llstartthinkingofonlyourselves.

GETTINGAHEADBYGETTINGALONGStill don’t buy it? Consider the incredible contribution of open-source software—computer codethat’sfreelydevelopedthroughpublic,collaborativeeffortsofprogrammersaroundtheworld.Someof ourmost important Internet infrastructure has been enabled through open-source development,likeApache’sHTTPWebserver,RedHat’sLinuxoperatingsystem,Mozilla’sFirefoxwebbrowser,Sun’sJavaprogramminglanguage,andMySQLdatabasesystems.

OrconsiderWikipedia.TraditionalencyclopediacompaniessuchasCollier ’sandEncyclopediaBritannicaweren’t buried by cheap foreign labor or rising paper costs; theywere usurped by thecollaborativeeffortofvolunteerwritersandeditors.

Maybe it’s an Internet thing, right? Don’t be too sure. Work probably doesn’t get any moreisolatedandindependentthancommercialfishing.Locatedinthetoplobster-producingregionoftheUnitedStates, theMainelobster industrybringsinalmost$300millionayearandcomprises5,400separate businesses employing 35,000 individuals. Yet it’s one of the best modern examples ofcollectiveaction.Justacoupleofdecadesago,theindustrywasonthevergeofcollapse.Century-oldbusinesseswerebeingshutteredandboatsdry-docked.Butnowit’sastudyinthewaypeoplewitha

commoninterestcanworktogethertoprotectaresourcethroughpromotingsustainability.Authorityover the industry lieswithboth the fishermenandgovernmentagencies; thisauthority includes theestablishmentofsizerestrictions,seasonalboundaries,andtrapregulations.Becauseofthisvoluntarycooperation,theindustryisflourishingandthecommunityisthriving.Soeveninanindustrydefinedbyindividualeffort,humansnaturallyseemtoworkbettertogether.

Still,whythisshouldbesoisnotyetobvious.Oneexplanationforcooperationbeingournaturaldefaultresponse—whatsocialscientistsrefertoasprosociality—isthatcooperationactuallyengagestherewardregionsofourbrains;thatis,wegotherefirstbecauseitfeelsgood.Butfornow,thatisstilljustspeculation.11

Supporting this notion that prosociality is deeply engrained inhumans is awide rangeof bothanthropological studies and field anecdotes from around theworld and across numerous cultures.Wherever theyare,people tend toengage inprosocialbehavior—evenwhen it isnotobviously totheiradvantage.

For example, in resource distribution studies in which participants are requested to splitresources,people—wherevertheyare—typicallychoosetosharebetween40and50percentofwhatthey have, even when the recipient is anonymous and there is no penalty for not sharing thoseresources.12 Andwe’re not just talking about adults here, or acculturated young people, but eventoddlers:childrenasyoungasfourteenmonthsoldwillactivelycooperateinjointtasks(ofcourse,they’llalsohiteachotherovertheheadwiththose“shared”toysonoccasion).13

SOCIALNORMSAND“ULTIMATEGAMES”As youmight imagine, these innate prosocial traits aremademanifest in social norms—and thosenormsinturnareadistinguishingfeatureofhumanbeings.14Whatmakessocialnormssoimportantis that they can shape behavior without the force of law—that is, they are people’s beliefs aboutacceptablesocialbehavior insituations inwhich the lawisnotpresent toenforce it.15Thinkof allthose timesyouwaited at a stoplight at 3:00 a.m.when therewasn’t a cop, or even another car, insight;ortheitemsyounevertookfromstoreseventhoughnoonewaswatching.Orwhenyougavetherightpricetoaninquiringcashierwhocouldn’tfindthetagonyouritem.

As it turns out, you are not alone. In-depth ethnographic studies of cultures around theworld,from hunter-gatherers to the citizens of modern cities, depict groups as sharing a wide range ofsocialnorms,runningfromfoodsharingtocooperationtohonesty.16Theseattitudesaredirectednotonlyatmembersofthegroup,butalsotowardthoseconsideredoutsiders.

JoeHenrichoftheUniversityofBritishColumbiahasspentthelastdecadeworkingwithvariouscolleaguestouncoverthecognitivesourcesofhumansociety.Inoneofhisresearchprojects,heandhis team studied social behavior in fifteen different small societies, including foragers, nomadicherding groups, and individuals in settled, agricultural societies in Africa, South America, andIndonesia. They found thatwithin-society social norms even affected individuals’ behavior towardstrangers.17

Oneofhismore interesting findings is that themore that individuals fromaparticular societyhavetocollaboratetosurvive,themoretheywilloffertostrangersin“ultimatum”games.(Thesearegames inwhich twoplayers divide a sumofmoney; the first player chooses the division, and thesecondcanvetothatdecision—butthenallthemoneyislost).HenrichandhisassociatesfoundthattheMachiguengapeopleofPeru,whorarelycollaborateoutsideoftheirownfamilies,stillallocated

on average 26 percent of their total resources in ultimatum games to strangers. In contrast, theLamerala of Indonesia, who fish in highly collaborative groups of individuals from differentfamilies,onaverageallocated58percentoftheirtotalresourcestostrangers.

But sharing isn’t only about resources. It can also be about shared experiences. In his bookKeeping Together in Time, the historian William McNeill provides powerful evidence for howcoordinated rhythmicmovement and the shared feelings it evokes is a powerful binding force forhumangroups.McNeill shows that sharedmovements, fromancient village dances tomodern-daymilitary drills, create muscular bonding and endow groups with a capacity for cooperation,solidarity, and, in turn, survival.18 Those fewwhohave spent time in anAfrican village know thebindingpower—andthesolidarityborderingonakindofdelirium—ofthevillagedance.Andmostofushaveexperiencedthisinourownlives,fromhighschoolmarchingbandtomilitarybootcamp.

Butevenmoreremarkable is thatweallmayhavebeenpracticingthesecoordinatingdynamicssinceevenbeforewewereborn—inparticular, thekindofself-organizedsynchronizationthat takesplacebetweenourbrainsandourbodies.Justwatchababy,oranadultrehabilitatingfromastrokeoramajor injury, and seehow thedynamicbetweenwhat thebrainwants andwhat thebodyactuallydoeshastobeconstantlypracticeduntil thatself-synchronizationisbothfastandprecise.Atoddlerlearningtowalkcanexecutetheperfectionofapolevaultoratriplespinoniceskatestwentyyearslater.19

It shouldn’tbesurprising, then, that thismind-bodysynchronization takesplacenotonlywithinhumanbeings,butalsoamongthem.Wemaynotbeaflockofbirdsseeminglyturningwithonemind,but the analogy still holds. Indeed, some experiments have shown that humans can exchangebehavioral coordination information so quickly that the results can appear to be spontaneous—aswhenpeopletendtoapplaudinunison.20

Thissharedinformationcanbequitelimitedandyetstillachievecoordination,aninsightthatmayproveveryuseful in thisageofSkypeandvirtualmeetings.Experiments insocialneuroscienceofpeople watching each other on a video screen show that with visual information exchange alone,humans still immediately and spontaneously coordinate their actions. Incredibly, the aftereffects ofthese visual social encounters persist evenwhen the vision of the others is no longer available. Inotherwords,wearechangedbyoursocialinteractions.21Perhapsnotforforever—butthemiracleisthat,basedonsuchlittleinteraction,wearechangedatall.22

The anthropologist Robin Dunbar, whom we’ve already met, has proposed the concept of a“socialbrain,”arguingthatacrucial,distinctivepartofhumanintelligenceisitsintrinsicallysocialquality,whichenableseffectivenessincomplexsocialnetworks.23Inthewordsofoneofhisfellowresearchers,“Thesocialbrainhypothesis inevolutionaryanthropologycontends thathumanbrainshaveevolvedtobeasbigastheyaresothatwecanthinkaboutandmanageourrelationshipswithotherpeople.”24Inotherwords,ourbrainsarenotbiggerbecausewearesmarter,butbiggerinordertohelpusworkwith—toteamwith—ourfellowhumans.

OXYTOCIN,THEBONDING(ANDORGASM)HORMONEOkay,sohumanbeingsseemwiredtoformteamsandtoworktogether.Butwhatisthatwiringmadeof?Nowwe’regettingdowntothemostbasiccomponentofhumanteams:oxytocin,amammalianhormonethatactsasaneuromodulatoronthebrain.Oxytocinisproducedbythehypothalamusandisstored in the pituitary gland. Oxytocin (sometimes referred to by its trade names of Pitocin and

Syntocinon) is often administered to induce labor in pregnantwomen. It is also regularly used inveterinarymedicinetoinducebothlaborandlactation.

Thishormonehassomeveryinterestingcharacteristics.Foronething,itseffectshaveahalf-lifeof only about three minutes, and it cannot be introduced into the brain via the bloodstream (it’sblocked by the blood-brain barrier)—the latter featuremaking it safer for use in deliveries. Sincedigestionalsodestroysit,oxytocinistypicallyadministeredbyinjectionorvianasalspray.

Thepowerofoxytocinonthehumanbodyisquitestunning.Forexample,itappearstoplayapartin everything frommaternal bonding to anxiety to orgasms. But itsmost important role, for ourpurposes,isasthebasicneurobiologicalelementinthehuman“socialbrain.”25

In particular, oxytocin appears to be one of the most important chemicals for mediating pairbondsandsocialbehavior.26Itseemstoincreaseourabilitytoprocesspositivesocialcues(humansidentify human facial gestures more quickly and more accurately after being dosed with thehormone),whilealsosimultaneouslydecreasingsocialthreat–relatedcueslinkedtosocial-avoidancebehaviors.27

Itwould seem that theworldofoxytocin is avery friendlyplace, for even asoxytocin createspositivesocialinteraction,thosepositivesocialinteractionsinturnincreaselevelsofoxytocin.28Andthoseincreasedlevelscandoallsortsofthings,including:

• Increasesocialinteractionbetweenadults.29

• Improvetheprocessingofpositivesocialinformation.30

• Enhancein-grouptrust.31

Sofar,oxytocinsoundslikethefabledelixiroflove.Butallisnotsunshineandcupcakes,becauseresearchershavediscoveredonemore,darker,featureofthehormone:Itpromotesgreaterdefensiveaggressiontowardout-groupmembers.32Itmayalsobeamajorcauseofhumanethnocentrism.Thatthis hormone should have such a Janus-like aspect—making us love our neighbors but also fearstrangers—helpsexplainwhygroupdynamicscanbesocomplicatedandmultidimensional.

Mostofuswouldagreethatindividualbehaviorsthatbenefitothers—forexample,cooperation,compassion,andmutualcoordination—arecriticalforsuccessfulteamwork.33

Ourmotivationforprosocialbehavior,includingaffiliationandcloseness,appearstoarisefromneurophysiologicalprocesses.34And thoseprocesses in turnarecreatedby the releaseofoxytocinandanotherneuropeptide,calledvasopressin.Antecedentsofthesehormonesdatebackinanimalsatleast700millionyearsandareseenacrosstheanimalkingdom.35

Research has found that the amount of oxytocin released during “dyadic” interactions (twoindividuals in a sociologically significant relationship) is directly related to the reciprocity of thatpair.36 (The initial research in thisareawas lookingat theearlystagesof romanticattachment—aswe’vealreadynoted, therearestrongcorrelationsbetweenthefunctioningof teamsandthematingprocess....Nowyouknowwhy.)Theoxytocinreleasedbytheseinteractionspromotesfurthertrustandcooperation,37especially toward in-groupmembers.38 Inotherwords, formahappy teamwithothersandyouwillfeelalotbettertowardyourgroupasawhole.

Literally better. One of the effects of oxytocin on the human body is to dampen many of itsphysiologicalresponsestostress.39So,beingpartofateamactuallycanmakeuslessstressed—andultimately,happier.Andthisisnotsomesecondaryeffect,oraminorfeature,butonethatgoesrighttotheheartofbeingafullyactualizedhumanbeing:psychologistshavefoundthatachildsuffering

early separation fromhis or her parents can experience alteredoxytocin receptor sensitivity as anadult.40Sowearetalkingsomepowerful,life-changingforcesinthissingularchemical.

Just how powerful remains a matter of speculation. The psychologists Rick O’Gorman andKennonSheldon and the evolutionary biologistDavidWilsonhave proposed that natural selectionitself may have favored people with prosocial genetic traits. How so? Because individuals withaltruistictraitsandawillingnesstoadoptsocialrolesarerewardedwithgroupinclusion—andthushave a greater chance of breeding.Meanwhile, thosewith traits harmful to a group, including thedisposition for free-riding and selfishness, are punished or alienated.41 The stress-reducers of theworldarealwaysmorepopularthanthestress-inducers.

Infact,thistalentforjoiningandreducingoverallstressmayprovetobefarmoreimportantthanweeverthought.MarilynnBrewer,apsychologistat theUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,hasarguedthatsociobiologistsneglecttheroleofselectioninsmallgroups—whichshebelieves is themostimportantaspectofhumanevolution—andfocustoomuchinsteadonindividuals.ForBrewer,itissmallcooperativegroupsthathavebeentheprimarysurvivalstrategyforhumans.

Here is her argument: In order to survive, humans needed to cluster into groups—and thosegroups needed to meet certain structural requirements: coordination of individual effort,communication, and optimal group size. These structural requirements for group survival in turnimposed selective pressures on individualswhowanted to become part of these small cooperativegroups in order to survive and breed. And those individuals with the cognitive and motivationalcapacitiesagreeabletocooperativegrouplifesurvivedpreciselybecausetheywereincluded.

Meanwhile, those individuals whose cognitive and motivational capacities were disruptive togroup organization were selectively avoided, rejected, or eliminated, either by the group or byhavingtogosoloinadangerousworld.Runthisfilteringprocessthroughhundredsofgenerations,and those social motives—such as cooperation and group loyalty—become dominant and thuscharacteristicofthehumanspecies.42

THESTRANGEPOWEROFMIRRORNEURONSThe discovery of mirror neurons, among the most important findings of the last decade inneuroscience, helps us understand many heretofore paradoxical social phenomena, including theevolutionoflanguage,emotionalempathy,andpersonalsocialidentity.43

Mirrorneuronsarenervecells in thebrainwhosepurposeappears tobecreatingacopyofanobservedaction—eitherbytheownerofthatbrain,or,evenmoreastonishingly,theactionofothers.Inparticular,whenapersonobservesanaction,neuronsthatrepresentthatactionareactivatedintheobserver ’s premotor cortex—creating a “motor copy” of the observed action.44 And thus visualinformationistransformedintoknowledge.45

Tobetterunderstandthepowerofmirrorneurons,considerthewaymanyofusjumpoutofourseats at the crack of a baseball bat or pump our fistswhen a long putt drops—even thoughwe’rewatchingotherpeopleperformonTV.Whydoweexperiencesuchvisceral reactions? It’sbecauseourmirrorneuronsfirewhenweseeafamiliaraction,allowingustounderstandtheaction,itsgoal,and even the emotions associatedwith it. By extension, thismeans that ourmotor systems triggerwhenwatchingasportthatwehavephysicallyexperienced.Andifwe’rewatchingstrenuousaction,mirror neurons even cause a small, but measurable, uptick in our heart rate. In this sense, thespectatingbrainisalsotheparticipatingbrain.Andmoreimportant,whenourfavoriteteamwins,we

win.A2008studybySalvatoreAglioti,aprofessorattheSapienzaUniversityofRome,suggeststhat

there’s a sliding scale ofmirror neuron response among spectators based on their real-life sportsexperience.This iswhyweusually take thegreatestpleasure inwatchingsports thatwe’veactuallyplayed.Additionally,ourmirrorneurons showapreference for certainplayerswho touch theballmoreoftenthanothers,suchasquarterbacksinfootballandpitchersinbaseball.Why?Evenifwe’veneverplayedfootballorbaseballcompetitively,mostofushaveexperiencedtheactionofthrowingaball.

Of course, the evolutionary purpose of our mirror neuron system is not to make us moreenthusiasticsportsspectators—that’sjustafunsideeffect.Instead,thissystemisimportantforsocialcognition,understandingthementalstatesofothers,empathy,andlearningbywatchingothers.

Thediscoveryofmirrorneuronsinthelate1980sisaclassicexampleofaluckyaccident.Italianneuroscientistsfoundthatwhenamonkeyraiseditsarm,aparticularcellinthecreature’sbrainwasfired.Thatwasn’tthebigsurprise,thatcameonedaywhenalabassistantraisedhisarmandtriggereda similar reaction in the monkey’s same brain cell. The researchers discovered that neurons thatmimicormirrorwhatothersdoarepartofthebrain’scircuitry.46

The discovery of mirror neurons could be a game changer, with the potential to offerbreakthroughsineverythingfromhowteamsarecreatedtothenatureofleadership.

Itisbecauseofmirrorneuronsthatpeopleareabletoemulate,withinseconds,theemotionsandactions of others.Mirror neurons also allowus to navigate our socialworld and create an instantsense of shared experience. And they are particularly important to leadership, because followersdon’tjustactouttheordersofleaders,theyactuallytendtomirrorthefeelingsandactionsofthoseleaders.47

Forexample,itisnowbelievedthatpositivebehaviorssuchasempathyactuallycreateachemicalconnection—aformof“moodcontagion”—betweenthebrainsofaleaderandhisorherfollowers.Inotherwords,leaders’empathyandattunementtoothers’moodsactuallyaffecttheirownandtheirfollowers’brainchemistry.Andwhatthatmeansisthattheleader-followerdynamicthathasbeenthesubjectofendlessspeculationoverthelastfewthousandyearsmay,intheend,beevenstrangerandmoremystical thanweever imagined:abiochemicalprocessinwhichindividualmindsfuseintoasinglesystem.

Thismodelgoesa longway towardexplaining thesuperhumanbond(“chain lightning,”as theSteelyDansongcalls it) thatgreat leaders—forgoodorevil—createbetweenthemselvesandtheirfollowers.

JustthinkofcorporateleaderslikeHowardSchultz,IndraNooyi,AlanMulally,RichardBranson,andUrsulaBurns,or“fieldleaders”likeDukecoachMikeKrzyzewskiandYankeeshortstopDerekJeter—theyallseemcapableofwilling their “teams” tovictory.Those superior leadersunderstandeithernaturally,orby learnedexperience,howto leverage thissystemofbrain interconnectedness.How they do so is its own kind ofmagic. Some appear to have learned this skill from extensiveexperienceasleadersonthewayup.Butothersappeartobebornwiththespecificneuralcircuitsthatempowerthemwitheitherakindof“socialintelligence”orasetofinterpersonalcompetenciesthatinspireotherstodogreatthings.48

Thisofferssomethingofananswertotheage-oldquestionofwhetherleadersaremadeorborn.Theyareboth,butgreatleadersarealmostalwaysbornthatway.(Bytheway,researchonhundredsoftopexecutivesbyMargaretHopkinsoftheUniversityofToledohasshownnosignificantgenderdifferencesinsocialintelligenceamongtopleaders,contrarytothemyththatwomenhavesuperior

socialintelligence.)Look at mothers and their newborn babies, and you will see another phenomenon of mirror

neurons:someofthemareexclusivelytaskedwithdetectingandmirroringthesmilesandlaughterofothers. It is a process that begins with moms soon after birth and quickly extends to include allhumankind.Notsurprisingly,thisinnatedetectoralsoworksbetweenleadersandfollowers.

Forexample,aleaderwhosmilesandlaughswilltriggersimilarlaughterinhisorherteam—aprocessthatalsohelpsinteambonding.Andbondedgroupsalmostalwaysperformbetterthantheirless-well-bonded counterparts. Not surprisingly, top-performing leaders have been shown, onaverage, to elicit laughter from their subordinates at least twice as often as their less successfulcounterparts.49Onereasonforthisisthatlaughterappearstoincreasebothcreativityandtrustwithinteams.50 Perhaps more surprisingly, humor also makes audiences listen and retain more of apresentationorconversation.51Onceagain,youcancreditourmirrorneurons,whichpredisposeustoreacttohumor,laughter,andgeneralhappiness.

This discovery is reinforced by field experiments with actual leaders. When leaders displayhappiness,itimprovestheirfollowers’creativeperformance—andinterestingly,whentheyaresad,itenhances those same followers’ analytical performance. In other words, when the teammembersthink the boss is happy, they feel liberated to try out new ideas; and when they think the boss isunhappy, theyhunkerdownintosurvivalmode.52This isprobablywhypositiveemotions result inmorecooperativeandconciliatorybehavior.53

Butitisn’tallgoodnews:positiveandnegativeemotionsdifferinlongevity,somethingyoucanprobably validate by thinking of your own career. Employees invariably remember negative(burdensome) events more often, with more intensity, and in more detail than positive, upliftingevents.54Althoughmemoriesofgood timesarebrief,memoriesofbad timesseemtostaywithusforever.

Happily,thanksagaintoourmirrorneurons,positiveandprosocialbehaviorcanbecontagious.55People who witness prosocial and cooperative behaviors tend to experience a greater sense ofmorality.56 And, in findings that can only be considered comforting for the future of humankind,researchers have also found that people observing helping behaviors engaged in more helpingbehaviorintheirownsubsequenttasks.57Perhapsevenmorecompellingisthatsubjectsparticipatinginexperimentaleconomic“dictatorgames”(inwhichonlyoneplayerdeterminesthedistributionofrewards to all other players) become more generous after observing other players exhibitingprosocialbehavior.58Itseemsthatthebetterwebehave,thebetterpeoplearoundusbehaveaswell.

“WE”VERSUS“ME”It shouldcomeasnosurprise thatmirrorneuronsplayacrucial role inhuman teamwork.Whenateamisworking,membersmustnotonlyengagewitheachotherbutalsounderstandandanticipatethe actions of their teammates. Although a number of specific systems in the brain help humansrepresentandanticipate thebehaviorsofothersduring jointaction,mirrorneuronsseemtoplayakey role in enabling observational learning and imitation among team members.59 But therelationship between members of a team and their mirror neurons goes both ways. That is,socializing behavior doesn’t just arise from the wiring of our brains. Rather, the nature of oursocializingwithothersaffectstheactivityofourmirrorneurons—tothepointthatitcanchangethe

waythoseneuronsrepresenttheactionsofothers.60Inthebestscenario,theresultisavirtuouscycle:the more we socialize with others, the better and happier we are at doing that socializing—anexperiencemostofusknowfromourownlives.

If all this seems literally delusional, the real source of seeing theworld through rose-coloredglasses,itisavaluabledelusion.Why?Becausedelusionsaresharedamongthegroupmembers.Itturns out that in collaborative settings, team members who work well together will come to acommonrepresentationoftheirproject—onethatreducesanyemphasisonpersonalauthorshipandcompetition.Inotherwords,itbecomesourproject,notmine.And,aswewillsee,anythingthatcanremoveegoandclaimsofownershipamongteammembersisaverygoodthing—notjustforteamproductivityanddurabilitybutalsointhelongaftermath.61

This “learned synergy” influences not only our appreciation of success, but also ourunderstanding of failure. Indeed, the neural representation of others’ errors is also influenced bybeinginateam.62Wearemuchmoreforgivingofmistakesmadebyourteammatesthanthosemadeby“outsiders”—especiallywhenthoseoutsidersareincompetitiveinterpersonalsettings.63At theirbest,teams,poweredbyourmirrorneurons,cancreateasenseof“we,”inwhichanother ’sactionsareperceivedasone’sown.Self-othermergingseemstolightupourmirrorneuronsystems.Italsomakesusbothmorevigilantandmoreunderstandingoferrorsmadebyourteammates.64

WHEREDOESINTUITIONCOMEFROM?Mirrorneuronsaren’ttheonlycellsinthebrainthathelpregulatehowweinteractwithothersinteamsettings.

Forexample,takeintuition,theirrationalsense—gutfeeling,hunch,sixthsense,basedonnorealevidence—thatyouknowtheanswertoaproblem.Intuitionisoftenreveredbygreatexecutives—thatmomentwhentheysenseaweaknessinacompetitorandactdecisively;orhireorputtheirfaithinanearstranger;orhaveanintimationthatthemarketisabouttoshiftdirections.

Manypeopleconsiderchesstobetheultimateapplicationofhumanlogic,butasGarryKasparov—arguably the greatest chess player of all time—professes, “Intuition is the defining quality of agreatchessplayer....Often,yourgutwillserveyoubetterthanyourbrains.Tometheimplicationisclear:Whatmadeplayersgreatwasnottheiranalyticprowessbuttheirintuitionunderpressure.”65

Inpractice,intuitioncanseemlikeESP,comingfromaplacedeepintherecessesofyourmind.Butrecentresearchhasfoundthatintuitionispartlyproducedbyaclassofneuronsinthebraincalledspindlecells.Theroleofthesespindlecellsistoquicklytransmitthoughtsandfeelingstoothercells.And by “quickly” we mean jaw-droppingly fast. Within one-twentieth of a second, spindle cellstriggerneuralnetworksdesignedtomakejudgmentcallswithonlyaminimumofevidence—suchasdecidingwhetheronepersonistrustworthyorwhetheranotherisrightforajob.Inourfast-movingdigitalworld,thisabilitytomakeaccurate“gutcalls”canbecrucialforteamleaders.

Meanwhile, another classofneuronscalledoscillators regulates physical coordinationbetweenpeople.When two cellists play together, they hit their notes in unison because of their respectiveoscillators.Inasense,humanbeingsfindharmonywhentheiroscillatorsdo.

For now at least, we don’t know how to strengthen or regulate the firing pattern of mirrorneurons,spindlecells,andoscillators.Wecan’tyetmanipulatehowwework togetherat theneurallevel.Butwhatwecanunderstandisthatthesefundamentalfactorsdoexistandnotonlyarehappinessandstresscontagious,buttheycanspreadwithinsecondsacrossateam.66

WHENINDOUBT,HUGITOUTForgenerations,managementandleadershipexperts(aswellasourownmothers)havebeentellingus toalways thankpeoplefor theirhelporfora jobwelldone.Well,nowresearchhasshownthatexpressions of gratitude can in fact increase closeness among groupmembers.67When managersexpress gratitude, it can increase employees’ sense of social worth and self-conception as viablemembers of the organization. And that, in turn, promotes prosocial behaviors that tie the teamtogetherevenmore.68

Bythesametoken,nonverbalexpressionsofgratitudecanbeparticularlypowerful.Forexample,touchcanactivaterewardregionsofthefrontallobesofthebrain,69stimulateoxytocinrelease,70andexcite the vagus nerve, one of the body’s longest nerves, which runs from the brain stem to theabdomen,touchingmostoftheorgansinbetween,andislinkedtoprosocialityandattention.71Putallofthattogetherandyoucanseehow(appropriate)touchcanenhancecooperationinteamactivities.72Now you understand what all that hand-holding, hugging, and trust-catching was about in teamtrainingseminars.

Here’sanotheroneyouprobablyalreadyknow,but forwhich there isnowempiricalevidence:reputation matters in teamwork. Studies in organizations and social groups have found thatreputationsformandspreadamonggroupmembersatthespeedoflightning.73Howfast?Withinaweekofa team’sformation,all itsmembershavelikelyalreadyacquiredgroupwidereputationsaseithercollaboratorsorfreeriders.74

Andthesegoodreputationscanbeextremelyvaluable to the teammemberswhoenjoythem.Inexperimentalstudies,groupmemberswithaprosocialandgenerousreputationtendtoberewardedmorebyothergroupmembers. Inparticular, they tend to receivegreater resourceallocations thanthosewithlessgenerousreputations.Betteryet—andthereaderwillespeciallywanttorememberthis—those same prosocial and generous team members are also more likely to be appointed toleadershippositions.75

Youreallydogetaheadbygettingalong.

HEALTHYFORYOUTOOBeingpartofasuccessful,well-functioningteamisgoodnotonlyforyourorganizationbutalsoforyou.

Recent research comprising more than 300,000 patients across 148 studies has revealed thatindividuals who report inadequate social relationships have a 50 percent greater probability ofmortality as comparedwithpatientswho report adequate social relationships.76 Loneliness, and itsdeleterious effects, is at the heart of this. Being on a team can make you happy, sad, angry, orfrustrated,butitrarelymakesyoufeellonely.Andlonelinessisakiller—literally.AsBradWilcox,asociologist at theUniversity ofVirginia, revealed in aMay2013 article for theAtlantic, there’s astrong link between suicide and loneliness. Noting a marked rise in suicide rates, Wilcoxconvincinglyarguedthat thesenewstatisticschallenge the“ruggedindividualist”mythand indicatethat men and women seem to be significantly more likely to kill themselves if they lack supportsystems.

Additionally, the sleep of lonely young adults is less efficacious as assessed by almost every

physiological,behavioral,andself-reportmeasure.77Lonelypeopleatallagesshowweakerimmuneresponsesandagreatervulnerabilitytoviralrespiratoryinfections.78

Forcertaintasks—suchasfinancialforecastsandsalesestimates—theteamcanactuallymakeyoulook better as an individual. Particularly in such quantitative judgment tasks, teams consistentlyoutperform the average of their members’ individual judgments.79 When teams are also givenoutcomefeedback,80 share task-relevant information, and are asked to identify theirmost accurategroupmember,81theyoutperformtheirmembers’averageestimatesbyevenmore.

Ah, but there is a danger in this collaboration—as anyonewho has sat in ameetingwith oneoverbearingmemberwhosucksalloftheoxygenoutoftheroom(thatis,everyone)knows,teamstendtoassignmoreweighttothecontributionsoftheirextrovertedmembers.Theonlywaytoshifttheweightbackisthroughhighlyvisibleandshareddataaboutthepastaccuracyofeachmemberoftheteam.Thatusuallyshutsuptheloudmouth.82

Individualsalsoseemtolearnbetteriftheyarelearningaspartofagroup.83Onereasonforthisisthattheveryprocessofseekingagreementwithotherteammatesdrivesmoreconcreteconclusions—anddealingwithteammates’contrastingopinionsalsoleadstogreaterself-reflection.Itisbettertobechallengedbyothersthantolearninanechochamber.84Studieswithadultparticipantsshowthatperformanceonreasoningtasksisimprovedwhendebateisarequirementforteamactivities.85

Itworksforkidstoo.Pairsofeight-year-oldswereaskedtopredictwhetheranemptymetalboxorsolid rubber ringwouldfloat inwater.Once theyagreedonaprediction theyhad to test it.Thechildren were then queried right after the experiment and then some weeks later for theirunderstanding of the phenomena. The delayed post-test results proved to be significantly better ingroups that sought agreement in their predictions before testing andworked in a group in whichcontrastingopinionswere expressed. It didn’t evenmatter if agreementwas actually achieved—allthat was important was that agreement-seeking and contrasting opinions were features of thediscussion.86That’swhypostmortemsanddebriefingsaresovaluable.

MEASURINGTEAMSINREALTIMETeamsthesedaysarenotjustbeingstudiedstatistically,oraspartofisolatedexperiments,butinreallife,andwhiletheyareinoperation.Andtheresultshaveoftenbeenrevealing.Forexample,theoldphrase“Itisnotwhatyousaybuthowyousayit”isnowamathematicallyprovenstatement.

SociometricsOne finding is that body language (that fad of three decades ago) and other nonverbal forms ofhumancommunicationreallydomatter.Infact,manyoftheancientbiologicalsignalingpatternsthathumansusedevenbeforethedevelopmentoflanguagestilldominateourlives.

Alex Pentland, the director of MIT’s Human Dynamics Laboratory, and his team have used“sociometers” to generate data on communication patterns and the productivity of teams in realorganizations.Sociometersarewearableelectronicsensorsthatmeasurepatternsofcommunication—including the amount of face-to-face interaction, conversation time, physical proximity to otherpeople,andphysicalactivitylevels—usingsocialsignalsderivedfromvocalfeatures,bodymotion,and relative location.They capture tone of voice, howone faces others in groups, and howmuch

peoplelistenandtalk.Crucialtotheresearchisthatsociometersaredesignedtocapturethenatureofhumaninteraction,

notitscontent;theycapturehowpeoplecommunicate,notwhat theyaretalkingabout.Pentlandandhisteamshowthathowteammemberscommunicateisjustasimportantapredictorofteamsuccessas several other, highly prized, factors combined—including intelligence, personality, skill, andcontentofdiscussions.

ForPentland,greatteamsdothefollowing:87

• Theycommunicatefrequently:Inatypicalprojectteam,adozenorsocommunicationexchangesperworkinghourseemtobeoptimalforteamperformance.

• Team members talk and listen in equal measure: Conversation is distributed equally amongmembers. By comparison, low-performing teams suffer from teams within teams. They havememberswhotalkorlisten,butdon’tdoboth.

• They communicate informally: The best teams use half their time communicating outside theformalmeetingsorasa“side”duringteammeetings.Informalcommunicationstendtoincreaseteam performance. In a study on call center teams, the best predictors of productivity were ateam’senergyandengagementoutsideitsformalmeetings.Thosetwofactorsexplainedone-thirdofthevariationsindollarproductivityamongteams.

• They look for ideas and information outside the group: The best teams consistently (ifintermittently) connect with multiple outside sources—especially sources with skills orknowledge lacking among the team’s members. Team members then bring back what they’velearned and share it with the team (that second part is just as important). Especially high-performing teamsoften featurewhat’s calledawell-intentionedconnector: apersonwhokeepstrack of these useful outside sources and who on the team knows them. Then when usefulinformation iscapturedfromthosesources, this“connector” takeson the taskofdisseminatingthatinformationtointegrateitintotheexpertiseoftheteam.

• Theyadjust theirpatternsofcommunication:Up to thispoint itmayseem thatcommunicationswithin a team are essentially preset based on the natures of itsmembers, a kind of biologicaldeterminism. But, in fact, successful teams employ malleable communications patterns—theylearntocommunicateandtheycommunicatetolearn.Patternsofcommunicationthatworkbestareempiricallydescribed,perfected,andthentaughttotheothermembersoftheteam.

TeamNeurodynamicsThere is anotherwayof looking at teams in real time: teamneurodynamics. This is the science ofmodeling teamwork through the measurement of members’ neurophysiologic indicators. In otherwords,wire the teamup and send themback towork.The fieldof neurodynamics is basedon thediscovery thatan individual’sbrain rhythmsbecomesynchronized to the frequencyof thestimuluspresentedtohimorher.88

Neurodynamics was initially applied to individuals—showing, for example, how the brainsynchronizedtoacousticmusicalnotes,andsoforth.Itwasn’tuntil2009thatthesciencewasappliedto teams. This “team neurodynamics” beganwith the concept ofneurophysiologic synchronies: thesecond-by-second coexpression of the sameneurophysiologic (or cognitive) response to the samestimulibymultiplemembersofateam.Itseemsthatwhilewemayneverbepurelyofonemind,our

mindsdosometimesdancetothesamebeat.This processwas first described for three-person teams engaged in scientific problem solving

and then later applied to groups engaged in complex navigational tasks, including submarinepiloting.89 Lately it has been studiedwith teams of different sizes, from two to sixmembers, andusing different types of disruptions and interruptions to detect different entropy levels among theindividualmembers—inotherwords,howquicklyand intensely theyreact to this interference.Theresearchershavegonesofarastoproposethatorganizationscandotask-specificcomparisonsoftherhythmsacrossteams—andindoingso,learnaboutthedynamicsofunderperformingteams.90Thisopensthepossibilityofonedaybeingabletoassembleteams,testtheminaction,andthenseeiftheirindividual and group responses indicate a team thatwill workwell together. But that’s still in thefuture.

Fornow, let’sgetoutof thebusycorridorsof thebrainandmoveup into the largerworldofcompletehumanbeingsandhowtheyworkinteamstogether.

ThePowerofDifference

Cultures,armies,socialorganizations,andenterprises—allhave longgrappledwith thechallengeof team composition. That is,what is the best combination of teammembers thatwill achieve thegreatestpossibleresult—andnotblowupintheprocess?

Thetraditionalapproach is to lookatparticular teamsandassess theoverall levelofparticulartraits. Or, conversely, to look at variations in those traits among the team’s members. But thatapproach has taken us only so far. So, lately, social scientists have taken a different, brain-basedapproach.Thisnewapproachexamineshowteammembers’task-specificabilitiescomplementeachother in accomplishingparticulargroup tasks.Thisunderscores somethingwealreadyknow fromreal life: “dream teams” don’t always perform as well as teams composed of lesser players whoexhibitgreatchemistrydo.

AnitaW.WoolleyandhercolleaguesatCarnegieMellonUniversitypioneeredthisextensionofcognitive neuroscience to groups.1 In particular, they’ve taken the recent discoveries about thecoordinationofsystemsinasinglebrainandmappedthemintothemultipleindividualbrainsofteammembers.2Intheirmodel,eachteammemberplaysthepartofaspecificbrainsystem—whileteammembersworkingtogetherresemblevariousbrainsystemsfunctioningtogetherinasinglehead.

Theirconclusion?Alleffectiveteamsincludeindividualswhocanfunctiontogetherasthe“brainsystems”requiredtoachievethegroup’stask.

Here’s how they reached this conclusion: In 2007,Woolley and her team formed one hundredtwo-person teams (think of them as pairs of brains) to examine how brain systems in differentmembers’headsfunctionedtogether.3Theyexaminedtwoindependentsubsystems—objectmemoryabilityandspatialability—thatreflecttheoperationofdistinctneuralsystemsinthebrain.4Thepair-teamswere thengivenanassignment inwhichonememberhad todeliveronaspatial task(in thiscase,navigationthroughavirtualmaze)andtheothertoaccomplishanobject-propertiestask(inthiscase,rememberingrepetitionsofcomplex“greebles”—novelshapesusedinfacialidentityresearch).

Theresult?Teamswhosemembersexhibitedtheabilitiesrequiredforthetaskinaggregate,andteams inwhich themembers’ tasksmatched their respective abilities, performed better than teamswith mismatched assignments or teams that had members with the same abilities. That’s notunexpected, but what is surprising is that while verbal collaboration helped the underperformingteamscompensate for poorly assigned roles, it didnothing tohelp teamswith inadequate abilities.Remarkably, verbal collaboration actually impaired the performance of the homogenous teams.Apparently,talkingthingsthroughonlyhelpsifyourabilitiesaredifferent.

Theimplicationsarestunning.Itmeansthatnomatterhowmanyplayersyouaddtoateamand

howcloselytheyworktogether,theresultswillneverimproveiftheyareallinadequatetothetask.Ontheotherhand,ifyouteamuptop-talentedpeople—evenifyougivethemthewrongjobs—theywill figure out a way to do a good job. Collaboration will not compensate for an inadequatelyendowed team. Of course, the most effective teams combine the required aggregate abilities, theproperroleassignments,andalotoftalking.

Next, ProfessorWoolley and her team gave forty-one four-person teams an analytical task tosolve.5Thistime,themosteffectiveteamswerethosethathadnotonlytherelevantexpertisebutalsoengaged in collaborative planning. That is, the successful teams sat down together and explicitlyidentifiedstrategiesforbestusingtheirexpertise.

Thosestrategymeetingswerenotadhoc.Infact,researchhasshownthatcollaborativeplanningalmostneverhappens spontaneously.Someonehas to run the show; someonehas to serve as teamleadertofosterthistypeofplanning(otherwise,theteamneedsanoutsideadministrator).6

Researchers found that collaborative planning made teams more productive because thosemeetings led to themoreeffective integrationof information.Teammemberswereable to resolvecriticalquestionsearlyon.Thisinturnconstrainedthescopeofwhattheteamhadtodealwithlater,anditalsohelpedteammemberstargettheiranalyticalresourcesmoreeffectively.Asaresult,theyweren’toverwhelmedbythesheerquantityofinformationtheyhadtodealwithbutcouldprioritizethevariousaspectsof theoverall taskin theearlystagesof theirwork.Inotherwords,bymeetingand planning early, the team members knew the scope of the job and the talents of their teammembers,andcouldthendivideuptheworkintoreasonableassignments.

Researchers also found that collaborative planning proved especially effective when teammembers gave the task to the least skilled member of the team, which helped raise each teammember ’sawarenessofhisorherfellowmembers’expertiseandexperience—thushelpingtheteamstructureanddivideuptheworkappropriately.

ADIVEINSIDETHEHIVEThisisagoodplacetoaddress thesubjectof“groupminds”orwhat iscalled transactivememory.This notion has been picked up by popular culture, especially science fiction, as the equivalent inhigher-orderanimalsofthe“hivemind”foundinbees,termites,andothersocialinsects(StarTrek’sBorg). In fact, transactive memory is a much more prosaic concept, but one with importantpossibilities.

FirstpromulgatedbythescientistDanielWegnerin1985andelaboratedonbyotherscientistsintheyearsthatfollowed,transactivememoryisusedbyteamstobenefitfromacollectiveawarenessof who knows what and therefore to both direct incoming knowledge to the appropriate groupmembers and to retrievevital information fromwithin thegroup.7Theydo thisnot through somekindofmind-meld(thoughitcanseemlikethattooutsiders)butbecausetheycommunicatealot.Intheprocess, theygainacommonunderstanding (a“metamemory”)ofwhoknowswhat,andwhichmemberhasaparticularexpertiseorskill—aswellaswhattheteamdoesn’tknow.Onceagain, thisprocessbeginswithcollaborativestrategymeetings,and,perfectedovertime,itcanresultinateamthatcanmaneuververyquicklyandnotwastetimesearchingforanswerstoquestionsordeterminingtherightpersonforajob.Researchconfirmsthatteamswithtransactivememoryperformbetterthantheir counterparts who lack it because the group’s members efficiently identify and use relevantknowledgeandgeneratehigher-qualitysolutions.

Mostsuccessfullargeorganizationsexhibitthistransactivememory,whethertheyknowitornot.Forexample,thereisalwaysonepersonintheorganizationwhoknowsthecompany’searlyhistory,orhowtofillouttravelvouchers,orthepolicyonleavesofabsence—andeveryoneinthecompanyknowswhothatpersonis.Asanoutsider,ifyouwanttofindthesepeople,oneofthequickestwaysistotrackthecompany’sinternalemailsandphonetraffic.Wherevertheycluster,thatpersonislikelyatransactivememorynode.Stupidcompanieswillsometimesfirethesekeyemployeesduringlayoffs—and then fail to understandwhy they are losingmore productivity than people.Messwith yourtransactivememoryemployeesatyourperil.You’rebetteroffgivingthemlifetimeemployment.

THEMAGICALENERGYOFCOGNITIVEDIVERSITYConfirming what most of us have long suspected, recent research has shown that people thinkdifferentlyfromoneanother.Butevenifweacceptthatfact,fewofusgiveitmuchconsideration—sometimestoourregret—whenwepopulateteams.Asaresult,everythingcanlookgoodonpaper,theteammembers’talentsdovetailneatly,andeveryonegetsalongwell,andyet,inaction,theteamjustdoesn’twork.

Why?Becauseitisnotenoughforrésumésandpersonalitiestomatch.Infact,doingsomaybetheworst thingyoucando.Given thechoiceof a team that is a rainbowof racesandculturesbutwhosemembersallwenttothesameIvyLeagueuniversity,andateamentirelycomposedofAfricanAmericanwomen(orAsianmen)ofdifferentages,classes,educations,andpersonalitytypes,youarefarmorelikelytohavesuccesswiththelatter.Thatis,ifyoucanholdthatteamtogether.

Whenitcomestoteams,traditionaldefinitionsof“diversity”aremeaningless.Cognitivediversity—howpeoplethink—isall.

CulturalPerspectivesOnecommonsourceof this cognitivediversity is cultural and is the resultofdifferentpatternsofsocialization.Forexample,insomecultures,peopletendtobeholisticthinkers,andinotherspeopletendtobemoreanalytical.

In2001, thepsychologistsRichardNisbett andTakahikoMasudaconductedanexperimentwithAmerican and Japanese participants.8 They showed both groups twenty-second animated videos ofunderwater scenes.When asked what they had observed, the Americans focused on objects in theforeground (brightlycolored fish).Meanwhile, theJapanese focusedon thebackgroundand talkedtwice asmuch as theAmericans about interdependencies between the foreground and backgroundobjects.

Asyoumightimagine,thismixofperspectivescanbeproblematicforateamifitsmembersareassigned taskswithout paying heed to their unique cognitive skills.On the other hand, if properlyhandled,thisdiversitycanbeanunequaledsourceofteamstrength,withsomemembersfocusingonthedetailsandothersonthebigpicture.

Anotherformofcognitivediversitycanbefoundbetweensociallycontextual(context-dependent)andindependent(context-independent)thinkers.Thisdifferencecanbequicklyandeasilydeterminedbyteamleadersbygivingtheteamasimpletest:Showyourteammembersaslantedboxframe(thatis,aboxshapedlikeaparallelogram),givethemarod,andthenaskthemtoaligntherodvertically

inthebox.Iftheresultlookslikethis...

...yourteammemberiscontext-dependent.Iftheresultlookslikethis...

...yourteammemberiscontext-independent.HowardWeissandJamesShaw, in their1979studyofeighty-eightmaleundergraduates, found

that context-dependent people aremore susceptible to social cues than context-independent peopleare.9

Here’s the thing: a team needs both independent and socially attuned thinkers. But leaders alsoneedtoknowthedistributionofthedifferenttypesofthinkersontheteamandmanageaccordingly.So, go ahead and test potential teammembers for their thinking style—not to excludeone typeoranotherbuttoincludetherightnumberofeachtype.

Atthispoint,youmaybethinking:WhydoIwantdiversityinthinkingstyles?Whyshouldn’tIgojustfortheindependentthinkers—afterall,aren’ttheymorecreativethantheconformists?Won’tthatincreasethelikelihoodoftheteam’scomingupwithsomethingradicallynewandvaluable?

Actually,no.Researchonradical-innovationteamsshowsthataddingsomeconformitytoateammay actually drive creativity. In particular—and counterintuitively—the leavening addition of aconformistcandramaticallyincreaseateam’sradicalinnovations.Studieshavefoundthattheoptimalbalance of people on radical-innovation teams requires that 50 percent of the members have thefollowingdistributionofpersonalitytypes:10

• Creative—20 to 30 percent. Teamswith toomany creative types strugglewith implementation.That’s because (surprise!) creatives are not always practical, are not concernedwith rules, andmayinitiateconflict.

• Conformist—10to20percent.Conformistsarethebackboneoftheteam;andtheirkeyroleistosupport the creatives. Conformists help boost cooperation and improve team confidence. Theymaketeamspredictable,inagoodway.

• Detail-oriented—Asmuchas10percent.Detail-orientedpeoplemayoftenberisk-averse,buttheyhelpstrengthenimportantteamfunctionssuchasbudgetarycontrol.Thedetailersmakesurethattheteamisstillthereeachmorning.

BrainDifferencesThenotionofleft-andright-brainthinkingenteredeverydaylanguageacoupleofdecadesago.Even

thoughrecentresearchsuggeststhattheremaynotbeanymeasurablephysiologicaldifferencesinthetwo brain hemispheres, most of us do recognize the personality differences between logical andcreative types.11 So-called left-brain thinkers typically engage in more logical and analyticalapproachestoproblemsolving.Incontrast,right-brainthinkersaremorenonlinearandintuitiveintheirapproaches.

This difference (which has obvious connections to the socially contextual and independentthinkingwejustdescribed)alsoturnsouttobeveryimportantinthecompositionofteams.Thegoal,wheneverpossible, is to create, if youwill,whole-brain teams inwhich the twobrain types are inrelativebalance.

Whole-brain teams carry with them a wide variety of problem solving and critical thinkingapproaches that are vital to innovating in dynamic environments. That’s why some organizationsalreadymakeitapracticetocreatewhole-brainteams.

Forexample,JerryHirshbergatNissanDesignensuredintellectualdiversitybypairingfree-formthinkerswithanalyticaldesigners.12Hirshbergrealizedthat“sometimestherightpersonforthejobistwopeople.”Therefore,whenhiringnewemployees,heworkedtocreatedivergentpairsbybringingin two people and coupling them because of their cognitive differences. Hirshberg found that thecontinuous tension within the pairs, as well as their opposing views, created a more innovativeenvironment,onethatledtosomeofNissan’smostsuccessfulvehicles,includingthePathfinderandtheInfinitiseriesofautomobiles.

Butboltingtogetherleft-andright-brainedteammembersisrarelyenough.Rather,leadersneedto domore than just assemblewhole-brain teams; they also need to harness the diversity in thosewhole-brainteams.Theycandothisthroughwhatiscalledcreativeabrasion.

Creativeabrasionisexactlywhatitsoundslike.It involveselicitingengagementfromeveryoneonateambyhavingteammembers’diverseapproaches“rub”againsteachotherinproductiveways.Tofosterthiscreativeabrasion,leadersneedto:

• Knowtheirownpreferences,weaknesses,andstrengths,andunderstandhowtheirownstylecanstiflecreativity.

• Helpteammemberslearnandacknowledgetheirintellectualpreferencesanddifferences.• Keepprojectgoalsfrontandcenter,andscheduletimefordivergentthinking(generatingmultiple

options)andconvergentthinking(focusingonasingleoptionanditsimplementation).• Deviseguidelines inadvance forworking together.Forexample, establisha rule (andget team

members’agreement)up front that anyconflictson the teamwillnotgetpersonaland that anyreasonsfordisagreementswillalwaysbestated.13

Creativeabrasioncanbeachallenge,butthepayoffiswellworththeeffort.Forexample,NestLabs—purchased in January2014byGoogle for$3.2billion—usescreative

abrasion to refine thedesignof its “smart”homeproducts, including itsLearningThermostat andothers in theNest pipeline.When facedwith a particularly trickyproblemor toughdecision,NestLabs’ founder andCEO,TonyFadell, a formerApple executive, gathers a diverse group of user-experience experts, product managers, software engineers, algorithm analysts, and marketingexecutives.Somearewomen,andsomearemen; theirskillsdiffer;and theskin tonesandculturalbackgroundsvaryaswell.Butit’snotaboutgender, job,orracialrepresentation.Instead,it’saboutcombiningsomanyviewpointsthatideasareboundtocollide,resultinginaproductthatbetterservesadiverseanddemandingcustomerbase.

TeamsversusLoneWolvesInour earlierdiscussion (and rejection)of the “lonewolf” theoryof leadership,wenoted that theveryhumandesiretocreateasimplenarrativetendstoreinforcetheideaofasingleactordefiningeventsratherthantheideaofmorecomplicatedteams.Nowherearethescientificunderpinningsofthatdesire.

It all focuses on leaders as the locus of attention. Psychologists have found that the humantendencytoattributesuccessandfailuretoleadersissostrongthattheyhaveevencoinedatermforit:leaderattributionerror.Itistheinclinationtoassigntotheleadercreditorblamefor theteam’ssuccessorfailure.Anditisnotjustobservers,orbosses,whooverattributeresponsibilitytoleaders.Teammembersdoittoo.14Thereality,however,provedoverandagaininstudies,isthatteams,permember,consistentlyoutperformindividuals.

BenJones,aprofessorofmanagementandstrategyat theKelloggSchoolofManagement,andhis colleagues studied the largest repository of scientific research available—an astonishing 17.9millionresearcharticlesacrossfivedecadesspanningallscientificfields.Theretheyfoundanearlyuniversal pattern: highly influential scientific papers (that is, the ones that are themost frequentlycited) exhibit novel combinations of interdisciplinary information, at a level of complexity almostimpossibleforasingleindividualtoachieve.Thelatestresearchonthesubjecthasfoundthatteamsare 37.7 percent more likely than solo authors to introduce novel combinations into familiarknowledgedomains.15Putsimply:teamsaremorelikelytocomeupwithreallygreatnewideas.

In 2010, Lee Fleming, a professor at theUniversity ofCalifornia,Berkeley, and his colleagueJasjit Singh directly tested themyth of lone inventors. Their analysis ofmore than half amillionpatented inventions showed that peopleworking alone, in particular thosewithout affiliationswithorganizations,weremorelikelytodeviserelativelylow-impactinventions—andthuswerelesslikelytoachieverealbreakthroughs.Solitaryinventorswerealsolesseffectivethangroupsatcullingoutbad ideas. Finally, collaborations also increased combinatorial opportunities for novelty—that is,differentideascanbemixedandmatchedtocomeupwithsomethingtrulyinnovative.

Insum,thesolitaryinventormaycomeupwithanearthshakingnewideaorinvention,butyouarebetteroffbettingonateamtobringtheideatolife.

DIVERSITY:ADOUBLE-EDGEDSWORDItwouldbeniceifwecouldsimplyapplyastandardizednotionofdiversitytotherecruitingofgroupmembers and then get on to the task at hand. Unfortunately, while most researchers agree thatdiversity is a key contributor to team success, they can’t agree on precisely what constitutes thatdiversity. Indeed, somebelieve it tobeverydifferent from the “diversity”we refer to in everydaylanguageoringovernmentregulation.

In two studies in 2010 involving nearly 700 people, AnitaW.Woolley (whom we’ve alreadymentioned)andhercolleaguesexaminedteamsoftwotofivemembersworkingonawidevarietyoftasks. They identified a general factor relating to intelligence in groups that explained theirperformancemore thananythingelse. Interestingly, this intelligence factorwas stronglycorrelatedwith neither the average intelligence nor the maximum individual intelligence of the group’smembers. Rather, and this proved especially surprising, they found that the intelligence factor ingroupsiscorrelatedwith:

• Theequalityindistributionofconversationalturn-taking• Theaveragesocialsensitivityofgroupmembers• Theproportionoffemalesinthegroup

But not everybody agrees. Scott Page, a professor of complex systems, political science, andeconomicsattheUniversityofMichigan,istheauthorofTheDifference:HowthePowerofDiversityCreates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. In it, and in comparison with Woolley, heidentifiesthreecausesofcognitivediversity:

• Training• Experience• Genes

Page argues that teammembers’ training and experience are the dominant causes of cognitivediversity,while genes are a relativelyminor factor. For Page, it is not apparent diversity (such asdifferences ingender,age,orrace) thatpromotesbettergroupperformance,butratherdiversity inpeople’s heuristics, perspectives, interpretations, and predictive models—all of which are derivedfrommembers’culturalbackgrounds,training,andexperience.Itisthisdiversity,heargues,thatcanenablediversegroups toperformbetter than individualsorhomogenousgroups.Thus, the roleoffemalemembers in a team, so important toWoolley, is to Page just another example of differentperspectivesatwork.

Page’sconclusion?Whenmanagersandorganizationsbuildandpromoteteamswithinner(andnotnecessarilyapparent)diversity,theycanreapthebenefitsofgroupdiversity.

Sowhataretheseinnerfactorsmentionedabove?

• Heuristicsarequickandsimpletechniquesusedforfindingsolutions.Forexample,theruleof72(72 divided by percent of interest rate is the number of years required for an investment todouble).

• Perspectivesarerepresentationsofthesetofpossiblesolutions,andtheycansimplifyproblems.For example, certain problems are simplified using polar coordinates instead of Cartesiancoordinates.

• Interpretationsareideasdrawnfromourobservationsofeventsandpeople.Intheseobservationscertainaspectsarehighlightedandothersignoredtodrawcausalinferences.

• Predictivemodelsaremodelscreatedfromacombinationofinterpretationplusapredictionforeachsetorcategorycreatedbyaninterpretation.

These so-called inner factors are quite a bit different from what we think of as traditionaldiversity. Indeed, they may be just the opposite. If Page is right, then the standard (and oftengovernment-required)“diversity”practiceofhiringgraduatesfromasimilarsetoftopuniversitieswhiletickingoff theboxesforrace,gender,ethnicity,andsoforthmaybeamisdirectedeffort.Asexternallydiverseasthesenewhiresmaybe,theirsocialization,training,andeducationmayrenderthem very similar to other new hires in terms of the heuristics, perspectives, interpretations, andpredictivemodels they use to solve problems and achieve their goals. In otherwords, they aren’tdiverseatall—andfillingateamwiththemwilllikelyprovetobesuboptimal.

So just hiringmorewomen as perWoolleyworks for Page only if thosewomen come fromsufficientlyunusualbackgroundstothinkdifferentlyfromtheirnewteammates.Otherwise,iftheyare

merelycutfromthesameclothasthemalemembersoftheteam,theywillhaveonlyaminorimpact(that is, therewill be a comparatively small cognitive difference between the sexes).Whatmattersmostaredifferencesinculture,class,andaptitudes.

Tohelpexplainhismodel,Pagehasintroducedwhathecallsthediversitypredictiontheorem:

Thesquarederrorofthecollectiveprediction=(averagesquarederror−predictivediversity)

Yeah,that’sprettycomplicated.Butitboilsdowntothis:Teamserrwhentheylackaccuracyanddiversity.So,whengroupdiversityislarge,theerrorintheteamissmall.

Page goes so far as to warn against using traditional stereotyping in selecting for diversitybecauseitmayleadtoteammembers’livingdowntotheexpectationsimposedonthem.

Inoneclassicstudy,Asianwomenwerejudgeddifferentlyontheirmathematicalskillsbasedonwhethertheywereprimarilydescribedbytheirgenderortheirethnicity.16Whentheparticipantsweredescribed by their gender, theywere rated lower (“women are bad atmath”) thanwhen theyweredescribed by their ethnicity (“Asians are good at math”). Even more troubling, the womenthemselves,whengivenamathtest,performedtothosejudgments.

Thelessonisthatdiversityispowerfulinteams,butonlyifitisrealdiversity.That’s just the beginning. Even when we can all agree that diversity is critical to team

performance,it’sstillareal-worldchallengetofigureouthowtoblendall thoseingredientsintoahigh-performingteam—muchlessmakeallthosedifferentpersonalitiesgetalong.

Astheresearchsuggests,there’snopointinaddingnewmemberstoateamjustbecausetheyfityour diversity requirements. If they cannot influence or improve the team’s collective decision-making, they have little value. Indeed, being placeholders, they may actually reduce the totalintellectualcapitaloftheteam.17

Morethanfortyyearsofresearchondiversityhasbeenconductedbypsychologists,sociologists,economists,andorganizationalscholars.Areviewofthisliteraturein1999byKatherineY.Williamsand Charles A. O’Reilly of Stanford Graduate School of Business underscored that diversity is adouble-edgedsword.18

Thegoodnewsisthatgroupdiversitycanenhanceperformance,becausegroupmembersbringto bear varied ideas, knowledge, and skills to accomplish tasks. However, in a diverse group,membersmayvieweachother throughabiased lensofstereotypesbasedonsocialcategories (thesamedifferencesinrace,gender,andsoforththataresupposedtohelp).Thisbiasinvariablyreducestheeffectivenessofthegroup’sinteractionasgroupmembersfailtoidentifywiththegroup.19

WilliamsandO’Reilly’skeyinsight is that teammembersmaintain theirself-esteembymakingcomparisons with other team members and then classifying themselves using those same salientcharacteristicsofrace,gender,andsoforth.Andwhenaparticularcharacteristicallowsmemberstoassumeapositiveself-identity, they then lookupon thosewho lack thatcharacteristicasbeingout-groupmembers—and thus less trustworthy.And it cangetugly: those individuals, nowconsideredout-groupmembers,canfaceexclusionfromintragroupinformationnetworksanddecision-makingprocesses.20

Andsowefindourselveswithwhatis,scientificallyspeaking,thecentralparadoxofteams:themostsuccessfulteamsexhibitdiversityintheirranks,butheterogeneous(thatis,diverse)teamsfaceseriousstructuralchallengesregardingmotivation,integration,andcoordination.21

Thusitallcomesdowntotheteamleader.Themorediverseateam,themorevolatileitislikelytobe.Andoftentheonlythingkeepingsucha teamfromexplodingis thequalityof its leadership.

Great leaders create teamgenius by bringing together, and holding together, themost diverse andheterogeneousteams.

And that leadership is needed from the very start. Thus, leaders need to bemindful of how to“activate”theidentitiesofnewgroupmembers,especiallywhenintroducingthenewteam.Andaswewillseelaterinthisbook,thatsamequalityofleadershipisstillneeded,oftenyearslater,whentheteamisledthroughitsretirementanddissolution.Greatleadersmakegreatteamsbecauseonlytheycanmanagethem.

Based on those four decades and thousands of research reports, Williams and O’Reillysummarizethedifferenttypesofdiversity,andtheirdistinctchallenges,asfollows:

• Tenurediversityisassociatedwithlowsocialintegration,poorcommunication,andhighturnoveringroups—allprocessesthatcanimpairgroupperformance.

• Functional diversity improves creative ideas in groups—however, not necessarily theimplementationofthoseideas.

• Agediversitycanincreaseturnoverandwithdrawal,especiallyofthoseindividualsmostdifferentfromtherestofthegroup.

• Genderdiversitytypicallyhasnegativeeffectsonmen.Menarelesssatisfiedandlesscommittedwhen in the minority—even though in female-dominated groups men are likely to be moreaccepted,lessstereotyped,andlesslikelytobetreatedwithhostility.

• Racial/ethnic diversity research is mostly on white-black dynamics, and the results areinconclusive.

GETTINGTHEBESTFROMDIVERSITYThat’saprettydauntinglist.

Is it reallyworth it?Whynot instead justuseall theother tools for teambuildingandskip thediversitypart?Or justpursuea lesserdegreeofdiversity—one thatmayenhance the teamwithoutexplodingitintoanightmareofcliques,accusations,andfights?

The answer lies, like most things, in your own cost-benefit analysis of the importance of theproject,yourconfidenceinhowwellyouwillrecruityourteam,andhowmuchriskyouarewillingtotaketoachieveyourgoals.

The bottom line is that your greatest chance to create a successful, productive team involves adiversemembership—butthemorediversethatmembershipbecomes,theworsetheoddsarethattheteamwillsurvivelongenoughtoproducethoseresults.Soyouneedastrategytomitigatethecostofthatincreaseddiversity.Thescientificevidencesuggeststhatthisstrategyshouldtaketwotracks.

First,diverse teamsneed tobeactivelymanaged.22Abandonnowanynotionyouhave thatyoucanbuildthemostpowerfulteampossible,winditup,andletitrunbyitself.Infact,themorediversetheteam,themorehands-onmanagementitwillneed.

Thatmeans,withlargergroups,thatyoumustbeveryselectiveabouttheteamleaderyouchoose.You will need a pro, not just, say, someone selected from the team. You will also likely want torelievethatleaderofanydutiesthatcontributetotheoperationsofthatgroupandreservetothemthejoboffull-timemanagement.That,ofcourse,willrequireincreasingthatteambyonemember,witha commensurate jump in the team’s budget. It alsomeans thatwith small teams—that is, pairs andtrios—youwillnotbeableto,asusual,leavethembe.Rather,anexternalmanagerwillberequiredto

provideregularoversight.23Besides increasing thequalityandparticipationofdirectmanagement,youwillalsoneed tobe

constantlyvigilantagainstanumberofthreatstotheteam’scontinuedexistence.Thesethreatsincludethefollowing:

TurnoverTurnover is a problem in groups inwhich themembers perceive each other as too different. Theaddedstressofdealingwiththe“other”willdrivesomepeopletoseekthesafetyofbeingwithpeoplemorelikethemselvesinotherteams.Thebestwaytocounterthiscentrifugalforceistofostersocialidentity—thatis,tocultivatetheprocessbywhichaperson’sself-conceptbecomesderivedfromhisor her membership in the group. Social identities—team titles, stories, recognitions, sharedadventures,andsoforth—buildmembers’loyaltytotheteamandserveassocialglueingroupsthatwouldotherwiseexplode.Experimentsshowthatpeoplewhohighlyidentifywiththeirteamexpressastrongerdesiretoremaininthatteamdespitethepresenceofanattractiveexitoption.24

FramingFramingishowapotentialchallengeoropportunityispresentedtoteammembersinrelationtotheiroverall project. Thus, how the challenge ofworkforce diversity is framed by the team leaderwillaffecthowteammembersmanagediversity-relatedtensionsandwhether thisdiversitywillenhanceordetractfromthegroup’sfunctioningeffectively.In2001,theHarvardresearchersRobinElyandDavidThomasstudiedthreeprofessionalservicefirmsandfoundthateachdealtwithdiversitywithadifferentwayofframingthechallenge:

• Theintegrationandlearningperspective—thefirstcompanyframeddiversityasamechanismforhelping teamsenhance theircapacity foradaptivechange. (“Yourdifferences inexperiencewillhelpustoreactquicklytoarapidlychangingmarketplace.”)

• Theaccessandlegitimacyperspective—thesecondcompanyframeddiversityasawaytobetterconnectwithanincreasinglydiversemarketplace.(“Yourdifferencesinculturalbackgroundswillhelpusunderstandtheglobalmarketplace.”)

• Thediscriminationand fairnessperspective—the third company frameddiversity as ameans toensuringfairandequaltreatmentofall.(“Ourdifferencesensurethattherewillbenobiasagainstanyone.”)

According to Ely and Thomas, only the integration and learning perspective provided thenecessaryrationaleandguidanceforharnessingsignificantbenefitsfromdiversity.Bycomparison,thediscriminationandfairnessperspective,whilesoundingnoble,had littleeffectonperformance.And the access and legitimacy perspective actually proved to be destructive, by creating theperceptionofastatushierarchy.Inotherwords,framethevalueofyourteam’sdiversityasamatterofstayingcompetitiveandemergingvictorious.Theyareinittowin,nottofeelbetter.

BeliefResearchhas found that teamswithprodiversitybeliefs arebetter at harnessing thepowerof theirowndiversity.That is, if theybelieve that their diversity is a competitive advantage, itwill usuallyturnout tobeso.Whythisself-fulfillingprophecy?Because thebelieversarewilling toengage inmoresharingofinformationandperspectives—andthatsharingultimatelypaysoff.25

Inatestofthistheory,multiplefour-personteams(eachcomposedoftwomenandtwowomen)were persuaded of either the value of diversity or the value of similarity for group performance.They then were provided with either homogenous (every member got the same) information orheterogeneous(everyonegotdifferent)information.Eachteamwasthentaskedtogenerate,discuss,and select as many useful items for survival in the desert, based on the information and rulesprovidedtothem.

The result? The diversity beliefs of the teams did not affect their performance carryinghomogenous information. However, for teams armed with heterogeneous information, those withprodiversity beliefs outperformed those with prosimilarity beliefs. In a rapidly changing globalmarketplace,whichteamwouldyouprefer?

TenureItturnsoutthatthelongeryoukeepateamtogether,thefewerthenegativeeffectsofitsdiversity.Thelaboratoryconsensusisthatmoreintragroupcontactultimatelyreducestheusualnegativeeffectsofsocialcategorization,suchasstereotypingandprejudices.26

Field research confirms this. Teams with high degrees of familiarity are better able to takeadvantageofdiverseexperiencesamongteammembers.27Familiarityhelpsteammembersnotonlytocoordinate theiractivitiesbutalso tocarryover thosecommunicationskillsfromoneproject tothe next. In addition, themore frequently teammemberswork together, the better they become atinnovationbyintegratingeachother ’sknowledge.

Inaregionknownforrapidjob-hoppingandrésumésshowingascoreofpositionsatdifferentcompaniesover thecourseofadozenyears, theseniormanagementofSiliconValleyBank(SVB)standsoutasa trueanomaly. In itsmore than threedecadesofexistence,SVBhasbeen ledbyfiveindividuals: Roger Smith, Harry Kellogg, John Dean, Ken Wilcox, and Greg Becker. That’s notunusual;whatisunusualisthatallfivemenstillremaininclosecontactandconnectedwiththebank.

ThisenduringrelationshipatthetophashadsomeimportantbenefitsforSVB.NoneofitsCEO-levelintellectualcapital,itsnetworkofcontactsandrelationships,oritsinternalculturehasbeenlostover the course of the bank’s entire history. This gives the current CEO, Becker, an enormousresourcehecantapatanytimetohelpwithdecision-making.Theresult?In2011,theExport-ImportBankof theUnitedStatesnamedSVB itsbankof theyear.Currentdepositshavenowreached$40billion.

Or consider San Antonio’s professional basketball team, the Spurs, which has been crazilysuccessful for four decades. San Antonio is one of the National Basketball Association’s small-marketteams.InaglamoroussportwithglamorousplayerslikeLeBronJamesandKobeBryant,themembersoftheSanAntonioteampreferrelativeanonymity.Yettheirteam’sorganizationalmethodsare remarkably similar to those suggested by the research in this book. The Spurs’ coach,GreggPopovich,isinhismiddlesixtiesandhasthelongesttenureinaleaguewhoserichownersliketofire

coachesonawhim.TheSpursalsohavethegreatestdiversityofplayersintheleague—bothintermsofthenationstheyrepresentandintherangeoftheirages,fromthelateteenstothelatethirties.

Allof this isagoodargument fornotdisbanding teamsquickly. Instead, thebest strategy is, ifpossible,tokeepteammemberstogetherthroughmorethanoneproject.Thatwillgivethemachanceto learn about each other and to bond—and in the process, helpmitigate the social categorizationproblemsassociatedwithdiverseteams.

CongruenceUnfortunately, many organizations don’t understand the value of tenure to diversity. Instead, theydisperse and reassemble teamsunder themistaken assumption that such changeshelp “freshenup”teams. The truth appears to be that rather than freshening their teams, these organizations areessentially forcing theiremployees through thesame learningcurveoverandoveragain—only tobreaktheirteamsupbeforetheycanputtheirmatureharmonytowork.Thescientifictermforthisharmonyisinterpersonalcongruence—thedegreetowhichteammembersviewothersinthegroupas thoseothersview themselves. It is this interpersonal congruence thatmoderates the relationshipbetweendiversityandgroupeffectiveness.

Tounderstand thenatureof interpersonal congruence, one longitudinal study lookedat eighty-threeworkgroupsoffourtosixmembersfromanMBAclass.28Memberswereassignedtoteamsinsuchawayastomaximizethewithin-teamdiversitybysex,countryoforigin,ethnicity,previousjobexperience(includingfunctionandindustry),andconcentrationintheircurrentgraduateprogram.

Theresult?Apowerfuldiscovery.Ingroupswithhighinterpersonalcongruence,thediversityofmembersactuallyenhancedcreativetaskperformance.Bycontrast,ingroupswithlowinterpersonalcongruence, the presence of diversity actually impaired performance. That means that if you canteach a diverse team, through the common goal of competitive success, a belief in the value ofdiversity, and an extended timeworking together, to see itself as a successful team, it can achievesuperiorperformance.

Now,evenbetternews:thisimprovedperformancecanbeginalmostimmediately.InthestudyofthoseMBAteams, the researchersdecided topush theprocess. Incertain teams, theyhadmemberspreparepositiveself-appraisalstobesharedwiththeotherteammembers.Incredibly,indoingso,theteamsachievedenoughinterpersonalcongruenceinthefirsttenminutesoftheinteractiontocontinuetobenefitthegroup’soutcomesfourmonthslater.

Team members can harness the benefits of the group’s diversity by expressing rather thansuppressing their unique characteristics. And leaders who encourage team members to seekcongruent,self-verifyingappraisalscanseeimmediate,andenduring,positiveresults.

IntegrationEven when they find a measure of harmony, teams still frequently fail to extract, organize, andintegratetheirmembers’knowledgeandexpertise.29Instead,theybecomeoverwhelmedwithdataandstruggle tomakesenseof it.30Or they fail tomake thenecessaryconnections that lead tooriginalideas.31Ortheyomitpiecesofcriticalinformationandfocustoomuchonsharedinformation.32

Thisisthebestargumentforhavingtheunique“diversity”ofoneofyourteammembersbethat

ofageneralist (orat leastsomeonewithawider-than-usualsetofpersonalskillsandexperiences).Teamsofspecialistsalmostalwaysbenefitfrommemberscapableoftranslatingdiscoveriesamongmemberswithrelativelynarrowexpertise.Withoutthesetranslators,valuableinformationcanfailtobeintegratedintotheoveralleffortandbewasted.33

ModerationGroup connectivity is important, but it shouldn’t be overdone. Comity can be the enemy ofcomplexity.Agroupwhosemembersare toocloselyconnectedcansee thebenefitsof itsdiversityfade.That’sbecausewhiledensetiesamongteammembersmayenhancethe team’ssolidarity, theycan also impede creativity.This is particularly true for complexproblem solving.Communicationnetworks that are highly efficient at disseminating information typically enhance short-run but notlong-runperformance.Why?Because inefficientcommunicationnetworksmaintaindiversity.Theyarealsobetterforexploration(theyfreethe“mavericks”)andthelong-runsearchforsolutions.34

Obviously,thiscreatesaparadox:youneedtopromoteintragroupcommunicationstoovercomethe obstacles created by diversity, but at the same time, if you draw the team too close togetherthrough overcommunicating, you will stifle that same diversity that is so valuable to the team’ssuccess.Theonlyrealanswer,webelieve,istocommunicateregularly,butnotconstantly,andtousethat communication for the dissemination of new information, not for setting boundaries onmembers’efforts.

DissentAllofushavebeenthroughbrainstormingsessionsinwhichwe’vebeentoldthatwearenottojudgeor criticize our own or others’ ideas—at least not in the creative phase. In the real life of teams,exactlytheoppositeappearstobetrue.Experimentalresearchonteamshasshownthatdebateandthepresence of competing views actually stimulate divergent and creative thought. Furthermore,permission to criticize and todebate is also conducive to ideageneration.As an aside, it hasbeenfoundthatgroupsinstructedtocriticizeanddebateeveninbrainstormingactivitiesdidbetterthanthegroupsinstructednottocriticize.35

CreativityThe sociologists Brian Uzzi of Northwestern University and Jarrett Spiro of INSEAD set out todiscovertheidealcompositionoftheteamsbehindBroadwaymusicals.Todoso,theystudiedeverymusicalproducedonBroadwaybetween1945and1989.Theyalsotrackedthenamesofeveryknowncollaborator on those shows. The eventual list numbered 2,092 people who had worked on 474musicalsofnewmaterialproducedduringthatera.

Inparticular,UzziandSpirowantedtounderstandwhetheritwasbettertohaveateamcomposedofclosefriendswhohadworkedtogetherbeforeortohaveateamofstrangers.Anincumbentteamexhibited an extremely highQ rating and a teamof strangers had a lowQ rating,whereQwas ameasurementofthedensityofconnectionsinthatproductionteam.

What the two researchers found was that the relationship between Q and musical success wascurvilinear—that is, itwas thickest in themiddle. Thus,when theQwas low (less than 1.7), teammembers did not know one another and struggled to exchange ideas and truly collaborate.By thesametoken,whentheQwastoohigh(above3.2),teammembersthoughtintoo-similarwaysand,asaresult,stifledcreativity.

TheyfoundthatthebestBroadwayshowswereproducedbyteamswithanintermediatelevelofsocial intimacy.This ideal levelofQ—called theblisspoint—wasbetween2.4and2.6.Within thisrange,amusicalwasthreetimesmorelikelytobeacommercialsuccessandthreetimesmorelikelytoreceivecriticalacclaimthanamusicalproducedbyateamwithalowQorahighQ.

Thissuggeststhatthebestteamsenjoyamixofoldfriendsandnewcomers.Inthisway,theteammembersarecomfortablewitheachotherandreadilyexchangeideas,buttheyarenotsocomfortablethattheystiflecreativityineachother.36

DivergenceWhatis thebeststrategyfornewmemberswhenenteringateam?Conformearly,diverge later.Wehumansareneurologicallypredisposedtoseenewpeopleandnewideasaspotentialthreats.Soit’snotsurprisingthatsocialpsychologistshavefoundthatnewgroupmembers,whoinvariablypresentnewinformationtotheirteams,areoftenperceivedasthreats.Andbecauseofthat,theirfeedbackistypicallydismissed,ignored,orrejectedoutofhand.Itisonlyafterasufficientnumberofpositiveexperiences that cement a new arrival’s status as a group member that this person’s divergentfeedbackisperceivedasnonthreatening.Until then, thenewmember ’softenvaluableknowledge islost.

This loss canbe costly—yet solutionsdon’t come easily.Thegroupmembers resist, reject, orignorecriticismfromnewcomersbecauseitrepresentsathreattothegroup’scollectiveself-concept.As such, they are obliged to challenge the integrity of the message.37 As long as a person isconsideredby the group to be anoutsider, his or her criticism is likely to be rejected even if thatcriticismisappropriate,welljustified,andwellargued.38Notsurprisingly,thesamecriticismmadebesomeoneconsideredaninsiderislikelytobeacceptedbytheteam.

So,what’s the answer?Preparation. New teammembers need to be taught that entering a newgroupandintroducingdivergentthoughtswithouthavinggainedthegroup’strustmaybackfire.Thekey,newmembersmustbetold,istofirstgaingrouptrustbyconforming—andonlylater,whenthattrusthasbeenearned,shouldtheydissent.Obviously,thisdoesn’tentirelysolvetheproblemoflostcontributionsatthebeginningofanewmember ’sinclusion,butitmayshortenitsduration.

ExperienceCognitiveabilitiesdonotnecessarilybecome impairedwithage.39 “Cognitive fitness” isa stateofoptimized ability to reason, remember, learn, plan, and adapt that is enhanced by certain attitudes,lifestyle choices, and exercises. Cognitive fitness enhances people’s decision-making, problemsolving,abilitytomanagestressandchange,andopennesstonewideasandalternativeperspectives.Dependingonhowyouliveyourlife,yourbrain’sanatomy,neuralnetworks,andcognitiveabilitiescan actually improve through experiences. Contrary to the selection for youth in places such as

SiliconValley,oldermemberscanbecrucialteamparticipants.

ProximityThefinalchallengetomaintainingteams’effectivenessmaycomeasasurpriseinthisageofglobalwork teams, telepresence, and remote collaboration. An analysis of 35,000 articles across 2,000journals by 200,000 authors for the years 1999 through 2003 shows that proximity among teammembers isapredictorof thequalityof teamoutcomes.40The researchersmapped the locationofcoauthorsandthequalityofresearchbasedonthenumberofsubsequentcitations.Physicalproximityprovedtobeanimportantpredictorofpublicationimpact.41

What does thismean in light ofmodern telecommunications, international teams, and a globalmarketplace?Much depends on the definition of “proximity.” A virtual work team living on fourdifferentcontinentsandhandingofftheirworkacrosstwenty-fourtimezonesandcommunicatingviaemailandtextisalmosttheembodimentofthelackofproximity.Sothechallengeinsuchacaseistoreplace traditional physical proximity with something else: regular online meetings, enhancedcommunications tools (such as telepresence technology), team rituals, nonwork activities, and,wheneverpossible,actuallygettingtheteamphysicallytogetherinasingleplace.

THESIZEQUESTION,AGAINThis brings us, inevitably, to the question of team size. We have already discussed this topicextensively—andwewillgointoevenmoredepthlater.Fornow,wewanttodevoteourselvestowhatthe latest scientific research tells us about how teams shouldbe created in termsof the number ofmembers.

Herearesomeofthemostinterestingrecentfindings:First,teamboundariesbecomeaproblemasteamsizeincreases. Inawell-boundedteam,people

knowwhoisandwhoisnotontheteam.Butastheteamgrowsinsize,thissenseof“boundedness”becomeslessclear.

Corporatemanagementteams,asarule, tendtobeespeciallyunderboundedandoverlarge.Inastudyof120topmanagementteams,only11ofthoseteams(9percent)hadacommonagreementonthe precise number of members on their team. This is not a minor matter: as we’ve just seen,knowledge of who is and who is not on the team is vitally important, because it enables teammemberstomakeanaccurateassessmentofall theavailableresourceswhendevelopingtheteam’sgoals.Withoutit,theycanonlymakearough,andusuallyinaccurate,estimate.

But that isn’t the last word on the matter, because increasing team size does offer a range ofperformancebenefits.Herearesomeexamples:

• Havingmorememberscreatestheopportunityforagreaterdivisionoflabor;thisinturnallowsformoretaskspecialization.42

• Havingmoremembersalsocreatesalargerpoolofaggregateteamknowledgeandexperience.43• The larger the inventoryof slack resourcesathand, themore the team isprepared todealwith

changingcircumstances.44

Increasing team size, however, can also impair performance: As a team’s size increases, itsfunctional size—that is, the number of peoplewho are actually contributing to the team’swork—usually does not increase accordingly.45 There are no guarantees that the larger knowledge andexperiencepooloftheexpandedteamwillbeeffectivelyutilized.

Anddon’t forget thenetworkingproblem—sixcommunication links ina four-person teamandforty-fiveinaten-personteam.Asteamsizeincreases,theneedforcoordinationmultiplies.46Andatthe same time, any sharingof the technical and coordinative informationneeded tomaintain thosenetworksalsobecomesmoredifficult.47

Therearealso integrationcostsassociatedwith increasing teamsize. It takes timeandeffort toincorporatenewmembersintoateam.Whilethishappens,theteammayslow,orevenstop.48

And don’t forget the lesson of tugs-of-war. In groups in which individual and collectiveperformance is inextricably tied, and individual contributions are difficult to assess, individuals—knowing that their efforts can’t be isolated—will often slackoff andcontribute less than their bestefforts. In psychology, this phenomenon is known as social loafing; in economics it’s free riding.ExperimentsbytheFrenchpsychologistMaxRingelmannbackin1913showedasharpdeclineintheindividual efforts of men engaged in a tug-of-war.49 On average, one person pulled 139 pounds,groupsofthreepulled353pounds(thatis,15percentlessperperson),andgroupsofeightpulled547pounds(51percentlessperperson).Ringelmannwiselychosethetug-of-warbecauseitpresentednocoordination problems—the only task was for everyone to pull hard. So, the difference inperformancecamedowntoonething:decreasedeffort.50

Finally, increasingteamsizecanalsocauserelational losses inknowledge-basedteams.Studieshavefoundthatasteamsizeincreases,itsmembers’perceptionsofavailablesupportdiminishevenwhen that support isavailable.This is important,because thebelief that supportandmultiplehigh-qualityrelationshipsareavailableplaysanimportantroleasabuffertostressfuljobexperiences.51

One of the leading social scientists in the study of team size is Bibb Latané of the Center forHuman Science. A pioneer of social impact theory, Latané has made a number of importantdiscoveries on the implications of increasing team size on team dynamics, on how order isspontaneouslycreatedinlargegroups,andthespreadofsocialinfluenceinpopulations.Amonghisfindings:

• As teamsize increases, individualresponsibilitydilutes.Latané’sworkon the“bystandereffect”withJohnDarleyshowsthatpeoplearelesslikelytohelpsomeoneinanemergencyifthereareothersaround,becausetheresponsibilitytohelpisdistributedovermanypeople.

• Asagroup’ssizeincreases,addingpeopleyieldsdiminishingreturnsonindividualcontributions.Thegreaterthenumberofpeoplepresent,thegreaterwillbetheirinfluenceoneachindividual.Forexample,onepersonaddedtoagroupoftwoislikelytohavemoreimpactonthegroupthanonepersonaddedtoagroupoftwenty.Thus,theinfluenceofuniqueexpertiseandskillsinateamdiminishesasteamsizeincreases.Thereisatrade-offbetweencreatingathoroughlydiverseteamandcreatingasmallteaminwhichindividualcontributionsaremoreeasilyharnessed.

• Managersandleaderstendtooverestimatethebenefitsoflargerteams.Onereasonweoftenseeteamswithmorethanfivememberswhenapairortriowouldbeobviouslymoreeffectiveisthatmanagers fall for the belief that, in teams, the more, the better. In 2012, after finding fieldevidence for this, researchers Bradley Staats, Katherine Milkman, and Craig Fox named oneversionofthisphenomenon,thetendencytoincreasinglyunderestimatetaskcompletiontimeas

teamsizegrows,theteamscalingfallacy.

FollowingLatané’s lead, other scientists have taken up the quest to find the optimal team size.Unfortunately,it’stooearlytocometoconclusions.However,thereissomeresearchonbothhowtomitigate the negative effects of large teams aswell as on how to keep team size small evenwhenprojectsdemandalargenumberofpeople:

• Itisimportanttohelpteammembersperceivetheirtaskandgoalsassignificantandmeaningful.Thishelpsmitigatesocialloafing.Ifthatfails,encourageteammembers(throughteampride)tocompensateforsubstandardcontributionsfromtheircoworkers.52

• Tokeepteamsizesmall,managersshouldcreatemultiteamprojects.Theycanalsobuildcoreandextendedteams,oroutsourcecertaintasks.53

• In large teams, not all teammembers have to be involved all the time—teammembers can bebroughtinforspecifictasks.54

Now thatyou’vebuiltyour teamandpopulated itwithadiversegroupofmembers,your finalchallengetokeepitrunningatitsfullpotentialisnotjusttodriveittofullproductivitybuttokeepitrunningatthatpacebyminimizingitslong-termlosses.

ManagingTeamstoGenius

Fortunately, there is more than one path to team success. Fully armed with this knowledge, youshouldbeabletofindtheteamforyou—aswellasaleadershipstylethatsuitsyourpersonalityandyourorganization’sculture.

Hereagain,researchinthelastdecadehasrevealedsomeinterestingdiscoveries.Oneofthemisthatthevaluesinstilledinateamatitsformationwillshapethewayitsmembersapproachtasksandtheir social interactions, and that over time those attitudeswill solidify as a feature of the group’sstructure.Thatmeansthathowyourteambeginswilldeterminehowitends,andhowitwillperformduringitsexistence.

Scientistshavelookedattheselifecyclesandfoundthat:

• Group members who share egalitarian values form highly interdependent task structures andsocialpatterns.Theytypicallyperformwell.

• Groupmemberswhosharemeritocraticvaluestendtoformfewerinterdependentapproachesandsocialpatterns.Theyalsocanperformwell.

• Groups with mixed values, by comparison, end up lacking consistent approaches to tasks andgroup processes. Compared with the egalitarian and meritocratic groups, they significantlyunderperform.1

These findings help explain the paradox of howdifferent companies,with very different, evenantithetical,cultures,canenjoycontinuous,long-termsuccess,whileothercompanieswithculturesinthe“middle,”evenfeaturingthebestofthetwoextremecases,arenotassuccessful.

Aswewerewriting this book,Rich sat in on a fascinating conversation between JimDavis, aseniorvicepresidentandCMOatSAS,andtheCEOofastart-upcompanywhohadonceworkedatAmazon.SAS, a private corporation, is regularly listed as oneof theworld’s best places towork.Employees enjoy a beautiful corporate campus, free child care, fabulous food, doctors on staff,salons,andsoforth.Notsurprisingly,ithas3percentturnoverperyear.

Amazon, said theCEOandex-Amazonemployee, is theopposite. It “works the shit”outof itspeople and retains them for an average of one year. Yet, by any measure, Amazon is hugelysuccessful—arguablyevenmoresuccessfulthanSAS.

IfSASissuccessfulwithanourishingculture,andAmazonwithaharshlymeritocraticone,whydobothwork?

TheansweristhatbothSASandAmazonareclearabouttheirculture.Thereisnoconfusionordishonesty—but ratherauthenticityand trust—tobothcompanies.SAS’smessage is:spendacareer

with us. Amazon’s is: challenge yourself with us. By comparison, mediocre teams and companiesdon’tknowwhattheyare.Theysayonethingandthendoanother.Theyblowaroundlikethewind,andtheydestroyauthenticityandtrust.

It all begins at the beginning. Effective leaders, in their own way, achieve three tasks at teamlaunch:

• Clarifyandgivemeaningtotheteam’stask• Boundtheteamasoneperformingunit• Establishnormsofconduct

This helps explain why both independent and interdependent group work can be effective.Researchshowsthatgroupsperformbestwhentheirtaskandoutcomesareeitherpurelytheproductofgroupworkorpurelytheproductofindividualeffort.Hybridgroups—onceagain,thein-betweenposition,inwhichtasksandrewardshaveindividualaswellasgroupelements—inevitablystrugglewithinteractions,groupstability,andmembersatisfaction.Inhybridgroups,cooperationnormsareweak.2

Asusual,itcomesdowntoleadership,withthebiggestpenaltiesgoingtoteamleaderswhoareneither decisive nor consistent. Michael Dell made a mistake common to successful techentrepreneurswho find, after a run of great success, their growth flattening and their stock pricefallingback toearth.During the1990s,Dellwas thefastest-growingstockamongmore than5,000tradedintheUnitedStates.OnethousanddollarsofDellstockpurchasedinJanuary1990wasworthamilliondollarsbyDecember1999.

But this good fortune eventually led to a bad outcome.After the tech stock crash of 2000 and2001,Dell’s stocknever recovered to its all-timehighs.Even thoughDell’s revenues continued togrowforthenextthirteenyears,thecompany’sperformancedisappointedWallStreet.WhenApple’smarketvalueracedpastDell’sin2006,Dellwasseenasaloser,eventhoughitwasstillgrowingandprofitable.TheeffectonDell’scultureandonMichaelDellhimselfwasdevastating.LeadershipatDellseemedalmosttogiveup.Itwasneitherconsistentnordecisive.

Finally,inlate2013,thecompanydidaleveragedbuyoutandtookitselfofftheNASDAQstockexchange.TheverydayDellwentprivate,MichaelDelldidsomethingequallyimportant.Hedumpedthe employee forced-ranking system within Dell. The forced-ranking system, which pitted everyemployee against each other on a bell curve of performance, had turned good employees intopoliticians,bademployeesintobackstabbers,colleaguesintoenemies,andtheentireDellcultureintoa sort ofLord of the Flies drama.We exaggerate—but you get the point.More important, so didMichaelDell.Injustayearofthecompany’sbeingprivate,MichaelDellbroughtdeepculturalvaluesandconsistent,decisiveleadershipbacktohiscompany.

Often,poorteamleaderstendtohavecontrolissues.Theyareeitherovercontrollingtyrants(notasking for or ignoring input from teammembers) or undercontrollingweaklings (so laissez-fairethatteammembersendupwithlittleclarityonhowtooperate).Theveryworstleadersmanagetobeboth, unpredictably vacillating between the two extremes and in the process incapacitating teammembersfromdoingtheirwork.3

J. Richard Hackman, an esteemed expert on teams, summarizes the leadership challenge mostaptly.Henotes thatyoucannotguarantee teamsuccessbutyoucanincrease theprobabilityof itbymanagingatthemarginsandsettinguptherightconditions.4

AccordingtoHackman,these“rightconditions”are:

• Theteamhasacompellingdirection:theteamtaskisclear,challenging,andconsequential.• The team is bounded (it is clear who is and who is not on the team) and stable (the team’s

membership is not constantly fluctuating), and its members are interdependent (that is, theyinteractwithoneanothertoaccomplishtheteam’swork).

• The team is setupwith the rightmixofmembers,whohavenormsofconduct thatguide theirbehavior.Teammembersaredifferentbutnotsodifferentthattheycannotworkwitheachother.Teammembershavetherightsetofskillsandexpertisefortheteamtask.

• The team has a supportive organizational context that provides team members with access toresources,information,andtrainingtohelpaccomplishtheirtask.

• Theteamreceivescoachingfromexperts,peers,andleaders.5

CUTTINGYOURLOSSESIn1972,thesocialpsychologistIvanSteinerproposedthefollowing,nowwidelycited,equation:

Actualgroupproductivity=Potentialproductivity−Processlosses

Where:

• Potentialproductivityiswhattheteamcantheoreticallyachieve,givenitsresources.• Processlossesarewhattheteamlosesthroughcoordinationandmotivationproblems.

Steinerwentontosaythatgroupsizeandgroupproductivityarerelatedtogrouptasks.6Thesetasks, he continued, can be differentiated based on three categories: component, focus, andinterdependence.

Component.Thisisthetypeofteamtask(“divisible”)thatcanbeeasilydividedintosubtasksthatcanbeassignedtospecificteammembers.Oritistheteamtask(“unitary”)thatcannotbedividedintosubtasksandeitherall theteammembersmustworktogetheroronegroupmembermustcompletethetaskwhiletheothersobserveasbystanders.

Focus. This is the direction of the team’s efforts. At the heart of focus is the question “Is thequantityorthequalityoftheteam’soutputmostimportant?”Whentheteamisfocusedonquantity,itis performing amaximizing task—teammembers are focused on producing asmuch as possible.Whentheteamisfocusedonquality,itisperforminganoptimizingtask,andthegroupmembersareseeking the optimal solution because high-quality performance is rewarded and poor-qualityperformanceispenalized.

Interdependence.Theinterdependenceofteamtasksreferstohowtheindividualcontributionsofteammembers are combined or integrated.There are six types of task interdependence—and eachproducesitsowntypeofprocessloss.

Additivetasksarecompletedbycombiningindividualcontributionsintothefinalteamoutput.Forexample, a tug-of-war, an assembly line, and a relay race are additive tasks. In this type of task,processlossesoccurduetologisticalproblems,socialloafing,andcoordinationissues.Productivityriseswithgroup size at adecreasing ratebecause thenumberof functional links increases rapidlywithgroupsize:n(n−1).

Disjunctivetasksrequirethegrouptosolveasingleproblem(forexample,acrosswordpuzzleor a brain teaser) and perform at the level of its most competent member. A larger group size

increases the likelihood of competent members being in the group, but it doesn’t guarantee it.Productivity also increaseswith group size up to a certain extent, afterwhich process lossesmaycreep in. Process losses are typically due to self-censorship, social loafing, group members notlisteningtothemostcompetentpeopleinthegroup,orthelackofagroupprocessinwhichallvoicesare heard. These losses can bemitigated by selecting peoplewith the right expertise, by fosteringnormsandsharedbeliefsthatreduceself-censorship,andbyfosteringanonthreateninginterpersonalclimate in which people are comfortable speaking up.7 Meanwhile, making the team’s taskcompellingandconsequentialcanalsohelpdiminishsocialloafing.8

Conjunctivetasksrequirethatallgroupmembersworktoaccomplishtheteam’stask.Now,unlikedisjunctivetasks,thegroupperformsconjunctivetasks(intermsofspeedandqualityofwork)atthelevel of its least competent member (or its weakest link). Examples of groups working on aconjunctivetaskincludeamusicalbandandarock-climbingteam.

Becauseafewmemberscanbringdowntheentireteaminconjunctivetasks,thekeyistoassignteammembers tasks theyenjoy. It is almost as important to increase interdependenceand feedbackwithintheteam,becausetheystrengthenthesenseofpersonalcontributionandsocialindispensabilityamongteammembers,whichinturnpromotesteammembers’efforts.9

Whydoesthiswork?TheKöhlereffect,firstformulatedin1926,explainsit:Weakerindividualsin teams strive to keep upwith other groupmembers. They do not want to hold the group back,especiallywhen the group isworking on a conjunctive task.10Recently, experimental studies havefoundthat,incomparisonwithworkingalone,teammembersshowasmuchasa50percentincreaseinperformanceduringteamworkbecausetheydonotwanttolettheirteammatesdown.11Theeffectisevenstrongerwhenteammembersareworkingontaskstheyenjoy.12

Thisfindingunderscoreswhatmostofusknowfromourownlives:beingpartofateamtakingonataskinwhichourownparticipationmakesanobviouscontributioncanbringoutthebestinus.

Compensatory tasks feature group members who average their individual contributions. Forexample,consideragrouptaskofestimatingthevalueofastock.Eachmemberoffersanestimate;and thegroupestimate is theaverage.Or,consideraprocessofselectinga jobcandidate inwhicheveryoneonacommitteeassignsascoretoeachcandidateinthepool.

Here, the process losses occur from having any discussions before the decision. The biggestadvantageofcompensatorytasksisthatsystematicbiasesarecorrectedbythemultiplecontributions.However, if thegroupengagesinadiscussion,or if thememberstrytoinfluenceoneanother, thisadvantage is lost.This canbe compensated for byweightingvoters basedon their knowledge andexpertise.Unfortunately, inreal lifeotherfactorssuchasseniorityorstatusorpopularityareoftenusedtoweightindividualestimates—whichonlymakesthingsworse.

Rich recently interviewed aNavyBlueAngels jet formation instructor.The stakes in aerobaticformationflyingarelife-and-death.Thepilotsflywingtip-to-wingtip,eighteeninchesapart,atspeedsofup to400milesperhour.Everypilothas tobeathis topgame,within teamformations,all thetime,orsomeonewilldie.

SohowdotheBlueAngelsdoit?Theystartbyvideotapingeveryperformanceandpractice.Thenthey rigorously debrief the performance. To keep service rank, seniority, and popularity fromskewingthedebriefing,thepilotsfirstwalkintothedebriefingroomandremovetheirnametagsandservicerank.Theybeginwithateamsaying:“Therearenoperfectperformances.We’reheretotalkabout what was imperfect.” Then they begin. What follows is almost like a twelve-step recoverymeeting,witheveryonesayingwhatheorshecouldhavedonebetter.

Discretionary tasks allow group members to determine how to integrate their individualcontributions.Inotherwords,themeansbywhichtheteamwillaccomplishagrouptaskisuptothediscretionoftheteamitself.Theresultcanbeverysuccessful,asthepathtocompletioniscustomizedby the individual members. But process losses, even failure, can occur when teams adopt aninappropriateperformancestrategy—aswhenmembersputtheirownmotivesandambitionsaheadoftheteam.

Configuraltasks,lastbutnotleast,areamixoftheabove.Needlesstosay,itwouldbeimpossibletodoallfivetasktypesatthesametime—indeed,manyarecontradictory.However,someteamsmayinstitute these different tasks sequentially, say, working together at one point, then each in turn atanother.

Thatbringsyouup-to-datewith the latestdiscoveriesand insights regarding teams, theirmembers,and their operation. In the pages to come, we’ll look into the world of different team types—ataxonomy of teams, if youwill.As you read about themany different forms that pairs, trios, andlarger teamstake,pleasekeep inmind thatbehind these labelsandnarrativedescriptions lieall thepsychologicalandsociologicalforcesaboutwhichyou’vejustlearned.

We’vejustlookedattheinsideofteams.Now,inthenextchapter,you’llbeginlookingatteamsfromtheoutside—fromtheperspectiveofamanagerassignedtobuildthemandensuretheirsuccess.

ThePowerofPairs

Intheearly1990s,oneofthemostdrivenentrepreneursofhisgenerationhitaroughpatch.HowardSchultz was trying to expand his business, Starbucks Coffee, around the United States, but afteropening a fewhundred stores, he found that his rapid expansionmodel hadbegun to breakdown.Reportscamebackthatcustomerservice—aningredientperhapsevenmoreimportanttohissuccessthanthecoffeeitself—wasdropping.Maybethecriticswereright.It’sdamnnearimpossibletoscaleupacultbrandlikeStarbucksnationally,letaloneworldwide,becausetheintangibles,whichincludegreatcustomerservice,don’talwaysrespondtosizeandscale.

Schultz soon realized that what Starbucks neededmost was someonewith a deep empathy foremployeesandanappreciation for theartofcustomer service.SomeonequiteunlikeSchultz,whowas one of those typeA, hypercompetitive, poor-kid-who-went-to-college-on-a-sports-scholarship,successful-at-everything-he-toucheskindofguys.

So in1994,Schultzdid somethingunusual.Hepromotedhis exactopposite in temperament, tostrengthen employeemorale and customer service atStarbucks.By theoddest of coincidences, theoutsideralsohappenedtobenamedHoward,HowardBehar.

“We were so unalike that it was funny,” recalls Behar. “We look different. He’s tall, athletic,hawkish.I’mshortandround.Weseetheworlddifferently,too.Hell,wearguedandfoughtforthreeyears about how important employee culturewas to Starbucks’ ability to scale nationally and thenworldwide. For Schultz, culture wasmaybe important, but not primary. For me, it was the wholegame.”

TheHoward-Howardrelationshiphadarockystart.But the twoprotagonistsstuckto it. Indeed,HowardBeharbecame thepresidentofStarbucksand served in thatposition foreightyearsunderHowardSchultz.

Intoday’stoughandcompetitiveeconomy,thedemandsofdailylifeatworkandplayarealmostimpossibletomanagebyoneself.What’sneededinsteadarepeoplewithcomplementaryskills.Andwe find such pairs almost everywhere: the engineer who teamswith the technical writer, the triallawyer with the researcher, the executive with the operations expert, the inventor with theentrepreneur,thetaleofthetwoHowards...thelistisalmostendless.

Infact,themoreyoustudypairs,thelessyoufindthatthestereotypicalcombinationoftwonearlyidenticalindividuals—callthem“CastorandPolluxpairs”—appearstoexistinreallife.Instead,aswewill now see, pairs most often take on a wide and colorful array of forms, some of them quiteunlikelyat firstglance.Notonly is thesuccessof these teamsnotcorrelatedwithcompatibilitybutsome of the most successful pairs consist of two people who have nothing in common and mayactuallydespiseeachother.Strangerstillarethepairsinwhichonemembermaybelongdead—or

haveneverevenexisted.Needless to say, this isnot thewaywenormally thinkofpairs,norhowwe typicallyassemble

theminbusiness,government,oracademia.Rather,we tendeither to teamuppeoplewhowethinkwillworkwelltogether,orsimplysticktogetherthetwobestindividualsforthejobwecanfind.Thatthis selection process remains so crude even into the twenty-first century is shocking. After all,companies today spend billions, using everything from headhunters to trade shows to Big Dataanalytics, towinnowout those few individualsdetermined tobe thebestpossible recruits from themassofpotentialemployeesintheworkforce(orfromthosejustgraduatingfromcollege).Andyet,whenthosetalentedindividualsarefinallyhiredandputtowork,theyarepairedwithothers,orputinto larger teams, through a process that hasn’t changed in millennia: perceived compatibility,commoninterests,similarpersonalities,intuition,andmoreoftenthannot,proximityandexpediency.

Is it anywonder that, forall theempirical tools thatarenowbrought tobearoncorporateHRfunctions, we still have almost no ability to predictwhether a given pairwill actually get the jobdone?Andifwecan’tdoitwithpairs,thebasicbuildingblockofalllargerteams,howcanweeverexpecttomakesuchpredictionsaboutteamsof50or1,500?

This cannot continue—nor will it for long. Just as the sciences of management information,supply chain management, and new-employee profiling have emerged in turn in response to pastchallengestoorganizationalefficiency,sotooisitinevitablethatanewdisciplinewillsoonemergetobringcomputationalpowerandempiricaltechniquestoenterpriseteam-building.Forthoseofuswhohavefoundourselvesinfailedordysfunctionalteams—thatis,mostofus—thatdaycan’tcomesoonenough.

And when it does, as has been the case with one technology-driven revolution in corporateoperationsafteranother,thefirstadopterineachindustrywillfinditselfwithapowerfulcompetitiveadvantage that will enable it to accelerate away from its competitors. Imagine a company or aninstitution inwhicheveryoneof itsoperatingunits, largeandsmall,workswithanefficiency thattodayisfoundonlyamongits“superstar”teams.

Whenthatrevolutioninteamconstructionandmanagementfinallyarrives,itwillnodoubtstartwiththeveryfoundationofallteams:pairs.Afterall,pairsarenotonlythemostcommonofhuman(and animal) teams, but they are also the basic bricks fromwhich the edifices of larger teams arebuilt.

POWERHOUSEPAIRONTHEPRAIRIEOn a warm Southern California evening in 2012, in the eastern Los Angeles suburb of Arcadia,thirty-oneskinnyhighschool–ageboys linedupon theArcadiaHighSchool track torun theeightlaps of the 3,200 meters—the metric version of the classic two-mile run. The boys’ 3,200 is theshowcase raceeachyearatApril’sArcadia Invitational.The race isheldunder the lights, inprimetime.

Inhighschooltrack,nineminutesforthe3,200isconsideredtobenationalclassforaboy.Mostof the thirty-oneboys toeingthestart lineof the2012Arcadia3,200hadachanceatbreakingnineminutes.

Halfwaythroughtherace,atthe1,600-metermark,atightbunchoftwentyrunnerscamethroughin4:31.Thispackofboyselbowedandjostledfortwomorelaps.Thenfourrunners,ledbyaseniorfromHouston,Texas, suddenlybrokeoutandseta terrificpace.The topfourhadadifferent look

from the rest, flying like seasoned Olympians. They would run faster for the last two minutes,covering the final 800meters at a sub-four-minute-mile pace to finish a race thatESPNcalled thegreatesthighschoolboys’3,200-meterraceinhistory.

Finishingfourth,withatimeof8:51,wasasmallkidwithsandyhairandblacksockshalfwayuptohisknees.The first three runnerswere seniors, but the little fellow in fourthwas a junior: JakeLeingang fromBismarckHighSchool inNorthDakota.Though sixteenyearsold, at awispy fivefooteightand120pounds,Jakelookedlikeaseventh-grader.

ThatsuchanunlikelykidfromthesparseplainsofNorthDakotahadfoundhiswaytotheglitzyArcadiaInvitationaltrackmeetnearLosAngeles,andthenfinishedfourthinthegreatestboys’3,200meterseverrun,wasastonishing.Gooddistancerunnersmusttrainyear-round,anearimpossibilityinNorthDakota.MostdaysinDecember,January,andFebruaryarebelowfreezing;manyarebelowzero.Marchismeltingsnowthatfreezesovernightandturnsroadsintoskatingrinks.Needlesstosay,JakeLeingang,comingstraightoffaNorthDakotawinter,wasatahugedisadvantagecompetinginAprilagainstthetannedrunnersfromTexas,California,andArizona.

ButJakehadanadvantagetheotherrunnersdidn’t:hehadbeentrainedbytheforemostpairofhighschooldistancerunningcoachesintheUnitedStates.

MightyMouseBack inAugust 1970,when ahigh school sophomorenamedDarrellAnderson showedup for hisfirstweekofcross-countrypracticeatBismarckHigh,hestoodfivefeetthreeinchestallandweighed105pounds.Cross-countryracesarethreemileslongandtakeplaceonhillytrailsinpublicparksorongolfcourses.Afootballplayer ’sweightisaburden.Soitistypicalfordistancerunners,thenandnow,tobeontheslightside.ButDarrellA.waspunyeveninthiscrowd.

ThemostfamousAmericanrunnersoftheearly1970sweresinewymenlikeFrankShorter,theYalegraduatewhoin1972wouldbecomethesecondAmericantowintheOlympicmarathonrace,andStevePrefontaine(“Pre”),themythicalOregonphenomwhowoulddieinacaraccidentin1975andbecomethepresidingspiritoftheNikerunningshoebrand.Thearistocratic-lookingShorterwasfivefeetteninchesand135pounds,aself-describedectomorph.Working-classkidPrefontainefromtheloggingtownofCoosBay,Oregon,wasfivefeetnineinchesand140pounds.Prewasconsideredtobeonthemuscularside.

ButlittleDarrellA.wasaruntevenforafifteen-year-oldcross-countryrunner.ABismarckHighcross-countryteamphotoshowsDarrellA.withhisbowlhaircutstandingatattention,chestoutandhandsbehindhiswaist.“Iwasholdingupmyrunningshorts in theback,”hesays.“Theywere toobig.”Hewasoftenneedledand teasedby teammatesandcoachesalikeforhisshortstatureandhisunfashionablehaircut—andlabeledwithunfortunatenicknames.

SohowdidlittleDarrellA.dowhencompetitionstarted?Not bad, considering. He discovered that he could do something essential in cross-country

running: he could bear the pain of effort just as his idol Steve Prefontaine could. Indeed, duringtrainingsessions,DarrellA.wouldsometimesrunsohardthathe’dsufferchronicdiarrheafortherestoftheday.

BythetimeDarrellA.wasasenior,hehadgrowntofivefeeteight inchesand125poundsandwasamongthetopfivehighschoolrunnersinthestate.Butthenhecontractedmononucleosis,andhishighschoolrunningcareerwasover.Onceherecovered,heenrolledinalocaljuniorcollegeand

sooncaptaineditscross-countryteam.Aftertwoyears,DarrellA.transferredtoNorthDakotaStateUniversity,anNCAADivisionIIpowerhouseatthetimeincross-countryandtrack.DarrellA.,nowathisfullheightoffivefeetteninches,becameasolidmemberofthatteam,abletoruntenthousandmetersinlessthanthirtyminutes.

Butheneverforgothighschoolandhistreatmentthere.DarrellA.’sresentmentaboutthoseyearsgnawedathimwellintomiddleage.Heaskedhimself:DidIeverreallyreachmyfullpotentialasarunner?WhatifIhadbeenmorephysicallymatureinhighschool?WhatifI’dhadmoreconfidence?Whatifthecoacheshadseenmypotentialinsteadofcallingmestupidnames?

WhatCouldHaveBeenAcrosstheMissouriRiverfromBismarckliesitssmallersistercity,Mandan.ThetownofMandanisbest known for an event that happened nearly 140 years ago, in the spring of 1876. That’s whenGeorgeArmstrongCustermusteredhisSeventhCavalryatnearbyFortAbrahamLincoln—androdewestwardtowardtheMontanaTerritoryandhisfatalencounterattheLittleBighornamonthlater.

That’sprettymuchthewholestoryforMandan.TodayitisthepoortwinsisterofBismarck.TheathleticteamsatMandanHighSchoolarespotty.Asinmanyhardscrabbletowns,theteenageathleteswiththemostpotentialoftennevershowup.Theyhavelongsincebeendivertedbyafter-schooljobs,parentalneglect,drugs,ordroppingout.

The coaches and sports facilities atMandanHigh Schoolwere, and still are, in a shabby statecomparedwith thoseofricherBismarckacross theriver.WhereasBismarckHigh’sfootball teamsplayinamultimillion-dollarbowlonfancyartificialturf,Mandanfootballteamsplayonasoggyandchewed-up grass field in the floodplain of a nearby river. Around that sodden field and its oldspectator stands is a 400-meter running track. It is a far cry from the $300,000 tangerine-coloredtartanjobattheBismarckCommunityBowl.Rather,Mandan’srunningtrackisablackasphaltroadwithabitofrubbermixedinforonlyatouchofsoftening.

With these low-rentattractions, it ishardlyasurprise thatMandanHighhasalwayshad troubleattractinggood-qualityhighschoolcoaches.Thatruleappliedinthe1980s,whenDaveZittlemanranthehalfmileforMandanHigh.

In theboys’halfmile (now800meters), twominutes is a standard that separates adecenthighschool runner from the rest. The better half-milers are five seconds faster, at 1:55, and nationallyrankedboyscandipunder1:50.DaveZittlemanlookedlikeakidcapableofbreaking1:55,whichisagoodtimeandisoftengoodenoughtowintheNorthDakotastatechampionshipmeet.DaveZ.stoodfivefeetelevenandweighedaleanandmuscular155pounds—theperfectbuildforahalf-miler.

DaveZ.mayhavehadthephysicalgoodstobreak1:55,buthealwaysseemedstuckontheslowsideoftwominutes.Hiscoacheswereoflittlehelp.Theydidn’tmotivateDave,andtheypossessednospecialknowledgeabouttrainingortactics.ToDaveZ.,theyseemedlazy.

Like Darrell Anderson, Dave Zittleman began to realize his potential as a runner only afterfinishinghighschool.Ateighteen,hecrossed theMissouriRiverandenrolledat theUniversityofMary inBismarck.ACatholic liberalartsuniversityof3,000undergrads,U.ofMaryhadadecentsmallcollegetrackteam.ThecoacheswereseveralcutsabovehiscoachesinMandan.DaveZ.tookadvantage of his new circumstances and completed his University of Mary track career with apersonalbestof1:54forthehalfmile.ConsideringNorthDakota’slousyspringweather,1:54isquitegood.DaveZ.hadclearlyimprovedasarunnerduringhiscollegecareer.

But had he improved enough? Dave Z. would question that for years. It gnawed at him. LikeDarrellA.,DaveZ.finishedhishighschoolandcollegetrackcareerswithasenseofdissatisfactionand unfulfilled promise. Moreover, Dave Z. had a smoldering resentment for his misinformedcoaches.

ChampionsfromAtoZTodayDarrellAndersonandDaveZittlemanaretheco-coachesofBismarckHigh’spowerfulcross-countryandtrackandfielddynasty.TheBismarckHighboyshavewonelevenstraightcross-countryteamchampionshipsatthestatelevel,andanothereightstraightintrackandfield.OneteammemberwastheaforementionedJakeLeingang,thenationallyranked3,200-meterrunner.

InAugust2012,thepopeoflong-distancerunningcametoBismarcktoseewhatitwasallabout.In the American distance running hierarchy, the inner sanctum of power and wisdom resides inEugene,Oregon,hometotheUniversityofOregon.TheOregonDucksarethemostfamousmen’sand women’s distance running program in the country. The legendary Steve Prefontaine was anOregonDuck.ThefounderofNike,PhilKnight,wasanOregonDuckmile-runnerintheearly1960s.TheOlympictrialsfortrackandfieldarealmostalwaysheldatEugene’sHaywardField,sometimescalledtheVaticanoftrackandfield.

The“pope”ofAmericanlong-distancerunningis,therefore,whoeveriscoachoftheUniversityofOregon’smen’sandwomen’sdistancerunningprograms.AndyPowellisthelatest—andthereishardly a serious high school runner, boy or girl,who doesn’t dreamof running in the green andyellowcolorsoftheOregonDucks,onHaywardField’strack,forcoachAndyPowell.Conversely,togetCoachPowelltotakenoticeofyouinhighschoolisahighhurdleindeed.

Yet there he was, Oregon’s Andy Powell, in Bismarck. Powell had flown halfway across thecountry to take a look at JakeLeingang as a potentialOregonDuck recruit.Decked out in a limegreenOregonNikegolfshirtandkhakipants,Powellwasallbusiness—andsittinginasmallofficeinBismarckHigh’s basement physical educationwingwithDarrellA. andDave Z. TheBismarckHighcoachesweredressedasusualinrattycargoshortsandfadedgolfshirts.Immediately,DarrellA.triedtodisarmPowellwithhisshamblinglow-keyprairiehumor,amixofGarrisonKeillorandRickMoranis’sCanadianbeerswillerBobMcKenzie.DaveZ.wasabitembarrassedbyDarrellA.’sshtick.Hesaidnothingbutpulledhiscapdown,asiftryingtodisappear.

AndthereinliesacluetowhyDarrellA.andDaveZ.formsuchapowerfulpair.Thoughdrivenby identicaldreamsofgloryand fueledbya shared resentmentof stupidcoaching,DarrellA.andDaveZ.aredifferentpeopleattheircores.Foronething,Darrellisanextrovert,DaveZ.anintrovert.Darrellalsooperatesbyfeeling,whileDaveZ.operatesbynumbers.Onpracticedays,Darrellwalksaround and talks to each of the runners. How are you feeling? Feeling okay? Everything cool athome?Schoolokay?Girlproblems?

OfftothesidestandsDaveZ.,headdown,cappulledtight,consultinghisindexcards.Tohellwithhowanyonefeels,hethinks.ThecalendarsaysJakeneedssomebriskintervalstoday,ataone-mile-racepace.

It’simportanttonotethatDaveZ.hasnotcopiedJake’sdailyworkoutfromtheInternetorfromabook.Hehascalculatedthenumbershimself,fromhisowndeepstudyofrunningtheory,thetimeofyear, and from the recordshekeepsonJake’sprogress.DaveZ.keepsmeticulous records,andherevisitsthemalmostdaily.Inthelatehoursathisapartment,alone,heworksthenumbers,makeshis

decisions,andprepareshisindexcards.ForDarrellA.,principlesaresacredbutdetailsaremalleable,subjecttofeelingsandgutinstincts.

Hefeelsitisimportanttowalkaround,schmoozehisathletes,andbuckthemup.Runningisn’tjusttrainingandworkouts; it isalsoaboutcharacter.Anditdoesn’tendwithgraduation:DarrellA.hasalso developed a network of former Bismarck High track stars who have become successful inbusinessandnowdonatemoneytotheBismarckprogram.One,aformerhigh-jumpstatechampion,isanoildeveloperworthmorethan$100million.Anotherisaformersprintstatechampionwhoisnowanationallyfamouschildpsychiatrist.Likeagoodcollegeathleticfundraiser,DarrellA.keepsclose to his network of donors so that his Bismarck runners can get the best shoes and physicaltherapy,gotohigh-altitudetrainingcampsinMontanaduringthesummer,andflytoracesallaroundthecountryinthefallandspring.

DaveZ.couldneverdothat,onesuspects,evenifhewantedto.Itwouldkillhimtoaskanyoneformoney.ThesingleDaveZ. isso introvertedhehas troubleaskingwomenondates, thoughwomenfindhimattractive.DaveZ.’smonkishbehaviorhasevenbecomeanongoingjokeamongtheothercoaches.ThenightthatBismarckwonitsseventhstraightboys’trackstatechampionship,DarrellA.heldaparty for coachesanddonorsathishouse.Thebeerandwhiskey flowedwhileDarrellA.’swifeunloadedpizzafromtheoven.DarrellA.presentedeachdonorwithagift.

DaveZ.attendedthepartytoo,butthenextdayfewcouldrecallseeinghimthere.ItturnedoutthatDaveZ.hadsneakedofftoaquietroominDarrell’shousetoanalyzevideofromthestatemeet.Hewasalreadythinkingaboutnextyear.Hewas,andis,determinedtobeeverythinghewisheshehadhad inhigh school: a really smart coach.Bycomparison,Darrellhasbecome thecoachhewisheshe’dhadinhighschool:afaithfulbeliever.

The differences between Darrell A. and Dave Z. are marked and noticeable within minutes ofmeetingthem.Butwhatunitesthemrunsdeeper.Itistheneedforexoneration.DaveZ.isconvincedthathisownhigh school runningcareerwaswreckedby lackadaisical small-towncoaches, andhewants revenge in the best possible way. He wants to produce great runners. And he is willing tooutplan,outcoach,andoutthinkanyotherhighschooltrackcoachinthecountrytodothis.Evenifitmeanssneakingouttowatchvideosduringaparty.

DarrellA.had smart coaches inhigh school,but theywere arrogant, bullying,old-school, andtheydisrespectedthenoneliterunner.Theyoverlookedthebraveheartofthesmallkid.DarrellA.’slifemissionistonourisheveryrunnerontheteam,notjustthebestones.Hewantstomotivatethemall,andshinealightontheirpotential.DarrellA.knowsthatthetoprunnerswillemergeintime...andthattheysometimesprovetobelittlewispykidslikeJakeLeingang.

DarrellA. andDaveZ. are friendly toward eachother, but not friends.DarrellA.,married forthirtyyears,iscomfortablewithmenandwomen,oldandyoung,richandpoor,andthoughhewouldneversayso,hetiresofDaveZ.’ssocialawkwardness.DaveZ.getsbored,andsometimesirritated,withDarrell’slightheartedness,hisseemingtonottakethingsseriously.

InJuly2012,DarrellAnderson,theolderofthepair,wonthenationalhighschoolcoachoftheyearforboys’trackandfield.Receivingtheaward,DarrellA.saidhisonlygoalnowwastobeintheaudiencewhentheyoungerandequallydeservingDaveZ.gothisaward.

PAIRSCOMEINMANYFORMSPairsarethemostfundamentalhumanteams.Indeed,pairingissocommontohumanexistencethat

weoftenforgetthatitisnotthecaseforotheranimals.Forexample,manypredatorspairduringtheirmating periods but often operate solo the rest of the time. Some—likemost cats, big and small—barely do even that. Others, like foxes and hawks, may pair up for a season, until the babies aregrown, thengo their separateways.Otherpredators, especiallymammals, suchashyenas,wolves,orcas, dolphins, and the family dog, operate in packs, as do crocodiles, army ants, and, the fossilrecord suggests, certain dinosaurs. Other animals, especially herbivores, form herds, flocks, orcolonies,sometimesofenormoussize.

Bythesametoken,someotheranimals—gibbons,wolves,andeaglesamongthem—willmateforlifeevenastheyexistwithinalargergrouping.Thesearesomeofthemostenduring“teams”intheanimal kingdom, though they are almost always based on reproduction and rearing rather thanefficiencyor productivity.That said, a phenomenon that looksverymuch likehuman“friendship”betweentwoindividualscanbefoundacrosstheanimalkingdom—andevenacrossspecies.

Theclassicexampleofthisbehavioristheabandonedinfantcreatureofonespeciesbeingtakenupbythenursingmotherofanother.Buttherearealsowell-documentedexamplesofanimals,oftenmerely because of proximity, taking up close and enduring “friendships”—the thoroughbred racehorsewithagoatordog;adogandcatlivinginthesamehouse;pigswithhouseholdpets;andsoforth.Sometimestheseanimalfriendshipsresultinwhatcanonlybedescribedas“teamwork”—likethedognosingopenthebedroomdoorsothatthecatcanjumponthebedandawakentheowners—but with the exception of human beings, there are almost no examples of such pairs formingspecificallyforinstrumentalpurposes.

Buthumansconstantly form teams—usually firstaspairs thatcoalesce into largergroupings—but, in emergencies, we have been known to form coordinating, effective, and trusting pairs inseconds.Thinkoftheeverydayfolkswhopairuptorescueothersinburningbuildingsortodefendthemselves in firefights orwho rush to save an individual trappeddown a cliff.Thatwehave thisability,uniquelyamongalllivingthings,cannotbeacoincidence.Arguably,evenmorethanlanguage(afterall,spontaneouspairsandteamscanformwithoutaword),itisthistalentthatsinglesoutourspecies—thatis,atalentthatisnotjustasenseofself(oncefalselyassignedsolelytohumans)butasenseoftheselfhoodofothers,andaninnateunderstandingthatbypartneringwithanotherperson,wecanaccomplishthingswecannotdobyourselves.

While our capacity to quickly, instrumentally, and effectively form teams argues for team-building as fundamental to human nature and society, the astonishing range of types of teams,beginningwithpairs,showstheuniversalityandflexibilityofthisphenomenonindailylife.

Asfaraswecandetermine,therehasneverbeenalisting—ataxonomy—ofthevarioustypesofhumanpairs.Sowedecidedtocreateone,andbeforeweweredone,evenwewereastonishedbyhowmanydifferentformspairscantake.Andthesearejustprofessionalpairings:ifweweretoaddthemanytypesofpairsthatappearinprivateandsociallife,thislistmightdoubleortriple.

For now, though, we believe it might be of immediate assistance to the reader in forming,identifying,andmanagingteamsintheirownenterprises.Let’sbegininthenextchapter.

SuccessfulPairingTHEBUILDINGBLOCKSOFTEAMS

We like to think of ourselves as individuals. And in one respect that is certainly the case: ourconsciousness is locked into our individual brains, forever isolating us—Descartes’s “ghost in amachine”—fromeverfullymergingouridentitieswiththoseofothers.

Andyet,ifweweretotrackeverysecondofourwakinglives,wewouldprobablyfindthatweareinteractingwithothersatleastasoftenaswearealone.Andnoothertypeofinteractiontakesplacemoreoften inourdaily existence than an interactionwith a singleotherperson.As solitary asweimagine ourselves to be,we are just asmuch binary.One reason is biological:Wematewith oneperson at a time; we typically speak with only one person at a time (even if we are addressingthousands);andweevensmelleachother ’spheromonesasindividuals.Thearchaeologicalevidencesuggeststhat thishasalwaysbeenso,andthat thebreedingpairpair-bondhasbeenthesinglemostdominantculturalphenomenonformostofthemillionyearsthathominidshavewalkedtheearth—andcertainlyforthe20,000-yearhistoryofmodernhumankind.

Inotherwords,tobehumanistobeamember,bothseriallyandinparallel,withasuccessionofpairs—numberingperhapsinthehundreds—overthecourseofalifetime.Nothingthatconsumessomuchofourexistenceonearthcanbeanything less thangeneticallyadvantageous . . . and indeed,statistically speaking, being married (that most common and enduring pairing) confers distinctadvantages over being single in terms of one’s overall health, income, and life expectancy. Thefollowing is a taxonomy—a classification—of the twelve different forms, in four categories(occasion, similarity, inequality, and difference) that professional pairings can take. It is based onbothresearchandourowncareersasjournalistsdealingwitheverymannerofSiliconValleystart-uppairs.

PAIRSDEFINEDBYOCCASION1.0—GOTYOURSIX:Weput this typeofpair firstbecause it isdifferent fromall theothers. It is themostspontaneous,theshortestlived,andlikelytheoldest.Thusitisprobablythemostfundamentalofall teams. The term comes from themilitary: if twelve o’clock is directly in front of us, then sixo’clock is directly behind, the direction from which we are most vulnerable. “I’ve got your six”meaning“I’vegotyourback”isamodernphrase,butitwassurelystatedinsomeformbeforethewallsofTroy,andcertainlyamongtheSpartansatThermopylae.ItsmostmythicalAmericanmomentoccursattheO.K.Corral,whereDocHollidaybacksupWyattEarp(thephrasefromthemovie,“I’myourhuckleberry,”echoesthemostfamousfictionalteamofthistype).Amongthemostcelebrated

examplesofthiskindofpartnershiparethoseoftheexplorersMeriwetherLewisandWilliamClark,andthefrontiersmenJohnC.FrémontandKitCarson.

Notethatthiskindofpairingtypicallyexistsduringcrisesandemergencies.Thetwoindividualsinvolvedmaynotevenknoweachother.Itisonlywhenfacingathreatthatsuchpairingsarecreated—andwhenthatthreatisremoved,themembersofthepairusuallygotheirseparatewaysagain.Foralloftheirevanescence,GotYourSixteamshavesomeextraordinaryattributes—nonemoresothanthecompletetrusteachmemberofthepairputsintheother.Theimpliedmessageis“Focusonwhatis in front of you, I’ll takeofwhatever comes frombehind—even if I die in theprocess.”This ishumanityatitsmostselfless,whichmeansitisbothrareandshort-lived.

Because of the intensity of this relationship—there is no greater commitment two people canmaketoeachotherthantoputtheirlivesineachother ’shands—theGotYourSixrelationshipmaybethestrongestofallteams.Thealmostsuperhumanstrengthofsucharelationshipisaforcemultiplierover the individual fightingaloneorevenwithanotherpersonata lower levelof trust. It isalsoareasonGotYourSixteamsareusuallyshort-lived—humanbeingscanmaintainthatkindofintensityfor only so long—and quickly devolve, once the challenge is met, either to friendship or mereacquaintanceship.Itisalsoaverynarrowformofpartnership,targetedatonetypeofchallenge,andonenotreallyadaptableforothertasks.

2.0—THISMAGICMOMENT: “Magical” pair-teams resembleCastor andPollux teams in almost everywaybuttwo:

• The twomembersmayhaveaccomplished littlewithout theother,but together theyaccomplishextraordinarythings.

• Unliketheperfectpairs,theseduostypicallyexistforamuchbrieferduration.

Magic Moment pairs exhibit behavior similar to that of a brief but intense love affair. Theirmembers often know they have met their perfect partner almost from the moment of their firstencounter—theequivalentinprofessionallifeofloveatfirstsight.

MagicMomentpairsaremostvisibleintheperformingarts,especiallymusic,inwhichthefruitsofcollaborationarealmostinstantlyapparent.Musicalduetscanformalmostinstantlyandproduceastonishing results:LesterFlattandEarlScruggs,LouisArmstrongandEarlHines,BillieHolidayandLesterYoung,PaulDesmondandDaveBrubeck,DizzyGillespieandCharlieParker.Incinema,themagicofsuchduos—oftenromanticpairs—canbealmostinstantlyapparent:MickeyRooneyandJudyGarland,WilliamPowellandMyrnaLoy,JohnWayneandMaureenO’Hara,JohnGilbertandGretaGarbo.

The most successful—and certainly the most famous—of these musical magic duos is JohnLennonandPaulMcCartney.TheyarelistedasamagicalpairinsteadofaperfectCastorandPolluxbecause theirpartnership,despitebeginning inchildhood,wascomparativelyshort, ending in theirearlytwenties;andbecausetheircollaborationwasevenshorter—theywereessentiallysoloartistsbythe timeofSgt.Pepper’s.Yet in the brief interval fromHamburg at the beginning of the 1960s toglobalsuperstardomattheendofthatdecade,LennonandMcCartneyproducedthemostvaluableandinfluentialcorpusofpopularmusicofalltime.Thezenithofthiscollaborationwasprobably“ADayin theLife” onSgt. Pepper’s, inwhich Lennon’s social commentary andmodernist anomie in thewriting and singing of the primary lyrics is perfectly countered byMcCartney’s chugging urbanproletarianditty in thebridge. Inretrospect,andbasedon their latersolocareers,neitherJohnnor

Paulcouldhavewrittenthissongalone.In thebusinessworld, thebestplace to find the tracesof thesemagicalpartnerships is inpatent

filings. Much of modern technology and science is multidisciplinary; thus, outside of a fewRenaissancemenandwomen,itistypicallytheproductofelectricalengineeringandsoftwarecode,or solid-statephysics and inorganic chemistry, ormicrowave and semiconductor technology—andlately, computer science andbiotechnology.This almost always requires a collaboration, often forjust a matter of months, between two innovators in different fields. In the Internet age, thesefundamental partnerships now extend to between code writers andmarketers and other seeminglyincompatible combinations. Pierre Omidyar was a code writer when he founded eBay (asAuctionWeb)andhiredashisfirstemployeeandCEOJeffSkoll,aStanfordMBAwithabackgroundintheInternet.Google’sSergeyBrinandLarryPagewerebothcomputersciencegraduatestudentsatStanford.

PerhapsthemostfamouscontemporaryexampleofaMagicMomentpairisthatofSteveJobsandSteveWozniak.The authors of this bookwere in a position to see this pair (alongwithOmidyar-Skoll andBrin-Page) almost from the dayof its creation.Thepopularmyth is that the twoyoungmen,whometinhighschool,wereclosetobeingaperfectpair,asdiscussedintheprevioussection.The realitywasmuch different. For one thing, the famous pairwere not really childhood friends.Their age difference was such that they really only overlapped for a year of high school, whenWozniakwas already a celebrated young technologist (he’d earned his first media attention for ajunior high school science project, and later for planting a fake bomb at his high school).At thatpoint,SteveJobswasjustalittlekid.

In person at that young age, the twoyoungmenwere very different from their later personas.Wozniakwasthevolubleone,theonewithajobandcareer,andsomethingofajock.Jobs,thefuturecharismaticidolofmillions,wasshy,mercurialtothepointofbeingobnoxious,andcomparativelyantisocial.Differentas theywere, theyhadasparkbetween themthatwasobviousfromalmost thefirstmomenttheymet.Wozniaksawintheyoungerboyanenthusiastforhiswork,avisionary,and,most important, someone with a plan. Jobs brought a sense of destiny, and he made Woz’s lifethrilling.Andthoughtheirnameswillbetiedtogetherforever,inrealitytheyworkedtogethercloselyforlessthanadecade,andonlyacoupleofyearsintoApple.

HadWozniaknevermetSteveJobs,itishighlylikelythathewouldhavestayedatHP—andbeenpartofitsill-fatedmovetoCorvallis,Oregon.Likemanyothers,hewouldhaveprobablycomebackto theValley . . . and been yet another bit player in theHomebrewComputer Club. The personalrevolutionwouldhavehappenedwithorwithoutApple;itjustwouldhavestartedacoupleyearslater,andmightneverhavehadthegalvanizingeventthatwastheAppleII’sintroduction.Thesedays,ifhehadsurvivedthemanylayoffs,WozwouldlikelybeanagingandanonymousHPengineerwithafewpatentsunderhisbelt,puttinginalastcoupleofyearsbeforeretirement.AsforSteveJobs,histypeofgeniuswouldhavehadahardtimefindingpurchase,evenamongthestart-upsofSiliconValley,wherehelikelywouldhavejumpedfromonefailuretoanother.Hispersonalitywouldhavebeenadeal-breakerinanycompanyhedidn’trun;andhewastooharshtohaveeventuallybecomeaventurecapitalist.Intheend,hewouldhaveprobablyleftSiliconValley.

Butnoneofthathappened,becauseWozandJobshadtheir“magicmoment.”SuchMagicMomentpairsareamongthemostcreativephenomenainhumanexistence;theyaresupernovaevents.Thefactthattwoverydifferentindividualscan,evenbriefly,jointogetherinsuchawaythatbothcanworkattheabsolutepeakoftheirabilitiesisakindofmiracle.ThinkEdisonandWilliamJ.Tannerworkingontheincandescentlightbulb;orJohnBardeenandWalterBrattainonthesemiconductortransistor.

OneoftheoddestbusinessMagicMomentpairswasthatofthehigh-rollingplayboyWilliamDurantandthesober,hyper-rationalistAlfredSloan—ashort-livedcombinationthatsetGeneralMotorsonthepathtobeingtheworld’smostvaluablecompanyofitsday.

In the arts, probably themost famous and influential such partnership was that between PabloPicasso andGeorgesBraque. The twoworked together only briefly, and rarely encountered eachotherinthedecadesthatfollowed.Butduringtheirlegendaryfewmonthsasateamtheydevelopedcubism—andsetthedirectionofmodernart.Acomparable,thoughmuchmorevolatile,pairingtookplacetwentyyearsearlierbetweenVincentvanGoghandPaulGauguin.

3.0—CHAINED TOGETHERBY SUCCESS:These are “antagonisticpartnerships” . . . and they canbe thestrangest,scariest,andmostremarkableofanypairtype.Inparticular,“Chained”pairsfeatureaduoofpeoplewhoarehugelysuccessfultogether,butforvariousreasons—lifestyle,personality,stageofcareer,andsoforth—simplydonotgetalongwitheachother.Indeed,thisantagonismcanoftenleadtooutrighthatred...andendinloud,sometimesviolent,andoftenlegendarybreakups.

Themost famous example—indeed, it is the archetype, and even the subject of a film (Topsy-Turvy)—is the legendaryVictorian operetta teamofWilliamGilbert andArthurSullivan.The twomenappearednotjusttodespiseeachotherbutalsotohatethepredicamentinwhichtheyeventuallyfoundthemselves:solo, theircareerswentnowhere; together, theyproducedimmortalwork.Beingtrapped in such a partnership must be its own particular hell—the world is forever pressing youtogether, seeing you as perfect partners, sometimes even seeing you as one person indivisible.Meanwhile,ifyoubreakuptheteam,allyoursuccessandfamecouldjustfadeaway—thoughsomeChainedteammembersbecomesounhappythattheyriskitanyway.

Chainedteamsaretypicallywellknownpreciselybecauseoftheirvolatilenature.Foronething,iftheyweren’twildlysuccessful,theywouldhavehappilysplitup.And,ofcourse,theseteamsalsofeedcertainhumanperversities:boththeschadenfreudeofknowingthattheirgreatsuccesshascomewithequallygreatfrustration,andtheexcitementofwaitingfortheinevitableexplosion.Andwhenthatexplosiondoescome,itusuallymakesforgoodcopyandbestsellingmemoirs.

Chainedteamscanbefoundalmosteverywhere.RichardRodgersandLorenzHart—thelattersobad a drunk that Rodgers dumped him at the height of their success to take a risk with OscarHammerstein.TheBeachBoys’MikeLoveandBrianWilson,whorecentlyreunitedafterdecades—only tosplitupagain.GeneSiskelandRogerEbert,byboth temperamentandemploymentnaturalcompetitors,whofoundtheirgreatestfamepairedasmoviereviewers.IntelfoundersBobNoyceandAndrewGrove,who feuded (at least on thepart of the inflammatoryGrove toward the indifferentNoyce)evenastheybuiltoneoftheworld’smostvaluablecompanies.

We’lldiscusstheEverlyBrothersintheCastorandPolluxsection—and,toadegree,theybelonghere as well. But their Chained relationship pales next to, say, Sam and Dave, whose breakupreportedlyinvolvedknives.TheLennon-McCartneypairingalsobegantolookchainedbythetimeofTheWhiteAlbum.RodStewartbeingfiredbyJeffBeck,andDizzyGillespiestabbingCabCallowayarealsoclassicexamples.BobHopeandBingCrosbycreatedperhapsthemostsuccessfulduoinfilmhistorybutrarelysaweachotherofftheset;andDeanMartinandJerryLewisdidn’tspeaktoeachother for decades after they broke up. Neil Simon famously captured the complicated love-hate(mostly hate) nature of one of these pairs in his comedy of old vaudeville partners,The SunshineBoys.

Chained teams aren’t always at each other ’s throats. Indeed, at the beginning, if there weren’tsomechemistry,theywouldneverhaveteamedup.Buteventhen,thefaultlinesareusuallyobvious.

Such teams often emerge because the extraordinary opportunities presented by their harmonioustalents overwhelm the differences in character, attitude, or temperament—at least at the beginning.But,asgreatasthefamethatfollowsmaybe,itnevercompletelyresolvesthosedifferences...andmoreoftenthannot,itamplifiesthem.Thus,whatbeganasareasoffrictionthatcouldbeignoredintheexcitementofearlysuccesscangrowintimetoachasmthatisn’treducedwitheachnewvictorybutwidened.

HowlongittakesfortheseChainedpairstofinallysnapisanyone’sguess.Likemarriages,someChainedpairscanseemdoomedfromthestartyetlastdecades,thepartnerssquabblingall theway.Otherscanseemmuchcalmer,andinlittleperil...onlytohaveonememberawakensomemorninganddecide that he or she canneverworkwith the other again.All that canbedone is to take fulladvantage of the power of one of these unlikely and incompatible pairs for as long as it lasts, beprepared for it toshatterwithoutnotice,andgetoutof thewaywhen theblastoccurs . . . andstartplanningfortheinevitablereuniontouraquartercenturyfromnow.

Itisinterestingtospeculatethatonereasonsuchpairsseemso(temporarily)successfulisthattheavailablepoolofpotentialpartnersisalmostinfinite,becausetheydon’thavetobecompatible—asopposed to the limitednumberofcompatiblepairs in theotherpair-team types.But that success isalsosomethingofan illusion:youdon’tseea lotofmediocreChainedpairs,because theysplitupquickly.Ittakesrealsuccesstosticktogetherday-to-daywithsomeoneyouhateordespise.

Anotherreasonforthesuccessofthesepartnershipsisnotsoobvious.Itisthatthemembersofthepairusually enter the relationshipwith aprettygood ideaofnot just the strengthsof theotherpartybutalsohisorherweaknesses.Thatdoesn’tmeantheydon’toftendeludeeachotherthattheycan make it work (again, the similarity to marriage is obvious), but at least they know thosedifferencesexistandcandevelopwork-aroundsorotherstrategiesfordealingwiththem.

Ultimately, even after they fail and split up,Chained teams are oftenunforgettable, the stuff oflegend. Certainly their achievements are part of it. But just asmemorable is how they did it: twopeople, often at each other ’s throats, resentful and jealous of any credit earned by the other, eachfeeling trapped in a miserable relationship, their names forever linked, and any memory of oneinextricablefromthatoftheother...andyet,somehow,theycreatemagic,someofitimmortal.Whocouldeverforgetencounteringarelationshiplikethat?It’sthestuffofmemoirs—whichonlymakethatChainedpairevenmorefamous.

4.0—HERE AND THERE: “Here and There” duos are really a twenty-first-century phenomenon, theproductof the Internet-enabledglobaleconomy,of thearrivalof those twobillionnewconsumersfrom the developing world into that economy, and of the competitive need to create customizedsolutionsforallcustomers,newandold.Thesolutionhasbeentocreateapair-teamthatincludesonememberfromahomeofficeorheadquartersandonememberfromtheinternationalfrontwherethecompany is targeting itsnextmarketing thrust.Theheadquarterspartner represents the institutionalmemory and the culture of the company, and the field partner brings an understanding of theconsumers,market,andcommunityorcountrybeingtargeted.Inoperation,thefieldpartnerprovidesthemomentumofenteringthemarket,whiletheheadquarterspartnerguidesthateffort,makingsureit is congruentwith the company’s products and services, resources, and rules—andwhen it isn’t,makingthecaseforthefieldpartner ’sstrategywiththeseniormanagement.Whattiesthemtogetherandmakessuchateampossibleistechnology:theemergenceoftheWeb,globalcommunications,thecloud,andteleconferencingandtelepresence.

PAIRSDEFINEDBYSIMILARITY5.0—TOGETHER, WE’RE MORE THAN TWO: This is the first pair-team type that can be intentionallycreated. Indeed, given the lowodds of two appropriate individuals finding each other, this pairingalmostdemandsoutsideinfluence.

“Together,We’reMore Than Two” teams are fulfillment partnerships; that is, these are pairscomposedoftwoindividualswhoselivesorcareershaveremainedincompleteandunfulfilleduntilthey team up. These individuals are typically late bloomers who have certain limitations in theirpersonalities or skills that they have little chance of overcoming through their own actions.Sometimes a limitation can be as simple as risk-aversion, anxiety, or a lack of nerve—which apartnershiphelpsthemovercome.TheunlikelypairingofDarrellA.andDaveZ.,thosetwoobscureNorthDakotahighschooltrackcoacheswhoteameduptosetnewrecords,isaparadigmaticexampleofsuchafulfillmentpartnership.

It iscrucial tonote—todistinguish it fromsomeof theother teamstofollow—that this typeofpartnershipconsistsoftwoindividualsofcomparabletraitsandattributes,...andwhoontheirownhavefailedtoreachtheirfullpotential.Thisisamongthemosthomogenousofpairs.

Together,We’reMoreThanTwopartnershipsappearthroughouthistory.StanLaurelandOliverHardyhadmediocresolocareersinsilentfilmsuntiltheyteamedupandcreatedoneofthegreatestcomedyduosincinemahistory.BillGatesandPaulAllenwerebothcomputernerdsfromaSeattleprepschool,andallbutindistinguishableatthestartofMicrosoft.

Thistypeofpartnershipenableseachpartnertoaccomplishmorethanheorshecoulddoalone.Thereturnontheinvestmentoftimeandenergyrequiredtocreatesuchduoscanbeenormous.Afterall, you are taking two “failures”—or,more accurately, employeeswho have fallen short of theirpotential—and turning both into top achievers. That’s a whole lot cheaper than going out andrecruitingtwosuperstars.Moreover,becausethesepairsreallysucceedonlytogether,theirmembersaredrawntomaintaintheirrelationship—orriskfallingbacktotheiroldways.

Thebiggest and inevitable risk for this typeof team is the resentments and jealousies thatmaycropupaseachmemberstartstogrowandchangeovertime.

6.0—CASTORANDPOLLUX:Thesearethe“perfectpartnerships,”theidealteamingofindividualswhoaresomuchalikethattheyeachcantakeontheother ’sdutieswithbarelyahitch.

ThenamecomesfromGreekmythology.CastorandPollux(knowninLatinastheGemini)weretwinswhowere so close thatwhen themortalCastorwasdying,Zeus allowedPollux to sharehisimmortality,suchthateachspentalternatedaysonMountOlympusandinHades.CastorandPolluxpair-teams are theorganizational versionof soulmates—and they are just as desirable and just asrare. These partnerships can range from near clones—often taking the form of siblings, such asOrvilleandWilburWrightorGeorgeand IraGershwin—orverydifferentpeoplewhostillmatcheachother in thedetailsof their joint efforts, suchasBillHewlett andDavidPackard, andWarrenBuffettandCharlieMunger.

SuchsiblingorbestfriendpairsaretheultimateCastorandPolluxform.Butmoreinterestingarethelessrarecasesofduosthatbegininoneoftheotherpair-teams(suchasaYinandYang)andthenevolve to this higher level. So complete andmutually actualizing can these pairs become that theyresemblelessapartnershipthanaloveaffairoralongandhappymarriage.Likelovers,theseperfectduos, whatever their differences in personalities and behavior, exhibit (and, conversely, earn) analmost perfect trust in each other. A classic example of this was the partnership of Tom Perkins

(flamboyant,mercurial)andEugeneKleiner(humbleandcourtly),whotogethercreatedtheworld’smostinfluentialventurecapitalfirm.

Castor and Pollux pairs, because they essentially erase all the natural friction between twoindividuals, can be uniquely powerful and effective. It isn’t just like doubling the intellectualattributes,talents,andcapabilitiesfoundinasingleindividual,butinsteadlikemultiplyingthem.Suchpairscanberemarkablycreativeanddecisive,andbecause(likethemythicaltwins)theycanalternatefocusandenergy,theycanalsoseemtireless.

Sometimes,dependingonthenatureofthework,CastorandPolluxpairscanbesuperfluous.Youdon’tnecessarilyneedorwantthemontheloadingdockoreveninasalesoffice,butyouprobablyverymuchwanttheminR&DormarketingorIT.Onexecutiverow?Probablynot.ButaschairmanandCEO?Absolutely—suchpairsmaybethesinglebestexecutivecombinationimaginable.. .andthenamesofthesepairswouldfillahalloffameofAmericanbusiness:theaforementionedHewlettandPackard,LarryEllisonandRayLane,WaltandRoyDisney,AndrewCarnegieandHenryClayFrick,UlyssesS.GrantandWilliamTecumsehSherman,andsoon.

Probably one reason these “executive-level” teamswork sowell is that the demands placedonleadersatthetopofbothfast-movingyoungstart-upsandlargepubliccorporationsaresogreatandso wide-ranging—strategy, day-to-day management, public relations, and so forth—that they arebetterhandledbytwoindividualsratherthanone,especiallyifthosetwoindividualsareconsistentlyofonemind,andhavecompletefaithineachother ’sjudgmentwhentheyarenot.Moreover, inthefaceofsuchextremedemandsontheirtimeandenergy,theseindividualscanalsooccasionallyspelleach other without losing a step. Thus, when Packardwas asked to go toWashington to serve asdeputy secretary of defense, Hewlett stepped up to run the company solo—and HP’s employees,customers,andshareholdersbarelynoticedthechange.(Tellingly,andprovidingaglimpseintotheemotional depth of these remarkable relationships, Hewlett broke down and wept in front of thecompany’sthousandsofemployeesinmakingtheannouncementofPackard’stemporarydeparture.)

Allofthatsaid,CastorandPolluxteamsaren’tflawless.Foronething,theycanbecomehermetic—likethehappilymarriedcouplewhoserelationshipissofulfillingandharmoniousthattheyevenwithdrawfrompastfriendshipsandaffiliations.Finally,thebreakupoftheseperfectteams—throughdeath or outside events—can be devastating. Just as the effectiveness of such pairs is not aconsequenceoftheaddition,butthemultiplication,ofthetwopersonalities,sotooisabreakupnotasubtraction,butadivision.Thesurvivingmembercanexperiencesomethingclosetobeingdivorced,even widowed, with long periods spent in depression, involving low productivity and a (usuallyfailed)searchforareplacement.

Probably theultimateCastorandPolluxexample, inallof itsupsanddownsandextraordinaryachievements,isthatoftheEverlyBrothers.PhilandDonEverlywerechildrenwhentheybegantosingtogetherontheirparents’countrymusicradioshow.Byagetwenty,theywerealreadyamongthemostsuccessfulsingingduos inpopularmusichistory. Itwasn’t just their legendaryharmonies,ortheremarkablesongsbythelikesofBoudleauxandFeliceBryant(anotherperfectpair;sheactuallydreamedofherfuturehusbandbeforeshemethim)—theEverlyslookedalikeanddressedalike,andformostoftheirfirstthirtyyearsinthisworldtheywereallbutinseparable.

As any rock or country music fan knows, that perfect partnership ended on July 14, 1973, atKnott’sBerryFarminCalifornia,when,inacombinationofdrugabuse,exhaustion,andwearinessofeachother ’sperpetual company, theEverlysbrokeup in themostpublicway imaginable—Donsmashedhisguitaronthestageandstormedoff,leavingPhiltocompletetheshow.Reportedly,theonly timethe twomenspokeagainover thenextdecadewasat their father ’s funeral.During those

years, both men seemed lost and in a perpetual and sad search for a new partner. Finally, onSeptember23,1983, inoneof themostmovingreunions inpopmusichistory, thebrotherssettledtheirdifferencesandappearedagainasaduoatRoyalAlbertHall—andrestartedtheirpartnershipasifithadneverended.1

7.0—LIFEBOATS:Theseare“rescue”partnerships.That is, theyconsistofpairswhose teamingup isperhapseachindividual’s lastchanceatacareerorpersonalsurvival.“Lifeboat”partnershipsareacommontropeinmoviesbecauseoftheirinherentdramaandtheirnaturalplotclimaxofsuccessandredemption—thinkof theSylvesterStalloneandBurgessMeredithcharacters in theRockymovies.Whenyouhearthephrase“I’vegotnoplacelefttogo”or“You’remylasthope,”youareprobablywatchingaLifeboatmovie.

Infiction,Lifeboatstoriesarealmostalwaysuplifting.That’ssomewhattrueinreallifeaswell—thoughthatisinpartbecausewerarelyhearaboutfailedsuchpartnerships.Themostfamous,oratleastthemostinfluential,LifeboatstoryofmoderntimesisprobablythatofBillWilsonandRobertSmith, the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous. As the story goes, Bill Wilson (“Bill W.”) wasstruggling to stay soberwhile on a business trip toAkron,Ohio, in January 1935. In desperation,Wilsoncalledsomelocalministerswhomightknowofanyalcoholics.WilsonwasputintouchwithDr.RobertSmith (“Dr.Bob”),anotoriousAkrondrunkwhohadn’tyetachievedsobriety.The twometatSmith’shouse,andfromthatfirstencounter,thetwomen—bothofwhomhadnearlylosttheirfamilies andcareers todrink—teamedup tocreateAlcoholicsAnonymous.Together, the twomennotonlyestablishedthemostsuccessfulsobrietyprogramever,onethatisnowfoundinalmosteverycountryaroundtheworld,butalsostayedsobertherestoftheirlives.

Lifeboat pairs present an interesting problem. On the one hand, they can produce impressiveresults—certainly greater than the sum of their two busted parts. But, on the other hand, since thestarting point is so low, their resultsmay not be, in the end, that impressive of an achievement—especiallyifyouenduppayingtwosalariestogetwhatyoumightfindwithjustonepersonwithoutblackmarksonhisorherrésumé,andposingmuchlessofarisk.

Ofcourse,youmaygetlucky.Thedeeployaltythatcharacterizes“Lifeboat”pairs—afterall,theyhave often literally saved each other from certain death—canmake them a formidable force:GotYour Six taken to the nth degree. In that earlier section we mentioned Grant and Sherman—andindeed,theyfamouslycoveredforeachother.Buttheyalso,atleastatthebeginningoftheCivilWar,evenbetterfittheLifeboatteammodel—rememberSherman’sstatement:“[Grant]stoodbymewhenIwascrazy,andIstoodbyhimwhenhewasdrunk;andnowwestandbyeachotheralways.”

The two men hit bottom in their lives in the lonely antebellum years after the MexicanWar.Sherman had missed that war, stuck in various failed commands in the West. Then, obtaining acommand at the beginning of theCivilWar, and placed in the thankless command of the army inKentucky,hehadanervousbreakdownandwasrelievedofduty.

Grant,bycomparison,wasaherooftheearlierwar,butalsoinalonelypostingoutWestbegantoshowapatternwithwhichhewouldbeassociated in theyears tocome—becomingdepressedatbeingapartfromhiswifeandtakingtodrink.Intime,thisledtoaforcedresignationfromthearmy.Thiswas followed by seven years of poverty for his family, asGrant failed at one business afteranother.

Inotherwords,Shermanwasn’texaggeratingwithhisremark.Itwasonlythedesperateshortageof experiencedofficers that led theUnionarmy togive the twomenonemorechance.They soonprovedtheirworth,bothindividuallyandasateam,ontheseconddayoftheBattleofShiloh.

BecauseaLifeboatpartnershipisbuiltonthemutualrescueoftwoindividualswhohavereachedrockbottom,ittypicallyfeaturesanalmostsuperhumanlevelofcommitmenttothatrelationshipbybothpartners.Thatcommitmentcanbeaformidableforce—especiallyifbeyondtheobviousfailuresof the two individuals there lie impressive but unrealized gifts. If you can find them, hiring these“failures”canbeasteal:nooneelsewants them,theyarecheaptohire,andtheywillbealmostasloyaltotheorganizationthat“saves”themastheywillbetoeachother.Butkeepinmindthatifoneslips,heorsheislikelytoalsopulldowntheother.

PAIRSDEFINEDBYDIFFERENCE8.0—YINANDYANG:“YinandYang”pairsareteamsoftwoindividualswhosedifferentskillscombineto produce a complete and competitive force. These pair-teams are typically found amongsalespeople, educators, and law enforcement officers (and criminals), and in the creative businessprofessionssuchasadvertising,artdesign,andcopywriting.

IntheclassicYinandYangteams,oneindividualisartistic,theotherempirical;oronebringstheverbalskills,theotherthenonverbal;oroneistheextrovert,theothertheintrovert.Thiscombinationoften appears in the entertainment business. Think of the many songwriters and lyricists, fromRodgersandHart(orHammerstein)toJeromeKernandDorothyFieldsallthewayuptoEltonJohnandBernieTaupin;orperformer-producercombinationssuchasMichaelJacksonandQuincyJonesorFrankSinatraandNelsonRiddle.Anditcanalsobefoundinpairingsofperformersandbusinessmanagers (JohnnyCarson andHenryBushkin, LouisArmstrong and JoeGlaser, and hundreds ofothers).

In the business world, Yin and Yang teams take several common forms: businessperson andscientist/engineer, salesperson and contract specialist, and marketer and manufacturer. In smallcompanies,theoperator-and-silent-partnerduoisoneofthemostcommon.Inhigh-techstart-ups,thecombination of the entrepreneur and the techie (Jobs andWozniak being the most famous) is soubiquitousthatnewcompaniesthatlackthiscombinationarelookeduponbyinvestorsandpotentialhiresassuspect.

In daily life, across all professions, one of themost common and yet least celebratedYin andYang teams is that of the innovator and the communicator. Most highly successful individualscombinehighskilllevelswithdecisivenessandaction.Thatcombinationisrareenough,sotoexpectanindividualtoalsobeagreatcommunicatorisusuallyabridgetoofar,theconvergenceofallofthose attributes too rare. Conversely, there are a number of people with superior communicationskills—inparticular, theability toconvertcomplexconcepts intoeasy-to-understandnarrativesandpowerful and intuitive metaphors. Bringing together these two types of individuals can lead toextraordinary results that only grow better with time, as the individual serving as thescribe/speechwriter/ghostwriterlearnshisorhersubject’svoiceandthoughtprocesses.Atthehighestlevels (Peter Robinson writing Ronald Reagan’s BerlinWall speech) this kind of partnership canchange the world. But even at a lesser degree, it can still have a valuable effect at the corporate,divisional,orevendepartmentallevelofanorganization.

Thatsaid,YinandYangteamsarenaturallyvolatile;achimeraoftwoverydifferentspeciesofhuman personalities that will always be fundamentally incompatible at some level. The extendedfailureofsuchapairingwillalmostalwaysleadtoabreakupandmutualrecriminations.Butsuccesscanalsoleadtoanearlysplit,aseachparty,notfullyappreciatingthevalueorthecontributionofthe

other,comestobelievethatheorsheistherealsourceofsuccess,isinsufficientlycreditedforthatachievement, and can be evenmore successful on his or her own. This is the story of an endlessnumber of musical duos or lead singers in larger groups, songwriting teams, and comic teams(MartinandLewis).Italsotakesplaceincreativeteams(WaltDisneyandUbIwerks),andmostofall,inbusinesspartnerships.

Unfortunately,thecracksinthistypeofteamoftenstartveryearly—andgreatsuccesscanleadtofissuressohugethattheysimplycan’tbemended...exceptforsomehollow“reunion”yearshencethatexhibitlittleofthepoweroftheoriginalpairing.

AclassicformoftheYinandYangrelationshipis:

8.1—THEARTISTANDTHEANGEL:Theseare“investment”partnerships.Theanalogyistotheventurecapitalist and the entrepreneur.These are pair-teams inwhich the individualmembers exhibit verydifferentskillsets,andtheyenterintothepartnershipwithnotonlyverydifferentinterestsandneeds,butalsodifferent—butsymbiotic—notionsofsuccess.

Aclassicexampleofsuchan“Artist-Angel”pairisthebrothersVincentandTheovanGogh.Asyoumayknow,youngerbrotherTheofinanciallyandemotionallysupported theworkofhismorefamous artist brother. Indeed, in Vincent’s short lifetime, brother Theowas the only buyer of hisworks. Theo, himself a successful art dealer and a key figure in the public acceptance ofImpressionism,stoodbyVincentevenas theartist’sminddeteriorated,providinghimwithmoney,helpingcheckhimintohospitals,andbeingthere,withoutquestioning,totheveryend.ItcancertainlybesaidthatwithoutTheovanGogh,theworldwouldneverknowVincent’slatemasterpieces,someofthemostvaluableworksofartevercreated.

Tragically—butalsoofferingaglimpseintotheintensitythatcancharacterizetheseoddcouples—Theolivedonlysixmonthslongerthanhisbrother,dyingofadementiathatcouldhavebeenduetosyphilis,butwasjustaslikely,ashisdeathcertificatenoted,owingto“heredity,chronicdisease,overwork,sadness.”

Artist-Angelpairsare,notsurprisingly,mostoftenfoundinthecreativearts.That’sbeenthecasethroughouthistory—thinkof themanycourtpainters (likeLeonardo,Goya,Holbein),papalartists(Raphael, Michelangelo, Bernini), writers (Machiavelli, Milton, Bacon), and composers (Handel,Mozart,Beethoven)throughouthistorywhohavededicatedtheirworktopatrons.

And these relationshipsdon’t just characterize an earlier era—in themore recent centuries, theallegiance has merely shifted to other types of wealthy patrons; for example, Rilke with his richmistresses and the Swiss industrialist patronWerner Reinhart, or, conversely, PeggyGuggenheimwith Kandinsky, Duchamp, and Pollock. Artists these days often find their patronage from thegovernment (forexample, from theNationalEndowment for theArts),or from traditionalpatronsnowfilteredthroughtheirfoundations.

In themodernworld, theArtist-Angel pairinghas also foundother, equally influential, outlets.Oneisthetopcorporateexecutivewhodevelopsacloserelationshipwiththecompany’stopcreativeperson. The automotive industry has long been characterized by executive-designer teams, fromLawrence Fisher with Harley Earl at General Motors, to Virgil Exner and Raymond Loewy atStudebaker (Loewy, probably the premier designer of the twentieth century, developed similarrelationshipswithexecutivesatnumerousothercorporations).

Fashion designers are also noted for their Artist-Angel pairings, typically with a businessmanager (and sometimes lifepartner)who,moreoften thannot, remains in the shadows.ThishasbeenthecaseatleastasfarbackasPierreWertheimerandCocoChanel,andithascertainlybeenthe

casewiththelikesofsuchlegendsasYvesSaintLaurent,GiorgioArmani,andChristianDior.But,forallthesuccessofthosepair-teams,arguablythemostpowerfulArtist-Angelpairingsin

modern life are between angel investors and innovative entrepreneurs. Because angel investorstypicallyworkwithstart-upcompaniesintheirearliestdays,fundingthemastheydevelopproductsand services inpreparation for their first (“seriesA”) injectionofbigventure capitalmoney, theyusuallyworkverycloselywith their entrepreneurcounterparts.Without angels,most new start-upswouldneverevenmakeittothestartingline.

Artist-Angelpair-teamsrepresenttheultimateutilitarianrelationships,inthatthemembersofthepairhavealmostnooverlap inskillsor interests.Becauseof that, these teamsareamong themostpragmaticofallteams,andtheleastsubjecttothestormsofemotion,competitiveness,andjealousyfoundinsomeoftheotherpartnershiptypes.Indeed,ofallthepair-teams,Artist-Angelpartnersarethe most likely to have found the partners motivated to maximize each other ’s success, not leastbecausethatsuccessismeasureddifferentlyforeachofthem.

Such pairings, because the relationship is highly practical and instrumental, typically exhibitequallypragmaticlifecycles.Thepairsareusuallyformedtotackleaparticularbusinessorcreativechallenge, and they are dissolvedwhen that challenge ismet—no hanging on because of residualemotional ties. That precision usually means that these teams operate only during the period ofhighestproductivity,andthusproducethebestpossiblebottom-lineresults.Theonlyrealdangerisiftheangelinthispairbeginstoexploittheartist,Svengali-like.Thinkof“Colonel”TomParkerandElvisPresley,orDonKingwithhisvariousboxers.

9.0—COUNTERWEIGHTS:ThesepartnershipsresembleYinandYangpairs,butratherthanbeingaboutskills, they are instead about character and personality traits.Yin andYangs need each other on aprofessional basis; Counterweights need each other also on a personal—and ultimately, oftenunhealthy—basis.

EvenmorethanYinandYangs,Counterweightpairsoftencrackfromthetwinwedgesofprideand resentment. But to these threats can be added both dependence and disgust. This kind ofpartnership is often the subject of fiction, as itsweird chemistry holds the potential for both greatachievementsandbitterdivorces—evenviolence.

ThevariousformsthatCounterweightpair-teamstakeareallcelebrated,andarethusthesubjectofendlesscuriosityandspeculation.Aswithanymarriageofopposites, it isconstantlyaskedhowthesetwopeopleeverfoundeachother,whethertheyhaveanythingatallincommon,andwhatkeepsthemtogether.Thus,theshypersonwiththeshowman,thecowardwiththehero,thetechnicalgeniuswiththenaturalleader,theplayboywiththeclerk.

PerhapsthemostfamousexampleofsuchaCounterweightpartnershipinpopularcultureisthatofCaptainKirkwithMr. Spock.But again, these pairs are found everywhere, such as Facebook’syoung founder, Mark Zuckerberg, and his “adult supervisor,” Sheryl Sandberg, or Oracle’schairman, Larry Ellison, and CEO, Safra Catz. Pairs of explorers often show this combination,includingLewis(depressive)andClark(optimist),andRobertPeary(promoter)and“ArcticEagle”Paul Siple (quiet competence). Even Orville and Wilbur Wright seem to have exhibited someCounterweightcharacteristics.

ThebestMormonmissionaryteams,experiencehasshown,areoftenCounterweightpairs,theiremotionalcompletenessenablingthemtocopewiththehugelystressfulexperienceofbeingthrowninto an alien environmentwhile still expected to do their job.That fact offers awindow into howCounterweight pairs work best: When facing huge, stressful, and sometimes even dangerous

challenges—especially one that requires both risk-taking and a cool appraisal of the facts—mostindividualslackoneorbothtraitsandarequicklyoverwhelmed.Butapairwithsupplementarytraitshasamuchbetterchanceofbringingalltherequisiteperspectivesandattitudestothechallenge.

Because Counterweight teams operate at the very heart of the human psyche, they can beincredibly strong—to the point where they can overcome almost any differences in personalities,background,andlifestyle.That’sbecausetheexperienceofbeingmade“complete”byanotherissocomforting and satisfying—and ultimately successful—that it creates the most powerful positivefeedback loop imaginable. The result is a partnership that is so unlikely that it leaves outsideobserversscratching theirheads: thecasualplayerwhonever takesanythingseriously teamedwiththe uptight grind with no apparent sense of humor; the borderline criminal with the by-the-bookstraightman;thedeeplyreligiouspersonwiththegodlessrule-breaker;thefamilymanwiththerake;the archradical with the archreactionary . . . it doesn’t take much searching to find successfulexamples of each of those types of Counterweight pairs. Think of senators Orrin Hatch and TedKennedyoractorsWallyCoxandMarlonBrando.ThedangeristhatCounterweightpairscancreateadependencythat,atitsworst,canleadtodevastatingbreakupsorevenviolence.

It’snotsurprising, then, thatoneof themostprominent featuresofCounterweightduos is theircompartmentalization. For even with all the chemistry between the members’ personalities, thedifferences between the two are sometimes so great that they simply choose to overlook thosedifferences—andifthat’sinsufficient,tokeeppartsoftheirpersonal(andrarely,evenbusiness)livesfromeachother.Infact,thisisameasureofthepowerofa“Counterweight”partnership:itsmembersarewilling to accept characteristics, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of their counterpart that theywouldneveracceptinanyotherhumanbeing.

Aswe’ll see, the three early leaders of IntelCorp. created one of themost successful businesstriosofalltime.Butbeforetherewerethree,thereweretwo:RobertNoyceandGordonMoore,twomen of very different personalities and lifestyles, but whose mutual trust and admiration werecomplete—andtheirmeldedpersonalitiesbuilttwoofthemostimportantcompaniesofthetwentiethcentury,FairchildandIntel.

One the ofmost successful, and least celebrated, Counterweight partnerships in SiliconValleyhistorywasthatbetweenPaulBaranandSteveMillard.Baranwasoneofthegreatestinventorsoftheage:hispacket-switchingtechnologyisgenerallycreditedwithplayingthekeyroleintheinventionoftheInternet,andhisvoice/IPdiscoveriesdidthesamethingforcellulartelephony.ButBaranwasalso,accordingtosomeaccounts,adifficultmantoworkwith.Bycomparison,Millard,hispartner,was the embodiment of prep-schoolWASPgraciousness and diplomacy—andwas often called themostconnectedmaninSiliconValley.Inanearlierlife,hehadbeentheVPofaFortune500companyresponsibleforabillion-dollardivision.

Inthefivecompaniesthetwomencreatedtogether,Baranwasalwaystheconsummateengineer-inventor.Butthesamecouldnotbesaidofhisinterpersonalskills.So,besideslocatinginvestors,itwas oftenMillard’s job to unruffle employee feathers. Indeed, somuch of his time was spent onculturebuildingandpersonnelchallengesthatitwasoftenremarkedthat“BarandidtechnologyandMillard did people.” Neither could have built a successful company on his own—or, arguably,withoutanotherpersonofexactlythesame,supplementaryskillsetashispartner.Allfivecompaniestheyfoundedwentpublicandeachhadpeakmarketvaluationsinexcessof$1billion.

Despitetheirdifferences,thetwomenremainedateamtotheend.Onthedayofhisdeath,PaulBaranwasworkingonanewcompanyideainthetelemedicinefieldwithMillard.

AmoreextremevariantoftheCounterweightis:

9.1—INSIDE/OUTSIDE: These are “Janus” teams—that is, a close-knit pair that works well togetherprecisely because the two members face in opposite directions—one outward, toward the greaterworld, and the other inward, toward the operations of teams. You’ve no doubt seen this type ofpairingindailylifeintheformsoffriendshipsandmarriages.There,theyusuallytaketheformof“introvert/extrovert” or “social animal/homebody.” Inside/Outside pairs resemble several of theotherpairsdiscussedin thischapter,with thecrucialdifference thateachof the twomembers isanexpert,inskillandtemperament,inoneoftwodistinctdomains,andrarelyenterstheother.Indeed,Inside/Outsidepairsmayinteractonlyrarely,andthenjusttoswapnotes.

Inthebusinessworld,theseteamsaretypicallyorganizedaroundnottherelationshipitselfbutthesingulardemandsofdifferentprofessions.Forexample,insales,someofthemostpotentteamspairanaturalsalesperson(extroverted,eloquent,affable)withapartner,oftenasecretary,salesmanager,ormarketingadministrator,whorarelyleavestheregionalofficebutknowsbetterthananyonehowtopackagedeals,setpricing,andgoadmanufacturingintomakingdeliveriesandgivingtheirteamtoppriority.Similarpairingscanbefoundinotherpartsofanenterprise,eachof themcombiningsome formofoutward-looking“face”with another stayingbackandmaking themachineryof thesystemrunatpeakperformance.

Youmayhavenoticed thatmanyof thepairsdiscussed in theprevioussectionsexhibita lotofInside/Outsidecharacteristics,especially in theearlyyearsof theircareers—LarryEllisonandRayLane,Walt and RoyDisney,WilliamDurant andAlfred Sloan, AndrewCarnegie andHenry ClayFrick—as well as any number of other pairs we haven’t yet mentioned. That’s likely becauseentrepreneurialstart-ups,bytheirverynature,seemtorequireonefiguretorunthemachineryoftheenterprise, including product design and manufacturing, and another to promote that enterpriseamongpotentialinvestors,customers,andemployees.

Whiletherearelikelyanumberofdifferenttypesofthesepairings,wehaveidentifiedthreeasthemosttypicalandeffective:

9.1.1—FINDERANDGRINDER:Theterm“finderandgrinder”comesfromlawfirms(theyadda third,the “minder,” who runs the business), and it means a division of labor such that one person, theOutsider,findsnewbusinessandhandlesmarkingandpromotion,whiletheother,theInsider,grindsawayat servicing thosenewclients,writingbriefs, and so forth.Youcan spotFinder andGrinderpairs inalmosteverycommercialenterprisecalledan“agency”—inadvertising,publishing,publicrelations,design,marketing,andsoon—or“firm,”asinlaw,consulting,accounting,orengineering.

9.1.2—PITCHERANDFIELDER:ThePitcherandFielderisanevendeeperandnarrowerversionoftheFinderandGrinder.Whereasthelattertypicallyworkinthelongtermandonabroadscale(thatis,theoperationofanentireagencyorfirm),thePitcherandFielderaremuchmorespecializedandaremoreoftenfoundinlargefirmsoragencies—mostlybecausesmallstart-upsusuallycan’taffordtheluxury of having such specialists. At the heart of this partnership is the deal: the Pitcher sells thepotentialclientortargetonthedream,andtheFielderfollowsupwiththedetailsofthatdream—or,tomaintainthemetaphor,thePitcherdeliversthepitchonthedeal,theFielderfieldstheoutlineofthatdealandturnsitintoanactualagreementandcontract.

9.1.3—EXPLORERANDNAVIGATOR:Whenyouaremovingfastthroughunknownterritory,onepersonhastocutthepathandfocusontheobstaclesandthreatsahead,whiletheotherhastofollowclosely,

checkingthecompassandmapandlookingforlandmarks.Iftheexplorerdoesn’tdohisorherjob,the teamwill quickly get bogged down; if the navigator fails, then the expeditionwill get lost, ortravelincircles,orbeunabletoarrivehomeafteritreachesitsobjective.Thearchetypesforthiskindof teamcanbe found among the great explorers:Cook andBligh,Peary andHenson,Hillary andNorgay,CarsonandFrémont.

RELATIONSHIPSDEFINEDBYINEQUALITY10.0—REMEMBERTHEFORCE:“Force”pair-teamsarementorpartnershipsinwhichthetwomembersareunequal. Ina typicalcase, these teamsconsistofanolderveteranwhoservesasanadviserandguidetoayoungerpartner.Thetitleofthistypeofteamcomes,ofcourse,fromStarWarsand therelationship between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker—that is, between an old master and,potentiallyifheissuccessfulinhisteachings,ayoungerversionofhimself.

Thisolder-youngerversionofa“Force”pairis,undoubtedly,themostenduringversionofthistypeofpartnership,with roots inmonarchal and aristocratic succession—andevenmore so in theguildsystem,withitsestablishedprogramofmasterandapprentice.Thistypeofpartnershipislikelyevenolderthantheteacher-studentrelationshipthatisitsmostcommonmanifestation.

But“masterandapprentice”isonlyonetypeofRemembertheForcepair.Andwhileitmaystilldominate the trades, another type ofmentorship seems to dominate the professionalworld. In thisversion, a mentor relationship is created between a veteran male executive and a youngerbusinesswomaninwhichtheolderfigureguidestheyoungerthroughtheminefieldofcorporatelife.

Interestingly, because of the potential for misinterpretation, these “May to December”mentorships aren’t usually talked about.But they are everywhere.One of the authors of this bookhostedanationallysyndicatedpublictelevisioninterviewseries(BettingItAll)inwhichoneseasonwasdedicatedsolely to top femaleexecutives in industries rangingfromautomobiles to finance tocomputers.Oblivious to thesementor relationships (theywouldn’tbecome thesubjectofmagazinestoriesforanothercoupleofyears),weweresurprisedwhenonesubjectafteranotherspokeofthecrucialroleamalementorhadplayedinherclimbupthecorporateladder.Bytheendoftheseries,wehadlearnedtoaskwhatwecametocallthe“mentorquestion”earlyineachinterview,confidentthatwewouldgetapositiveresponse.

Needless to say, older man–younger woman relationships carry with them a unique set ofdangers,not least thebiasedor jealousperceptionbyothers regardingwhat theyoungprotégée isdoingtogettothetop.Buttherealityisthatfewoftheserelationshipsendinromance.Rather,mostseem to be the product of a very different, but equally organic drive: that between a father anddaughter.Thismightsuggestthatthistypeofmentorrelationshipcouldbecomerarerasthenumberof women in senior executive positions increases. But that presumes that these relationships arestrictlybasedonefficiency,wheninfacttheirsourcesmaybedeeper.

AnothercelebratedversionoftheForcerelationshipisthatofaveteranathlete,nowapproachingtheendofacareerorhavingmovedon intocoaching,who takesayoungathleteunderhisorherwingandconveystothenewcomerabodyofacquiredwisdomandexperience.YogiBerraappearstohaveplayedsucharoleoverdecadeswiththeNewYorkYankees;andbeforehim,TonyLazzeriisknownforhavingprotectedtheyoungJoeDiMaggiowhenhefirstcameup.Anotherfamousmentoris StanMusial, whomentored Ken Boyer and a young Lou Brock in one generation, and AlbertPujols in thenext. Inbasketball, themost famoussuchmentor iscoachPhilJackson,a twelve-year

prohimselfwhothenbroughtalongthemostfamoustalentofthenextgeneration,MichaelJordan.Versionsofthissportsmentorshipmodelcanbefoundinawiderangeofprofessions,fromthe

theater to the military, in which older noncommissioned officers—chief petty officers, mastersergeants, gunnery sergeants—apprentice junior officers who are, officially, their rank superiors.Specialforcesprograms,fromtheBritishSAStotheUSNavySEALsandtheArmy’sDeltaForce,areparticularlynotedfor theirmentoringprogramsbetweenveteransandnewrecruitsasaway tosupplementtraininginreal-lifescenariosthatarehardtoduplicateintraining.

“RemembertheForce”relationshipshaveanumberofcrucialadvantages:

• Theydon’thavetoreinventthewheel.Thatis,whileonemembermayhaveanextendedlearningcurve, the other doesn’t, so the team itself can be productive almost from the instant of itsfounding.Bycomparison,ateamlikeaCastorandPolluxpairwilllikelybeyoung,andwillhavetogothroughtheirapprenticeshiptogether...meaningthatitmaytakeyearsforthemtoreachtopperformance.

• They typically have enormous longitudinal strength. The senior member may have decades ofexperience and now be approaching the end of his or her career. By passing thatwisdom andexperience on to a younger partner, that expertise can still be used at peak performance fordecadesmore...andassumingthatthejunior,nowsenior,membertakesonanewjuniorpartner,thathighproductivitycanlastahalfcenturyormore.InsomeofthegreatandvenerableguildsofEurope, such as the livery companies of London (that is, the “Worshipful Companies” ofapothecaries,gunmakers,spectaclemakers, ironmongers,and,most famously, taxidrivers), thementor-apprentice relationships form a continuous line of descent dating back to before thethirteenthcentury.ThisovercomesthebiggestweaknessoftheMaytoDecemberduos:theyaredoomedtoloseonememberearly.

• They smooth out the variability of a single career. It goeswithout saying that the temperament,energy,andgoalsofamiddle-agedpersonwithgrownkidslookingtowardretirementareverydifferentfromthoseofayoungcollegegradwithoutamortgagetryingtomakehisorhermarkontheworld.Putthosetwotogether,andifitworks,youhaveateaminwhichthosetwoextremescounterbalance each other, producing a single entity that ismature and ambitious, prudent andadventurous,patientandtireless.That’satoughcombinationtobeat.

• Theycreatecontext.Theproblemwithyoungpeopleisthat,whatevertheirenergyandtalent,theyalmost always lack a body of experience to tell them when a new idea is viable and worthpursuing, or is simply a repetition of past failures and should be abandoned. The result is atremendouswasteof timeandmoney.Bycomparison,matureworkers typicallyoperatewith ahugeinnerencyclopediaofwhatworksandwhatdoesn’t—buttheylackanyrealunderstandingofnewandemergingmarketsand thenewestgenerationofconsumers.Put themtogether, though,andyoumaybeabletobuildtheperfectbeast:ateamthatisatoncehiptothemarketplaceandwithalifetimeofexperienceinwhatworksandwhatdoesnot.

In the corporate world, the accounting and auditing giant KPMG is especially noted for itsmentorship program, which is based at the company’s headquarters in Amstelveen, Holland, andengagesall thehundredsof internswhomthecompanyhireseachyear.Someof those internswillstay on for the summer, otherwill sign up for the company’s national training program, and stillothers will be sent into KPMG’s international program. But whatever direction they take, in acommitment made by KPMG that may be unique, almost every one of the company’s interns is

teamed with a mentor at the very beginning of the internship—and the company enforces acomparable commitment from those mentors to “offer guidance and help answer day-to-dayquestions.”

Why?InKPMG’sownwordstothoseinterns,“Mentorscaninspireyoutomeetchallengesandachieve success.Theyenableyou to seeawider realmofopportunities, and theyprovidevaluableadvicetohelpyouexcelinyourcareer.”

WillallofthosementorsandinternsformaRemembertheForcerelationship?Hardly.Nodoubttherearemanycasesofinternswhorarelycontacttheirmentors,evenwhentheyareinterning,muchless after they leave or even take a job atKPMG.And equally likely, there aremanybusyKPMGpartners andmanagerswhomakeapro formacontactwith theiryoungcharges, stay in touch justenoughtomeetthecompany’srequirements,andneverspeaktotheinternagain.Thatsaid,therearemore than enough successful such pairings to justify KPMG’s commitment to the program—withmanymorepayoffsasthoserelationshipsmaturethroughtheyears.

ThereisalsoasecondarybenefittoKPMG’smentoringprogram.Aswe’veseenoverandover,teams are almost always more productive than individuals. But teams also take time to create. Ayoungcollegegraduatedroppedintoastrangeofficeinadifferentpartofthecountry(ortheworld)isgoing to take time to findsomeoneelsewithwhom topairup,much lesswithwhom tobuildalargerteam...timethatindividualdoesn’thaveinacomparativelyshortinternship.Byteamingtheyoungster with a veteran, KPMG radically shortens the learning curve, placing the intern into acompetent (if not yet productive) pair-term on almost the day of his or her arrival. This newbie-veteranduomaynotbeoptimal,butitiscertainlybetterthanlegionsoflostsoulswastingmuchoftheirinternshipjusttryingtofitin.

11.0—THEDISTANTIDOL:Thesearetheultimate“distancerelationships.”Oneofthebiggestbestsellersofthe1920s—indeedofthetwentiethcentury—wasTheManNobodyKnows.Written in1925byanadvertising executivenamedBruceFairchildBarton,TheManNobodyKnows started awhole newgenre of what might be called the “business-spiritual” book. Barton essentially retells the NewTestament as a bookof business strategy andmanagement theory.Needless to say, theheroof thebook is JesusChrist,whomBartondescribes as “theFatherofmodernbusiness”and“thegreatestbusiness executive of all time.” It was a clever conceit. Jesus emerges in the pages as a toughoutdoorsman, a decisivemanager, and an inspiring leader who took his start-up team (the twelveapostles)andbuiltthebiggestandgreatestorganizationinhistory.

While some reviewers lampooned its seriousness and over-the-top theme, millions ofbusinesspeoplefoundinthebookanew,verysilentpartnerwhohadleftthisworldnearly2,000yearsbefore.Thiswasn’tthefirstexampleofamassmovementofpeople,fillingavoidofmeaningandpurpose in their lives, who found inspiration—a partnership of sorts—with a great, if long-dead,figure.AlmostacenturybeforeBarton’s,anotherbook—thisoneanovel,andwrittenbyatrulygreatwriter—exploredthesametheme.InStendhal’sTheRedandtheBlackayoungvillageboyrises tothe topofFrenchsociety largely throughhisobsessionwith theexiledNapoleonandhisdesire toemulatetheemperor ’sambitionandruthlessness.

Distant Idolsare trueghostpartnerships. In that respect, they take thementor relationship to itsultimate extreme: one partner is long dead (or at least inaccessible) and has nevermet the livingpartnerinperson.Thus,therelationshipinthispair-teamisentirelyone-directional,withthelivingpartner asking, “What would my idol/mentor do?”—and that idol can only reply from a fixedrepertoireofquotesandaphorisms.

Thus,thecentraldynamicofDistantIdolpartnershipsisthatthelivingpartnerembarksonwhatcanbealifetimeofresearchintothatfamousfigureofthepasttoassemblethelargestpossiblebodyofhistoricalrecords(especiallyhisorherspokenandwrittenwords)onthatperson,learnsfromthatcorpus,andthencomestounderstandtheidoltothepointthatthelivingpartnercanimagine—eventothepointofextrapolatingnewwords—theadvicetheidolwouldgiveinthisimaginarypartnership.

Toincludethistypeofpair-teaminthisbookmayseembizarre.Afterall,howdoyoumanagesuchateam?Howdoesitgrow?Howistheadviceofsomeonegoneforcenturies,orevenmillennia,directly applicable to business decision-making in the Internet-based world of the twenty-firstcentury?

In fact, these relationships aremore common thanwe know—and arewilling to admit.We’vealreadynotedthatTheManNobodyKnowswasoneofthegreatbestsellersofthelastcentury;butsotoowasThink andGrowRich,which invited readers to imagine asking questions at dinnerwith afamoushistoricalboardofdirectors,calledthe“mastermind.”Ifthattypeofbookisananachronismtoday(thoughmanyolderreaderswillrememberatelevisionseriesonthesimilarthemeofadinnerwith great historical figures, produced by Steve Allen, that was broadcast in the early 1980s), itdoesn’tmeanthatwe’veoutgrowntheserelationships.

On the contrary, they’ve just taken different forms. Thus, witness the hugely popular run ofbusinessbooksdistillingcareer andcompetitiveadvice from themosthistoric figures, suchas theChinesepoliticianandphilosopherSunTzu,thePrussianmilitarystrategistCarlvonClausewitz,andmost unlikely, the world-conquering tyrant Attila the Hun. That some of these books are partlytongue-in-cheek doesn’t diminish the seriousness with which they have been received—untoldnumbers of business professionals have taken their messages to heart and applied them to theircareers.

AnothermodernmanifestationofDistantIdolrelationshipsderivesfrombusiness-orientedprintbiographies andmovie idealizations. Both derive from the hagiographies—idealized biographicalportraits—ofgreatmenthatfirstappearedintheRenaissanceandcontinuedintothetwentiethcenturyuntilthepublicationofLyttonStrachey’sEminentVictorians,whichintroducedatrendofskepticismandwarts-and-allbiographythatcontinuestothisday.

Everyyear, scoresof newbusinesshistories andbiographiesof famous figures appear,whoseessentialtaskistoplacethoseidolsintothecontextofmodernlifeandtoderivelessonsfromthemthatcanbeappliedtoday.Wehavehardlybeenimmunetothistrend:Rich’sForbescolumnregularlyliststhelessonsoffamousfiguresinindustry,politics,andsports.Mike’shistoryofHewlett-Packardeven offered an appendix of “lessons from Bill & Dave.”Meanwhile, some of the most popularbooksofrecentyears,fromWalterIsaacson’sSteveJobstoDorisKearnsGoodwin’sTeamofRivalshavebeencelebratednotjustfortheircontentbutalsoforhowtheirlessonscanbeappliedbyreaderstotheirownlives.Somesubjects—Lincoln,bothRoosevelts,Churchill,Washington—haveappealedasidolsforgenerations:thenumberofbooksaboutAbrahamLincolnisinthethousands.

Onereasonthesepartnershipshaveprovedsopopularandenduringisthattheyescapealotofthemessinessoftwolivingpartners’havingtoworktogetheronadailybasis.Theghostpartnersneverhave annoying habits, they don’t have bad days, they never betray you, and the chance of adisagreementorabreakupontheirpartiszero.Moreover,theseidolsalsoneversurprise,andtheyneverfail—oratleasttheydon’tinanunexpectedway.Youknowthey’vesucceeded,thatthestoryhasahappyending(atleastintheirplaceinhistory)—that’swhyyoupickedthem.Meanwhile,youwillnever find another partner of this quality. There’s a lot to be said about having a partnerwith thecourageofGeorgeWashington,theintegrityofAbrahamLincoln,andthedecisivenessofElizabeth

I,GeorgePatton,orAlfredtheGreat.Ontheotherhand,DistantIdolsneverreallygroworadapttochangingconditions.Theghostin

therelationshipisessentiallyatwo-dimensionalfigurewhocannotcorrectmisinterpretationsofhisor her views or beliefs by the living partner, who is the sole (biased) interpreter. With a fewexceptions,thepoolofwisdomavailablefromtheidolisbothsmallandlimitedinscope,meaningthatalotofthatwisdommustbeshoehorned—ofteninappropriately—intomostsituations.

That said, Distant Idol pairs can operate in the confidence that at least one of themembers isworld-class—unfortunately,itisthelong-deadone.

12.0—THESWORDANDTHESHIELD:Thisisa“protection”pair.ThisduodiffersfromtheGotYourSixpairbecauseonememberisstrongandresponsiblewhiletheotherisweakandvulnerable.Itisalsodifferent from theRemember theForce relationshipbecause it is usuallybriefer and there is a lotmore at stake—that is, onememberof thepair-teamhas takenon thedutyof protecting theother,renegade,memberinthefaceoffundamental,usuallybureaucratic,threats.

Ifyouwork in thecorporateworld,or ingovernment,youhave likelyseensuchapair—oratleast heard of one. They are the stuff of institutional myths. In a typical scenario, a particularlytalented employee—often in a single-minded pursuit of a new idea—crashes into the corporateculture.The idea is toonew,or too radical,ordoesn’tproperlyalignwith theenterprise’scurrentbusinessstrategy,orthecreativeindividualjustdoesn’thaveenoughpoliticalstrengthtocarveoutaprotectedpositionwithinthebureaucracy.Iflefttofendforhimself,themaverickwillquicklyattractswarmsoforganizational antibodies—bookkeepers,middlemanagers, cost accountants, operationsexecutives—whowillsummarilyexpelthatperceivedthreattothestatusquo.

Luckily,ourrenegadehasaprotector,acorporateknight-errantwhochoosestodefendthatfigurefrom those institutional threats. Sometimes this hero takes on the task for the right reasons andsometimesforthewrongones,butultimatelythemaverickissaved...and,withluck,thecompanyissentonabrightnewpath.

Oneof the leastknown,butmost successful, examples inour timeof suchaSwordandShieldpairingledtothecreationofwhathasbeencalledthegreatestinventionofthetwentiethcentury:themicroprocessor.

TheoverallstoryofIntel’sinventionofthemicroprocessoriswellknown.Busicom,aJapaneseelectronics firm that was rapidly becoming an also-ran in the desktop calculator wars of the late1960s,decidedtotakeonelastpassatmarketvictorybybettingeverythingonaradicalredesignofthe integrated circuits used in its products. In particular, Busicom wanted to reduce the currentstandard chip set of several dozen chips to just eight to twelve—and thus enjoy an unequaledadvantage in price, complexity, and size. It shopped the project to Intel Corp., one of many USsemiconductorcompaniesthathadspunoutofFairchildSemiconductortocreatethemodernSiliconValley,notjustbecauseIntelwasknowntobeatechnologicalleaderbutbecauseitwasrunbyRobertNoyce,acoinventoroftheintegratedcircuitandaherototheJapaneseelectronicsindustry.

Intel,ayoung,strugglingcompanyatthetime,tookthecontract.Busicomsentoversomeofitsengineers,andabrightyoungIntelscientist,TedHoff,wasassignedasteamleader.TheplanwasfortheBusicom team to domost of theworkwhileHoff acted as an adviser and presided over theirefforts.Meanwhile,hewasexpectedtodevotemostofhistimetohelpingIntelovercomeacompany-threateningcollapseinthemanufacturingyieldsofitsmemorychips.

Hoff did both jobs, but he soon realized that he had a much better idea for how to build thecalculatorchipset—thistimewithjustahalfdozenorfewerchips—basedonthearchitectureofthe

revolutionarynewVAXminicomputermadebyDigitalEquipmentCorporation.SohewenttoNoyceandaskedpermission topursue the idea.Noycehadevery reason to refusehis request. Intel’svicepresident, Andy Grove, was (rightly) demanding that Hoff, now that the Busicom scientists werenearlydone,devotehis time tosaving Intel’smemorybusiness.Meanwhile, thecalculatorbusinesswasnowinfullcollapseandBusicomwasheadedforbankruptcy—meaningitmightnotevenbeabletopayfortheworkdonetodate.

ButNoyce,oneof thegreatestvisionariesandmostfearlessdecision-makersof thedigitalage,followed his gut. He hidHoff and themicroprocessor in a corner of Intel’s labs and told him topursue themicroprocessor ideawherever it took him.Meanwhile,Noyce not only protectedHofffromGrove—andeven, fora time, fromcofounderGordonMoore—butalso from the restof thecompany,theboardofdirectors,andinvestors.HeevenallowedHofftoformafirst-rateteamthatincluded the Intel employees StanMazor and (hired from Busicom)Masatoshi Shima—and even,whenIntelwassqueezingitsbudget, togooutsideandhire(fromFairchild) thesuperstarFedericoFaggin, the inventor of the silicon gate.WhenHoffwas pulled away from the project, itwas thisteam,workingover the1969Christmasholidays,when the restof the labwasempty, thatbuilt thefour-chipsetIntel4004,theworld’sfirstmicroprocessor.

Withinthenextdecade,Intelwouldabandonthememorychipbusinessanddevoteitselffullytothe design andmanufacture of themicroprocessor—andmake itself one of themost valuable andimportant companies in history, and the linchpin of the electronics age.Hoff, Faggin,Mazor, andShimahavebeenshoweredwithhonors—andwilllikelyonedaywintheNobelPrize.ButitisNoyce,the charismatic, reckless, and endlessly luckySiliconValley legend,who is the secret heroof thisstory, betting his reputation and even the survival of his company to help another, much lesspowerful,manrealizehisdream.

Sword and Shield pairs are some of the most interesting of all teams, not least because theprotectorsoftenhavelittle togainandmuchto losebyevenenteringintosuchapartnership.Theymustspendconsiderablehard-earnedpoliticalorculturalpowertocometotheaidofapersontheylikely barely know, on an initiative for which they will gain little credit. Sometimes the knights’motives are noble—they believe in the idea, they want to shake up the organization from itscomplacency,theyhaveanaturalimpulsetohelptheunderdog,ortheyseetheiryoungerselvesinthemaverick.Andsometimestheyarebase—theywanttoridetheideatotheCEO’soffice,theywanttogetthejumponadespisedcounterpartbystealinghisorherbesttalent,ortheyaresimplyboredandwant a new challenge. But whatever themotive—and sometimes they are just plain opaque to theoutsideobserver—theyarealmostalwaysheroic.Theknightchoosestointerveneandact,ratherthanstandbackandnottaketherisk.

Asfortherenegades,the“Sword”inthispair,theyareoftenportrayedasbravebutfoolhardy(orat least naive)—the Frodo to the protecting “shield” of Aragorn inThe Lord of the Rings; DavidBalfour toAlanBreck Stewart inKidnapped; TomCanty toMiles Hendon inThe Prince and thePauper . . . as well as in scores of lesser novels (that most of these are “children’s” books onlyunderscorestheparalleloftheserelationshipstothatoffather-sonandfather-daughterinfamilylife).

Intheworldsofbusinessandpolitics,thischaracterizationisusuallynotquiteaccurate.There,therenegade figure isusuallyeither tooyoung tohavemuchpower insideanorganizationorholdsaposition of some importance—such as a scientist in the company lab, or a senior figure in agovernment—but has neither access to nor experiencewith the halls of power.When this type ofindividual is actually portrayed—for instance, Jimmy Stewart’s character in Mr. Smith Goes toWashington—the knight figure (Claude Rains) is often portrayed as one who is initially jaded or

corrupt, even an exploiter of the newcomer, but who then comes around and takes on enormous,career-orlife-threateningriskstosavethatvulnerablefigure.

Ultimately,SwordandShieldpairsaresovaluableandeffectivebecausetheycombineantipodaltraitsalmostimpossibletofindinoneperson:experienceandenergy,technicaltalentandmanagerialskills,youthfuloptimismandmaturepragmatism.That’swhytheseteams,whentheysucceed,don’tjustchangetheorganizationsinwhichtheyoperatebuttransformthem.

That said, their odds of success, almost by definition, are quite low. The crucial question any“knight”insuchapairingshouldbeaskingis:Isthistherighthilltodieon?Justbecauseacorporateinsurgencyisexciting,itdoesn’tmeanitisright.Andjustbecauseitiscompelling,itdoesn’tmeanitwillsucceed.Evenifyousucceed,yourreputationmaybesotatteredthatyouwillhavetofindworkelsewhere.And ifyou fail, theconsequencesare likely tobemuchworse—evencompetitorsdon’tlikemutineers.So,beforeyoubecometooenamoredwithyourlittlerevoltagainstthestatusquo,youhadbetterdecideifthisisthefightyouwanttomake,ifthisiswhatyouwanttodragyouryounger,moreinnocent,partnerinto,andiftheorganizationaldislocationsandrecriminationstocomeatyourcompanyareworthit.

We’ve listed twelve different types of pairs, as well as several variants—and truth be told, if wewanted to be even more specific, we could probably double that number. After all, how manyfunctioning,evensuccessful,pairs—especiallyinmarriages—haveyouencounteredthatsimplyleftyouscratchingyourheadandthinking“Whatdotheyseeineachother?”Needlesstosay,therearesimilarlyinexplicablepairsinthebusinessandprofessionalworldsaswell.Whenwespeakoflove,peopleoftensay,withakindofmysticalbelief,thatthere’ssomebodyforeverybodyintheworld.Weareconvincedthat’strueinthepublicsideoflifeaswell.

MAKINGPAIRSWORKHaving such a panoply of pair types can seem a bit daunting, especially when you ponder thechallengeofpickingthecorrectoneforaparticularproblem.Buttherealityisthatmostpairswillcontinuetocometogetherintotheindefinitefuture.Atminimum,thecrucialthingstorememberare:

• Allpairsarenotalike.• Don’trecruitpairsbasedsolelyoncompatibility,orbyintuition.• Someof themost successfulpairsdonot fitourexpectations; rather, thememberscanbevery

different in termsofage, talent,character,andtemperament. Indeed,oneteammembermaynotevenphysicallybethere.

The great thing about there being somany pair-types is that, like different shapes of buildingblocksorLegos,theyenablethecreationofanalmostendlessnumberoflargergroups.

Obviously,itisnotenoughtoidentifyandcategorizethedifferenttypesoftwo-personteams.Inreality,thefarmoreimportantchallengeistoapplythatnewunderstandinginproductiveways.Thatis,youneedto:

1. IdentifytheNeed:Firstofall,andkeepinginmindthatusuallythesmallertheteam,thebetter,askyourself:Isaduothebestteamforthejob?Andwhatisthatjob?Isitembeddedinthelarger

enterprise,withspecificduties,orwillitworkonthefringesoftheorganizationandbreaknewground?Iftheroleofthisduoistobetightlycircumscribed,youwillundoubtedlywantthetypeofteamyoucanactuallycreate(RemembertheForce,Inside/Outside,Artist-Angel,evenSwordandShield), andnot those that are almost always the resultof spontaneous formation (suchasCastorandPollux).Fortheformer,recruitingcanbejustamatterofarésumésearch.Thelatterismuchmorehit-and-miss,andwilllikelyrequiretestingvariouspairsfortheirproductivity.

2. Prepare the Candidates: An often-ignored threat to successful pairings, especially thosecomposedof individualswith different, evenopposing, personalities, attitudes, and skills (likeYin and Yang), is that themembersmay not recognize or respect each other ’s achievements.Theymaynoteven takeeachotherseriously. It is incumbent thenonamanager toorchestratetheseintroductionsinordertonurturemutualrespect.Thiswillproveparticularlyimportantwithlargergroups.

3. DeterminetheGoal:Insomecases,youknowexactlywhatyouwantaduotodo:comeupwithanew feature for an existing product, prospect and close a particular sales target, open a newoffice,improveserviceresponsetimes,andsoforth.Inothercases(Lifeboat,etc.)thegoalmaybe to improve theperformanceof the teammembers themselves.And in stillothers, thegoalsmay be more nebulous—for example, “discover a new market into which the company canexpand its offerings”—but no less vital.At the heart ofmanaging pairs—and all teams—is tomatch the characterof the team to the task assigned to it; that is, don’tbet the companyonanunprovenpairofopposites,orgiveanopen-endedassignmenttoaby-the-bookpair.

4. EstablishMetrics:Inmostenterprises,thisistheeasieststep.And,indeed,ifyouhaveapairofscientists who work well together and they are pursuing a particular design goal, thenestablishingperformancebenchmarksisprettystraightforward.Itisalotmorechallengingwhenyouaretalkingaboutgivingatroubledpairanassignmenttosavetheircareers,oraskingapairofcorporatesuperstarstoworktogethertogetthecompanyintoanewmarket.

5. ManagewiththeRightIntensity:Findingtherightmanager isoftenas importantas therightteam.An Inside/Outside or Yin andYang teammaywork best under a tough taskmaster whodoesn’tworrymuchabout theemotionalhealthof the team.Bycomparison, themanagerofaGotYourSix teammayjustestablish targetsandgetoutof theway.ACastorandPollux teammanagermostlyjustneedstomakesuretheduostaysontrack.AndforaSwordandShieldteam,themanager ’sprimarytaskistomakesuretheteamisapositiveforceandnotadestructiveoranarchisticone.

6. StayObservant:Asyou’veprobablynoticed,alotofespeciallypowerfulpair-teamsarealmostimpossible to create by decree; instead, they almost always create themselves, oftenspontaneously. Sometimes, they are the product of circumstance—such as in response to adeteriorating or dangerous situation. Other times, they are the product of ineffable factors(personalitytypes,backgrounds,interests,maybeevenpheromones).Thisis,infact,thegreatestchallengefacingteammanagers,bothexternal(withpairs)andinternal(withlargerteams).Itallbut demands that you work backward; that is, you need to be perpetually vigilant, spottingsuccessfulteamswhentheyoccur—andthenplacingthemintosituationsthatbestfittheirskills.

7. CreateOpportunities:Evenwhendealingwith spontaneous teams, there areways to improveyouroddsoffindingsuccess.Oneistobringpeopletogetherinphysicalproximityandseewhatsparks.Interestingly,thisismostlikelytohappenattwoextrememoments:whentheenterpriseisdoingverywellandhastheluxuryofexperimentation...andwhenitisindeeptroubleandiswillingtotakeunprecedentedriskstostayalive.

8. KeepRecords:Toooften, teams, includingduos,areformed, thensucceedorfailat their task,andthensplitup,leavinglittlerecordoftheirexistence.Themessageofthisbookisthateveryteam is distinct, a combination of personality types, structural characteristics, and a record ofperformance.Itistimetostartkeepingtrackofallthesevariables—andthenusethemovertimetocreatenewteamswithever-greaterchancesofsuccess.

9. ManageTransitions:Finally,asweshallsoondiscuss,teams(includingpairs),havelifecycles—theycanbehaveverydifferentlyattheirstart,atthepeakoftheiractivity,andastheyapproachretirement.Bythesametoken,theycannotbemanagedinthesamemannerduringthesedifferenteras of their existence. A manager not sensitive to this may well begin brilliantly, only tounexpectedlyfaillateron.Asmartmanagerwillidentifytheseevolutionarystepsastheyoccurandadjusthisorhercommunications,motivations,rewards,andpunishmentsaccordingly.

MATCHMAKER,MATCHMAKERWhen it comes to thecareand feedingofperfectpairs,youshouldstartasa leaderby identifyingyourmost talentedpeople, especially thosewhoaredescribedasdifficult, unpopular, eccentric,orodd.Lookespeciallyforpeoplewhoaregenerallyconsideredthesmartestormostcreativepeopleintheorganization—inparticular,thosewhoareunabletoaccomplishwhateveryoneexpectsofthem,orthosewhoareatriskofquittingorofbeingdrivenoutoftheorganization.

Now, don’t look at the obvious strengths of these individuals, but instead focus on theirweaknesses.Comparetheseweaknessestoseeiftheycanfittogetherinawaythatneutralizesthem.Ifyou can’t find a suitable match among this select group of individuals, look elsewhere in theorganization.Istheresomeoneinthatpopulationwhomakesanemotionalmatch?Remember,don’tgointothisprocesswithanypreconceptions:thebestpairsmaybequitealike,completeopposites,orsomewhereinbetween.Thekeyisthat,onthejobifnowhereelse,theseindividualsfilleachother ’svoids.

Next,putthesepotentialpairsincloseproximity,asisolatedaspossiblefromoutsideinfluences—especiallypeergroups—whichmayamplify theirdifferencesandundermine their synergies.Donotdemandthat themembersof thispairfraternize—officeparties,off-sites,business trips,andsoforth—outside their actual project activities.Rather, assign the pair a task forwhich they have therequisiteskillsbutareunlikelytoaccomplishassolooperators.

You are done with the first phase. You should now step back but continuously monitor whathappens.Iftheteamprovestobeeitherdysfunctionalor,conversely,enjoyingitselftoomuchtogetanyworkdone,dissolveit.Ifitprovestobehighlyproductive—andthiswillbeobviousquickly—keep it intact, findmore challengingprojects for it, and clear a path for it through the company’sbureaucracy.AproductiveCounterweightteamcancreatemiracles.

You’venowdonethehardpart:createdasuccessfulteamwheretherewasnonebefore,andtakentwounderperformingemployeesandmadethemvaluabletotheorganization.Yourtasknow,overthelongterm,istofindawaytokeepthesesuccessfulpairsinthecompany,astheyarelikelytomakeamajorcontribution.Butdon’tbesurprisedifyoulosethem.Forexample,Counterweightteamshaveahighlikelihoodofspinningoff(afterall,whydotheyneedyou?)tocreatetheirownenterprises.

There are other dangers as well. MagicMoment teams, when successful, can be not only thegreatestopportunitybutalsothegreatestthreattoanyenterpriseinwhichtheyappear.Evenexpellingthemcanbeadisaster:theymaystartanewenterpriseandcrushyourcompany.Youwillhavecreated

amonster—butonethatmightjustmakeyousuccessfulbeyondyourwildestdreams.Bycomparison,Remember theForce teamsarecomparativelyeasy toestablish if, likeKPMG,

youformalizetheprocessintoyourcorporateculture.TreatLifeboatteamsliketheBritishArmydidits“forlornhope”—menwhocouldavoidacourt-

martial, imprisonment, or execution by leading an assault on a seemingly impregnable enemyposition.Theideawasthattheoddsofsurvivalweresolow,andthebraveryrequiredsogreat,thatasuccessful assault would outweigh any blackmarks against a soldier. Give your Lifeboat pair themostimpossibletaskandshorttime(say,threemonths)toachieveit.Iftheysucceed,rewardthembutdon’tpromotethem;iftheyfail,getthemoutoftheorganization.

Artist-AngelandSwordandShieldpairsshouldbemanaged lightlybut ruthlessly.There is toomuch talent there to waste on failed efforts—so break them up quickly if they fall behind.Inside/Outside pairs often require the most preparation, because of the antithetical nature of theirtalents. Loyalty to the enterprise can be an effectivemotivator. Finally, be ruthless with Here andThere pairs.Because there is no emotional involvement between the twomembers, you can breakthemupandre-formthemattheslightestprovocation.

Withpair-teams,wearelookingatenduringanddurablehumanstructures,someofwhichcanlastalifetime.We’llnowlookat trios, themostvolatile, and leastenduring,of suchstructures,and thenbeyondtoever-largerteamstructures.

TriosTHEPLUTONIUMOFTEAMS

Trios, troikas, triplets—we are endlessly enamored and intrigued with teams composed of threemembers.Dumas’sThreeMusketeers—Porthos,Athos,andAramis—andtheircryTouspourun,unpourtous!(“Allforoneandoneforall!”)remainendlesslyentertaining,asshownbythefactthatacinematicversionofthestoryisfilmedeveryfewyears.

And yet, though few notice, even this archetypical three-person team really comes to life onlywith theadditionof a fourthplayer,D’Artagnan.Even then, the three swordsmen remain largelyapart of the backdrop, their characters pretty much indistinguishable. Only D’Artagnan, thenonmember—orperhapsmoreaccurately,astheendofthenovelunderscores,thefourthmemberofthe trio—seemsfully three-dimensional.Perhaps that’swhyit ishewhodevises that famouscryoftriobrotherhoodfortheotherthree.

As the subtitle of this chapter suggests, if pairs are like inert gases—pairing up and becomingprofoundlystable—triosaremorelikeradioactiveelements:theyseemtoexistforonlyabrieftimebefore they break down to their natural state, pairs. It is important to appreciate that fact up front.Makethemostofyourtriosforaslongastheyexist,butdon’tdependonthemtosurvive,anddon’tbecaughtsurprisedwhentheyfail.

AHALLOFFAMETRIOOneofthemostsuccessfultriosofalltimeisoneyoumayhavewatchedeverySundayforadecadewithoutevernoticing.Italsoswappedoutitskeymemberoncewithoutmissingabeat.Andofthosefourmembersof this trio, three arenow in ahall of fame—and, if enoughpeopleunderstoodhisrole,thefourthmightbetheretoo.Interestingly,thekeytothistrio’ssuccesslaynotinthemembersthemselves but in the person who managed them, who designed a way to deploy the trio in arevolutionary,anddevastating,waythatchangedtheirindustryforever.

We’retalkingaboutthetriothatwastheheartoftheoffenseoftheSanFrancisco49ersduringtheseasons between 1985 and 1995. The four members were quarterback Joe Montana, who waseffectively replaced bySteveYoung in 1991, halfbackRogerCraig, andwide receiver JerryRice.Thecoachwhorecruitedthistrioanddesignedtherevolutionary“WestCoast”offensetomakethebestuseoftheirtalentswasBillWalsh,oftenlistedasthebestNFLcoachofalltime.

To understandwhy this triowas so effective—itwon four Super Bowls, putMontana, Young,Rice,andWalshinthehall,andmadetheNinersoftheeraoneofthemostcelebratedsportsteamsever—weneedtolookmorecloselyatWalsh’smuch-imitatedWestCoastoffenseandtherolesthat

each of these players filled. Interestingly, beyond the obvious talents of these players—Montana’slegendarycoolunderfire,Young’sathleticism,andRice’sfamoushands—thesecrettotheirsuccesslieswiththeleastcelebratedofthegroupandhissingulargiftfordeception.

Considertheclassicplaybythistrio.Itunfoldslikethis:MontanaorYoungtakesthesnap,stepsback,andturns.Craigrunsforwardandeithertakesthehandoffandrunsforagapintheoffensiveline, or fakes the handoff and does the same maneuver or swings around toward either end. IfMontanaorYoung still has theball in this “quarterbackoption” (as the twomenare, respectively,right- and left-handed, theirmoves aremirror images), they can either runwith the ball (Young’sstrength)orfollowCraigandthrowhimalateralpass,orthrowdownfieldtoRice,whobynowhasescapedcoverageandhasthebesthandsinNFLhistory.

ItisadevastatingoffensethattookagenerationforotherNFLdefensiveteamstocombat.EventhoughmanyoftheoffensesofthoseteamstriedtocopytheWestCoastoffense,noneeverdiditaseffectivelyasthe49ers.

Sowhydiditworksowell?Therearetwoexplanations,onesimpleandtheothercomplex.ThecomplexoneisBillWalsh.Asithappens,bothoftheauthorsofthisbookknewCoachWalshprettywell.RichregularlyinterviewedWalshforacolumninForbesASAPmagazine.MikehelpedWalshorganizehisthoughtsforapotentialbookoncoaching.Whatwebothremembermostaboutthelatelegendwashisextraordinary,almostsuperhumanmentalorganization.Evenashesaton the floor,wincingfromchronicbackpainashepressedhisspineagainstanofficewall,hewouldsaythingslike,“Coachinghasfourcomponents:logistics,strategy,tacticsandcontingencies.Logisticshaseightcomponents:recruiting...”andsoforth.Hecouldgoforanhourthatway,talkinghiswaythroughavast,unbelievablydetailedoutlineinhishead.

AttheheartofWalsh’scoachingmodelwaswhatmightbecalledcontrolledrandomness. Itmaysoundlikeanonsequitur,butwhat“controlledrandomness”meansisthatCoachWalshunderstoodthat a sport as fast-moving, unpredictable, and violent as pro football cannot be completelycontrolled.But it can be given a certain structure atmultiple levels that can channel events, if notcompletelycontrolthem.Thus,Walsh’stieredcoachingmodel:

1. Logistics:Recruitthebestpossibleteamtomatchyourcoachingstyleandthetalentsofyourkeyplayers.

2. Strategy:Planfortheentireseasonbasedonthequalitiesofyouropponents;organizetopeakattheseason’send.

3. Tactics:Withthatstrategy,planforindividualgames.Buildastronggameplanandsticktoit.4. Contingencies:Likeageneral,youmustunderstandthatallplansbegintofallapartthemoment

theshootingbegins.Don’tpanic,justactdecisivelywhenreactingtothenewreality.

Notethatateachlevel,Walshacceptsalevelofrandomness—oftheunexpected—thatcanshowup at anymoment. Thus, his famous clipboard, onwhich he pre-scripted the first ten plays in thegame.ManypeopleassumedthatWalshdidthissothathewouldn’tgetsoexcitedbytheactiononthefieldand—asmanycoachesdo—startcallingplaysforthemomentandthusdeviatefromthegameplan. This was indeed the case, but less noticed was that the actual plays on that script werespecifically selected in order to inject randomness into his play-calling—to make the Ninersunpredictableandkeeptheopposingteam’sdefenseguessing.Thisrandomnesscanalsobeseeninthelegendarystorythat,beforethe1990SuperBowlinNewOrleans,Walshmettheteamasitarrivedatthehoteldressedasabellhop—alittlebitofunexpectedhumortokeeptheteamloose.

Now, let’s go back to that basic West Coast offense play. Here is the apotheosis of Walsh’scontrolled randomness. If you look closely, the key figure in this complex dance is RogerCraig.Craigwasoneofthemostbalancedhalfbacksever:in1986,hebecamethefirstNFLplayertobothrushandreceivefor1,000yards inaseason.Thisbalance,whichwasat theheartofWalsh’splay-calling,wasalsocriticaltohisoffense.

Theideawasthat,asCraigapproachedMontanaorYoung,theoddsofhis takingorfakingthehandoffwere,thankstohishistory,essentiallyequal.Thatmeantthatthedefense—thedefensivelineand the linebackersbehind them—couldn’tbetonCraig’sdominantskills,as theycouldwithotherhalfbacks and fullbacks in the league (like, say, John Riggins of theWashington Redskins). As aresult, they had to hesitate for a split second forRogerCraig to commit (if they didn’t, andwentaheadandexecuted,say,arundefense,CoachWalshwouldnoticeandplay-callafakehandoffandpasstotakeadvantageofthisearlycommitment).

ThisiswhereRogerCraig’srealtalentcamein.Backin1983,whenhewasdraftedbytheNiners(forty-ninthoverall thatyear),Craigwasmostlynoted forahigh-stepping runningstyle thatmadehimhardtotackleandhadledhimtoseveralrecordswhileplayingcollegefootballfortheNebraskaCornhuskers.Whatfewnoticed—besidesWalsh—wasthatCraighadanothertalent:duplicity.RogerCraighadoneofthebesthandofffakesinthebusiness.

So,Montana/Youngpivotsandmovestohandofftheball.Craigdeftlytuckswithbotharmsandcharges the line.Doeshehave theballornot?Anotherhalfsecondpassesas thedefensiveplayershesitatetomakesure....

It’safake!Thedefenseshiftstopassprotectionmode.Montanastepsforwardintothepocket,orYoungswingstohis left.Meanwhile, thankstothatfractionofasecondofdefensivehesitationthatCraighasgivenJerryRice, themost famoushands inNFLhistoryhave justgainedastepon theirdefender—whichisallRicehaseverneeded.Thethrow,softandspinningclockwisefromMontana,sharp and spinning counterclockwise from Young, is snatched from the air by Jerry Rice’s hugehands...andheisonhisway.

WouldRicestillbethegreatestreceiverinNFLhistorywithoutthathalf-secondadvantageRogerCraiggavehim?Probably,buthemightnotholdasmanyreceivingrecords.WouldRice,Young,andMontanabethefootballlegendstheyarewithoutBillWalsh’sstrategicgenius?That’sanothermatter.Whatwedoknowisthatundertherightleadership(Walsh)andtherightorganization(theWestCoastoffense)atrioofextraordinaryskillwasabletoworksowelltogetherthatitreachedthepinnacleofachievementinits industry—and, justasremarkably,wasabletorepeat thatachievementevenafterreplacingoneofthethreemembers.

Evennow,ashisideashavebeenassimilatedinalloffootball,fromtheNFLtoPopWarner,BillWalsh(“theprofessor”)isregularlyacclaimedasthemostinnovativecoachinprofessionalfootballhistory,andoneof thegreatestcoaches inallsports.But tofullyappreciatewhatheaccomplished,youneedtolookpasttheLombarditrophiesandthelegends,and,withfresheyes,lookatthegamefilms and his offense in action. Beyond the obvious structural novelty of theWest Coast offense,somethingmagicalisalsogoingoninthoseplayswhenthethreeplayerswereattheirpeak.

Butthefactthatweremembergreattrios—“TinkertoEverstoChance”—andthatmostofthemseemtoshowup insports, shouldalsobeawarning.Dreamingof triosandactuallymaking themworkinallbutthemostsyntheticsituationsaretwoverydifferentthings.1

SUCCESSFULTRIOSINFOURTYPES

Inourexperience,trioteamsinevitablytakeoneoffourforms:

1.0—2+1:This, themostprimitive trio, is really,at itscore,apair—towhichhasbeenaddeda thirdplayerinavitalbutnotanintimatepartnerlikerole.

Thegreateststrengthofthistypeoftriois,again,thatit’snotreallyatrio,butapair,withathirdperipheralpersonactingasaconsultantoraspecialist.Insomewaysthisisthebestofbothworlds.Pairs are structurally much stronger. They are also usually more efficient. But pairs also, bydefinition,lacktheintellectualheft,andthebandwidth,oftrios.Addingthatthirdmemberasautilityplayer,whocanaddexpertise, time,andenergywhennecessary,canbeavaluableaddition.Thisisparticularlytruewhenthetwomembersofthepairbringtheircommonexpertisetoataskwithinthatexpertise,whilethethirdmember,the+1,canaddadiscretebutvitalskillwhenneeded.

A particularly useful scenario in a 2+1 team is one in which the two core members sharecomplementaryskillsandthethirdbringshisorherownspecificexpertise—forexample,softwareto two hardware experts, marketing or publicity to a designer and manufacturer—to the project.Ideally,thethreeshouldworktogether,butyetanotheradvantagetothe2+1architectureisthatthe+1participantneedonlybepart-time,dippinginwhenneeded.Thisopensthedoortomakingthatthirdmemberaworld-classexpertwhomayhaveonlylimitedtimetogive.

Inthehistoryofscience,perhapsthesinglemostfamousexampleofthisistheinventionofthetransistor.WalterBrattainandJohnBardeenwerephysicistsatBellLabswho,inthelate1930s,sawademonstration of how an insulator (silicon, germanium, and so forth) could be “doped”—that is,impregnated—withcertainimpurities(suchasfluorine)tomakeita“semiconductor.”Anelectroniccurrent could then be run through this semiconductor and turned on and off by a second, muchsmaller,electriccurrentpassingthroughitatrightangles(asiliconswitchor“gate”).

Brattain and Bardeen were eager to start experimenting with these new semiconductors—butWorldWarIIgotintheway.Returningafterthewar,thetwomenbeganlookingatwaysinwhichthisnew technology could be used to create solid-state electronic switches that would be smaller andcooler, and use less electricity—and most of all, be much more durable—than the fragile glassvacuumtubescurrentlyusedforthejob.

Thetimingwasperfect.Theirboss,WilliamShockley,thenheadofBellLabs’SolidStatePhysicsGroup,hadbeenassigned the taskofdevelopinga solid-state amplifier.Shockley suggested to thetwo scientists that one possible approach might be to look into semiconductors. And though hecontinued to be their official overseer, Shockleymostly left Bardeen and Brattain alone—a goodthing,asheisoftenconsidered,afterdrivingthe“TraitorousEight”tomutinyathisfuturecompanyandessentiallycreatingthemodernSiliconValleybydefault,tohavebeenoneoftheworstbossesofalltime.Duringthecourseofthedevelopment,healsoofferedsolutionstotechnicalproblemswhenthe pair encountered them.Bardeen andBrattain approached the famous scientist onlywhen thoseproblemsprovedintractable,becauseShockleywasnotonlyageniusbutalsoalmostimpossibletoworkwith:arrogant,paranoid,anddismissiveoflessermortals.

When theydidapproachhim,Shockley livedup tohisbilling—unfortunately, ineveryway.Henot only solved their problems, but when the two other scientists finally demonstrated their new“transistor,” an angry Shockley accused them of working behind his back. “There’s more thanenough glory in this for everybody!” Brattain reportedly shouted at him—but that didn’t deterShockleyfromgoingtoBellLabs’corporateheadquartersanddemandingthatitfileforapatentonthenewdevice,whichhedescribedasa“field-effect transistor,” solelyunderShockley’snameforhavingsuggestedtheoriginalidea.

Onlywhenitwasdiscoveredthatabasicpatentforafield-effecttransistoralreadyexisteddidBellLabsdecidetoputall threenamesonapatentapplicationfora“point-contacttransistor,”officiallyinvented on December 23, 1947. Declaring the situation “intolerable,” Bardeen soon left for theUniversityofIllinois(wherehewouldwinasecondNobelPrize,forhisworkinsuperconductors).BrattainaskedtobetransferredtoanotherdivisionatAT&T.WhileBardeenandBrattainremainedclosefriends,theyhadalmostnocontactwithShockley.Thefamousphotographofthethreeoftheminthe lab,Shockleysittingatamicroscope,wasa tensesession . . .andthe last timethe threemenwouldbeinoneroomforalmostadecade.

Nine years later, Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley were awarded the Nobel Prize. By then,ShockleyhadalreadywalkedoutofBellLabs(where therewerecelebrationsathisdeparture)andhadgonetoCaliforniatostarthisowncompany—ShockleyTransistor—andgetrich.HecelebratedhisNobelPrizewiththesamenewemployeeswhowouldwalkoutonhimafewmonthslater.

WhentheyarrivedinSwedenfortheNobelceremony,thetwooldlabpartnershungouttogether,likethepair-teamtheyhadoncebeen(theywereaclassic“YinandYang”pair:Bardeenthetheoristwhoponderedinhisoffice,BrattainthebuilderwhomadeBardeen’svision—inthiscasethefamousarrowhead of plastic, holding two gold wires and embedded in a slab of germanium—a reality).Shockleywas largely shunned.Nevertheless, after the ceremony, the threemenwere seen toastingeach other with champagne well into the night. They had, after all, changed the world. And theirnameswouldliveforever.

2.0—PARALLEL TRIOS: Often what we perceive as a trio is, in fact, two pairs sharing a commonmember,whiletheothertwomembersrarelyinteract.

ParallelTriosarethemostpowerfulofthetrioarchitectures.Thereareseveralreasonsforthis.Thefirstisthatbecausethemembersofthetriodon’tactuallyallworktogether,itispossibletofillthetwooutsideroleswithindividualswhoarethebestatwhattheydowithoutworryingabouttheircompatibilitywiththeother,onlytheircompatibilitywiththesoleinsidemember.

Thisarchitecturealsofeaturesitsowninherenthierarchy:Inside,becauseheorsheisthetrafficcop between the twooutsiders, is the uncontested leader of the trio.This solves a lot of the stressfound in most trios as the members struggle for dominance. Inside sets the rules, acts as thesynthesizer,establishesgoalsandmilestones,andsettlesdifferences.

Afamousparallel triostorywe told inChapter7 isworthrepeatinghere: the threescientistsatIntel who invented the microprocessor in 1970. That project began when a Japanese calculatorcompany,Busicom,approachedIntel, thenamemorychipcompany,withacustomorder toreducethenumberof chips in itsnewdesktopcalculator.Busicomwasdesperate—thecalculatorbusinesswas undergoing a shakeout and also-ran Busicom didn’t think it would survive without a realbreakthrough.

ThemanwhofieldedtheBusicomcontractwasayoungscientistnamedTedHoff.HesawintheJapanese company’s problem a way to rethink chip architecture along the lines of the hot newminicomputers then being built by the likes ofDigitalEquipmentCorporation.When the Japanesesent over a team towork at Intel under his supervision,Hoff realized that therewas another, evenbetter, way to design this chip set. He then went to Intel’s cofounder Bob Noyce (himself thecoinventor of the integrated circuit) and proposed a second, “skunkworks” project. Noyce, eventhoughheknewthatIntelwasatthatmomentatrealriskofbankruptcyfromthelowyieldratesonitsmemorychipproduction,gaveHoffthegreenlightandhidtheprojectthebesthecould.

Hoff,inturn,assembledadesignteamcomposedofFedericoFaggin(theinventorofthesilicon

gate, recruited from Fairchild), Masatoshi Shima from Busicom, and a software expert and Intelemployee, Stan Mazor. It was this trio that went on to create the Intel model 4004, the firstmicroprocessor,aswellas the8008, the trueprecursorofallmodernprocessors.Butatalmostnotime were the three scientists working as a trio—indeed, like their direct predecessors Shockley,Brattain,andBardeen,thethreewererarelyeveninthesameroom.

In reality, the microprocessor was Faggin’s project. He organized the team, established thespecificationsofthefinishedproduct,andledthedesignandproductionofthefour-chipset.BecauseFaggin’sexpertisewashardware,hetendedtoworkmorewithShima,assigninghimspecific tasksonthedifferentchips.HealsotookoverallthehardwaredesignworkwhenShimareturnedtoJapan.Mazor, being a software expert, tended to work more independently: his job was to deliver theoperatingcodetoloadintothe4004whenthechipswereready.

So,inpractice,theIntelmicroprocessortriooperatedastwooverlappingpairs,onecomposedofFagginandShima, theotherofFagginandMazor.ThiswasadistinctlydifferentarrangementthantheBellLabstrio,whichwasatightpairthatkeptthethirdplayeratarm’slength.Onereasonforthisisthatthemicroprocessortriowasformedthatway(ratherthancreatedoutofdesperation);anotheristhattheInteltrioviewedeachothermoreasequals,andFaggin’ssupervisoryrolewasclear.TheNationalMedalofTechnologyandInnovationcommitteesawitthesamewayfortyyearslater,whenitgavetheawardtoFagginandMazor, the twoAmericans,andtoHoffas thevisionary.(Sadly,aswiththeintegratedcircuit,Noycehadalreadydied.)

3.0—SERIAL TRIOS: Serial trios differ from Parallel Trios in a temporal way. Rather than the onecommonmemberdividinghisorhertimebetweenthetwoothermembers,thevariousmembersofthetriosimply,andsequentially,workbrieflywitheachotherinpairs.

Serial Trios are particularly powerful because there is no need for compromise among theplayers.Youdon’thavetohavetheInsideroftheParallelTrio,whoisrequiredtobringtothepartynotonlyhisorherownskills,butalsoatalentforbeingatrafficcopanddiplomat.Rather,aslongasthethreecanworkoutanarrangementamongthemselvestoconstrainthecontactbetweenthepairsthatdon’tgetalong,andtoconnectanddisconnectforaslongorshortasnecessary,allthreearefreetorunatfullspeed.Andthatinturnmeansthatyourecruitforthatteamtheverybestpeopleforthejob.Aslongastheycanstaytogether,theywillbedamnnearunstoppable.

As it turns out, that famous Parallel Trio that created themicroprocessorwasmanaged by theevenmorefamousSerialTriothatranIntelCorporation.MikehaswrittenabookaboutthistrioofRobertNoyce,GordonMoore,andAndrewGrove.Arguably,thiswasthemostsuccessfulbusinesstrioofall time,as Intelwouldatonepointat thebeginningof the twenty-firstcenturybe themostvaluable manufacturing company on the planet. And, as the original guardians of Dr. Moore’slegendarylaw,thistriocanalsobecreditedwithcreatingthemoderndigitalworld.

If you read the official histories of Intel, this trio is always presented as a troika of equals,workingharmoniouslyasateamleadingthecompanytogloryatthevanguardofthesemiconductorindustry.Therealitywasmuchmoredifficult;theinterrelationshipsbetweenthethreemenwerebothcomplicatedandsometimescontradictory—justlikerealhumanbeings,notmythology.

Thethreemenwereverydifferentfromeachother.BobNoycewasoneoflife’snaturalwinners:graceful,charismatic,awildrisk-takerwhoalmostalwayssweptthetable,amanwhoseemedtotoywithhiscareerasifitwereagame.Inajustworld—andalongerlife—hewouldhavewonasmanyasthreeNobelPrizes,oneofthemfortheintegratedcircuit.GordonMoorewasalocalValleyboy,thesonofasheriff,withoneofthemostpowerfulmindsinhightech.Kindlyandself-effacing,he

wouldalsodevisehislawofsemiconductors—whichwouldprovetobethemetronomeofmodernlife.AndAndyGrove: ferociouslybrilliantand justplain ferocious; arguably thegreatestbusinessleaderofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.

It shouldbeobvious from just looking at their résumés that therewasnoway these threemenwere going to link arms in a kumbaya and together run themost innovative company in themostcompetitiveofall industriesof theera.Thiswasespecially true in therelationshipbetweenNoyce,whoseemed to takenothing seriously, andhis employeeGrove,who tookeverything seriously. Infact, Noyce didn’t even take Grove entirely seriously—remember, he green-lighted themicroprocessor project behind Grove’s back—and Grove was contemptuous of Noyce, whom heconsidered irresponsiblewith thecompanyand itsemployees.Grovealmostdidn’t joinIntel in thefirstplaceafterhelearnedthatNoycewouldbeinvolved.Moore,meanwhile,floatedaboveitallasNoyce’spartnerandfriend,andasGrove’smentorandboss.

Itwasevenmorecomplicated than that,becauseasmuchasGroveadmiredMoore, theyneversocialized;meanwhile,GroveandNoyceandtheirfamiliesdidsocialize—atleastintheearlyyears.AsGrovegrewolderandplayedontheglobalscene,hebecamemorelikeNoyce.AndNoycefoundhimself engaged in the creation of the government-industry initiative Sematech that forced him tobuckle down and manage in a way he never had before . . . and the relentless stress may havecontributedtohisearlydeathatagesixty-two.

Tellingly(andarealchallengeforIntel’smarketing),foralltheirfameastheIntel“trinity”wholed thecompany foralmost twentyyears—and thesurviving twomembers formore thanadecadeafterthat—thereisreallyonlyonephotographofthethreementogether.And,onceyougetpastthewide ties and long sideburns, even that photograph is symbolic: Noyce andMoore stand togetherbehindatable,whileGrovehaskickedonelegupontoit,bothteaminsiderandoutsider.

So,howdidthesethreeverydifferentmennotonlymanageoneofthefastest-growingcompaniesinbusinesshistorybutalsoleadInteltothetopofthepileinatrillion-dollar,cutthroatindustrythatdestroyedscoresofitscompetitors?

The answer is that they managed to work together almost continuously, without ever reallyworkingtogether.Therewasnosingleinsidepersontoactascenterpieceofthetrio,astherewouldbewithaParallelTrio.Noycewasofficiallythetopexecutiveofthecompany—butaswe’veseen,hesometimeswouldgorenegadeandsetupsideprojects.Healsowasnotorious—especiallyinGrove’seyes—forbeingconflict-averse:hewasalmostconstitutionallyunabletofireanyone.Moorewasn’tmuch better, and his interests were far removed from the day-to-day operations of the company;rather,hewas(rightly)focusedonkeepingIntelthetechnologicalleader.AsforGrove,hewastheonememberofthetriowhowasconcentratedontheday-to-dayoperationsofthecompany.Butasthejunior member of the trio, he was constantly overruled by the other two—most frustratingly byNoyce—and thus devotedmuch of his time to angling for the independence and responsibility hethoughthedeserved.

Andyet,forallthefrictionsandresentments,thetrioworked—brilliantly.Why?Therearethreereasons:

• Theirtalentsandsenioritynicelylinedupwiththeclassicalignmentatthetopofacompany:CEO(Noyce),R&Ddirector(Moore),andCOO(Grove).

• Intel grew so fast, and faced such unrelenting technical and competitive challenges, that it wasenoughtokeepthethreemembersofthetrioengagedonafull-timebasis.

• Intel’s long-term successwas such that upwardmobility was available at the top. Thus, Noyce

slowlydetachedhimself from Intel ashebecameanational industry figure—leaving room forGrovetomoveuptorunningthecompanyandfindinghistruedestiny.Meanwhile,Moore,nowan industry legend and company chairman, could continue in his role as Noyce’s friend andGrove’smentor.

ItisoursensethatallsuccessfulSerialTriosarelikethis:complicated,explosive,dynamic,andconstantlyreadjustingtheirpoweralignments.Theyfindawaytodealwitheachother—sometimesbyminimizingdirectcontact;sometimesbyusingthethirdmemberasanintermediaryoracoverorfilter;sometimesbysimplystayingaway;andsometimesjustbygrittingtheirteethandwaitingforbettertimes.Theyalmostalwaysdo(orendure)thisbecause:

• Despitetheirdifferences,theyrespecttheuniquetalentsofeachother.• The project upon which they are embarked is so interesting, challenging, or rewarding that it

dwarfsanyinterpersonaldifferencestheymayhave.

CertainlythiswastruewiththeInteltrinity.NoyceputupwithGrove’smaneuveringbecauseheknew that Andywas tough enough to run Intel in a way that he himself could not. The same forMoore,whostoodbyAndyingoodtimesandbad.AsforAndy,feelingunappreciatedandslighted—andnotalittlejealousoftheeaseandfameoftheothertwo—hisrewardforbeingpatientandgettingalong with Noyce was to become the CEO of the world’s most important company, receiverecognitionasagreatbusinessleader,andevenbecomeTimemagazine’spersonoftheyear.

4.0—INSTRUMENTAL TRIOS: If 2+1 trios are the easiest to construct, and Parallel Trios the mostpowerful, Instrumental Trios—three people with carefully defined roles working together on asingle,equallywell-definedtask—arethemostconsistentlysuccessful.

When we think of instrumental trios, we naturally gravitate to sports—where the roles arecarefully circumscribed and the results are immediate—and particularly to baseball and the threeplayersoftheclassicdoubleplaycombination:shortstop,secondbase,andfirstbase.Andfromthere,ofcourse,wefindourselveswithJoeTinker,JohnnyEvers,andFrankChanceoftheChicagoCubsfrom1902 to1912.Thanks toFranklinPierceAdams’spoem“Baseball’sSadLexicon” in theNewYorkEveningMail...

Thesearethesaddestofpossiblewords:“TinkertoEverstoChance.”Trioofbearcubs,andfleeterthanbirds,TinkersandEversandChance.Ruthlesslyprickingourgonfalonbubble,MakingaGianthitintoadouble—Wordsthatareheavywithnothingbuttrouble:“TinkertoEverstoChance.”

“TinkertoEverstoChance”remainspartoftheAmericanlexiconasaphraseforaneasyseriesofactionsbyatriothatresultsinsuccess—inthecaseofthoseoldCubsinfielders,thedoubleplay,“thepitcher ’sbestfriend”foritsabilitytoclearthebasesandputtwooutsontheboard.

Joe Tinker, Johnny Evers, and Frank Chance may not have been the greatest double play

combinationofalltime—thoughAndyCoakley,whoplayedwiththemandwentontocoachbaseball(andLouGehrig)atColumbiaUniversity,believedtheywere—buttheywerethefirsttoperfecttheplay,andtohaveagreatpromoterinthejournalistAdams.Theyhavealsoenjoyedafameunmatchedby any other great double-play trio, such as the Dodgers’ Bill Russell, Davey Lopes, and SteveGarveyinthe1970s,andLuisAparicio,NellieFox,andTedKluszewskiofthe“Go-GoWhiteSox”of1959–1960.

Forourpurposes,whatmakesMessrs.Tinker,Evers,andChanceinterestingisnotjustthattheymadeawholelotofdoubleplays—fifty-fourof thembetween1906and1910—andhelpedleadtheCubstofourpennantsinthoseyears,buttheiralmostmachinelikeconsistency.Inanerawhenlousyfieldconditionsledtoendlessnumbersoferrors,thisconsistencymadethemasynecdocheforhalloffame–levelplay(andindeed,allthreedidmakethehall,together,in1946).Eachofthemnotonlyplayedhisownpositionwellbutalsoplayedtheinterfacesoftheirpositionstoeachotheraswellastheycanbeplayed—thatis,eachnotonlysuccessfullyfieldedtheballaswellasanyoneinthegamebuttheyalsoplacedandtimedtheirthrowstoeachotherwithunequaledaccuracyfortheera.And,asitwasstillthedeadballeraofMajorLeagueBaseball,theygotalotofpracticefieldinggrounders—andalotofchancestomakeerrors.

Butthisisonlyhalfofthestory.WhatmakestheTinker-to-Evers-to-Chancetrioilluminatingisthat they performed their historic feats of timing and coordination despite the fact that shortstopTinkerandsecondbasemanEversbasicallyhated eachother. In fact, inSeptember1905a fistfightbrokeoutbetweenthetwoofthemonthefield—anditisbelievedthattheydidn’tspeaktoeachotheragainuntilaradioshowin1938—thirty-threeyearslater.Inotherwords,forfullyhalfofthetimethetrioplayed togetherasbaseball’smostcelebratedwell-oileddefensivemachine, twoof theplayersdidn’tevencommunicatewitheachother.Yet theystilldefinedtheartof turningtheplayatsecondandfiringtheballofftofirstninetyfeetawaytobeattherunningbatterthere.

This is the essence of the Instrumental Trio—three individuals who do their job, largelyindependentlyandatthetopoftheircraft...andthencombinethoselaborsintoalargerproductionalong predetermined lines.When everything goeswell, the results are greater than the sumof thethreeparts.

OneofthereasonswhyweassociatetheseInstrumentalTeamswithsportsisthatsuchteamsarethemostvisibleandhavethemostcelebratedsuccessesinthatarea.TheMontana/Young-Craig-Ricetriowithwhichwebeganthischapterisyetanotherfamousexample.Unlikewithcomparabletriosinotherfieldsofendeavor,wecanwatchtheentirefunctionalityofasportstriounfoldoveramatterofseconds—andimmediatelyknowwhetherithasbeensuccessfulornot.

SportstriosalsogiveusagoodunderstandingofthearchitectureofInstrumentalTrios,asit isbasicallythesamewhetherfoundinaresearchlaboratory,acode-writingdepartment,anewproductdevelopment group, or, most of all, in the trades. We’ve already looked at the 2+1 trio; bycomparison,anInstrumentalTriomightbecalleda3+1,inwhichthe+1isnotanotherteammemberorleader,buttherulesofthegame,project,orcorporatefunction.Itistheserulesthatactasboththediscipliningagentfortheinteractionsandasthesetteroftheboundaryconditionsfortheoperationitself.

In essence, in this tightly circumscribed world (infield defense, line of scrimmage offense,applicationcodewriting,scientificexperimentation,consumertesting,productassemblyandtesting,service and repair, construction, roofing, and so on), the overall goal is established, the commonrulesareinplace.Nowtheactualprocessitselfcanbedividedintothreepartsandhandedouttothespecialistsofatrioineacharea,whoarefreetousetheirskillsandcrafttoachievethebestpossible

outcome.As with Serial Trios, the greatest advantage of Instrumental Trios is that you don’t have to

compromiseontheplayers—becauseallofthemarebasicallyindependentoperators,itispossibletosimplygooutandgetthebesttalentateachjob.Moreover,becausethereislittleneedtohelpthemimproveattheirownjobs,themembersofthetriocandevotemoretimetoperfectingtheirinterfaces—aprocessthatis,inturn,helpedbythefactthattheroleofthistrioisitselfseverelycircumscribedbytheoverallrules.Gettheballtosecondbase,conductthespectralanalysis,makethehandoff,gettheshinglesuptotheroof,acquirethetarget. . .anditdoesn’treallymatterifyoudon’tgetalongwiththeothertwomembersoftheteam,aslongaseachofyougetsyourpartofthejobdone.

Becauseof this, InstrumentalTrioscanreachahigher levelofperformance thananyother triotype—indeed,becausetheirgoalsareusuallysocarefullydefined,thesetrioscansometimesreachalevelofperfectionalmostunimaginable for anyother trio type. JustwatchanOlympic-level relayteam.

Another advantage of Instrumental Trios is that they are less dependent on their individualmembers.Withtherulescarefullydefinedandthemembersindependentparties,itisrelativelyeasytoreplace one or more of them almost seamlessly. The new triomight not be quite as good as theearlierone,or itmightbeevenbetter—but it cancertainly stillgoonwithanewsetofmembers.That’swhathappened tobaseball’smost famousdoubleplaycombination.Afteradecade together,Chancewashospitalizedwithabrain injuryhe receivedon the field,and inshortorderEverswasnamedplayer-managerof theCubs . . .whichso infuriatedTinker thatheasked tobe traded to theCincinnatiReds.

Thatwastheend,exceptinthelexicon,ofTinkertoEverstoChance.Nevertheless,theChicagoCubsstillfieldedaninfieldin1913,includingTinker ’sreplacement,Evers,and,eventually,Chance.Andtheystillturnedalotofdoubleplays—justnotasfamously.Seventyyearslater,theCubswouldfield another double play combination thatwas likely as good as their legendary predecessor andfeaturing a better player than anyof the originals,RyneSandberg. Itwas the samegame,with thesamerules,justnewnames.

THEFINEARTOFTRIOMANAGEMENTCreatingandmanagingtrioscanactuallybeeasierthandoingthesamethingforpairs.That’sbecausetrioscanexhibitaninternalstructureandalevelofself-managementnottypicallypossiblewithpairs.They can also usually be created simply by taking a successful pair and adding a third player,compatibleornot,whobringstherequisiteskills.

2+1triosalmostneverfailbecauseofinternalflaws.IfBrattainandBardeencoulddoitwithBillShockley,thenyourpaircandealwithanyoneyouthrowatthem.Rather,thesurefirewaytowreckagood2+1teamis tomakethemistakeofassumingtheyarea truetrio, treat themthatway,rewardthemasequals,and,worstofall,forcethemtostaytogether.Interestingly,thistypeofteamalsohastroubledealingwithsuccess,becausecreditisdifficulttodistribute.

With theParallelTrio,whoever takes the inside rolehas tobehighlyaccomplished.Heor shemustnotonlymakeamajorcontributiontotheproject—atrioistoosmalltohaveaseparateleader-manager—butalsoalternatebetweenconsultingandhelping the twooutside teammembers.So,bynecessity, Parallel Trios, if they are going to work at all, typically include at least one top-notchplayer—andyouhavetofocusonfindingthatperson.Addto this theopportunity toaddtwomore

top-qualityoutsidememberswithouthavingtoworryabouttheircompatibility...andtheresultisatriothatcanbelikenoother.

Rememberinchapter2howresearchersfoundthattrioformatsareexceptionallycomfortingtotheirmembersbecause themembers feel as though theyhavebothavaluable role toplayand thattheir voices are being heard?We believe that these Parallel Trios are the groups researchers aretalkingabout.

AsformanagingParallelTrios,setgoalsandperformancemilestones—andthengetoutof theway. Manage loosely, and communicate only to the team leader: you want to reinforce thatindividual’sauthority.Atthesametime,whenyoucommunicatewiththatleader,speakoftheteamasa singleunit, not as the leader ’sventure.When the team leaderdoesupdateyou, ask for aprecisedescriptionofthetwoothermembers’worktodate.That’llbeyourwayofdetermininghowwelltheleaderiskeepingtabsonthetwooutsiders.

Whentheprojectiscompleted,youmayrewardtheteamleadermore,butrecognitionandhonorsshouldbesharedequally.Thatfactshouldbeestablishedfromthefirsttoforestallanyinfighting.

Serial Trios can be treated like Parallel Trios, just extended in time. The biggest mistake thatmanagersmakewithSerialTrios is to forget tocredit that first,departedpairmemberand insteadhonoronlythefinalpair.

InstrumentalTriosaremorerecruitedthancreated.Thestructureof theworkisusuallyalreadydefined,sothechallengeislessaboutfindingtherightchemistryandmoreaboutfillingtheslotwiththebesttalentavailable.Therecanbesomechallengeshere,especiallywhentheperformanceofonememberisclearlyinferiortothatoftheothertwo:likeapreciselytunedmechanism,suchatriocanquicklygooutofbalanceifonepartcarriesadifferentweight.LookathowthegrungebandNirvanaquicklyfounditssoundwhentheolddrummerwaskickedoutandreplacedbyDaveGrohl.

Thisraisesaninterestingquestion:Isitbettertohaveoneortwotop-performingmembers,andtherest lesserplayers inanInstrumentalTrio?Orareyoubestservedbya triocomposedof threeequallybalancedplayers—eveniftheyarenotashigh-performing?Insports,theanswerisprobablytheformer,butfordifferentreasons: inbaseball,forexample, thethreeplayershaveotherwaystocontribute—such as hitting—that may compensate for weak fielding. In the commercial world,however,anunbalancedteamcanquicklytearitselfapart—soyoumightbebetterservedbysavingthesuperiortalent,ifpossible,foradifferentteam(say,apair,oraParallelTrio,orastheleaderofalarger team)andhiringanewthirdplayerwhose talentsarecommensuratewith thoseof theothertwo.

AsformanaginganInstrumentalTrio,youhavethreebasicchallenges:

• Keepthetrioworkingatthehighestlevelofproductivityandcoordination.• Makesurethetrioisnevershortoftheresourcesitneedstogetthejobdone.• Atcompletion,assurethatallthreeparticipantsaregivenfull—andjustasimportant—equalcredit

forthesuccess.

In sports and inmost trades, the singlemost important thing an InstrumentalTrio cando is topractice,practice,practice.Theteammembersmustcontinuetoperfecttheirownuniqueskills,whileatthesametimeworkingonthoseinterfaces.Inbusinessthatmeanstraining,casestudies,quotas,andevencompetitions.Insports,itmeanspracticingthefullarrayoflikelyplaysoverandover,perhapsa thousandtimes, inspring training,duringpractices,and inwarm-upsbeforegames.Asmanager,yourtaskistonotonlyprovidetheoccasions,venues,andequipmentforthosepracticesortraining

sessions,buttoalsomaketheteammembersattendandparticipate.Additionally, Instrumental Trios need to be durable.What changes is the composition of these

trios.Andbecausetheyareoftenmadeofhighlytalentedandthushighlydesirableindividuals,youcan never be sure how long you’ll be able to keep any of the three you’ve got. They may staytogether,likeTinker,Evers,andChance,foradecade...oraheadhunterorscoutmayhireoneawaytomorrow.That’sthebadnews.Thegoodnewsisthatyoucanusuallyinsertareplacementforthatlostplayerprettyeasily,andthelearningcurvetogetthatnewtalentuptospeedisequallybrief.

Finally,tracktheperformanceofeachtriomember—past,present,andfuture.Whentheprojectiscompleted(or,insportsespecially,whenaneraends)begraciousandgivecredittoeachmemberofthetrio.Afterall,thesearebasicallyhiredguns,andyoumaywanttohirethemagain.

And that is trios, the most explosive, unstable, and, in many ways, the most interesting, of teamarchitectures.Asvolatileastheyare,whentheydocollapsetheyusuallyreverttopairs,whicharethemoststableofteamforms.Andthatsafefallbackpositionmakestheriskoftriosevenmoreworththeattempt.

Nextwewilllookatlargerteamtypes,fromthosewithahalfdozenmemberstothosewithmorethana thousand.Butultimately,allof these larger teamscanbe reduced topairsand trios—justasnearly all geometric formscanbe reduced to squares and triangles. In fact, in these larger arrays,trioscansometimesbemademuchmorestablebysurroundingthemwithothertriosandpairs.Thus,alllargerteamsarebasicallybuiltfromthebuildingblockswehavejustdescribed;onlythesizeofthestructurevaries.

Thatsaid,thereisonecrucialdifferencebetweenpairsandtriosandthelargerteamstocome:tothosebuildingblocksisaddedthemortarofinternalleadership.

FourandMoreTHEWILDBUNCH

Thankstomarriageandbusinesspartnerships,pairingsareextremelycommonindailylife.Trios,because they are so volatile, are much rarer. But so are teams of four, and perhaps for just theopposite reason: because they are so stable. Most of the successful small teams we encounter,however,rangeinsizefromfivetoninemembers—whatwecall7±2teams.These7±2teamsshowupalmosteverywhere:corporateboardsofdirectors,partnersinventurecapitalfirms,smalllawandmedical partnerships, sports (baseball, basketball, volleyball, rowing, team handball, water polo,Ultimate Frisbee), the number of key players in romantic comedies and sitcoms (think Friends,Cheers,DesigningWomen,TheMaryTylerMooreShow,Newhart—the list is almost endless), rockbands(theRollingStones,theBeachBoys,theTemptations),entrepreneurialstart-upteams,theJointChiefs of Staff, and theUnited States SupremeCourt.WaltDisney’s founding animation teamwasknown as theNineOldMen.Look closely at anymodern institution, and somewhere at its center,usuallyplayingadefiningrole,youwillalmostalwaysfinda7±2team.

Sometimestheyarethereevenwhen,onfirstglance,theyappearnottobe.Forexample,themostfamoussmallteamofmoderntimesisequallyfamousforhavingfourmembers.Yet,atalmostanyphase in its brief history, this team actually had anywhere from five to sixmembers—and thus fitperfectlyintothearchetypeofthemidsizeteam.

TheBeatles—theFabFour—willalwaysbeJohn,Paul,George,andRingo.ThisisthebandthatappearsinAHardDay’sNightandplayedonthefieldatSheaStadium.Anditisthebandthatenteredwith the first cohort into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It is this lineup that is likely to be asimmortalasanyteaminourtime.

ButthecloseryoulookattheBeatles’story,themorecomplicatedthestoryofthisteambecomes.Forexample,duringtheband’sformativeyears,inHamburgandLiverpool,theBeatlesweremostlya five-member band, including the group’s original leader, Stu Sutcliffe, and Pete Best instead ofRingoStarrondrums.Thesameistrueintheband’slateryears,whenitturnedtoEricClaptonforguitar on one track of The White Album, and to Billy Preston (the so-called fifth Beatle) forkeyboardsforthefinalalbums.

Butevenduringtheband’smostcelebratedperiod,fromMeettheBeatles!throughSgt.Pepper’s,theFabFour livedup to that titleonly inperformance.Untilhisearlydeath, theBeatles’manager,BrianEpstein,notonlyplayedacrucial role ingetting theband its recordingcontractbutheevendevised theband’ssignature look.Evenmore important,anda fact theband itselfverified,was thereal“fifthBeatle,”theproducerGeorgeMartin.Fromthetinklingharpsichord-likenoteson“InMyLife” to the orchestral cyclone that ends “A Day in the Life,” Martin somehow made real any

outrageousmusicalsoundthebanddevised.WithoutBrianEpstein,theworldwouldlikelyhaveneverheard of the Beatles; without GeorgeMartin at the controls at Abbey Road Studios, it is hard toimaginehowtheband,forallitstalent,couldhaveprogressedmuchbeyondBeatlesforSale.

Examples like this suggest that, as with pairs, there is something deeply human, even genetic,aboutgatheringin“smallmidsize”teamsofbetweenfiveandninemembers.Aswewillseelaterinthischapter,this“natural”humanclusteringalsodescribes“largemidsize”teamsofbetweentwelveandeighteenmembers.

THESWEETSPOTOFFUNCTIONALITYMidsizeteamscanbecharacterizedinanumberofways.Weseethemasgroupsthatfeature:

• Nomorethantwolevelsofleadership.• Themembersknowingeachotheronapersonalbasis.

Butthereareothercharacterizationsaswell.Ifyouremember,RobinDunbardescribesthesetwogroupsasfollows:

• Five members: the number of your most intimate friends and partners (“cliques”). Notcoincidentally, five is also the number that corresponds to the limits of human short-termmemory.

• Fifteenisthenumberofpeoplewithwhomwecanhavedeeptrustinthefaceofalmostanyturnofevents.Dunbarcallsthese“sympathygroups.”

ThenotedteamscholarDr.MeredithBelbinidentifiessmallteamsasbeingfourtosixmembers—the “sweet spot” of functionality along a continuum of “cultural messages” delivered by teamsnumberingfromfourtotenmembers.1Thus:

• Four:“We’rewell-balancedinourteamandgoodatachievingagreement.”• Five:“Oneofustendstobetheoddoneout.”• Six:“Ittakeslongertoreachagreement,butwegetthereintheend.”• Seven:“Rathertoomanyrandomcontributionsfloatabout.”• Eight:“Peoplespeakfreely,butnoonelistens.”• Nine:“Wecoulddowithsomeonetakingcontrol.”• Ten:“Wenowhavealeader,buttheirideasaretheonlyoneswithachanceofacceptance.”

You’ll also remember, from chapter 2, that Cyril Parkinson, the inventor of the law about thegrowthofbureaucracies,believedthatateamofeightmemberscanneverreachaconsensusdecision.

On the other hand,we also know from our own lives that there are a lot of highly functionaleight-person teams, from Boy Scout patrols to Little League teams (minus the pitcher) to armysquads.Inalmostallinstances,teamsofthissizerequireastrongleader.

Inotherwords,whilepairsandtriosmaybepreciseintheircompositionofmembers,beyondthat—asweshallsee—ourdescriptionofteamsgetsincreasinglyimprecise.Thus,at theentrylevelofthemidsizeteam,atthemomentwhenthe“team”alsobecomesa“group”andaddsaninternalleader,themostaccuratewecanbeinourdescriptionofitisasateamof7±2members.Atthenextlevel,at

whatwemightcall(usingmilitaryterminology)thesquadorcrewlevel,orDunbar ’strust/sympathylevel,weareslightlymoreprecise,at15±3.

Beyond this, at the level of large groups, this variation grows larger in absolute numbers, butsettles down at between 10 to 20 percent. Thus, the 4,500-person division may feature a swing inactualpopulationof500membersormore.However,whilewewillmakethisvariationexplicitforsmallgroups,forwhichtheswingisobvious,wewillleavethatvariationunsaidwithbigteams.

Nowlet’stakeacloserlookatthosetwocategories,7±2and15±3,ofmidsizeteams.Theyareofparticularimportance,becausebetweenthemtheyencompassmostoftheworld’soperationalteams.

7±2TEAMSWhenyouthinkoftheword“team,”youprobablyseeinyourmind’seyeatightlyknitgroupoffiveto nine individuals. Though this visualizationmay have some origins in biology, it probably hasmoretodowiththefactthatalmosteveryteamyou’veeverseenontelevisionorinthemovies,orreadaboutinabook,orjoinedinanonlinegame,likelyhasfivetoninemembers.

Anotherreasonforthisvisualizationisthatoldmatterofhumanshort-termmemory.Justaswecantypicallyrememberonlyfivetoninedigitsatatime,sotoocanwekeepatonceinourframeofinterestonlyaboutthatsamenumberofcharacters.ThinkofSnowWhite’ssevendwarfs—ofwhich,asshownbythousandsofbarbets,mostofusknowonlysix.Or,quick:namemorethansevenoftheDirtyDozen—yeah,wethoughtso.LordoftheRings?Fourhobbits,onehuman,onedwarf,oneelf.AkiraKurosawaunderstoodthiswithTheSevenSamurai,LinaWertmüllerwithSevenBeauties,andStevenVincentBenétinthestorythatbecameSevenBridesforSevenBrothers.And,ofcourse,there’sHarryPotterandhisfourfriends(plus the twins)atHogwarts.Unconsciouslyornot,novelistsandscreenwritersunderstandthis,andsotheykeepthenumberofmajorcharactersinanystorydowntoaboutahalfdozen.Ifinthecourseofthenarrativetheyaddonecharacter,theycompensatebylosingone,orputtingoneinthebackground.Asaresult,wheneverweencounterasmallteamofpeopleinabook or onscreen, that team almost always exhibits the familiar 7±2 composition, which furtherreinforcesthatsizeofteaminourconsciousness.

Butthisstilldoesn’tfullyexplainwhyteamsofthissizeworksowell.Iftheydidn’t,humanbeingswouldhavelongagofoundanalternativeandsuperiorteamsize.Andyetwestillreturntothisone,sotheremustbesomefunctionalreasonwhywedo.

Thereare severalpossible reasons—and the real answerprobably lies in somecombinationofthemall.

• MagicNumbers:Thenumberssixandsevenhavesomeinterestingattributes.Six, forexample,hasa singular relationshipwithall thenumbersbeneath it.Thus itcanencompass two trios,orthree pairs—or, with a separate internal leader, a pair/trio team or even a five-member team(whichstill fits in the7±2format).That’sa lotof flexibility forasmallgroup,and it seems tomake the six-member team uniquely adaptable for its size. Meanwhile, the number seven hasendlesshistorical resonances connectedwithgood luck.That connection to success came fromsomewhere,anditwasn’tthestars.Ifhumanbeingshadn’tfoundsomeadvantagetoorganizingby seven, they would have abandoned it long ago. Instead, they embraced it. Tellingly, theEgyptian pharaohs reserved the number seven to themselves (the average citizen wasn’t evenallowedtousethenumber)andorganizedeverythingaroundit.

• Functionality:Groupsoffivetonine,andespeciallythelargernumbersinthatset,arebasicallythesmallest teamsinwhichyoucanhaveadedicatedinternal leaderaswellasadistributionoftaskswithmore thanonememberassignedtoeachsubgroup.Inotherwords,a7±2teamis thefirstteamthatyoucanactuallydivideupintorobustgroupsandassignthemtoworkonmultipletasks,inparallel,whilestillhavingsomeoneinchargetocoordinatetheiractivities.

• Communications:Movingup through teamsize, the7±2 teambasically represents the last timethatateamcanfulfillJeffBezos’s“twopizza”rule:thelasttimethatallthemembersoftheteamcansitaroundasingletableforameeting,andthelasttimethattheycanallknoweachotherbothpersonallyandonadailybasis.

• SpanofControl: Remember, at seven teammembers, the number of points of contact amongthosemembershasalreadyjumpedtotwenty-one.Byninemembers,itreachesthirty-six—anditstarts to go vertical from there. As anyone knows who has run such a team, after about ninepeopleinaroomitishardtopersonallyaddresseachmemberoverthecourseofameeting.Thesameistruesittinginaclassroomandcrouchedonabattlefield—whichiswhythemilitaryandleadership training programs are obsessed with the concept of span of control: How manypeople/subordinates can you not just motivate but actually command in detail? Brig. Gen.TheodoreRooseveltJr.likelysavedtheNormandyinvasionwhen,underfireonUtahBeach,hegatheredtogetherhiscommanders,showedthemthatthey’dbeenlandedamilefromtheirtargetbeach, and announced, “We’ll start the war from here!” That decision, expressed directly toprobablynomorethansixbattalioncommanders,resultedinacoordinatedassaultthatgottheUSFourthInfantryDivisionoffthebeachwithaminimumofcasualties.

• Diversity:Ithasbecomesomethingofaclichéinmovies,especiallywarmovies,thatwheneveryouhavea teamof individuals, it’sgoing tobepopulatedbyacarefullyselectedmixedbagofmembers—thecountryboy,thewisecrackingkidfromBrooklyn,theSoutherner,theHispanickidfrom the Southwest, the college intellectual, and so forth.But this predictable feature is also aham-fistedtributetoreality—whichisthat7±2teamsarethesmallestteamsthatcanactuallyshowreal diversity among their members, and thus can exhibit the advantages that come with thepresenceofdifferentpersonalitiesandtalents.

• Entrepreneurship: The 7±2 team is synonymouswith thatmost important phenomenon of themoderneconomy:theentrepreneurialstart-up.Weoftenthinkofthefoundingteamsofgreattechcompaniesasbeingcomposedoftwoorthreepeople.Andwhilethatmaybetrueforthefirstfewweeks,whentheideaofthecompanyisfirstbeingformulatedandtheveryfirst“angel”moneyisbeingraised,inreallife(andwespeakfromtheexperienceofhavingbeeninvolvedinanumberofstart-ups,includingeBay)start-upsdonotbecomeactualbusinessesuntiltheyhavecreatedanactual start-up team, of five to nine people, and, optimally, six or seven. Only then can onesubteampursue fund-raising,while the others undertake product design and development. ThiswastruenotonlyforApple,Microsoft,Google,Facebook,andTwitter,butalsoforsomefamousintrapreneurial teams, such as the one that created the Macintosh. This is the group that alsotypicallygets the start-up to seriesAventure investment, and thus to thebeginningsofa“real”company.Assuch,thisgroup(alongwiththemajorinvestors)isconsideredthe“founders.”

For these reasons, 7±2 teams are themost flexible, the quickest, and themost cohesive of allinternallymanagedteams.Theyalsohaveasufficientnumberofmemberstoexhibitrealdiversity,aproductive division of labor, and effective mass. As such, this organizational scheme is almostinfinitelyflexibleandcanserveasastand-aloneoperation(asinstart-upteams),asakeycomponent

ofa larger team(suchasaplatoon,department,oroffice),or,by thedozens,as thebasicbuildingblockofvery largeorganizations.These7±2teamscanalsobeassembledandretiredquicklyand,because they feature only a single layer of management, they are simple to combine into largerorganizations.

This doesn’t mean that 7±2 teams are entirely ideal. Being small, fast, and flexible is a greatadvantage, but in the wrong situation it can also be a serious handicap. That is, when the crunchcomes,ateamwithonlyahalfdozenmembersdoesn’thavemuchthrowweight—andifyoudecidetobeefupthemembershipattheeleventhhour,whowillhavetimetotrainthesenewmembers?You?You’llbethebusiestpersonofall.

Andhowmanywillyouadd?Anymorethanthreeorfourwillpushyourteamintotheno-man’s-landof tenorelevenmembers, a size that is almost impossible foroneperson tomanage.So thatmeansyouaddeitheroneortwopeople(whichprobablywon’tbeenough)orfiveorsix,includinganothermanagersubordinatetoyou.

Butthat isaquibble.Becauseentrepreneurialstart-upsarenowthedrivingforceof themodernglobaleconomy—andnotleastbecausethesefoundersaresohugelyrewardedinthemostsuccessfulofthesestart-ups(theyprovidemuchoftheranksofnewbillionaires)—thesurvivalofthe7±2teamisanythingbutatriskinthemodernworld.Indeed,wecanexpecttheirnumbersonlytogrow.

OrganizingandManaging7±2TeamsManaginga7±2 teamusuallymeans thatyouare amemberof that team.Andwhile in theory thatshouldn’tmakeadifference,inreallifeitalwaysdoes.Andso,whileyouarestilltryingtoassemblethebestpossibleteam,inthebackofyourmindisthelingeringthoughtthatwhomeveryoupickyouwillhavetoworkwithcloselyonadailybasisforthedurationoftheproject.

So if you aren’t careful, subjectivity can sneak into what should be a hard-nosed, objectivedecision. For instance, youmay not pick someonewho is right for the team butwhomyou don’tparticularly like—something that wouldn’t happen if you were an external manager. There goesdiversity—andyou’llendupwithateamthathasagreattime,agreesonjustabouteverything,andenjoys the experience rightupuntil themoment theproject craters. Itwouldn’t hurt tobring in anexperiencedmanagertodoarealitycheckofyourworktoprotectyourselffromthaterror.

Youarealsothekeeperoftheteam’smilestones.Youmaygetsomeassistancefromothers(doeverything you can to get an assistant or a secretary, as it will make your job, which can beparticularly onerous as the sole manager, much easier), but ultimately every milestone andcelebration, from meeting an interim development target to team members’ birthdays, is yourresponsibility.Keepcarefulrecordsandneverscrewup—inteamsthissmall,everythingispersonal.

15±3TEAMSYouhaveprobablyheardoneoftwo15±3teamseverydayofyourlife.Andthefactthat,unlessyouare a hard-core fan of popularmusic, you know almost nothing about them is telling: both teamswerecreatedpurelyforeffectivenessandnotforfame,andtheybothreachedthesamemagicnumberinsize—the“largemidsizeteam”—onlybecausethatgroupingworkedbestforthetaskathand.

One of these teams, based at Motown studios in Detroit, was ultimately nicknamed the Funk

Brothers. Other than those of the bassist, James Jamerson, and the bandleader, Joe Hunter, it’sunlikelythatyouknowanyoftheirnames—evenifyousawStandingintheShadowsofMotown,the2002 documentary on them.And yet, asMotown’s studiomusicians from 1959 to 1972, the FunkBrothers,inthewordsofthedocumentary,likely“playedonmorenumberonehitsthantheBeatles,ElvisPresley, theRollingStones,andtheBeachBoyscombined.”Indeed,everyMotownhitduringthat era, from SmokeyRobinson and theMiracles, to the Supremes, the Temptations, andMarvinGaye, featured the Funk Brothers—who at any given time in the studio numbered about thirteenmembers.

Meanwhile,attheotherendofthecountry,inLosAngeles,anothercollectionofstudiomusicians—ofalmostexactlythesamesize—wasbeinglabeledwiththemonikertheWreckingCrew.ThecrewmaynothavehadquiteasmanynumberonehitsastheFunkBrothersdid,butmanyofitsmemberswenton tomuchgreater fame:GlenCampbell,Dr. John,LeonRussell, bassistCarolKaye,SonnyBono, and Frank Sinatra’s drummer, Hal Blaine. If the Funk Brothers get credit for “I Heard ItthroughtheGrapevine”andWhat’sGoingOn,theWreckingCrewowns“GoodVibrations”andPetSounds.

Why don’t popmusic fans knowmore about the FunkBrothers and theWreckingCrew?Onereasonisthatpartoftheirjobdescriptionwastostaybehindthescenes—itwastheFourTopsortheoriginalByrdswhowent on tour andonstage, not these folks (though sometimes theywere in themusicpit).Butanotherreasonwastheirsheernumbers;therollofnamesisbeyondthememoriesofcasualfans.

ThesameistrueofmodernprogressiverockassemblageslikethePolyphonicSpreeorArcadeFire—canyounamemorethanoneortwooftheirmembers?HowaboutParliament/Funkadelic:youcan probably name George Clinton and bassist Bootsy Collins, and maybe guitarist Eddie Hazel(“Maggot Brain”). And yet all of these groups, allowed to seek their natural size without outsideinfluence,eitherbeganwithorquicklyreachedtwelvetoeighteenmembers.

Needlesstosay,musicisn’ttheonlyplacewherethe15±3teamisregularlyseen.Oneplacewhereits appearance may have had an even greater long-term impact than on popular music is in theinventionofnewtechnologies:Microsoft’sfoundingteamandtheAppleMacintoshteamconsistedoftwelveandthirteenmembers,respectively.

Thuseveninthefurthestcornersofpopularmusicanddigitaltechnology,naturalgroupsizesstillassertthemselves.

15±3Teams—TheOrganization15±3 teams are the smallest teams that can actually divide their labor and still have dedicatedmanagementforeachresultingsubteam.Thisformulationofferssomerealadvantages;inparticular,itmeansthatthosesubteamscantrulyoperateindependentlyandnothavetowaitonasinglemanagerracingbackandforthamongthoseteamsmakingcommanddecisions.And,ofcourse,thepresenceofadedicatedmanager/leadermakesa considerabledifference—nowyoudon’t justhavea fellowteammember occasionally stepping back from his or her ownwork tomake, usually under timepressureandwithlimitedknowledge,criticalcommanddecisions.

Thefirst teamswithrealheftare15±3 teams.Afull-size15±3 team,witheighteenmembers, ismorethanthreetimesthesizeofthesmallest7±2team.That’salotoffirepowertothrowatanytask—especiallywhentheteamhasadedicatedmanagementstructurethatcankeeptheteamcontinuously

on task, and is trained to both bring out the best in each teammember andmaintain highmorale.There’sareasonthattheplatoonistheessentialfightingunit.

The15±3teamfeaturesbothatruedivisionoflaborandahierarchyofmanagement.Assuch,itisthe first true organization team. In particular, it exhibits several characteristics not found in thesmallerteams,including:

• Hierarchal Management: With the 15±3 team we see for the first time a second layer ofmanagement,akindofproto–executiveofficethatisdistinctfromtherestoftheteam.Thisalsomeansthat,forthefirsttime,thereisadistinctchainofcommand,inwhichaleaderisobligedtoworkthroughsubordinatesratherthandealingwiththeentireteam’smembership.Infact,becauseofthelimitationofthehumanspanofcontrol,itwouldbeextremelydifficultfortheteamleadertodealwiththeentireteamatonetime,beyondaspeechorotherformofmassmessaging.

• ProfessionalLeadership:Uptothispoint, teamleadersarealsotypicallyactiveteammembers.That’s why in the military, 7±2 leadership is given to noncommissioned officers—that is,sergeants—whoare expected to join in thework, including combat, if necessary.Commandofmilitary 15±3 team–type units—platoons—is typically given to an officer, usually a secondlieutenant or a warrant officer, who has been trained specifically for the task of leadership.(Militaryplatoonsaretypicallylargerthancommercial15±3teamsbecausetheyaddathird7±2squadandhavealargercommandteam,includingseniorsergeantsandaweaponsteam—noneofwhich is,needless tosay,usuallynecessary in thebusinessworld.)By thesame token,business15±3teamsare typically ledbyaprofessionalmanager(at this level theequivalentofasecondlieutenant:ayoungMBA)whosejobdescriptionallbutkeepshimorherfromparticipatingintheactual work of the team. Rather, that person’s task, perhaps with the aid of an assistant, is tomanage the team—ormoreprecisely, the subteam leaders—full-time, continuouslymonitor thehealth and performance of the team, and act as the communications node to the rest of theorganization.

Inthecorporateworld,15±3teamstypicallytaketheformofasalesoffice,businessdepartment,manufacturing linesection,or,wayup theorgchart, theCEO’sexecutive team(C-levelexecutivesand group leaders). In R&D, the 15±3 team is usually found in applications, where an originalinventionisspunouttoafullworkingprototypethatcanbepassedontomanufacturing.

Intheworldofentrepreneurs,a15±3teamisusuallythesizeofastart-upasitcompletesitsseriesAroundofventurecapital, that is, its first injectionofprofessionalcapitalat thepoint that ithasademonstrableproduct.

Inanelementaryschool,a15±3teamistheteachingstaffoffourteenteachers(K–6,twoclasseseach)plustheprincipalandtheviceprincipal.Inadepartmentstore,itisanindividualdepartment’ssalesstaffplusthedepartmenthead.Andthelistgoesonandon.Nexttimeyougetyourcarrepairedorwashed,lookaround.Samewithyourdrycleaner,oryourlocalcoffeeshop(allshifts).Anywhereyouhaveasmall-businessoperation,usuallydedicatedtoasingle,verticaltask,andledbyanownerorafull-timemanager,youarelikelytohaveavariantofa15±3team.

Itcantrulybesaidthatsmall-businessAmerica(andmostoftherestoftheworld)runson15±3teams.Onceagain,theseteamscomeinseveralforms:

• MonolithicTeams:Monolithicteamsaretherarest15±3teams,andforgoodreason.Essentially,theseareteamsinwhicheveryonereportsdirectlytotheboss.Sincethisnumberofpeopleiswell

outoftheeffectivespanofcontrolofmostleaders,theseteamstypicallyhaveahiddenstructurethat divides up the leadership—such as the owner ’s spouse who manages personnel andbookkeeping, the veteran employee who serves as the de facto platoon sergeant, the boss’ssecretarywhoistherealmanager,andsoon.Traditionalsmallcompanies(forinstance,thoseinserviceorsmall-scalemanufacturing)sometimesexhibitthisstructure—whichusuallylimitstheirgrowth.

• ProfessionalTeams:Thinkofarealestateoffice.It’sfilledwithadozenorsoRealtors—allofthemtrainedprofessionalsmanagingtheirownprivaterostersofclients—managedbyoneortwomoreexperiencedagents.Thereisalsoanagencyowner(usuallywithasecretary)whohandlesthe building’s lease, MLS subscriptions, advertising and signage, and commissions. Similarstructures can be found in law offices (in which the firm’s owner spends more time onadministration and client relations than practicing law), doctor ’s offices, accounting offices,insurance offices, title companies, and so forth. In each case, the organizational structure isminimalbecausetheteammembersarequasi-independentbutstillneedanumbrellaorganizationtoachievetheirmaximumproductivity.

• ManufacturingTeams:Smallbusinessesspecializinginsequentialproductionactivities(custombuilding,repair,machining,prototyping)typicallyorganizetheir15±3teamasanumberofsmallsubteamsoftwo,three,andeven7±2,withoneortwosupervisorsandaboss-salesperson(alongwithacontractbookkeeperandotheroutsidevendors).WatchrealityTVonanygivennightandyou’ll see these teamsbuildingmotorcycles, repairingguns,or restoringcars. In real life, justvisitanymachineshopandyou’llseethisorganizationalmodelplayedoutbeforeyoureyes.

• Development Teams: Now we enter the world of technology and new product creation andmanagement.The15±3memberdevelopmentteamissomethingofacompromiseinthisworld.Theyarebiggerthanthetypical7±2code-writerteamwethinkofinsoftwaredevelopment, thekind of frat house team we see on television (Silicon Valley) and in movies, and in officialcorporate histories of companies like Google and Facebook. They are also bigger than thestandardvirtualteamthatishandingoffworkineight-hourshiftstoindividualsorpairsaroundtheworld.And,becauseoftheirsize,15±3developmentteamscannevermatchthecohesivenessortheflexibilityofthesmallerdesignteam.

Thatsaid,the15±3teamoffersitsownadvantagesinproductdevelopment.Foronething,itcanbefaster incertainsituations.Codeiscode,andthemorepeopleyouhaveworkinginparallel, thefasteritcanbewritten—acrucialtime-to-marketadvantagewhencompetitionisintense—andwitha15±3 team,youdon’tneed to add the riskof contractingout thework to teamsof codewriters inother countries. In addition, you can divide up the work among twice as many subteams, orconversely,youcandouble themanpower ineachof the samenumberof teams.Finally, andmostimportant,thepresenceofaprofessionalmanagerwhoisinsidetheteambutnotburiedinitsworkmakesformuchbettercoordinationbetweenthesubteams,bettercontinuousmonitoringoftheteam’sprogresstowarditsgoals,and(becausesmallerteamshaveamuchgreaterriskofbecomingisolatedandinsular)bettercontactwiththeoutsideworld.

Aswe’vealreadynoted, the ruleof the thumbfor teams is togowith thesmallest teamfor thetask.Butherewemakea—sortof—exception.Ifyoufindyourselfwithaprojectthatwilldemandanine-(orevenworse,aten-oreleven-)memberteam,seriouslyconsiderbumpinguptheteamsizeto15±3—andusethoseadditionalmemberstoimplementaninternalmanagementsuperstructuretotheproject.Theaddedcostisalmostalwaysworthit.

Andjumpingtothelargersizedoescomewithcosts.RecallDunbar ’snumbers:the7±2teamisattheupperboundofpeoplewithwhomyouaretrulyclose,whoarelikefamily.Bycomparison,the15±3teamisattheupperboundsofpeopleyoucantrulytrust.Thereisaverybiggapbetweenthetwo (though perhaps not as big as the one to come), and it can be decisive. In the smaller team,everyoneworks constantlywith everyone else, each knows each other ’s strengths andweaknesses,and ultimately, honor or blame accrues to everyone just about equally (remember how weapportionedcreditforthemicroprocessor?).

Weare alsonowbeyond JeffBezos’s “two-pizza” rule, and so it is difficult to actuallyget theentire team together in oneplace and address everyoneof thempersonally.Moreover, for all theadvantages of having an internal management, that new apparatus brings with it the problems oftransferand translation—messagesandcommandscansometimeschangesubtly (butmaterially)astheypassdownthechainofcommand.

15±3TeamCreationandManagementFarmorethananysmallerteamtypecando,15±3teamscanrecruitformaximumdiversity.Thereareseveralreasonsforthis:

• Mass:Adysfunctionalmemberofaduo,atrio,orevena7±2teamcanbedeadly,especiallyifheor she isn’t excised quickly. But a 15±3 team is big enough to absorb a certain amount ofintrateamfriction.Thisinturnmeansthatyoucanrecruitforamuchgreaterrangeofdiversitythanever—whichinturnincreasestheteam’slikelihoodofsuccess.

• Size:A15±3teamisalsobigenoughtoallowacertainamountofmigrationwithintheteam...whichmeansthatatalentedmemberwhodoesn’tfitinonepartoftheoperationmaystillfindawelcomespotsomewhereelse.

• Leadership: Insmaller teams, the leader—alreadydoinghisorherownwork,pluscommittingtimetosupervising—doesn’thavetimeto“siton”anotherteammemberwhohashugepotentialbutdoesn’tquitefitin.Butina15±3team,withitstwooreventhreelayersofmanagement,itispossibletoassignamanagertofocusextratimeonmakingsurethata“challenging”memberissuccessful.

Asforrunningthe15±3teamafteritisunderway,thebasicrulesofmanagementtheoryapply:Workthroughyoursubordinatesbutmaintainaconnectionwithalltheteammembers;continuouslymonitor the team’s health; recognize hardwork and achievement; defend the team against outsidechallenges; manage the budget carefully; and shepherd the team through major challenges andtransitions.Ifyou’vebuilttheteamproperly,itwilltakecareoftherest.

ScalingUpwithoutBlowingUp

Beyond the 15±3 team, each teamof increasing size is approximately three times that of the onebefore. There is no obvious genetic reason for this.More likely it is that the increasing span ofcontrol atone level eventually requiresanew layerofmanagement—which leads to the jump toanewteamsize.

Note also that the gaps between the team types also grow greaterwith each jump—eight fromseventofifteen;thirty-fivefromfifteentofifty,onehundredtothenextlevel.Theseno-man’s-landsofteampopulationsquicklybecomehuge,andareonlyslightlymitigatedbythegrowingmarginsoferror—whichmeansthatifyouchoosetocreatealargerteamoverasmallerone,youwillinevitablybe making a much greater investment. That’s yet another reason to keep your teams as small aspossible.

Atthe50teamlevel,weleavetheworldofmidsizeteamsandentertheworldoflargeteams,ofwhichtherealsoaretwotypes:

• Company 1: These are 50±10 member teams (“50”). In real life, these teams correspond tomidsizecompaniesthatareeithersmallmanufacturersor,withactualproductsbeingdeliveredtocustomers, start-ups at the series B level of venture financing. These are typically companiesbased at a single location, with dedicated salespeople, and a growing product catalog.Withinlargerorganizations,thissizeofteamcorrespondswiththesizeofadepartment.

• Company2:Theseareestablishedcompanieswith150±30employees(“150”).Theycorrespondto larger midsize companies than Company 1, but are still privately owned and mostlyheadquartered at a single location. Whereas Company 1 teams typically feature functionaldepartments and three layers of management, Company 2 teams may have four layers ofmanagement andmay feature the first appearance of business units or divisions. These largerteams, if a stand-alone enterprise, are typically at series C investment, with an impendingacquisitionorinitialpublicoffering.Inalargerorganization,thisisthesizeofaproductgrouporsmalldivision.

Company1and2teamtypesrepresentthelastappearanceofwhatwemightcallknowing teams.The50teamrepresentsthelargestteamtypeinwhichmutualtrustremainsadefiningelement,evenifit’slimited.Ina50team,youcanbeprettysurethatnooneisactivelyworkingagainsttheinterestsofthegroup,mostlybecauseyoustillknoweveryone,even ifyouworkregularlyonlywithafewofthem,andsomenotatall.

50/150 company teams are the real deal, as underscored by the way they are treated by their

employees, customers, investors, and various governments. For employees of 50 teams, theyrepresenttheopportunityforlong-termemploymentandbonuses;andforthe150teamsthereiseventhechanceatconsiderablewealthfromanacquisitionoranIPO.And,atthesesizes—andunlikewithmany bigger teams—everyone can grab the brass ring. Take the social networking companyWhatsapp: three years in business, fifty-five employees . . . and sold to Facebook for $19 billion.That’s $120million for even the least vested employee. Stock option plans are usually distributedmoreequitablyatthislevel,andthechanceforupwardmobilitythroughtheranksisgreater.

50/150companiesarealsomore independentand stable than their smaller counterparts,mostlybecausetheycanperformalloftheirnecessarydutieswithintheirownoperationsratherthanbeingatthemercyofoutsidecontractorsorsuppliers—andwhentheydoworkwithoutsiders,itisbothfromagreaterpositionofstrengthandwiththeabilitytoassignstafftomonitorthoseproviders.Havingoperations inside the teammeansthat50/150senjoyasmalleroverheadperemployeethansmallerfirmsforthesameservices.Ontheotherendofthescale,50/150companiesarealsomoreresistanttomarketshock.Theycanendureamarketdownturnbetterthantheirsmallercounterpartscan—andiftheycan’tchangedirectionasquicklyassmallerteams,theyarealsomorelikelytohavethecash,theinventory,andthephysicalplantneededtosurvive.

Thenthereisthematterofinnovation:smallerteamsareusuallybetteratcomingupwiththatone,big,category-creatingproductidea.Butittakesa50/150company(orbigger)toconsistentlycomeupwithaseriesofsuccessfulnewproducts,allwhileupgradingtheirearlierproductstopushthemalongthecurvetomaximumprofitability.

Finally,50/150teamshaveauniqueabilitytoscale.Unlikewithsmallerteams,allthepiecesarenowinplace,fromlineandstaffoperationstocorporateofficestomultiplelayersofmanagement.Thecompanyteam,especiallythe150team,cansimplygrowbyexpansion,notinvention,theformerbeingamuchsimplerprocess.

Interestingly, one of themost compelling arguments for the 150 team appeared only in recentyears: It can serveas theheartofavirtualizedcorporation.Mike’s2009book,TheFutureArrivedYesterday,arguesthatthehollownessoftheInternet-and-computer-driven“virtual”organizationcanbe filledwith the small, solid coreof apermanent, tightlyknit team thatwill providea stabilizingcenteruponwhichavast, infinitelyadaptable“protean”corporationcanbebuiltfromthousandsofpart-timefreelanceemployees.50/150teams,withtheirlastvestigesofteamwidetrust,mayprovetobethepermanentcoresofthesecompaniesofthefuture.

Note that 50 is one of the more obscure Dunbar numbers, corresponding (as you may notremember)to“thetypicalovernightcampsizeamongtraditionalhunter-gatherersliketheAustralianAboriginalsortheSanBushmenofsouthernAfrica.”Thatseemsabitofastretch,afacileattempttofillablankspace.Hemighthavelookedelsewhere.Forexample,atypicalmilitarycompany—threeplatoonsandaheadquarters—fitsneatlywithin theparametersof this team typeand, evenbetter, italsobearsthename“company.”SotoodothelegendaryactingtroupesoftheElizabethanera—thus,for example, Shakespeare’s King’s Men company—which would have performed at the GlobeTheatrewithtwenty-sixactorsandanequalnumberofstagehands,seamstresses,andotherworkers.

Bycomparison,the150teamisthemostfamousDunbarnumber—andassuch,itmaybethemoststablehumangroupingof all. It is the largest team inwhichall the teammembers still knoweachother.Thatfact,combinedwiththesheerthrowweightofateamofthissize—onethatcanrecruittop-notchmanagerial talent to run it and (thanks to stockoptions) thebest talent toman it—makes the50/150teamaformidableforceindeed.That’swhytheseteams,ascompanies,clubs,socialgroups,special forces teams, orchestras, and a thousand other human aggregations, dominate themodern

world.We’lldealwiththesetwocompanyteamtypesasone,becausetheyhavemorecommonalitiesthan

differences. From here on out we will be looking at matters of elaboration and scale, unlike theparadigmaticchangeswesawwhenmovingfromonesmallteamtothenext.

In50and150teamsweseetheriseoftruedepartmentalization.Thatis,weseeteamswithinternaloperations that have sufficiently large memberships and infrastructure to operate all butindependently.Thesedepartments areorganizedbyprofessional specialty:manufacturing, researchanddevelopment,HR,salesandmarketing.Thedifferenceherebetween50and150teamsislargelyamatterofsizeandthenumberofdivisions—thus,salesandmarketingsplit,andthenthelatterdividesagainintoPR,advertising,andmarketing.Inthelargercompanytype,anITdepartmentappears,asdoesa full-size financedepartment.Theboardbecomesmoreactiveandformal.Andmostvisibly,theteamgainsanadministration—whichinCompany2includesaCEO,aCOO,andperhapsafewotherC-levelexecutivesanddivisionheads.

Interestingly, while they share many of the same strengths, 50 and 150 teams have differentweaknesses.Theproblemwith50teamsisbothmorecomplexandmoredispiriting.Aswe’vesaid,beyond 15±3 members, teams begin to lose their internal trust—and this can be a devastatingtransition.

We can remember one particular meeting with one of Silicon Valley’s most celebratedentrepreneurs, Tom Siebel, who founded the industry-dominant sales-force automation softwarecompanySiebelSystemsandeventuallysoldittoOraclefor$6billion.WeencounteredTominhisofficeataboutthepointwhenthecompanywasa50team.Hewasdeeplydepressed.

“What’swrong?”weasked.Tomreplied,“Ijustgotoutofnegotiationswithapotentialnewvicepresidentialhire.”“Badcandidate?”weasked.“No,justtheopposite.”“Sowhat’stheproblem?”Siebelshookhishead.“Hestartednegotiatingforwhichofficehewantedandallsortsofother

perks.”“Sowhatdoesthatmean?”“It means that we’re not a team anymore. We’re not a start-up. We’re not all in it together

anymore.Nowpeoplejointhecompanyforwhattheycangetoutofit.”Hefrowned.“Iknewitwascoming,butIdidn’tthinkitwouldbesosoon.”

Managementchallengesbecomeamplifiedwhena teamgrowsas largeas150members; this istypicallyalsothemomentwhentheteambecomesvisibletotheoutsideworldandbecomes,forthefirsttime,thetargetofrecruiters.Itisthemomentwhenitfirstbeginstobleedthetalentitneedstomakethenextbigleap.

ORGANIZINGANDMANAGING50/150TEAMS50/150 teams are rarely created from scratch. That is just too complicated and expensive apropositionwith littleprospectof immediate returnon investment. Instead, these teamsareusuallygrown—either directly from a smaller team, or through the amalgamation of several teams. Theinterestingquestionis:Howdoyoujumpthegapbetweentheoptimalsizeofthesmallerteamtothatof the larger one? The good news for 50 teams is that the jump from the 15±3member team is

objectively rather small; the bad news is that this gap, from eighteen members to forty-five, isactuallylargerthanthesmallerteam.

Management itself must also experience growth, usually just the insertion of a layer ofmanagement between the ones already in place. For the 50 team, this means adding a thirdmanagement layer between the seniormanagement and individual subteam leaders.This is usuallyaccomplishedbyclusteringthesubteams(generallytwoorthree)bycommontechnologyormarketandassigningagroupleadertomanageeachofthoseclusters.

For the 150 team, the growth of management becomes more complicated. At this point, thesubteamsmayhavegrowntodivisions (theycertainlywillathigher levels)with theirown internalleadership.Itisherethatthenextlayerofmanagement—therestorationofindividualteamleadership—willusuallybeadded.Needlesstosay,thiswillmakethe150abitbottom-heavyinmanagement,butitbeatsthealternative—andthatsituationwillberectifiedatthenextbiggerteamsize.

450TO1,500ANDBEYOND—TRIPLINGDOWNFinally, we look at very large teams,which can range from 450members to 1,500members andbeyond.

Theseverylargeteamsareconsiderablydifferentfromthesmallerteamswe’vealreadystudied,and there are entire libraries of texts on management and organizational theory addressing theseparticularorganizations, sowe feel littleneed to add to thepile. Instead,wepropose to tacklekeyissuesoftheselargeteamsthatarenotusuallyaddressedinthosetexts.

The first of these is that it is critical to recognize that these large organizations—battalions,regiments, and brigades; faculty, staff, and administrations; publicly traded corporations,governmental agencies,nonprofit foundations, televisionnetworks, and so forth—are still, in theiressence,teams.Infact,theyareoftendazzlinghierarchiesofteams,fromscoresofpairsandtriosupthroughmultiplemidsizeandlargeteams.Thiscombinationisthehiddendynamicofcompanies—thoughitisrarelyrecognized.Anditisinterestingtospeculatejusthowmuchgreaterperformancecompaniescouldachieveiftheydid,infact,recognizethattheywereactuallyaggregationsofteamsandnotjustmassesofindividuals,andfocusonthecareandfeedingofthoseteams.

Buttheenterpriseitself,nomatterhowlarge,isalsoagiantteam.Itsharesthecommondynamicofallteams—fromthe100,000-memberglobalcorporationdowntotwopeoplesittinginanemptyoffice.Evenif it isgreatlyattenuated, itwillalsoliveout thelifecycleof teams.Inotherwords, itneedsto:

• Stayassmallaspossible,andasclosetotheoptimalteamsizesasitcan.• Focusonandconstantlyimprovecommunications.• Maximizethediversityofskillsandattitudes.• Recognizeandcelebrateachievementsandmilestones.• Carefullymanagetransitions.

We’velistedtheserequirementsbefore,butitcan’thurttoserveupareminderwhenitcomestothe very un-team-looking big organizations. Speaking as journalistswho have visited hundreds ofcompanies, we find that too many large organizations assume they have grown too big for thepracticesthatsustainedthemwhentheywereyoungandscrappy.Nothingcouldbefurtherfromthe

truth—in fact, they need to assert those practices even more for the sake of morale, loyalty, andcoordination.Theneedismoreacutethanevertoday:asthemarketchangesmorequickly,employeesare scattered around the planet with little in-person interaction, and fundamental threats can comefromanydirection.

Inaddition,maximizingtheperformanceofbigandsmallinternalteamsstrikesusasoneofonlytwowaystocounterthediminishingreturnoninvestmentperaddedemployeethatbecomesextremeatthislevel(theotherbeingproductivitytools).

Finally, effective small teams, given freedomof action and strong lines of communications toseniormanagement,maybetheonlywaythatalargeenterprisecansalvagesomeoftheinnovationand creativity that first made it a success. That is, this may be the one true answer to ClaytonChristensen’s “innovator ’s dilemma” by allowing for the internal creation of disruptive newtechnologies.Infact,thisisexactlywhatAppledidunderSteveJobsthroughthefirstdecadeofthetwenty-firstcentury,withJobshimselfactingassmall-teamprotectorfortheiPod,iPhone,andiPad.

BEWAREOFANO-MAN’S-LANDWefinishourteamtaxonomywiththeconversationwe’veputoffuntilnow.Bythispointyoumayhavealreadyaskedyourselfthisquestionseveraltimes:Whatdoyoudointhegaps?

Let’ssayyouhaveasmallbusinessofaboutfifty-fiveemployees,andyouarepreparingtogrow.Butyoualsoknowthatthenextstage,evenatthesmallestoptimalsize,iseighty-fiveemployeesaway.That’smorethan150percentlargerthanyouarenow.

Youcertainlycan’thirethatmanypeopleinoneortwobursts,forfearofoverwhelmingeverycompanyfunction.Yetyoudon’twant tobestuck in teamno-man’s-landformonthsorevenyearsandincreaseyourvulnerabilitytoyourteam’sshakingitselftopiecesorgoingofftherails.Sowhatdoyoudo?

First,remindyourselfthattheseoptimalteamsizesarejustthat:optimal.Theysitatsweetspots,atthenexusofoperationalefficiencyandhumannature.Butthatdoesn’tmeanthatnotbeingatoneoftheseoptimalsizesisateamdeathsentence.Itjustmeansthatyouwilllikelyhavetroublemaintainingyourmaximumefficiency—thoughyoucanstillprobablycoverthatgapwithgreatermonitoringandevenyourrecognition(andanticipation)thattheremaybeapotentialproblem.

By the way, just because you are at one of those sweet spots, it doesn’t mean that you areguaranteed success.There is, as yet, no real analysis of the comparative advantages of having therightteamsizeversusotherfactorsfromdiversitytomanagementcompetence.Andyoucanstillbeatextbookteamandneverthelessfail—therearenoguarantees;youcanonlyimproveyourodds.

Even though researchershave reachedaconsensusabout ideal teamsizes,don’t let that alwaysdiscourage you from composing teams that fall between those benchmarks. This no-man’s-landdoesn’thavetobelethal,butitmightdiminishateam’schancesofreachingitsoptimalperformance.Wecan’tsayforsurehowmuchofariskthisposes,butoursenseisthatifthevariantinwhichtheoddsdon’tchangeisabout20percent(thus,15±3,150±30),thepenumbraofacceptablesuboptimalteamsizeispossibly50percent.Thismeansthatthegapbetweensizesiscompletelycoveredforthesmallerteams.Andonlywithlargeandverylargeteams—450±225and1,500±750—dowebegintoseeanyrealgaps,andgiventhesizeofthoseoperations,thosegapscanbevaultedquickly.

So, the real question becomes: How much of a shortfall from your potential optimal teamperformanceareyouwillingtoacceptinexchangeforthecostandtroubleitwilltaketogetthere?

Thereisnouniversalanswertothat—eachteamleadermustmakehisorherownchoicebasedonacalculus ofmany variables, including funding, time tomarket, and the available talent pool.Withluck,toolswillalsosoonemergetohelpwiththatdecision.

Nowlet’slookatteamsinaction.

TheBirthandLifeofTeams

ThemostimportantteaminAmericanhistoryofficiallyretiredatnoononDecember4,1783.Thelocationwas theLongRoomofFrauncesTavern inoneof theoldestpartsofNewYorkCity.Thelocationwaspickednotonlybecauseitwasapopularsaloonandgatheringplace,butalsobecausemuchofthecity,includingmanyofitspublicbuildings,hadbeenburneddownduringthewar.

Ninedaysbefore,thedefeatedBritishArmy—alongwithalargenumberofTorieswho,rightly,believedtheywerenolongerwelcome—hadpackedup,boardedRoyalNavyships,andsailedaway.Theparadesandcelebrationsfollowingtheembarkationoftheenemywerelargelyover,thecitywassecure,and themembersof the team—manyofwhomhadrarelybeenhomeover theprevioussixyears—wereeagertogetbacktotheirfamiliesfortheholidays.

None was more so eager than the leader of the team, General George Washington, who hadvisitedhisVirginiahome,MountVernon,justonceduringallthoseyears.Nowhewasgoinghome.Hispossessionswerepacked,hishorse,Nelson—whohadcrossedtheDelawarewithhimatTrenton,stood like a rock on the bridge under fire atMonmouth, and carried the general to Cornwallis’ssurrenderatYorktown—wasbrushedandfed,andthehonorguardwaspacingimpatiently.

Everyoneknewthatthiswouldbetheteam’slasttimetogether.Sotheyputontheirbestuniformsand left their homes and barracks early enough to be sure they were on time, knowing that thismomentwouldberememberedforaslongasthenewnationtheyhadhelpedcreateendured.

Onemanwhorushedtothetavernknewthecitywell.ColonelBenjaminTallmadgewasthesonofaNewYorkCitypolicecommissioner,andduringthewar,asWashington’schiefofintelligence,hehad run the Culper Espionage Ring—which had played a crucial role in the war—in Manhattan.Almostfiftyyearslater,inhismemoirs,Tallmadgerecordedhismemoriesoftheday:

At 12 o’clock the officers repaired to Fraunces Tavern in Pearl Street where GeneralWashington had appointed to meet them and to take his final leave of them.We had beenassembledbutafewmomentswhenhisexcellencyenteredtheroom.Hisemotionsweretoostrong to be concealed which seemed to be reciprocated by every officer present. AfterpartakingofaslightrefreshmentinalmostbreathlesssilencetheGeneralfilledhisglasswithwineandturningtotheofficerssaid,“WithaheartfullofloveandgratitudeInowtakeleaveofyou. Imostdevoutlywish thatyour latterdaysmaybeasprosperousandhappyasyourformeroneshavebeengloriousandhonorable.”

After theofficershad takenaglassofwineGeneralWashingtonsaid“Icannotcome toeachofyoubutshallfeelobligedifeachofyouwillcomeandtakemebythehand.”GeneralKnox being nearest to him turned to the Commander-in-chief who, suffused in tears, was

incapableofutterancebutgraspedhishandwhentheyembracedeachotherinsilence.Inthesameaffectionatemannereveryofficerintheroommarchedupandpartedwithhisgeneralinchief.Sucha sceneof sorrowandweeping Ihadneverbeforewitnessedand fondlyhope Imayneverbecalledtowitnessagain.1

NotmanyteamshavemembersthelikesofKnox,Greene,andHamilton.Andfeweryetareledbysomeonewhois,intheimmortalwordsofoneteammember,Henry“Light-HorseHarry”Lee:“Firstinwar,firstinpeace,andfirstintheheartsofhiscountrymen.”

But if you step back from the extraordinary achievement of this team in defeating the mostpowerful army in theworld andwinning independence for theUnited States ofAmerica, you arereminded that it was still just a team—one that feuded, exhibited near-fatal inexperience andincompetence, and lostmore battles than it won. Indeed, just ninemonths before, in the so-calledNewburghConspiracy,manyofthisteamofofficers(includingseveralatFrauncesTavernthatday)had come very close tomutinying over lack of pay. It took a famous bit of theatrics by GeneralWashington(showinghisagebyputtingonapairofglassestoreadaletter)toendthemutinyandprobablysavetheyoungnation.

THEMARCHOFLEADERSHIPGeneralWashington’ssenseoftheateranddrama,combinedwithhisastonishingbravery,integrity,andself-control,madehimoneofhistory’sgreatest leaders.Hedidn’t,however,startout thatway.Theyoungmanwho firstmadehis reputation in theFrench and IndianWarwas less decisive andmorehotheaded,ifnolessbrave.Itisinterestingtospeculatehowmuchofthegeneral’sbehaviorthatdayatFrauncesTavernwasrealandhowmuchwascalculated.Somehistorianshaveevensuggestedthat someofhis tearswere in frustration forhaving (thanks to theContinentalCongress) failed tofulfillthepromiseshemadeatNewburgh.

It was probably all three and more. Washington, who willed himself to almost never showemotion,wasobviouslydeeplymovedbythemoment.Understandablyso;heandhis teamhadjustwonagreatvictory.ButWashington, asmuchasany leader, andcertainly since theEnlightenmentstrippedawaytheroleofreligioninsuchevents,understoodtheimportanceofthesacredinsecularevents.Heknewthathistearswouldshocktheroom,soheletthemflow.ThatHenryKnox,thebig,emotional bookseller turned artillery commander, stood besideWashington for the toast probablywasn’t a coincidence either.Washingtonmust have realized that his own tearswould turnGeneralKnoxintoanemotionalwreck.

Then, in the crowningmoment, the one captured in paintings over the next two centuries (andlikely for many centuries to come): the stricken commander-in-chief asks that his fellow teammemberscometohim,wherehesaysnotaword,buttakeseachman’shandand,throughtears,dipshisheadingratitudefortheirservice.

You could not script a better scene. It all could have turned into a chaos of rushedwords andimprovised speeches. Instead, thegeneral controls the event: theweepingattendees come forth andshake the Great Man’s hand with an almost unbearable (and certainly unforgettable) intensity ofemotion.Washingtonissparedhavingtoimproviseacommentforeachofficerandthusbetrayhowherankseachmaninhismemoryandesteem;andthemomentpassesquicklywithoutdraggingonandlosingitsemotionalpunch.

Cynical?No, genius.As alwayswith his eye on history and perception,Washington crafted analmostmythicalmomentthatgaveeverymanintheroomexactlywhatheneededandwanted—andyet rings through history. And he does so speaking just two sentences, neither particularlymemorable.Andthetearsonbothsidesofthosehandshakesarereal.Likeallmemorableandgreatleaders,Washingtonhasbothplayedhispartandlivedthecharacter.

Theeventendsquickly.Theofficers,manyofthemnowbarelyabletomaintaintheircomposure,follow the general to the nearbyWhitehall wharf. There he takes his leave of them—there is norecordofhiswords, if indeed therewereany—andboardsabarge to today’sJerseyCity.Thenhetravelson toAnnapolis,where, inyetanother theatricalmoment—maybe themost important in thehistoryofdemocracy—hestandsbeforetheContinentalCongress,resignshiscommission,andgoeshome.HearrivesatMountVernonjustintimeforChristmasEve.

THEHEARTOFTHETEAMInorder togain thedeepestunderstandingof teamsandhow theyoperate,onemustappreciate thedynamicofteams.Theeverydaytermis“teamspirit.”Weprefertheterm“dynamic,”becauseuntilthispointwehave largelybeenspeakingof teams inastaticmanner.But,aswementionedearlier,teamsdohaveabeginning,amiddle,andanend;theyareborn,takeform,acceleratefromastandingstart,reachpeakspeedandproductivity,andthen,forsomeinterval,preferablyshortbutsometimesdrawnout,theydecline—withluck,afterthey’veachievedtheirgoals.

Andthentheydie.Sometimesthisendingishappybecauseateamhasachievedthegoalsetforit,itsmembersarelaudedandrewarded,andtheymoveontonewchallenges.Sometimesateamendsbecause it reachesa temporaldeadline set for it; its resultsare thenmeasuredoraudited, andwithlucktheteamhasachievedanacceptableresultandthemembersareproudoftheircontributions.Andsometimesa teamfails to reach itsgoalsanddisassembles itself.Orworse, throughsome internaldysfunction—thewrongskillcombination,incompatiblepersonalities,poormanagement,misguidedorimpossiblegoals—theteamdissolvesinacrimonyandaccusationsofbadfaith.

Butwhateverthereason—andwehopethatafteryou’vereadthisbook,yourteamswillhavethehappierconclusions—thefactis,forgoodorbad,teamsdonotexperiencethesethingsallatonce.Inthischapter,weintendtolookathowthestoriesofteamsplayoutovertime,andhowateachstepoftheway—evenaftertheteam’sdeath—youcan,withtherightmanagement,improvetheoutcome.

ALLTEAMSHAVELIFECYCLESEveryteamisanarrative,astorythattypicallybeginswithaformationphaseinwhichstrangers(ornear strangers) are thrust together under unusual circumstances and then are forced to quicklyestablishtheirrelationshipswitheachotherevenastheyrushtounderstandtheirassignment,divideitup, and then parcel out the pieces to the right members. Soon thereafter, the team enters into anestablishmentphase,inwhichitneedstoestablishrules,metrics,milestones,anditscommunicationapparatus.Andallofthismustbedoneevenasthosesamemembersbegintoworkontheirtaskitself.That shiftof focus fromorganization toactualworkon theassignmentmarks the transition to theoperationalphase.

Astimepasses,andastheinitialresultsofitsworkareknown,theteaminevitablyhastoadjust—

resettingmilestonesanddeadlines,andcopingwiththepersonalities,idiosyncrasies,andthestrengthsandweaknessesofitsmembers.Thisisthefunctionalphase.Externalforcesareinplayaswell:newcompetitors with threatening new products or services may appear unexpectedly; deadlines maychange;budgetsmayshift;productdescriptionsmayberewrittentomeettheevolvingneedsoftheparent company. All of this puts further stress and confusion on the team, whose still-immatureinterpersonalrelationshipsmaynotyetbestrongenoughtohandlethem.

Butassumingtheteamsurvives,theseeventsultimatelyhaveanothereffect:theybecomeelementsintheteam’sgrowingstory,thelegendsandexperiencesthathelpdefineitsinternalculture.Itisfromthisevolvingstorythattheteamderivesanevengreaterinternalcohesion,aswellasabodyofbestpracticestodrawuponwhilefacingfuturechallenges.Thisistheculturalphase.

Therearenewchallengesaswell.Forexample,thelongerateamendures,themorelikelyitistolose original members. Some leave voluntarily, their work done. Others go, often regretfully,becausetheirtalentsareneededelsewhereandthecompanytransfersthem.Athirdgroupleavesnotonlytheteambutalsothecompanyitself—oftentoworkforacompetitor.

This third type of departure can be particularly unsettling—because of its betrayal, because itenhancesthecompetition,andmostofall,becauseitmaytransfertheteam’sproprietaryknowledgeto its biggest threat.Thesedepartures can lead to a lot ofmistrust, badblood, and timewastedondepositionsandlitigation.

Afourthtypeofdeparturecanhavetheoppositeeffect:whenadifficultordysfunctionalmemberoftheteamisforcedout.Intheshortterm,thiscanraisetheoverallparanoiaoftheteam(“WillIgetfirednext?”),butinthelongtermitisalmostalwaysasalutaryevent.

Nomatter the reason for a teammember ’s departure, the immediate concern afterward is therecruiting and training of his or her replacement. Even if the rookie is a good fit, this process isalways a test of the team’s personality, solidarity, and culture. It’s also a good reason for thedevelopmentoftheteam’snarrative,itsstory;itistheassimilationofthatstorybythenewcomerthatquicklyacculturateshimorhertotheteam.Thehealthierateam’sculture,thelessproductivityitwilllosetonewcomersmakingtheirwayupthelearningcurve.Thisisthesustainablephase.

Assumingtheteamsurvivesthesechallenges,overcomesanytechnicalobstacles,andapproachesitsgoals,itnowmovesintoamaturationandconsolidationphase.Thechallengenowistoresistthedesiretorushahead,andinsteadtomaintainthepaceandfinishtheprojectproperly.Itisataskmoredifficult than it appears, because pressureswill build fromeverydirection—the companywants tointroduceor implement theproject’s results; recruiterswant tostealaway the team’s top talent; theteammembersthemselveswant tomoveontonewchallenges;and,you,as theinternalorexternalmanagerof the team,areexhaustedandwant towrap thingsup.Thosepressuresonlygrowas theprojectapproachesthefinishline,andtheyserveasdistractionsandimpedimentstofinishingthejobright.

Badteamsdisintegrateorimplode.Goodteamssurvivetoenterthecompletionphase.Nowthattheinvention,prototyping,andtestingarecompleted,thetaskbecomesoneofpackagingtheresults(which can include a demonstration or a finished product, an operations manual, preparingpresentations of test results, patent filings, facility dismantlement, and teammember reassignment)forseniormanagementor,inthecaseofanentrepreneurialstart-up,forinvestors.Usually,thereisahandoff of the completed project to another team that specializes in commercialization or reverseengineering inpreparation for large-scalemanufacturing. In recentyears,asproductsandservicesare increasingly released to the public while still prototypes—Google’s search engine officiallyremained a work in progress for more than a decade—a team’s life cycle may not end until its

offeringhasahundredmillionusersandissoldtoanothercompany.Onceeverythingispackaged,bundledup,andeitherhandedorsoldoff,theteamreachesitsend

phase.Successful teams“end” in twodifferentways.Theyareeither shutdownor they transform,oftenwithmanyofthesamemembers,intoanewteamwithanewtask.Eitherway,thebestteams(aswithGeneralWashington andhis staff)mark that transitionwith somekindof ceremony that bothcelebratestheirsuccessandofficiallydemarkstheteam’sconclusionalongwiththebeginningofthenextphaseinthemembers’lives.

The open-ended era that follows the retirement of a teammight be called theaftermath phase.Thesearethemonthsandyearsthatfollowtheendofateam’sexistence,duringwhicheachmember,the company, and sometimes even the world put their experience with that team into perspective.Needless to say, many teams exist for such a short duration or take on suchminor tasks that themembers’memoriesofthemareinsignificantorevennonexistent.Rather,inthisdiscussionwearetalkingaboutteamsworkingtogetherforanextendedperiodonacommontask.

Inthenextfewsectionswe’lllookateachofthosephasesinturn.

THEFORMATIONPHASEOnereasonthatsomanyteamsfailisthattheyaredoomedfromthestart.

Aswe’veshown,anenormousamountofresearchhasbeenconductedoverthelastfifteenyearsintothedynamicsofteams—howtheyshouldbecomposed,howtheyshouldoperate,whattypesofindividualstheyshouldemploy,andhowthosemembersshouldinteractoverthecourseoftheteam’slife.Unfortunately,fewof thesefindingshavebeenput touse inanysystematicway—muchless incombination with each other—but here are four key lessons we hope leaders will use for teamrecruitment:

• Diversity: Look past surface differences such as race and gender, and focus instead on realdifferencesinculture,lifeexperiences,skills,andthoughtprocesses.Thelargerthemixyouhaveofthesequalities—aslongasthememberscanbuildateamculturethatwillkeepthemtogether—thegreaterthechancetheteamwillbesuccessful.

• Proximity:Teamsworkbetterthecloserthemembersaretoeachother.That’strueevenintheageof virtual work teams. So if you can’t put the members in the same room, then findcommunicationtoolstoclosethegap.

• Size:Biggerisn’tbetterforteams;infact,itusuallymakesthemworse.Determinethesmallest-sizeteamforthetaskathandandrecruitforthatsize,orasizenotmuchlarger.

• Hierarchy:Layersofmanagement increaseefficiencybutnotnecessarilyproductivity.Keep theleadershipoftheteamtothesmallestnumberofmanagersandthefewestlayersofcontrol.Thebestteamshavefewleadersandaflatorganizationwithlittlehierarchy.Eschewtitles.

Finally,resistthedesireofteammemberstorecruittheirfriendstotheteam.Evenifthosefriendsaretalented,theirpresencewillalmostinevitablyreducethediversityoftheteam.

Inrecruitingateamleader,lookforsomeonewhohasbeenpartofasuccessfulandhealthyteamintherecentpast.Orchooseaprovenleadercomingoffa“successfulfailure.”Asmuchasitsoundsliketherightthingtodo,resistthestrategyoflettingtheteamleaderselecthisorherownteam,asthosechoiceswillalmostalwayslackthenecessarydiversityneededfortrueteamgenius.

The number two person in the team should also be, if possible, someone coming from asuccessfulteam.Alsorecruitthatoneperson,evenifheorsheisnotanexpertinthesubjectathand,for his or her transactional skills—that is, for the ability to maintain records, become the team’smemory,actastheinterfaceamongalltheothermembers,andbetheunofficialcontacttotheoutsideworld.

Nowbuildoutyourteamandpreparetofirethemup.

THEESTABLISHMENTPHASEAttheheartoftheestablishmentphaseisaprocessasoldashumankind.Itisthecreationofasacredspace.

Thereisareasonweopenschooldays,troopmeetings,churchservices,graduations,citycouncilmeetings, sporting events, trials, and the United States Congress with a series of rituals—a flagceremony, the pledge of allegiance, the stating of oaths, a prayer. All serve to emotionally andpsychologicallyseparatetheparticipantsfromwhatcamebefore(everydaylife)andlaunchthemintoadifferentreality,adifferentplaneofheightenedexperience.

Overtimewetendtobecomejadedabouttheserituals.Wegothroughthemotions.Butrememberwhatitwaslikewhenyouwereyoungandyouencounteredtheseritualsforthefirsttime—orevennowwhenyoufindyourselfinadifferentinstitutionorcultureandinthemidstofaceremonythatisalien to you. You cannot help feeling different—intimidated, exalted, confused. Whatever theresponse, you can’t help but feel yourself in a different place, one inwhich your concentration ismorefocusedandyoursensesheightened.Ifyouareamemberoftheinstitutioninquestion,youfeelunleashedandpartofsomethinglarger thanyourself;andifyouarenotamember,nomatterhowmuchyouknowabouttheseritualsandnomatterhowmuchyouhavebeenwelcomedintothegroup,youcan’thelpbutfeellikeanoutsider.

Thesearenotshallowemotions,butratheremotionsthatgoright to theheartofbeingasocialcreature.Manyspeciesofsocialanimals,ifforcedoutofthepackorherd,willdiefromlonelinessandisolation.Bycomparison,beingpartofateamgivesusanidentity,abiggerpurpose,andawayof interactingtrustfullywithother teammemberswithout thewarinessandfearweexperiencewithstrangers.

Thus, the rituals that are established at the formation of a team, and regularly repeated in anabbreviated form thereafter, establish a threshold throughwhichwe depart the vast and dangerousrealworldandenter intoasmaller,sacredspacewherewearesafeandsurroundedbyotherswhoacceptusandwhomwecantrust.

Putsimply,teamsneedanofficialbeginningasmuchastheyneedanofficialending—aneventtomark the official start of the team’s endeavor, to establish the team’s culture, and to initiatemechanismsforongoingcommunication.

It doesn’t have to be an elaborate ceremony—though sometimes that’s not a bad idea. For twopeoplewhohavebeenpaireduponaprojectofcomparativelyshortduration,theofficialbeginningmaybeacasual lunchordrinksafterwork toget toknoweachother, to talkabout their livesandaspirations,toscopeoutthetaskahead,toswapemailaddressesandphonenumbers,andtoestablishtimesandlocationsforregularmeetings.

Attheotherendofthescalearetheelaborateceremonies,gatherings,andinvestituresthatmarkour entry into established and exclusive groups—freshman orientation, fraternity and sorority

initiations,EagleScoutCourtsofHonorandOrderoftheArrowordeals,LittleLeagueopening-dayceremonies, the first day of boot camp, professional society ceremonies, secret investitures intofraternalorganizations.Allofthesehaveahighlyritualizedatmosphere,oftenastheresultofyears,evencenturies,ofaccumulatedexperience,andareusuallyintentionallystrange,evenfrightening,soas to create an indelible sharedmemory among all themembers, new and old. In the case of themilitary,thosenightmarishfirstdaysof“boot”arealsodesignedtobeanequalizer—tostripthenewrecruitofwhateverprejudicesandattitudesheorshemayhavefromcivilianlifeinordertocreateatabularasauponwhichtheservicecanwriteitsownrulesofconduct.

Formostteams,suchritualswillfallsomewherebetweenthesetwoextremes.Butwhateverformthekickoffeventtakes,theyallsharecommongoals:

1. SetanOfficialStart.Withoutanofficial starting time(“Webegin tomorrowmorningateighta.m.,sogetagoodnight’ssleep”),humannaturewillleadsometeammemberstojumpthegunforadvantage,start late toshowtheir independence,andsoforth.Anofficialstart,evenif it isprettymucharbitrary, synchronizes the team from theoutset—and reminds them that theywillbegintogether,worktogether,andendtogether.

2. EstablishRelations.Teamsuccessdependson reducing thebarriers to communication amongteam members. And that starts on day one. Time spent on name tags, introductions, sharingdetails about oneself, distributing phone numbers and email addresses, and even small-groupexercises and brainstorming sessions—all of these activities serve the important purpose ofestablishing rapport and connection among all members of the team. Sometimes we may cutthese efforts short (or even roll our eyes when we see them noted on the agenda), but don’tunderestimatethepositiveeffecttheycanhaveinthelongrun.

3. SetRules.Whenitcomestorulesofbehavior,establishingthemearlyandclearlyisparamount.Setting the rules at the start and sticking to them for everyone, including yourself, is bothdemocratizing and (unlessyou are a controllingmartinet) liberating, because everyoneknowswhat the rules are and appreciates that they are shared by everyone on the team—noone getsspecialfavors.Bytheway:Announcethoserules,keepthemsimple,andwritethemdowntobedistributedtoeveryone.Thatwillminimizedisputes.

4. SeedtheCulture.Likeitornot,theculturallifeoftheteambeginsatthatkickoffevent.Everymemberof the teamleavesthatmeetingwithagutfeelingabout thequalityof theteamanditslikelihood of success. Theywill have already formed opinions about other individuals on theteam. As team leader—and even more so if you are the more senior team creator—it isincumbentonyoutoplumbthefeelingsoftheteammembersabouttheirnewteamasquicklyaspossible.That’swhywell-run teams typically feature a roundof interviewswith eachmemberimmediatelyafter thatkickoffevent.Ostensibly, these interviewsareabout themember ’sskillsand potential contribution to the team, but they are also about gaining insight into the initialimpressionsandexpectationsof thegroup.Everythingyoudowillaffect theoverallcultureoftheteam,sodesignthekickoffmeetingsothatitshowcasesthekindofcultureyouwanttheteamtohave.

5. SetAttitudes.Naturalleadersinstinctivelyunderstandthattheyhavethepowertoshapethetoneand attitude of the team through the force of their own personalities. That’s why theycontinuouslyprojectapersonathatwillcolortheteaminthewaytheywantittobehave:looseorintense, playful or serious, big thinking or detail-oriented. Great leaders, like GeorgeWashington(ashisyouthfulnotestohimselfaboutpublicbehaviorunderscore),livethispersona

socompletelythateventuallytheybecomeit.

Unfortunately,many leadersmake themistake of allowing a team to find its own attitude and“style,”whichinrealitymeansthatthemoststrong-willedmembersdominateandevenemotionallyhijacktheteam.Evenworse,someleadersallowtheirownnegativeemotionsandmoodstoinfecttheteam.We recommendwhen recruiting a team leader that you do not leave this process of attitudecreationentirelyuptothatindividual,butratherthatyoudemandanexplicitplanastohowthatleaderwillmanagethattask,includingtherituals,beginningfromthefirstgatheringandcarryingthroughtheentirelifespanoftheteam.Givingthatpersonalittletrainingindressandpresentationwouldn’thurteither.

6. EstablishCommunications.Asresearchshows,andasgreatleadersknow,healthyandfrequentcommunicationsensurethatteammembersandtheteam’sworkaresynchronized,which,inturn,allows the team to adapt quickly to difficulties and to calm rough waters. It starts at that all-important first meeting and should continue at every regular team gathering, whether thesemeetings are in personor are virtual, asynchronous exchanges.Having clear expectations and“rulesof engagement” is evenmore importantwhen teamsworkacrossgeographies and timezones. We recommend establishing clear but flexible routines that will reinforce intrateamcommunications.Keepthesemeetingsshort,purposeful,andtightlymanaged.

Thelessonis:Setthepersonalityandtheattitudeoftheteamearly,andyouwillspareyourselfalot of frustration andmisery later.And you’ll improve the team’s odds of being successful in theprocess.

THEOPERATIONALPHASEAmongthemosttragictypesofteamsmightbethosecalled“processteams.”We’veencounteredonlyafewinourcareers,andwe’vealwayscomeawaybothstunnedthatpeoplewouldactuallyparticipateinsuchasurrealsituation,andappalledatthewasteoftime,talent,andtreasuretheseteamsrepresent.

Theseprocessteamstendtotakeoneoftwoforms,oneobviousandtheotherdangerouslysubtle.The former isa teamsodysfunctional that itdevotesallof its timeandenergy just tokeeping thegrouptogetherandtryingtogetthemembersontask.Theseteamsareobviouslydestinedtofail,andthebest solution is to follow the advice fromearlier in this book andbreak themup immediately.Theywillneverrightthemselves—andifbysomemiracletheydo,it’llprobablybelongafterit istoolatetogetthejobdone.

Thesecondtypeofprocessteamismuchmoredifficulttoidentify.Itisimportanttolookcloselyat supposedly healthy teams that have nevertheless failed in their task to make sure they reallyrepresent“goodfailures.”Sometimesthereasonforthefailureisthattheteamspenttoomuchofitstime in a group kumbaya and not enough on the task at hand, or, worse, that it created only asimulacrum,aKabukiplayofarealteam,andmerelywentthroughthemotions.Management—thatis,you—nevernoticed,becausetheteamseemedtobedoingsowell;ithad“greatchemistry.”

Thebestwaytopreventthiskindoffiasco—anditwillbeone,embarrassingeveryoneinvolved,especiallyyou,andleavingthecompanydesperatelybehindthecompetition—istoforceyourselftolook beyond themorale of the team and to set some early and precisemilestones for the team toreach.Demandthattheleaderconveythosemilestonestotheentireteam(agoodleaderwillwantto

dosoanyway).Youcanloosenuplateriftheteamisbothhummingalongandproductive.Iftheteamdoesn’thit thoseearlymilestones—nomatterwhat its explanation—considerbreaking itup.At theveryleast,seteventighterandmoreexplicitmilestones.If theteamfailstoreachthose,removeitsleader,nomatterhowbelovedbytheteam.Don’tbeunreasonableinyourtargets—almosteverynewteamhasgrowingpains—butdon’tacceptexcuseseither.Donotbuyintotheirself-delusion;donotbecometheiradvocate—yourjobistobethesane,evenruthless,adult.Iftheteamcan’tdothejobatthebeginning,itisunlikelytodosoattheend.

THECULTURALPHASEOneofthemostfamousstoriesinhigh-techhistoryisthatofBillHewlettandtheboltcutter.

Ahalfcenturyago,WilliamHewlett, thecofounderof the largestelectronicscompanyof themall,Hewlett-Packard,droppedby the then-smallcompanyonaSaturday just tocheckupon things.Whenhegotthere,hewasappalledtofindthatscoresofcompanyengineerswerestandingarounddoingnothing.Whenheaskedwhy,Hewlettwastoldthatalltheequipmentneededbythestafftodotheirworkwaslockedinastorageroom,andonlyonepersonownedthekey:thelabsupervisor,whohadn’tarrivedyet.

Historyoftenturnsononeleader—Alexander,Sherman,TedRooseveltJr.onUtahBeach—whoencountersanobstacleand,insteadoffightingit,justcutsthroughtheproblemandresetstherules.That’swhatHewlettdid thatmorning.Hesearchedarounduntilhe foundapairofboltcuttersandpromptly cut the padlock right off the storage room door. He then announced to the surprisedengineersthatthenewruleatHPwasthattherewouldneverbealockonanystorageroomdoorinthecompanyeveragain—andifanyonetriedtoinstallone,theywouldbefiredonthespot.

Whenoneoftheengineersdemurred,sayingthatthereasonforthelockwastokeepemployeesfromtakingequipmenthomefortheirownuse,Hewlettrepliedthathedidn’tgiveadamnaboutthat,either;theymightinventsomethinggreatontheirfreetime,and,besides,hetrustedthemtobringtheequipmentback.

Cuttingapadlockoffadoormayseemlikeaminormatter,but theresonanceof thatsingleacttransformed modern business and still affects corporate life today. That’s because the story ofHewlett’sactionsquicklyspreadacrossHPandunderscoredwhatcametobeknowntoinsidersandoutsidersas theHPWay.Itwasacorporatephilosophybuilton trust inHPemployees to find theirownbestpathtoachievingthecompany’sobjectives.

TheHPWay,ofcourse,isthemostfamousandesteemedcorporatecultureeverdevised—anditsinnovations(flextime,stockoptions,profit sharing,andsoforth)havebeen imitatedbycompaniesthroughouttheworld.AnditallbeganwiththatlittlebitoftheaterofBillHewlettbrandishingtheboltcutters.

The stories we tell ourselves and each other about our work have proved to be incrediblypowerful. Great teams invariably have great stories—and not just drunken anecdotes and tales ofscrewups,butalsostories thathelpdefine thepersonalityof the team, thatunderscore itsprideandmorale,andmostofall,storiesthathelptheteamexplainitsownspecialnesstoitself.

Unhealthyteamshavestoriestoo,buttheyareusuallyaboutfailureandthefoiblesofothers,andmostarelacedwithresentmentandcontempt.Infact,that’soneofthebestwaystogaugethehealthofa team: listen to thestories the team tellsabout itself.Healthy teamsandhealthycompanies tend torecount major turning points and dramatic episodes with a sense of pride, good humor, and

confidence (evenwithstoriesofmistakes). Inunhealthy teamsandunhealthycompanies,even theirstoriesofvictoriescarryanunmistakablereekofpessimism,asiftheirsuccessesareundeservedorillgotten.

Storiescanalsobeaninsightintotherelativehealthofacompany.Herearethreetypesofteam“stories”thatsuggestapoorleaderwhoshouldbewatchedandpossiblyreplaced:

• Ifallthestoriesareabouttheboss—itcouldmeanthattheCEOismeanordomineering.Orthattheteam’scommunicationsarealmostentirelyvertical(that is, thebossdoesall thetalkinganddecision-making)andinsufficientlyhorizontalacrosstheteam.

• If they are all aboutmeeting important people—youmay have a process team on your hands.Worstofall,

• If a team has no stories—it may not really be a team at all, but merely an aggregation ofindividualssufferingfrominsufficientdiversity,personalcontact,andabrokencommunicationapparatus.

Atfirsttheuseofstorytellingtoengenderaculturemayseemlikeanevanescenthope,somethingyoucan’tforceintocreation,butjusttheoppositeistrue.Havingbeenintheprofessionalstorytellingbusinessallofourprofessional lives (and inMike’scase,havingevenbeenanovelist),weare,ofcourse,biased.Nevertheless,ourexperienceisthatotherthanafew(tragic)people,everyoneenjoysastory,andmostpeoplealsoliketotellthem.Sothemanagerofateamhasthreedutiesinthisarea:

• Createasettinginwhichteammembersnotonlyfeelfreetotellstoriesbutareencouragedtodoso.

• Helptheprocessofselectingandrepeatingthosestoriesthataidinthehealthandproductivityoftheteam,andthatarereflectiveoftheteam’sdesiredculture.

• Establish occasions and settings inwhich these stories can be regularly shared, especiallywithnewteammembers.

Good sales managers—probably because sales departments have long been the domain ofstorytellers—have known this for a long time. That’swhy salesmeetings, typically held in exoticlocales, are usually less about training and seminars than about creating an environment thatcultivatesbothstorycreationandstoryswapping.Thatexplainswhyalotmoreofthepositiveworkusually takesplace in the resortbareachnight than in themeeting roomsduring theday.All teamleaderscanlearnsomethingfromthosepriorities.

THESUSTAINABLEPHASEAnyteamthatstays togetherforanylengthof timeis likely toseesometurnover.This isnotonlyinevitablebutparticularlypainful,becausethememberswholeaveareoftentheteam’smostvaluablecontributors;itispreciselytheirtalentthatgetsthemtransferredtonewandimportantprojects.Otherfactors can causemembers to leave the teammidcourse for reasons ranging from dissatisfaction(oftenagoodthing,asitremovesagrowingthreattoteamharmony)tolifechanges(personalhealth,retirement,evendeath).

Whenthesedeparturesoccur,onethingshouldhappen,andanotherthingmusthappen:

• Shouldhappen.Conductsomekindofdepartureceremony,evenifthememberishappytogoandthe team is evenhappier to see thatmember gone.This ceremony canbe as simple as a quickoffice meeting to make the announcement and wish the member good luck. Or it could be adinner,andevenagoing-awaygift,foralongtimeorbelovedmember.

Thepurposeofthedepartureceremonyistorecognizethemember ’scontributiontotheteam—and thus hold out the promise of recognition to other team members who will receive the samerecognition someday. It also creates adistinct and sharplydefinedclosure to thatmember ’s tenurewiththeteam;itendsanera.Bycomparison,allowingamembertosimplypackupandsilentlyleavecreates avoid, anunansweredquestionabout the reasons for thedeparture, anda sense that thingsaren’tquiteover,thatthedepartingfigure(forgoodorbad)mightcomeback.

• Musthappen.Createsomekindofeventtowelcomethenewteammemberreplacingthedepartingone.Aswe’veshown,itiscrucialtoassimilatenewmembersintotheteam,acculturatethemintothe team’s culture, and equip them with all the necessary communications tools as quickly aspossible.

Mostofushavehadthemiserableexperienceofjoininganewgrouporteam,beingleftonourown, and feeling likewe’vewalked into someone else’s family, or arrived at a cocktail party twohourslate.Themorepronouncedthisalienation,themoredifficultitbecomestoeverfeelpartoftheteam. Conversely, the team misses out on increased productivity, diversity, and a new source ofintellectualcapitalaslongasanewcomerremainsanoutsider.

Thegoalshouldalwaysbetoassimilateanewmemberintotheteamasquicklyaspossible.Thereare a lot of proven ways to do this: a group announcement of the newcomer ’s arrival; a teamgatheringtomaketheintroductioninperson,includingtellingpersonalanecdotesthathumanizethenewcomer;makingone-on-oneintroductionswitheveryteammember;assigningateammembertoactas temporaryhost,mentor,and tellerof the team’sstories;andprovidingpersonalized trainingforthenewmemberinusingtheteam’scommunicationsapparatus.

Inotherwords:welcomethenewteammember,embedhimorherintothecultureandoperationsoftheteamasquicklyaspossible,andthengetbacktowork.

THECONSOLIDATIONANDMATURATIONPHASE“Maturing” isadreaded fate formostcompaniesbecause it’sassociatedwith losing the innovativeedgeandentrepreneurialfervorand,worstofall,becomingacorporatedinosaurwaitingtobemadeextinctbysomefast-movingfurrylittlestart-up.

Butmaturity is agood thing for teams,because this is the era in theirhistorywhen theybringtogether and consolidate their disparate operations and work in harmony toward a final goal.Whether a team can navigate through this phase usually determines whether it will be ultimatelysuccessfulornot.

Thereareveryfewteamswhosemembersallworktogetherdoingthesamethingatthesametimethroughoutthelifespanofthatteam.Rather,mostteams,attheverybeginning,dividetheassignedtask into subtasks based on differences in the work, in the skills required, completion dates, andsometimes just size. Think of the army patrol moving through the jungle: it isn’t just a dozenundifferentiatedsoldiers,butanofficerinchargesettingcourseandstrategy,asergeantmanagingthe

soldiers,aradiooperator,apointmanoutfront,andatwo-manheavyweaponsteam.Eachmemberofthatplatoonhasadifferentjobtodo.

Most teams are like that. An even better analogy might be the newsroom of a newspaper ortelevision station. Say that there are 150 people working in that newsroom putting out a dailynewspaperoraneveningnewscast.Ofthatcohort,aboutone-thirdisactuallyreporting—eachtakingonadifferentstory,gatheringdata,interviewingsubjects,writingthearticleunderdeadline.Asecondthird isworking insupportof those reporters—everything fromthenewsroomphoneoperators tothe art department to clerks to layout experts, secretaries, interns, and assistants. Largelyunrecognized, they are the glue that holds the whole operation together, helping the reporters orrunningthenewsroom’sinfrastructure.Theremainingthirdareeditors:atnewspaperstheseincludecopy editors, department editors (sports, business, living, and so forth), news editors, assignmenteditors, city or metro editors, national editors, international editors, managing editor, executiveeditor,andeditorinchief.Attelevisionstations,theeditorscarrymanyofthesametitles,thoughtheiractualdutiesmaydiffer.

Thereporterstypicallyoperatealone,orinpairs,buttheyarealsopartofteamsthatmakeupthedifferentdepartmentsandreporttotheirrespectiveeditorandassistanteditor.Thesupportgroup iscomposedalmostentirelyofteams.Andtheeditors(whichalsoincludesthedepartmentheads)formessentiallyonelargeteamfilledwithmultipleoverlappingteams,thelargestbeingthegroupofcopyeditors (innewspapers theysit togetherat thecircular tablecalled“theslot”andpiece together thepapertofittheeditorial“hole”definedatthelastminutebywhateveradvertisinghasbeensold.

Fromadistance,thisnewsroommaylooklikeasinglelargeteam,ahiveofindividuals,busyatwork.But in truth thisonebig team ismadeupofdozensof subteams,eachwithassignmentsandeachracinginadifferentdirectionoverthecourseofashift,mostofthemslightlyoutofphasewitheachother.

Thus, the reporters arrive early and start chasing stories. So do the senior editors, who willdeterminethecontentsofthatday’sedition.Thedepartmentheadsarriveearlytoo,todecidewhichstoriestheirreporterswillfollow,andtolookatthefirstversionoftheday’slayout.Butothers—theartpeople,mostofthesupportstaffers,andthecopyeditors—arrivelater;theyaren’tneededuntilthestoriesareunderwayandthefirstcompletedonesaredelivered.

Byafternoon, thenewsroom is crowded andhumming.Almost everydesk is filled—and thosethatareemptybelongtoreporterswhoarestilloutchasingtheirstories.Streamsofeditorialcopyare now being created, converging first in the departments; and from those departments largerstreamsemerge, to converge again at the slot,where the copy editors arenowcutting andmixingstoriesproducedinthenewsroomwiththosecomingfromoutsidebureausandwireservices.

By lateafternoon,adecisionhasbeenmadeon the final layoutof thepaper—what storieswillmake it andwhere.Now the copy editors use their unique skill and rush towrite compelling andsuccinct headlines (or prepare the copy and titles at the TV station). Meanwhile, many of thereporters,especiallythosecoveringbreakingnews,arecleaningofftheirdesksandpreparingtogohome.Thenewsroomnowlookshalf-empty,butintheslot,intheartdepartment,andinsomeofthespecialsections,thestaffisbusierthanever.

Atthenewspaper,thissecondphaseofactivitywillcontinueintotheevening,withaskeletoncrewstillworkingatmidnightincaseofasuddennewsbreak.Shouldthathappen,theywillstayuntilthemorning edition can be recomposed.At the TV station, the on-air talent,which has arrived in theafternoon,preparesfortheeveningbroadcast,asdoesthestudiocrew.Somewillstayonforthelate-nightnewsbroadcast,orhandtheirdutiesofftotheirlate-shiftcounterparts.Bythetimeofthelate-

nightbroadcast,thestudioandcontrolroomwillbebusy,butthenewsroomwillbemostlydarkenedandempty.

Keep in mind that this complex choreography of multiple subteams working largelyindependently,withtheirresults thenconsolidatedinasophisticatedfinishedproduct, takesplaceinthesenewsroomseveryday.Thefinishedproduct,inthecaseofthenewspaper,istheequivalentofasmallbook,filledwithall-newmaterial,publishedeverytwenty-fourhours;inthecaseoftheeveningnews,itistheequivalentofamultisubjecthalf-hourdocumentarycreatedinthesamebriefcycle.

This is the consolidationphase inoneof itsmost exciting and compressed forms. It cannotbeaccomplishedwithout a robust infrastructure, clearly established lines of communication, rules ofbehavior (editorial ethics and standards, deadlines, grammar and editorial style), consideration ofprecedentandpractice(“maturity”),andalotofexperiencedteammembers.That’sonereasonyoungnewspaperandtelevisionreportershavetopassthroughalongtrainingprocessthatbeginswithlocalmediaandcantakeyears,evendecades,toreachamajor-marketpaperornewsstation.

NewspapersandTVnewsmayrepresentextremecasesofconsolidationandmaturation,buttheyare far from unique. Established teams inmany fields—those found in emergency rooms, specialforces operations, government, police and fire departments, and even fast-food restaurants—findthemselvesdividingintosubteams,workingatafuriouspacethatallowsforfewmistakes,andthencomingtogetherquicklyandpreciselytodeliverthefinalproductorservice.

Butitcanalsobesaidthateveryteam,smallorlarge,short-livedorlong-lasting,inonewayoranother must pass through this consolidation and maturation phase along the path toward itsresolution.Evenpairsdivideup theirwork, andat somepoint the twomust come together,mergetheirworkintothesynthesis thatwillultimatelyrepresent theteam,andthenperfectandpolishthatresultinpreparationforthefinalpresentation.

This consolidation is not always easy. Egos are often involved—and if the assignment’sboundaries haven’t beenmade precise and explicit from the start, there can be a lot of frustratingoverlap.Tempers can get short as subteam leaders realize that hundreds of hours of their group’sworkmayneverseethelightofday.

Amongthemostdangerousanddestructivetypesofteamsisoneinwhichoneortwomembers,recognizedasthe“idea”people,aregiventoomuchcontrol—usuallybyanawedleader.Theseteamsneverconsolidate—rather,asoneideaapproachesfruition,the“genius”suddenlycomesupwithan“even better idea” and the entire team shifts direction to pursue it; just when that idea is almostrealized, the genius comes up with another one, ad infinitum, until the team runs out of money,energy,orseniormanagement’spatience.Inthemeantime,theteamhaswastedimmenseamountsoftime,talent,andcapitaltowardnogoodend.Teamsmustbekeptontrack—evenifitmeanskickingoutthetoptalentintheshiftintoconsolidation.Suchamovewillbehugelydisturbingbutnecessary.Andifthegeniusreallydoeshaveagreatnewidea,youcanalwaysstartanewteamforhimorher.

Morethanatanytimesincethefoundingdaysoftheteam,theconsolidationmomentiswhentheteam leader is tested.Final decisionshave tobemade.The creativeworkhas tobe stopped—evenwhensomemembersbegforjustalittlemoretimeforanimpendingbreakthrough.Ruffledfeathersmust be smoothed.And the teammust be brought together for the final assault on the goal. If theleaderhasdonehisorherjobalongtheway—establishingpreciseduties,settingsubteammilestonesandinterimgoals,and,mostofall,keepingall themembersfeelingthattheyarepartofthelargergroupanditswork—thenthisreintegrationoftheteamshouldoccurwiththeminimumoffriction.

Butfrictionornot,consolidationandmaturationmusttakeplace.Theteamanditsmembersmustquicklytransformfromabandofsemi-independentcreatorstoacoordinatedandstructuredgroupof

organizersforthefinalrushtocompletion.

TheRetirementandDeathofTeams

From the time we are young we are taught, through both demonstration and aphorisms, theimportanceoffinishingwell(“Itain’tover’tilit’sover”;“80percentofthevaluecomesfromthelast20percentofthework”).Andyet,likethevalueofcompoundinterest,itisalessonwetypicallyfailtoobserve.Itishumannaturetobeeagertogetsomethingdoneandtorunontothenextnewthingwhenweapproachtheendofsomething.Itisusuallyonlylaterinlifethatwefinallylearnthislesson,andwearelefttoregretallofthosethingsinourlivesthatwedidn’tfinishwell.

Unfortunately, theneed foragood finishgrowsmore importantby theyear. In themechanicalage, a team could usually complete a prototype, show that it operated properly, and walk away,leavingthetasksofdisassembling,reverseengineering,adaptingforlarge-scalemanufacturing,andwritingmanualstoothers.Buttoday,whenproductcycletimesgrowshorterbytheday,tacklingthesesecondary and ancillary duties typically falls to the team itself. Moreover, when a basicmicroprocessor design can have more feature details than the map of every building, street, andutility line in a full-size city, theneed formountainsofdocumentationbecomesparticularly acute.Thisplacesthreehistoricallyunprecedenteddutiesonmostteamleaders:

• Toassume,whilestillintheconsolidationandmaturationphase,manyofthetasksheretoforeputoff until after a project is completed and until now usually done by others. This will almostcertainlyincludeheavydocumentationandthemeasurementofperformancespecs,butmayalsoincludecreatingmanuals,trainingmaterials,emulators,andevenmarketingandsalestools.

• To design these expanded completion-phase duties into the project from the very beginning.Traditionally,teamsdidn’thavetoworrythatmuchabouthowtheyfinisheduntiltheyhadreachedtheirgoalsandweredowntothefinalwrap-up.Nowthecompletionphase—becauseitislikelytobe drawn out and costly, and to require considerable labor—needs to be incorporated into ateam’sscheduleandmilestones.Asitisunlikely,giventhepressofcompetition,thattheteamwillbeallowedextra time to finish the task, thebestalternativemaybe toaddmore teammemberseitheratthebeginning,or(here’syetonemoreplacewherequickassimilationcomesin)atthestartoftheconsolidationphase.

• Topreparetheteamfortheaddedworkthatwillberequiredattheendoftheproject.Completingtheactualsubjectofaprojectgreatlyreducesthemotivationofateam:employees(andleaders)naturally see it as the endof thehardworkand thebeginningof thehard celebrationsofwhatthey’ve achieved. There is a no more depressed group of people than a successful team thatreturnsonMondaymorningtodiscoverthatinsteadofmerelytyingupsomelooseends,theyarenowexpectedtotakeonawholenewphaseofsupplementalwork.Theanswer—andadmittedlyit

isalimitedone—istopreparetheteamforthisbadnewsfromthebeginning.Thatis,fromthestart, in all calendars, targets, and milestones, incorporate these “after” duties—and regularlyremindthe teamof theirexistence—suchthat theysubconsciouslyreset theirnotionof“end”tothecompletionof thiswork.Finally, sad tosay,youmayalsowant toconsiderpostponinganycelebrationsuntilalltheworkisdone(andlooktheotherwaywhenteammembersstillchoosetocelebrateearly—justdon’tletitbeofficial).

Asaleader,bewareofmissioncreep,especiallyconsideringtheseadditionalresponsibilities.It’spretty easy to knowwhen the coremission of a team—a fully tested newproduct or service—hasbeencompleted.Itisnotsoeasywhentheworkexpandstointrudeintoothercompanydepartments.Thecreationofdocumentation,publications,developmenttools,andsoforthhasatendencytobeanopen-endedprocess,andothercorporatedepartmentsaresometimesquitehappytoletyoudotheirworkforthem.Soitisincumbentonyouasleadertoestablishboundariesonthisworkataproject’sbeginning.

Whenyoudoreachthatend,formallyannouncethatfact—andthencelebrate.Thisisnotatimeforreserve,orwearyacceptance,orpoliteacknowledgmentofajobwelldone.Evenifyou’vefailedtoachieveallofyourgoals,yourteamdeservesafull-blownrecognitionofitsloyaltyandhardworkifitishealthyandstrong.Andiftheteamhassucceeded,that’sevenmorereasonforaparty.Makeitaneventthateveryteammemberwillalwaysremember:iftheystayallnightbecausetheydon’twanttoleave,iftheygetdrunk,weep,makefoolsoutofthemselves,letthem.Justremembertocoverthefollowinginthecourseofthecelebration:

• Recounttheirachievements.• Remindthemof the team’sbeginnings,howtheydidn’tknoweachotherandhowclose they’ve

becomesince.• Reminisceaboutthehighpoints(andthelowpointsovercome)intheteam’shistory.• Mostofall, recognize theworkofevery teammember individually,bothbefore the restof the

teamandone-on-one.• Retreatattherightmoment.Everyleaderplansthebeginningoftheseevents;smartonesplanthe

ending—especiallythepartaboutexitingquicklyandonahighnote.

THEAFTERMATHPHASEThefutureofateam’smembers,andhowyoudealwiththelegacyoftheteam,dependsonwhichofthefollowingfourcategoriestheteamfallsinto:

Unhealthy,UnsuccessfulTeamsUnhealthy,unsuccessfulteamsareeitherintentionallyforgottenorindeliblyscartheirmembers.Notonlyhavetheyfailed—damagingboththeirparentcompanyandtherésumésoftheirmembers—butthe miserable experience will likely make those members less effective in the future, and almostimpossibletoputtogetherasanotherviablegrouping.Inmostcases,themembersaren’tevenaroundanymorebuthavemovedontohappierworkenvironments.Theseteamscanbeconsideredfailuresineveryway:thewrongmembers,thewrongleader,thewrongtaskordirection,pooroversightby

theorganization,andafailuretoshuttheteamdownearly.It is usually the best strategy to admit that failure, let themembers leave the organization, and

conductapostmortemtodeterminewhatwentwrongandmakesureitdoesn’thappenagain.Thatsaid,someoftheseteamsmayhaveamemberortwowhomayappeartobeworthkeeping.

Whethertheyreallyarerevolvesaroundtheword“worth.”Becauseofhisorherrecenthistorywithadysfunctional, failed team, the worth of this team member must be measured differently fromsomeonewithacleanslate.Withsuchapersonyouneedtolookpastthestandardrésuméhighlightsanddigdownintoherbehaviorwiththeteam.Thatmeansinterviews,atleastwiththatemployee,inorder to determine how she dealt with the team during its existence, how bitter she is from theexperience, and how much she holds (perhaps rightly) senior management responsible for whathappened.

Unhealthy,SuccessfulTeamsUnhealthy,successful teamsareinmanywaysthemostdangerousofall teams.Youcaneasily,andwith justification, get rid of an entire unhealthy, unsuccessful team and minimize your risk. Butsuccesscamouflagesalotofbadthings.Moreover,removeasuccessfulteamandalltheotherteamsintheorganizationwillsufferaseriousdropinmorale(“Iftheygotpunished,arewenext?”).

Thechallenge, then, is tolookpast thesuccessandseethetruthof theteaminstarkrelief.Andsinceyoucan’tknowifasuccessfulteamisalsounhealthy,youwillhavetoscrutinizeallsuccessfulteamsinthisway,eventheonesthat,onthesurface,lookhappyandfunctional.

Duringhis career as a newspaperman,Mikewasoncewarnedby an editor, “Don’t ever hire aPulitzerPrizewinner.”Onlywith timedidheunderstandwhat theveteranjournalisthadmeant: toomanypeoplewhowon topprizesdidsobecause theyhappened tobe in the rightplaceat the righttime,orbecausetheywereputinateamwithothersofsuperiortalent,orbecausetheywererewardedfor thewrongreasons—afanon theselectioncommittee, theirorganization’s“turn”foranaward,largernationalorglobaleventsthatmaketheirstorytimely,andsoon.Whatevertherealreason,thefact that theyhadreceivedtheawardcastapenumbraofachievementaroundthemthatdemandedahighersalary,biggerstories,andgreaterindependencewhethertheydeserveditornot.

Dysfunctioninasuccessfulteamtakesseveralforms:

a. Ateamthat,despiteitsinternalstrife,justgetslucky.b. Ateamthatfeaturessomuchtalentthat,despiteitself,stillmanagestogetacrossthefinishline—

thoughmuchlesssuccessfullythanitmighthaveotherwise.c. Ateamthatiscomposedofsometop-qualitymembers,andotherswhojustplayedeasyridersbut

tookashareofthecredit.d. Ateamthatfakesresultstolooklikeitsucceeded.

Thereasonsuccessful,unhealthyteamsaresodangerousisnot(withtheexceptionof[d])becauseofwhatthey’veaccomplished,butwhathappenstothemintheaftermathphase.Unlessexposed,everymemberoftheseteamswillcarrytheafterglowofthesuccess—anditwillrewardthemwithraises,promotions, fame, and recruitment intoevenmore important teams.There, they threaten topoisontheirnewteam’shealth,orthroughtheirlackofabilitypreventthatteamfromachievingitspotential.Meanwhile,youmayhavedeludedyourselfthattheseplayersarewinners,but—trustus—everybody

elseinthecompany,especiallytheirpeers,willsoonknowthetruthandgrowincreasinglyresentful.Everybody despises fellow employees who have so obviously fallen upward—as they despise thebosseswhoallowedittohappen.

Bybeingsuccessful,however, theseunhealthyteamsdo—especiallyif theirdamaginginfluencecanbedetectedandstopped—contributetothesuccessoftheenterprise.Ontheotherhand,(d)-typeteams are destructive, unethical, and perhaps even criminal. That kind of pathology needs to bespottedearlyandpunishedquickly.

Healthy,UnsuccessfulTeamsHealthy,unsuccessfulteamsarethetrickiesttojudge.SiliconValleylikestoprideitselfastheplacewherefailureisbothunderstoodandrewarded.TheclichéisthattheValley’sventurecapitalistsarecleverenoughtorecognize“goodfailures,”whiledownplaying“badsuccesses.”Itsoundsgoodintheory—and indeed, our own experiences with this in the Valley were one of the sources of thissection—butanswersarealotmoreelusiveinreallife.Theheartofthematteristhatphrase“goodfailure.”Whatexactlydoesthatmean?Canfailureactuallybegood?

Thestandardanswertothatquestionis“Ofcourse.”Youcanrunahealthy,productiveteam,hitallofyourmilestones,doeverythingright,anddeliverontime,andstillfailbecauseofforcesoutsideyourcontrol:anewtechnology,amarketshift,aquickerormorepowerfulcompetitor,aneconomicdownturn,badseniormanagement,andsoon.

Butthatansweristoofacile;anditraisesevenmorequestions.Afterall,ifyouhaddoneagoodjob,wouldn’tyouhaveadaptedtothosechallenges?Wouldn’tyouhaveanticipatedthemandprepareda response? And if your failure was the result of bad decisions by your superiors (budget cuts,wrongheadedinterventions,lastminutechanges),whydidn’tyouquit?Thus,themeaningofa“goodfailure” is thatyou failed,but themistakesyoumadewould likelyhavebeenmadebyanyprudentperson in your position at that moment—including the person currently calling your enterprise a“goodfailure.”

So the most important questions you should be asking in your postmortem of a failed butseeminglyhealthyteamincludethefollowing:

• Inretrospect,didtheteamhaveaviablestrategythatwouldhaveworkedwithouttheinterferenceorincompetenceofseniormanagement?

• Didtheteamfunctionharmoniouslythroughoutits life, includingevenduringtheintervalwhenitsimpendingfailurewasapparent?

• Whenitencounteredtheeventthatwouldprovefataltotheteam’sefforts,didtheteamrecognizeitassuch,orwerethemembersoblivious?

• How did the team react to this news? Did it try to react? Develop a new strategy? Or justsurrender?

• Didtheteamleaderkeeptheteamonpointintheaftermathofthisshock?• Did the team search for new and relevant talent in its response? Was that talent quickly

incorporatedintotheteam’swork?• Did the team leader quickly present the changed situation,with alternative responses, to senior

management—ordidheorsheandtherestoftheteamtrytohideitfromoutsiders?• Wasblamecastandrecriminationsmadeamongteammembersforthefailedoutcome?

• Did the team leader help the team members with recommendations and job placement in theaftermathofthefailure,orweretheteammembersjettisonedandforgotten?

• Finally,andthisisthequestionyoumustaskofyourself:Notknowingwhatwastocome,wouldyouhavedoneanythingdifferently?

Inansweringthosequestions,youwillfindthetruthaboutwhetherthisteamwasashealthyasyouthought, and whether indeed it suffered a “good failure.” If the answer is that it did, then yourresponseshouldbetoholdthememberstoaslittleblameaspossibleandmovethemontothenextproject. If possible—and thiswouldbebest for companymorale—keep that team together . . . andgivethema“win”fortheirnextprojectifyoucan.Ontheotherhand,ifyoudeterminethatthisteamwasnotashealthyasyoufirstthought,breakitupandtreatthemembersasiftheyweremembersoftheunhealthy,unsuccessfulteamsdescribedearlierinthischapter.

Healthy,SuccessfulTeamsHealthy, successful teamswillprove themostdifficult tomanage.Themembersof the teamknowwhat they’ve accomplished, and they’ve had a satisfying time doing so. Unlike the members ofunhealthy,successfulteams,allthemembersknowthattheyaregoodatwhattheydo,thattheymadesubstantialindividualcontributions,andthattheydeservetobeproperlyrewarded.

Forthatreason,youwillhaveatoughtimekeepingthisteamtogether.Firstofall,thankstosalaryincreases,thecostofoperatingthisteaminthefuturewillbemuchhigher.Second,thePeterPrinciplewillsoonbeatwork,astheteammembersstartgettingpromotionstobetterjobs(forwhichtheymayormaynotbesuited).Thiswillbeespeciallythecasefortheteamleader:successfulteamleadership—inbusiness,inscience,inthemilitary—isalmostalwaystheprerequisiteforadvancementtoseniormanagement.(Thegoodnewsisthatyou’lllikelybepromotedtoo.)Finally,newsofthesuccesswillhardly be confined to your own organization, and it won’t be long before some of those teammemberswillbe recruitedbyotherdivisions inyourcompanyandbycompetitors. In somecases,teammemberswilldecidetobecomeentrepreneursandstarttheirowncompanies.

Thiscanbedisappointing;but itcanalsobegoodnews.Healthy,successful teamscanbeluckytoo.Andbecauseateammanagedtoremainhealthyandachievesuccessononeproject,theoddsthatitwilldothesamethenexttimearoundareonlyincreased—theyaren’tguaranteed.Indeed,thebeststrategyattheendofoneoftheseteamsmaybetoaccepttheinevitableandallowittobreakup—buttodosoinamanagedandstrategicway.

Thatis,lettheteamleadergetpromoted;it’sprobablybestforthecompany’sfutureanyway.Butidentifytheotherteammemberswiththemostmanagerialtalent,andmakethemtheleadersofnewteamspursuingnewgoals.Withluck,youwillmultiplythesuccessandfunctionalityoftheoriginalteam, as the new team leaders pass on what they’ve learned about winning. Then take the othermembersoftheoriginalteamandplacetheminotherteamsthathaveahighchanceofsuccessinthehopethattheywillpushthoseteamsoverthelinetovictory.Thismayseemcounterintuitive:Ifateamis already likely to be successful,whywaste on it the talents of anotherwinner,when that personcouldinsteadbeusedtoturnaround,oratleastimprovetheodds,ofafailingteam?Tworeasons:

• Yougoforthewin.Lifedoesn’tofferthatmanywins,soyoutakethemwhenyoucan.Youarebetteroff achievingaguaranteedvictory, especiallyone that accomplishesmore thanexpected,

thantryingtopushafailingteamoverthefinishline.• Failurebreedsfailureasmuchassuccessbreedssuccess.Addingawinnertoafailingteamrarely

turnsthingsaround,astheteamisfailingeitherbecauseitcan’twininachangedenvironment,orbecause it isunhealthy, inwhichcase thenewcomerhasalmostnochanceof turning itaround.Eitherway,thoseteams,aswe’vealreadynoted,shouldbeshutdown,notbetransformedintoablackholefortimeandresourcestryingtoresuscitatethem.

Handledproperly,ahealthyandsuccessful teamcanbecomethefarmteamforawholehostofnew teams that carrywith them the parent team’sDNA and that,with luck, are just as healthy andsuccessful.

L’ENVOIWhy,afternearlyaquartermillennium,doesthestoryofWashington’sfarewellatFrauncesTavernstillresonatesodeeply?

Oneobvious reason is that, combinedwithGeneralWashington’sofficial retirementbefore theContinentalCongressafewdayslater,thefarewellsmarkamajorhistoricalturningpointinWesterncivilization.Muchmore so thannow, theofficersanddelegatesat those twogatheringsknew theirhistory—and that the last victorious general who had laid down his sword and submitted to thedictatesofanelectedlegislaturehadbeentheRomanconsulCincinnatus.Onlearningthenews,evenKingGeorgeIII,therulerdefeatedbyWashington,washeardtomutter,“Ifhedoesthat,hewillbethegreatestmanintheworld.”Andhewas.

Butwe think it ismore than that.Aftermore than two centuries of living in a democracy,weAmericans (and the citizens of those nations with leaders, like Nelson Mandela, who followedWashington’s lead) have grown comparatively inured to the bounties of democracy. What was athunderbolt to theofficers inFrauncesTavern—manyofwhomstillwanted thegeneral to declarehimselfking—isjusteverydaylifetoday.

No,whatappeals tousabout thatmoment is thatwewishwecouldhavebeenpartof that team.Thatfeelingisbestcapturedinthefamousillustrationofthatday,inwhichWashingtonembracesaweeping officer who is so distraught that he has buried his face in the general’s shoulder, whilecircledaroundthemadozenotherofficersbowtheirheadsorwipetheireyes.

Life is short and our chances to do something great are few, and, as we hope this book hasconvincedyou, thebestchance fordoingso isaspartofa teamof smart,hardworkingpeople—ateamofgenius—workingtogetherinharmonytocreatesomethinggreaterthanthemselves.

Those officers at Fraunces Tavern—George Washington’s team of senior officers and hisheadquartersstaff—haddonejustthat,andintheprocesstheyhadaccomplishedasmuchasanyteaminhistory.Theyhadtakenontheworld’smostpowerfularmyandgreatestempire,andbeatenit.Insevenyears, theyhadliterallychangedthe trajectoryofhumanhistory,andfor thebetter.Andtheyhad done so not only against impossible odds but against a third of the local population and, inWashington’scase,againstbothastingyContinentalCongressandevensomeofhisowngenerals.Theyhadheldtogetherthroughtheworsttimesimaginable—theBattleofLongIsland,ValleyForge,the winter of 1779–80. And despite that, they had emerged victorious, with military successesculminatingin“theworldturnedupsidedown”atYorktown.

Manyof theoriginal teammemberswerenowgone—dead,sick,captured—andonereason the

general may have composed the moment as he did was that there were some new and perhapsunfamiliarfacesinthecrowd.Ashomogenousastheteamnowlooked,especiallyintheirbuff-and-blueuniforms,anyonewhohadseenthematthebeginningofthewarwouldhaveknownhowdiversetheyreallywere:Southernaristocrats,NewEnglandmerchants,collegestudents,newimmigrantslikeAlexanderHamiltonand“Baron”vonSteuben.EvenWashington’sgeneralscomprisedanamazingrangeofpersonalities:profanebackwoodswarriorDanMorgan, studiousbooksellerHenryKnox,QuakerNathanielGreene,theFrencharistocratMarquisdeLafayette.

Somehow—it seemed miraculous even to his contemporaries—Washington had not only heldthemalltogether,butalsoturnedthemintoaformidablearmythat,atCowpensandMonmouth,hadgonetoetotoewiththeworld’sbestsoldiersandbeatenthem.Acrossthecolonies,Washingtonhadsent these generals, entrusting them to do their tasks independently—and then, in the end, he hadbroughteverythingtogetheronapeninsulainVirginiaandsealedthevictory.Throughallofthis,thegeneralhadalsoprotectedhistroopsfromslaughter,representedtheirinterestsagainstamercurialCongress,dealtwiththedemandsofastrategicpartner(theFrenchnavy),establishedanintelligenceapparatusthatsuppliedkeyinformationabouttheopposition,andregularlytakengreaterrisksthanthe people he led. Where everyone else at some point wavered, the general alone stood firm,unleashed his titanic temper only when premeditated and useful, and put on one of the greatest“performances”ofaleadereverseen.

Andnowitwasallendingonaperfectnote.Theteamhaddoneeverythingitsaiditwould.Andnowitsleaderwasfulfillinghismostimportantpromisetotheteamandtothepeopleforwhomtheteamworked(thecitizensofthenewUnitedStatesofAmerica).Alreadyoneteammember,GeneralKnox,hadorganizedanalumnigroup(theSocietyofCincinnatus)withtheboss’sblessing,agroupthatwouldstillbeledbytheteammembers’descendantsmorethantwocenturieslater.

Most of the team members stayed in touch for the rest of their lives, not least because theirsingularachievementwasthesubjectofendlesscelebrations.Theywouldalsovisittheiroldbossattheofficeandathishomefortherestofhislife.Andwhenitwastime,sixyearslater,tobuildhisnext team—hispresidentialadministration—GeneralWashingtonwoulddrawonmanymembersofthatoriginalteam,notablyKnox(secretaryofwar)andHamilton(secretaryofthetreasury).

Once again,Washingtonwould lead this new-old team to great things, and they in turnwouldremain intensely loyal to him. As the end of this second team approached, andwith it the end ofWashington’spubliclife,theteammembersbeganpositioningthemselvesagainsteachotherfortheirfuturecareers.Butevenintheintensecompetitionthatfollowed,theymaintainedtheirallegiancetotheir late leader ’s legacy, keeping it alive for another generation—long enough to set the formercoloniesonthepathtobeingthemostsuccessfulandenduringrepublicinhistory.

In an era in which we obsessively collect and share “best practices,” the group gathered atFrauncesTavernonthatDecemberafternoonstillstandsastheverymodelofagreatandsuccessfulteam.Butjustasimportant—andthistooisalesson—thisteamwasfarfromperfect.Asnoted,itlostfarmorebattlesthanitwon.Theirleaderwassoinexperiencedthathealmostwreckedtheteamonmultipleoccasions.And, incredibly, the teamhadat leastone traitor (BenedictArnold),andmaybetwo (CharlesLee), in itsmidst.Even their employer facedbankruptcy (andcapture, imprisonment,andexecution)onmultipleoccasions.

And yet, against all odds, this team succeeded—it, and its leader, learned how towin—and itsvictorywassocompleteandsoextraordinarythatitstillringsdownthroughhistory.

Whateverourdreamsandambitions,itishighlyunlikelythatanyofuswillbepartofateamasimportantandsuccessfulastheleadershipoftheContinentalArmy.Andasteamleaders,wewouldbe

wildlypresumptuoustocompareourselvestoGeorgeWashington,oneofthegreatestfiguresofthelastmillennium.But that doesn’tmean thatwe cannot aspire to be the best possible leaders of thehealthiestandmostsuccessfulteams.

RevolutionaryAmericaneededagreatnaturalleaderandawholelotofluck.Againstallodds,itgotboth.Butintwenty-first-centuryAmerica,andinotherdevelopednationsthroughouttheworld,teams, big and small, fleeting and enduring, don’t need luck (well, perhaps a little).We nowhavedecadesofprecedentandexampletolearnfrom.Morethaneverbefore,wecandeterminenotjusttheoptimalteamsizebutalsothebestteamtype.

Equally important, we now have more than a decade of deep empirical research into thepsychological,sociological,andanthropologicalheartofsuccessful(andunsuccessful)teams.Andinthenextfewyears,asdigitaltechnologycomestobear,wemayevenhaveassistanceinteammemberrecruitment.

Finally,wenowalsohave,morethaneverbefore,anunderstandingofthelifecycleofteams.Wealso, for the first time,havea template for thedifferentphases in this life cycle, andcrucial cluesabouthowtoleadateamthrougheachoftheminturn,aswellasthroughthedifficulttransitionstothenextphase.

Theteamsinwhichwework,andtheteamswelead,maynotchangetheworld.Buttheycanmaketheworldabetterplace,makeourcompany(andeveryonewhodependsonit)moresuccessfulandsecure,andgiveourselvesandourteammatesamorerewardingandfulfillingcareer.Andmostofall,wecanincreasetheoddsofourteam’ssuccess.Givenallofthat,whywouldn’twewanttoapplythe latestdiscoveriesandexperiencesabout teams toourown livesandcareers?Whywouldn’twewanttocreateandbepartofteamsofgenius?

Not every team can do something great. But every team can be great. Even if we can’t be atFrauncesTavernin1783,wecanbeatourownteam’sfinalpartysomedayinthefuture,celebratingourvictory,makingtearypromisestostayintouchwitheachother,and,bestofall,knowingthatthelastfewmonths,oryears,ofourliveshavebeenwellspent.

Andwhodoesn’twantthat?

Acknowledgments

RichThisbookwouldnothavethedepthofresearch,inchapterstwothroughfiveespecially,ifnotfortheworkofFaiizaRashid, adoctoral candidateatHarvardBusinessSchool.Thanks to JeffLeesonofBenson-Collister for the introduction to Faiiza, and for his invaluable advice on the book’sorganization.ThanksalsotoProfessorAmyEdmundsonofHarvardBusinessSchool.

TomycoauthorMikeMalone,SiliconValley’smostgiftedwriterandknowledgeablehistorian.TeamGeniusmarksthelatestofmanycollaborationswithMike,beginningwithUpsidemagazineinthe1980sandcontinuingthroughForbesASAPin1990s,whenwetrickedthegreatTomWolfeintowritinga9,000-wordgrandessay(“Sorry,ButYourSoulJustDied”)foratinyfee.Tofuturecapersandcollaborations,Mike!

There isnobetterbookagent thanJimLevine,who,oncehebelieves inyou,cansellaprojectfaster than anyone. Thanks for believing in us, Jim, and for saving us the drudge of a long andtedious proposal. Thanks to superstar editor Hollis Heimbouch and to Eric Meyers and JoannaPinskerofHarperBusiness.

I’dliketothankSteveForbesandhisbrothersKip,Bob,andTimforwelcomingmeaboardanewworldbackwhenForbesMagazinewasseventy-fiveyearsold,andtoMikePerlisfornavigatingthisshiptowardourhundredthanniversaryin2017.ToT.C.Yam,WayneHsieh,andSammyWongfortheirwisestewardshipandguidance.ToGeorgeGilder,whotaughtmetothinkexponentially,andtoDannyStern,whosaidIhadthechopstobeaprofessionalspeaker.

Mypatientwife,Marji, andkids,KatieandPeter,mustwonderwhether I’mwritingmyForbesInnovationRulescolumn,thenextbook...orelsesneakingapeekatRealClearSportsoraviationwebsites...whenI’minmyhomeoffice,half-supineonmyRelaxTheBackrecliner,withmylaptoponathickpillowanddrugstorereadingglassesonmynose.Mywonderfulfamilyputsupwithme,andI’mgrateful.

MikeToRich’srecognitionofFaiizaandJeffIaddmyown.Theirtalentsandhardworktookthisbooktoalevelthetwoofuscouldnothavereachedwithoutthem.

AsRichnoted,thisbookmarksthirtyyearsofcollaboration—creatingcontroversies,puttingoutsomeofthebestmagazineissuesoftheera,andnow,afteralloftheseyears,writingourfirstbooktogether.Ihopeit’sjustapreludetoevenmorefunintheyearstocome.

Speakingofteams,beingpartofatrionowforthelastsevenyearswithHollisHeimbauchasmyeditorandJimLevineasmyagent(inJim’scase,foranotherdecadebeforethat)hasbeenoneofthemostrewardingexperiencesofmycareer.Iconsidermyselfveryluckytobeabletoworkwiththe

twobestpeopleintheirprofessions—andgratefultheywerewillingtobreakthatruletoworkwithme.EricMeyerhasnowkeptmeontrackforfourbooks(noeasytask),andJoannaPinsker is thebestpublishinghousepublicistIhaveeverworkedwith,barnone.

AttheMalonehousehold,professionalwritinghasnowmovedontothenext,fifthgeneration.Ihopethatthefamily’snewestwriterfindsthesamewonderfulteammatesonhisbooksasIhavefoundwiththisone.

Notes

1:CHANGEKILLS

1. Plesu, A. October 10, 2005. “How Big Is the Internet?” Sofpedia.com, http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-Big-Is-the-Internet-10177.shtml

2.InternetWorldStats.2014.“InternetUsageStatistics,”www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.3.ValueoftheWeb,www.valueoftheweb.com/.4.Karlgaard, R. “AreYouManeuverable?”Forbes, November 3, 2014, http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2014/10/15/are-

you-maneuverable/.

2:THEMAGICNUMBERSBEHINDTEAMS

1. Heathfield, S. M. “What Team Size Is Optimum for Performance?” About.com,http://humanresources.about.com/od/teambuildingfaqs/f/optimum-team-size.htm.

2.Hasrati,V.2007.“IsFivetheOptimalTeamSize?”InfoQ.com,www.infoq.com/news/2007/11/team-growth-and-productivity.3.Parkinson,C.N.1955.“Parkinson’sLaw.”Economist,www.economist.com/node/14116121.4.Ibid.5.Ibid.6.Hayes,T.,andMalone,M.S.2009.NoSizeFitsAll.NewYork:Portfolio,pp.30–31.7. Bennett, D. January 10, 2013. “The Dunbar Number, from the Guru of Social Networks.” Bloomberg BusinessWeek,

www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/the-dunbar-number-from-the-guru-of-social-networks#p1.8.Dunbar,R.2010.HowManyFriendsDoesOnePersonNeed?Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,p.33.9. Snowden,D.December 10, 2006. “log(N) = 0.093 + 3.389 log(CR) (1) (r2=0.764, t34=10.35, p 0.001).” Cognitive-edge.com,

http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/entry/4403/logn-0.093-3.389-logcr-1-r20.764-t3410.35-p0.001/.10. Social Science Bites. November 4, 2013. “Robin Dunbar on Dunbar Numbers.” Socialsciencespace.com,

www.socialsciencespace.com/2013/11/robin-dunbar-on-dunbar-numbers/.11.Coutu,D.“WhyTeamsDon’tWork.”May2009.HarvardBusinessReview,http://hbr.org/2009/05/why-teams-dont-work.12.Ibid.

3:THENEWSCIENCEOFTEAMS

1.Wolpert, D., and Frith, C. 2004.The Neuroscience of Social Interactions: Decoding, Influencing, and Imitating the Actions ofOthers.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

2.Clarke,D.D., andSokoloff,L. 1999. “Circulation and energymetabolism.” InG. J. Siegel,B.W.Agranoff,R.W.Albers, S.K.Fisher,andM.D.Uhler(eds.),BasicNeurochemistry:Molecular,CellularandMedicalAspects.Philadelphia:Lippincott-Raven,pp.637–70.

3.Dunbar,R.1998.“Thesocialbrainhypothesis.”EvolutionaryAnthropology6(5),pp.178–89.4.Humphrey,N.K.1976.“Thesocialfunctionof intellect.”InBateson,P.P.G.,andHinde,R.A.(eds.).Growingpoints inethology.

Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.303–17.Emery, N. J., Clayton, N. S., and Frith, C. D. 2007. “Introduction. Social intelligence: from brain to culture.” Philosophical

TransactionsoftheRoyalSocietyB362(1480),pp.362,485–88.5.McNally, L., Brown, S. P. and Jackson, A. L. 2012. “Cooperation and the evolution of intelligence.”Proceedings of the RoyalSocietyB279(1740),pp.3027–34.

6.Nowak,M.A.2006.“Fiverulesfortheevolutionofcooperation.”Science314,pp.1560–63.7.Keltner,D.,Kogan,A.,Piff,P.K.,andSaturn,S.R.2014.“TheSocioculturalAppraisals,Values,andEmotions(SAVE)Framework

ofProsociality:CoreProcessesfromGenetoMeme.”AnnualReviewofPsychology65,pp.425–60.8.Hill,K.R.,Walker,R.S.,Božičević,M.,Eder,J.,Headland,T.,Hewlett,B.,Hurtado,A.M.,Marlowe,F.,Wiessner,P.,andWood,

B.2011.“Coresidencepatternsinhunter–gatherersocietiesshowuniquehumansocialstructure.”Science331,pp.1286–89.9.Dean,L.G.,Kendal,R.L.,Schapiro,S.J.,Thierry,B.,andLaland,K.N.2012.“Identificationofthesocialandcognitiveprocesses

underlyinghumancumulativeculture.”Science335(6072),pp.1114–18.

10.Rand,D.G.,Greene,J.D.,andNowak,M.A.2012.“Spontaneousgivingandcalculatedgreed.”Nature489,pp.427–30.11.Rilling, J.K.,Gutman,D.A., Zeh, T.R., Pagnoni,G.,Berns,G.S., andKilts, C.D. 2002. “A neural basis for social cooperation.”

Neuron35(2),pp.395–405.Decety, J., Jackson, P. L., Sommerville, J. A., Chaminade, T., Meltzoff, A. N. 2004. “The neural bases of cooperation and

competition:anfMRIinvestigation.”NeuroImage23(2),pp.744–51.Tabibnia,G.,andLieberman,M.D.2007.“Fairnessandcooperationarerewarding:evidencefromsocialcognitiveneuroscience.”

AnnalsoftheNewYorkAcademyofSciences1118,pp.90–100.12.Camerer,C.F.2003.BehavioralGameTheory:ExperimentsinStrategicInteraction.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.13.Warneken,F.,andTomasello,M.2007.“Helpingandcooperationat14monthsofage.”Infancy11(3),pp.271–94.14.Fehr,E.,andFischbacher,U.2004.“Socialnormsandhumancooperation.”TrendsinCognitiveSciences8(4),pp.185–90.15.Cialdini,R.B.,andTrost.M.R.1998.“Socialinfluence:socialnorms,conformity,andcompliance.”InD.T.Gilbert,S.T.Fiske,G.

Lindzey(eds.),TheHandbookofSocialPsychology.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.4thed,pp.151–92.16.Gurven,M.2004.“ReciprocalaltruismandfoodsharingdecisionsamongHiwiandAchehunter/gatherers.”BehavioralEcologyand

Sociobiology56(4),pp.366–80.Henrich, J. 2004. “Cultural group selection, coevolutionary processes and large-scale cooperation.” Journal of Economic

BehaviorandOrganization53(1),pp.3–35.Sober, E., and Wilson, D. S. 1998. Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA:

HarvardUniversityPress.17.Henrich,J.“Culturalgroupselection,coevolutionaryprocessesandlarge-scalecooperation.”

Henrich,J.,Boyd,R.,Bowles,S.,andCamerer,C.2001.“Insearchofhomoeconomicus:behavioralexperiments in15small-scalesocieties.”AmericanEconomicReview91(2),pp.73–79.

Henrich,J.,Boyd,R.,Bowles,S.,Camerer,C.,Fehr,E,etal.2005.“‘Economicman’ incross-culturalperspective:behavioralexperimentsin15small-scalesocieties.”BehavioralandBrainSciences28(6),pp.795–815.

Henrich, J.,Boyd,R.,Bowles, S.,Camerer,C. F., Fehr, E., andGintis,H. 2004.Foundations ofHuman Sociality: EconomicExperimentsandEthnographicEvidencefromFifteenSmall-ScaleSocieties.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Henrich,J.,McElreath,R.,Barr,A.,Ensminger,J.,Barrett,C.,etal.2006.“Costlypunishmentacrosshumansocieties.”Science312,pp.1767–70.

18.McNeill,W.H.1995.KeepingTogetherinTime.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.19.Fuchs,A.,Kelso,J.A.S.,andHaken,H.1992.“Phasetransitionsinthehumanbrain:Spatialmodedynamics.”InternationalJournal

ofBifurcationandChaos2,pp.917–39.Kelso,J.A.S.1995.DynamicPatterns:TheSelf-OrganizationofBrainandBehavior.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Kelso,J.A.S.,Bressler,S.L.,Buchanan,S.,Deguzman,G.C.,Ding,M.,Fuchs,A.,etal.1992.“Aphasetransitioninhumanbrain

andbehavior.”PhysicsLettersA169,pp.134–44.Kelso, J. A. S., Fuchs, A., Lancaster, R., Holroyd, T., Cheyne, D., andWeinberg, H. 1998. “Dynamic cortical activity in the

humanbrainrevealsmotorequivalence.”Nature392,pp.814–18.20.Néda,Z.,Ravasz,E.,Brechet,Y.,Vicsek,T.,andBarabasi,A.L.2000a.“Thesoundofmanyhandsclapping—Tumultuousapplause

cantransformitselfintowavesofsynchronizedclapping.”Nature403,pp.849–50.Néda,Z.,Ravasz,E.,Vicsek,T.,Brechet,Y.,andBarabasi,A.L.2000b.“Physicsoftherhythmicapplause.”PhysicalReviewE

61,pp.6987–92.21.Oullier,O.,deGuzman,G.C.,Jantzen,K.J.,Lagarde,J.,andKelso,J.A.S.2008.“Socialcoordinationdynamics:Measuringhuman

bonding.”SocialNeuroscience3(2),pp.178–192.22.Insel,T.R.,andFernald,R.D.2004.“Howthebrainprocessessocialinformation:Searchingforthesocialbrain.”AnnualReviewof

Neuroscience27,pp.697–722.23.Dunbar,R.“Thesocialbrainhypothesis.”24.Grist,M.2009.Changing the Subject:HowNewWays ofThinkingaboutHumanBehaviorMightChangePolitics,Policy and

Practice.London:RoyalSocietyofArts.25. Norman, G. J., Hawkley, L. C., Cole, S.W., Berntson, G. G., and Cacioppo, J. T. 2012. “Social neuroscience: The social brain,

oxytocin,andhealth.”SocialNeuroscience7(1),pp.18–29.26.Carter,C.S.1998.“Neuroendocrineperspectivesonsocialattachmentandlove.”Psychoneuroendocrinology23(8),pp.779–818.

Ross,H.E., Freeman,S.M.,Spiegel,L.L.,Ren,X.,Terwilliger,E.F., andYoung,L. J. 2009. “Variation in oxytocin receptordensityinthenucleusaccumbenshasdifferentialeffectsonaffiliativebehaviorsinmonogamousandpolygamousvoles.”JournalofNeuroscience29(5),pp.1312–18.

Williams,J.R.,Insel,T.R.,Harbaugh,C.R.,andCarter,C.S.1994.“Oxytocinadministeredcentrallyfacilitatesformationofapartnerpreferenceinfemaleprairievoles(Microtusochrogaster).”JournalofNeuroendocrinology6(3),pp.247–50.

27.Norman,G.J.,etal.“Socialneuroscience:Thesocialbrain,oxytocin,andhealth.”28.Heinrichs,M.,Baumgartner,T.,Kirschbaum,C.,andEhlert,U.2003.“Socialsupportandoxytocininteracttosuppresscortisoland

subjectiveresponsestopsychosocialstress.”BiologicalPsychiatry54(12),pp.1389–98.29.Witt,D.M.,Winslow,J.T.,andInsel,T.R.1992.“Enhancedsocialinteractionsinratsfollowingchronic,centrallyinfusedoxytocin.”

Pharmacology,Biochemistry,andBehavior43(3),pp.855–61.30.DiSimplicio,M.,Massey-Chase,R.,Cowen,P.J.,andHarmer,C.J.2009.“Oxytocinenhancesprocessingofpositiveversusnegative

emotionalinformationinhealthymalevolunteers.”JournalofPsychopharmacology23,pp.241–48.Guastella,A.J.,Mitchell,P.B.,andMathews,F.2008.“Oxytocinenhancestheencodingofpositivesocialmemoriesinhumans.”

BiologicalPsychiatry64,pp.256–58.31.DeDreu,C.K.W.,Greer,L.L.,Handgraaf,M.J.J.,Shalvi.S.,VanKleef,G.A.,etal.2010.“Theneuropeptideoxytocinregulates

parochialaltruisminintergroupconflictamonghumans.”Science328,pp.1408–11.Kosfeld,M.,Heinrichs,M.,Zak,P.J.,Fischbacher,U.,Fehr,E.2005.“Oxytocinincreasestrustinhumans.”Nature435,pp.673–

76.32. De Dreu, C. K. W., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., Shalvi, S., and Handgraaf, M. J. J. 2011. “Oxytocin promotes human

ethnocentrism.”ProceedingsoftheNationalAcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStates108(4),pp.1262–66.33.Penner,L.A.,Dovidio,J.F.,Piliavin,J.A.,andSchroeder,D.A.2005.“Prosocialbehavior:multilevelperspectives.”AnnualReview

ofPsychology56(1),pp.365–92.DeWaal,F.B.M.2008.“Puttingthealtruismbackintoaltruism:theevolutionofempathy.”AnnualReviewofPsychology59,pp.

279–300.34. Decety, J., and Svetlova, M. 2012. “Putting together phylogenetic and ontogenetic perspectives on empathy.” Developmental

CognitiveNeuroscience2(1),pp.1–24.Panksepp,J.2007.“Theneuroevolutionaryandneuroaffectivepsychobiologyoftheprosocialbrain.”InR.I.M.DunbarandL.

Barrett(eds.).TheOxfordHandbookofEvolutionaryPsychology.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.145–62.35.Donaldson,Z.R.,andYoung,L.J.2008.“Oxytocin,vasopressin,andtheneurogeneticsofsociality.”Science322,pp.900–904.36. Schneiderman, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J. F., and Feldman, R. 2012. “Oxytocin during the initial stages of romantic

attachment:relationstocouples’interactivereciprocity.”Psychoneuroendocrinology37(8),pp.1277–85.37.Kosfeld,M.,etal.“Oxytocinincreasestrustinhumans.”38.DeDreu,etal.“Theneuropeptideoxytocinregulatesparochialaltruisminintergroupconflictamonghumans.”

DeDreu,C.K.,etal.“Oxytocinpromoteshumanethnocentrism.”39.NormanG.J.,etal.“Socialneuroscience:Thesocialbrain,oxytocin,andhealth.”40.Meinlschmidt, G., andHeim, C. 2007. “Sensitivity to intranasal oxytocin in adultmenwith early parental separation.”Biological

Psychiatry61(9),pp.1109–11.41.O’Gormon,R.,Sheldon,K.M.,andWilson,D.S.2008.“Forthegoodofthegroup?Exploringgroup-levelevolutionaryadaptations

usingmultilevelselectiontheory.”GroupDynamics:Theory,Research,andPractice12(1),pp.17–26.42.BrewerM.B.,andCaporaelL.R.1990.“Selfishgenesvs.selfishpeople:sociobiologyasoriginmyth.”MotivationandEmotion14,

pp.237–43.43.Barry,A.M.2009.“MirrorNeurons:HowWeBecomeWhatWeSee.”VisualCommunicationQuarterly16(2),pp.79–89.44.Rizzolatti,G.2005.“TheMirrorNeuronSystemanditsFunctioninHumans.”AnatomicalEmbryology210,pp.419–21.45.Rizzolatti,G.,andCraighero,L.2004.“TheMirror-NeuronSystem.”AnnualReviewofNeuroscience27,pp.169–92.46.Goleman,D.2006.SocialIntelligence:TheNewScienceofHumanRelationships.NewYork:BantamBooks.47.Goleman,D.,andBoyatzis,R.2008.“Socialintelligenceandthebiologyofleadership.”HarvardBusinessReview86(9),pp.74–81.48.Ibid.49.Ibid.

Sala,F.2003.“Laughingallthewaytothebank.”HarvardBusinessReview,pp.16–17.50.Clouse,R.W.,andSpurgeon,K.L.1995.“CorporateAnalysisofHumor.”Psychology:AJournalofHumanBehavior32,pp.1–24.51.Bettinghaus,E.,andCody,M.1994.PersuasiveCommunication.FortWorth,TX:HarcourtBraceCollegePublishers.5thed.

Foot,H.1997.“Humorandlaughter.”InO.Hargie(ed.).TheHandbookofCommunicationSkills.London:Routledge.2nded.52.Vissera,V.A., vanKnippenberga,D., vanKleef,G.A., andWissec,B. “How leader displays of happiness and sadness influence

followerperformance:Emotionalcontagionandcreativeversusanalyticalperformance.”LeadershipQuarterly24(1),pp.172–88.53.Barsade,S.G.,andGibson,D.E.2007.“Whydoesaffectmatterinorganizations?”AcademyofManagementPerspectives21,pp.

36–59.54.Dasborough,M.T.2006.“Cognitiveasymmetryinemployeeemotionalreactionstoleadershipbehaviors.”LeadershipQuarterly79,

163–78.55.Hatfield,E.,Cacioppo,J.T.,andRapson,R.L.1993.“Emotionalcontagion.”CurrentDirectionsinPsychologicalScience2(3),pp.

96–99.Christakis,N.A.,andFowler,J.H.2009.Connected:TheSurprisingPowerofOurSocialNetworksandHowTheyShapeOur

Lives.NewYork:Little,Brown.56. Algoe, S. B. and Haidt, J. 2009. “Witnessing excellence in action: the ‘other-praising’ emotions of elevation, gratitude, and

admiration.”JournalofPositivePsychology4(2),pp.105–27.Schnall,S.,Roper,J.,andFessler,D.M.2010.“Elevationleadstoaltruisticbehavior.”PsychologicalScience21(3),pp.315–

20.Schnall,S., andRoper, J.2012.“Elevationputsmoralvalues intoaction.”SocialPsychologicalPersonalityScience 3(3), pp.

373–78.57. Jonas,E.,Martens,A.,Kayser,D.N.,Fritsche, I.,Sullivan,D., andGreenberg, J. 2008. “Focus theoryofnormative conduct and

Terror-Management Theory: the interactive impact of mortality salience and norm salience on social judgment.” Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology95(6),pp.1239–51.

58.Krupka,E.,andWeber,R.A.2009.“Thefocusingandinformationaleffectsofnormsonpro-socialbehavior.”JournalofEconomicPsychology30(3),pp.307–20.

59.Ramnani,N.,andMiall,R.C.2004.“Asysteminthehumanbrainforpredictingtheactionsofothers.”NatureNeuroscience7(1),pp.85–90.

Sebanz,N.,Knoblich,G.,andPrinz,W.2003.“Representingothers’actions:Justlikeone’sown?”Cognition88(3),pp.11–21.60.Gallese,V.,Fadiga,L.,Fogassi,L.,andRizzolatti,G.1996.“Actionrecognitioninthepremotorcortex.”Brain119(2),pp.593–609.

Rizzolatti,G.,Fogassi,L.,andGallese,V.2001.“Neurophysiologicalmechanismsunderlyingtheunderstandingandimitationofaction.”NatureReviewsNeuroscience2(9),pp.661–70.

61.Hommel,B.,Colzato,L.S.,andvandenWildenberg,W.P.M.2009.“Howsocialaretaskrepresentations?”PsychologicalScience20(7),pp.794–98.

62.Koban,L.,Pourtois,G.,Vocat,R., andVuilleumier,P.2010. “Whenyourerrorsmakeme loseorwin:Event-relatedpotentials toobservederrorsofcooperatorsandcompetitors.”SocialNeuroscience5,pp.360–74.

63.DeCremer,D.,andStouten,J.2003.“Whendopeoplefindcooperationmostjustified?Theeffectoftrustandself–othermerginginsocialdilemmas.”SocialJusticeResearch16(1),pp.41–52.

Sommerville,J.A.,andHammond,A.J.2007.“Treatinganother’sactionsasone’sown:Children’smemoryofandlearningfromjointactivity.”DevelopmentalPsychology43(4),pp.1003–18.

64. Koban, L., et al. “When your errors make me lose or win: Event-related potentials to observed errors of cooperators andcompetitors.”

65.Ina2005interviewwithDianeL.Coutu,asenioreditorattheHarvardBusinessReview,Kasparovexplained:Peoplewhoseechessasascientificpursuitplayedbysomekindofhumansupercomputermaybesurprised,butittakesmorethanlogic to be a world-class chess player. That’s because chess is a mathematically infinite game. The total number of possibledifferentmoves ina singlegameofchess ismore than thenumberof seconds thathaveelapsedsince theBigBangcreated theuniverse.Manypeopledon’trecognizethat.Theylookatthechessboardandtheysee64squaresand32piecesandtheythinkthatthegameislimited.It’snot,andevenatthehighestlevelsitisimpossibletocalculateveryfarout.Icanthinkmaybe15movesinadvance,andthat’saboutasfarasanyhumanhasgone.Inevitably,youreachapointwhenyou’vegottonavigatebyusingyourimaginationandfeelingsratherthanyourintellectorlogic.Atthatmoment,youareplayingwithyourgut.

66.Goleman,D.,andBoyatzis,R.2008.“Socialintelligenceandthebiologyofleadership.”HarvardBusinessReview86(9),pp.74–81.67.Algoe,S.B.,Haidt,J.,andGable,S.L.2008.“Beyondreciprocity:gratitudeandrelationshipsineverydaylife.”Emotion 8(3),pp.

425–29.68.Grant,A.M.,andGino,F.2010.“Alittlethanksgoesalongway:explainingwhygratitudeexpressionsmotivateprosocialbehavior.”

JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology98(6),pp.946–55.69.Rolls,E.T.,O’Doherty,J.,Kringelbach,M.L.,Francis,S.,Bowtell,R.,andMcGlone,F.2003.“Representationsofpleasantand

painfultouchinthehumanorbitofrontalandcingulatecortices.”CerebralCortex13(3),pp.308–17.70.Holt-Lunstad,J.,Birmingham,W.A.,andLight,K.C.2008.“Influenceofa‘warmtouch’supportenhancementinterventionamong

marriedcouplesonambulatorybloodpressure,oxytocin,alphaamylase,andcortisol.”PsychosomaticMedicine70(9),pp.976–85.71.Hansen,A.L.,Johnsen,B.H.,andThayer,J.F.2003.“Vagalinfluenceonworkingmemoryandattention.”InternationalJournalof

Psychophysiology48(3),pp.263–74.72.Kraus,M.W.,Huang,C.,andKeltner,D.2010.“Tactilecommunication,cooperation,andperformance:anethologicalstudyofthe

NBA.”Emotion10(5),pp.745–49.Kurzban, R. 2001. “The social psychophysics of cooperation: nonverbal communication in a public goods game.” Journal of

NonverbalBehavior25(4),pp.241–59.73.Craik,K.H.2009.Reputation:ANetworkInterpretation.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.74. Anderson C., John, O. P., Keltner, D., and Kring, A. M. 2001. “Who attains social status? Effects of personality and physical

attractivenessinsocialgroups.”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology81(1),pp.116–32.Anderson,C.,andShirako,A.2008.“Are individuals’ reputationsrelated to theirhistoryofbehavior?”JournalofPersonality

andSocialPsychology94(2),pp.320–33.75.Milinski,M.,Semmann,D.,andKrambeck,H-J.2002.“Reputationhelpssolvethe‘tragedyofthecommons.’”Nature415,pp.424–

26.76. Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., and Layton, J. B. 2010. “Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta-analytic review.” PLoS

Medicine7(7),e1000316.77.Cacioppo, J.T.,Hawkley,L.C.,Crawford,L.E.,Ernst, J.M.,Burleson,M.H.,Kowalewski,R.B., et al. 2002. “Loneliness and

health:Potentialmechanisms.”PsychosomaticMedicine64(3),pp.407–17.78.Cohen, S.,Doyle,W. J., Skoner,D.P.,Rabin,B. S., andGwaltney, J.M., Jr. 1997. “Social ties and susceptibility to the common

cold.”JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation277(24),pp.1940–44.Pressman,S.D.,Cohen,S.,Miller,G.E.,Barkin,A.,Rabin,B.S.,andTreanor,J.J.2005.“Loneliness,socialnetworksize,and

immuneresponsetoinfluenzavaccinationincollegefreshmen.”HealthPsychology24(3),pp.297–306.79.Henry, R.A. 1993. “Group judgment accuracy: Reliability and validity of post discussion confidence judgments.”Organizational

BehaviorandHumanDecisionProcess56,pp.11–27.Henry,R.A.1995.“Improvinggroupjudgmentaccuracy:Informationsharinganddeterminingthebestmember.”Organizational

BehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses62,pp.190–97.

Sniezek, J. A., and Henry, R. A. 1990. “Revision, weighting and commitment in consensus group judgment.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses45,pp.66–84.

Laughlin,P.R.,Bonner,B.L.,Miner,A.G.,andCarnevale,P.J.1999.“Framesofreferenceinquantityestimationsbygroupsandindividuals.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses80,pp.103–17.

Bonner,B.L.,Sillito,S.D.,andBaumann,M.R.2007.“Collectiveestimation:Accuracy,expertise,andextroversionassourcesofintra-groupinfluence.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses103,pp.121–33.

80.Henry, R.A. 1993. “Group judgment accuracy: Reliability and validity of post discussion confidence judgments.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcess56,pp.11–27.

81. Henry, R.A. 1995. “Improving group judgment accuracy: Information sharing and determining the bestmember.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses62,pp.190–97.

82.Bonner,B.L.,etal.“Collectiveestimation:Accuracy,expertise,andextroversionassourcesofintra-groupinfluence.”83.SchultzeT.,Mojzisch,A., andSchulz-Hardt,S. 2012. “Whygroupsperformbetter than individuals at quantitative judgment tasks:

Group-to-individual transfer as analternative todifferentialweighting.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses118,pp.24–36.

84. Howe, C. 2009. “Collaborative group work inmiddle childhood: Joint construction, unresolved contradiction and the growth ofknowledge.”HumanDevelopment52,pp.215–19.

Howe,C.2010.PeerGroupsandChildren’sDevelopment.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.85. Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., and Frey, D. 2006. “Group decision making in hidden profile

situations:Dissentasafacilitatorfordecisionquality.”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology91,pp.1080–93.86. Howe, C. 2009. “Collaborative group work inmiddle childhood: Joint construction, unresolved contradiction and the growth of

knowledge.”HumanDevelopment52,pp.215–19.Howe,C.2010.PeerGroupsandChildren’sDevelopment.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.

87.Pentland,A.2012.“Thenewscienceofbuildinggreatteams.”HarvardBusinessReview90(4),pp.60–68,70.88.Will,U.,andBerg,E.2007.“Brainwavesynchronizationandentrainmenttoperiodicacousticstimuli.”NeuroscienceLetters424,pp.

55–60.89. Stevens, R. H., Galloway, T., Berka, C., and Sprang, M. 2009. “Neurophysiologic collaboration patterns during team problem

solving.”Proceedings:HFES53rdAnnualMeeting,October19–23,2009,SanAntonio,TX.Stevens,R.H.,Galloway,T.,Berka,C.,andBehneman,A.2010.“Identificationandapplicationofneurophysiologicsynchronies

forstudyingteambehavior.”InProceedingsofthe19thConferenceonBehaviorRepresentationinModelingandSimulation,pp.21–28.

Stevens,R.H.,Galloway,T.,Wang,P.,Berka,C.,Tan,V.,Wohlgemuth,T.,Lamb, J., andBuckles,R. 2013a. “Modeling theneurodynamiccomplexityofsubmarinenavigationteams.”ComputationalandMathematicalOrganizationTheory19(3),pp.346–69.

90.Stevens,R.H.,Galloway,T.,CampbellG.,Berka,C.,andBalthazardP.2013b.“Howtaskshelpshapetheneurodynamicrhythmsandorganizationsofteams.”FoundationsofAugmentedCognitionLectureNotesinComputerScience8027,pp.199–208.

4:THEPOWEROFDIFFERENCE

1.Woolley,A.W.,Hackman,J.R.,Jerde,T.J.,Chabris,C.F.,Bennett,S.L.,andKosslyn,S.M.2007.“Usingbrain-basedmeasurestocomposeteams:Howindividualcapabilitiesandteamcollaborationstrategiesjointlyshapeperformance.”SocialNeuroscience2,pp.96–105.

2.Rypma,B.,Berger, J.S.,Prabhakaran,V.,Bly,B.M.,Kimberg,D.Y.,Biswal,B.B., et al. 2006. “Neural correlatesof cognitiveefficiency.”NeuroImage33(3),pp.969–79.

3.Woolley, A.W., Gerbasi, M. E., Chabris, C. F., Kosslyn, S.M., and Hackman, J. R. 2008. “Bringing in the experts: How teamcompositionandworkstrategyjointlyshapeanalyticeffectiveness.”SmallGroupResearch39(3),pp.352–71.

4. Kozhevnikov, M., Kosslyn, S. M., and Shephard, J. 2005. “Spatial versus object visualizers: A new characterization of visualcognitivestyle.”MemoryandCognition33,pp.710–26.

5.Woolley,A.W.,etal.“Bringingintheexperts:Howteamcompositionandworkstrategyjointlyshapeanalyticeffectiveness.”6. Hackman, J. R., Brousseau, K. R., and Weiss, J. A. 1976. “The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in

determininggroupeffectiveness.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses16,pp.350–65.Wittenbaum,G.M.,Vaughan,S.I.,andStasser,G.1998.“Coordinationintask-performinggroups.”InR.S.Tindale,L.Heath,J.

Edwards,E.J.Posavac,F.B.Bryant,Y.Suarez-Balcazar,E.Henderson-King,andJ.Myers(eds.),TheoryandResearchonSmallGroups.NewYork:Plenum,pp.177–205.

7.Wegner, D.M. 1986. “Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind.” In G.Mullen and G. Goethals (eds.),TheoriesofGroupBehavior.NewYork:Springer-Verlag,pp.185–208.

Wegner,D.M.1995.“Acomputernetworkmodelofhumantransactivememory.”SocialCognition13,pp.319–39.Mohammed, S. and Dumville, B. C. 2001. “Team mental models in a team knowledge framework: Expanding theory and

measurementacrossdisciplinaryboundaries.”JournalofOrganizationalBehavior22,pp.89–106.8. Masuda, T., and Nisbett, R. E. 2001. “Attending holistically vs. analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and

Americans.”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology81,pp.922–34.

9. Weiss, H. M., and Shaw, J. B. 1979. “Social influences on judgments about tasks.” Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance24(1),pp.126–40.

10.Miron-Spektor,E.,Erez,M.,andNaveh,E.2012.“Todrivecreativity,addsomeconformity.”HarvardBusinessReview90(3),p.30.11.Whenwespeakofleft-andright-brainedpeople,wemaynotbespeakingliterally.Atwo-yearstudyofthebrainscansofmorethan

onethousandpeopleagesseventotwenty-ninewasconductedasrecentlyas2103byDr.JeffAnderson,thedirectorofthefMRINeurosurgicalMappingServiceattheUniversityofUtah,andhiscolleagues.Theresult?Theyfoundnoevidenceofleft-andright-brainedpeople.Sowemaybetalkingonlyofpersonalitytypeshere,notbrainhemispheredominance.Timewilltell.Inthemeantime,ourconcernisthatpeopledoseemtocomeineithercreativeorempiricaltypes.

12.Leonard,D.A.,andStraus,S.1997.“PuttingyourCompany’sWholeBraintoWork.”HarvardBusinessReview75(4),pp.110–22.13.Ibid.14.Hackman,J.R.2002.LeadingTeams:SettingtheStageforGreatPerformances.Boston:HBSPress.

Hackman, J.R., andWageman,R.2005. “Whenandhow team leadersmatter.”Research inOrganizationalBehavior 26, pp.37–74.

15.Uzzi,B.,Mukherjee,S.,Stringer, andM., Jones,B.2013. “AtypicalCombinations andScientific Impact.”Science 342(6157), pp.468–72.

16.Shih,M.,Pittinsky,T.L.,andAmbady,N.1999.“Stereotypesusceptibility:Identitysalienceandshiftsinquantitativeperformance.”PsychologicalScience10,pp.80–83.

17.Hong,L.,andPage,S.2001.“Problemsolvingbyheterogeneousagents.”JournalofEconomicTheory97,pp.123–63.18.Williams,K.Y.,andO’Reilly,C.A.1998.“Demographyanddiversityinorganizations.”ResearchinOrganizationalBehavior20,

pp.77–140.19. Milliken, F. J., and Martins, L. L. 1996. “Searching for common threads: understanding the multiple effects of diversity in

organizationalgroups.”AcademyofManagementReview21(2),pp.402–33.Williams,K.Y.,andO’Reilly,C.A.1998.“Demographyanddiversityinorganizations.”Research inOrganizationalBehavior

20,pp.77–140.20.Cox,T.H.1993.CulturalDiversityinOrganization:TheoryResearchandPractice.SanFrancisco:Berrett-KoehlerPublishing.

Ibarra, Herminia. June 1995. “Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks.” The Academy ofManagementJournal38(3),pp.673–703.

Martin, J.,andPettigrew,T.1989.“Shaping theorganizationalcontext forminority inclusion.”JournalofSocial Issues 43,pp.41–78.

21.Gladstein,D.L.1984.“Amodeloftaskgroupeffectiveness.”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly29(4),pp.499–517.Jehn,K.A. 1995. “Amulti-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.”Administrative Science

Quarterly40(2),pp.256–82.Jehn,K.A.,Northcraft,G.B.,andNeale,M.A.1999.“Whydifferencemakeadifference:Afieldstudyofdiversity,conflict,

andperformanceinworkgroups.”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly44(4),pp.741–63.22. Bell, M. P., and Berry, D. P. 2007. “Viewing diversity through different lenses: Avoiding a few blind spots.” Academy of

ManagementPerspectives21(4),pp.21–25.Klein,K. J., andHarrison,D.A. 2007. “On the diversity of diversity: tidy logic,messier realities.”Academy ofManagement

Perspectives21(4),pp.26–33.23.Bell,M.P.andBerry,D.P.2007.“Viewingdiversitythroughdifferentlenses:Avoidingafewblindspots.”AcademyofManagement

Perspectives21(4),pp.21–25.Klein,K. J., andHarrison,D.A. 2007. “On the diversity of diversity: tidy logic,messier realities.”Academy ofManagement

Perspectives21(4),pp.26–33.24.VanVugt,M.andHart,C.M.2004.“Socialidentityassocialglue:Theoriginsofgrouployalty.”JournalofPersonalityandSocial

Psychology86,pp.585–98.25. Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., van Kleef, G. A., and De Dreu, C. K.W. 2007. “Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity:

Diversitybeliefs,informationelaboration,andperformanceindiverseworkgroups.”JournalofAppliedPsychology92,pp.1189–99.

26.Chatman,J.A.,andFlynn,F.J.2001.“Theinfluenceofdemographiccompositionontheemergenceandconsequencesofcooperativenormsingroups.”AcademyofManagementJournal44(5),pp.956–74.

Ely,R. J. 2004. “A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance.” Journal ofOrganizationalBehavior25(6),pp.755–80.

Harrison,D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J. H., and Florey,A. T. 2002. “Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects ofsurface-anddeep-leveldiversityongroupfunctioning.”AcademyofManagementJournal45(5),pp.1029–45.

27.Huckman,R.S.,andStaats,B.2013.“Thehiddenbenefitsofkeepingteamsintact.”HarvardBusinessReview91(12),pp.27–29.28. Polzer, J., Milton, L., and Swann, W. 2002. “Capitalizing on diversity: Interpersonal congruence in small work groups.”

AdministrativeScienceQuarterly47,pp.296–324.29. Bunderson, J. S. 2003. “Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective.” Administrative

ScienceQuarterly48,pp.557–91.Cronin,M. A., andWeingart, L. R. 2007. “Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse

teams.”AcademyofManagementReview32,pp.761–73.

30.Mintzberg,H.,Raisinghani,D.,andTheoret,A.1976.“TheStructureof‘Unstructured’DecisionProcesses.”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly21,pp.246–75.

Yen, J., Fan, X., Sun, S., Hanratty, T., and Dumer, J. 2006. “Agents with shared mental models for enhanced team decisionmaking.”DecisionSupportSystems41,pp.634–53.

31. Okhuysen, G. A., and Eisenhardt, K. M. 2002. “Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flexibility.”OrganizationScience13,pp.370–86.

32. Henry, R.A. 1995. “Improving group judgment accuracy: Information sharing and determining the bestmember.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses62,pp.190–97.

Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., and Wittenbaum, G. M. 1995. “Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: Theimportanceofknowingwhoknowswhat.”JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology31,pp.244–65.

33.Bunderson,J.S.,andSutcliffe,K.M.2002.“Comparingalternativeconceptualizationsoffunctionaldiversityinmanagementteams:Processandperformanceeffects.”AcademyofManagementJournal45,pp.875–93.

34.Lazar,D.,andFriedmanA.2007.“Thenetworkstructureofexplorationandexploitation.”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly52,pp.667–94.

35.Nemeth,C.J.,Personnaz,B.,Personnaz,M.,andGoncalo,J.A.2004.“Theliberatingroleofconflictingroupcreativity:Astudyintwocountries.”EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology34,pp.365–74.

36.Uzzi,B.,andSpiro,J.2005.“Collaborationandcreativity:Thesmallworldproblem.”AmericanJournalofSociology111(2),pp.447–504.

37.Hornsey,M.J.2005.“Whybeingrightisnotenough:Predictingdefensivenessinthefaceofgroupcriticism.”EuropeanReviewofSocialPsychology16,pp.301–34.

38.Esposo,S.R.,Hornsey,M. J., andSpoor,R.2013. “Outsiders criticalofyourgroupare rejected regardlessof argumentquality.”BritishJournalofSocialPsychology52,pp.386–95.

39.Gilkey,R.,andKiltsC.November2007.“Cognitivefitness.”HarvardBusinessReview85,pp.53–54,56,58passim.40.Lee,K.,Brownstein,J.S.,Mills,R.G.,andKohane,I.S.2010.“Doescollocationinformtheimpactofcollaboration?”PLoSONE

5(12),e14279.41.Ibid.42.Moreland,R.L.,andMyaskovsky,L.2000.“Exploringtheperformancebenefitsofgrouptraining:Transactivememoryorimproved

communication?”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses82(1),pp.117–33.Newell,A., andRosenbloom,P.1981. “Mechanismsof skill acquisitionand thepower lawofpractice.” In J.Anderson (ed.),

CognitiveSkillsandTheirAcquisition.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum,pp.1–55.Wegner,D.M.1986.“Transactivememory:Acontemporaryanalysisof thegroupmind.” InG.MullenandG.Goethals (eds.),

TheoriesofGroupBehavior.NewYork:Springer-Verlag,pp.185–208.43.Haleblian,J.,andFinkelstein,S.1993.“Topmanagementteamsize,CEODominance,andfirmperformance:Themoderatingrolesof

environmentalturbulenceanddiscretion.”AcademyofManagementJournal36(4),pp.844–63.Reagans,R.,andZuckerman,E.W.2001.“Networks,diversity,andproductivity:ThesocialcapitalofcorporateR&Dteams.”

OrganizationScience12(4),pp.502–17.44.Moreland,R.L.,Levine,J.M.,andWingert,M.L.1996.“Creatingtheidealgroup:Compositioneffectsatwork.”InE.H.Witteand

J.H.Davis(eds.),UnderstandingGroupBehavior:Small-GroupProcessesandInterpersonalRelations.Volume2.Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum,pp.11–35.

45.Bray,R.M.,Kerr,N.L.,andAtkin,R.S.1978.“Effectsofgroupsize,problemdifficulty,andsexongroupperformanceandmemberreactions.”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology36(11),pp.1224–40.

46.Hoegl,M.2005.“Smallerteams—betterteamwork:Howtokeepprojectteamssmall.”BusinessHorizons48,pp.209–14.47. Zenger, T.R., andLawrence,B. S. 1989. “Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on

technicalcommunication.”AcademyofManagementJournal32(2),pp.353–76.48.Brooks,F.1975.TheMythicalMan-Month:EssaysonSoftwareEngineering.NewYork:Addison-Wesley.

Chen, G. 2005. “Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes.” Academy of Management Journal48(1),pp.101–16.

49.Kravitz,D.A.,andMartin,B.1986.“Ringelmannrediscovered:Theoriginalarticle.”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology50(5),pp.936–41.

50.Harkins,S.G.,andPetty,R.E.1982.“Effectsoftaskdifficultyandtaskuniquenessonsocialloafing.”JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology43(6),pp.1214–29.

51.Mueller,J.2012.“Whyindividualsinlargerteamsperformworse.”OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses117,pp.111–24.

52.Liden,R.C.,Wayne,S.J., Jaworski,R.A.,andBennett,N.2004.“Social loafing:Afield investigation.”JournalofManagement30(2),pp.285–304.

53. Ancona, D. G., and Caldwell, D. F. 1992. “Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams.”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly37,pp.634–65.

54.Hoegl,M.,Weinkauf,K., andGemuenden,H.G. 2004. “Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork inmultiteamR&Dprojects:Alongitudinalstudy.”OrganizationScience15(1),pp.38–55.

Hoegl,M.2005.“Smallerteams—betterteamwork:Howtokeepprojectteamssmall.”BusinessHorizons48,pp.209–14.

5:MANAGINGTEAMSTOGENIUS

1.Wageman, R., and Gordon, D. 2005. “As the twig is bent: How group values shape emergent task interdependence in groups.”OrganizationScience16,pp.687–700.

2.Wageman,R.1995.“InterdependenceandGroupEffectiveness.”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly40(1),pp.145–180.3.Ginnett,R. 1990. “Airline cockpit crew.” In J.R.Hackman (ed.),GroupsThatWork (AndThoseThatDon’t). SanFrancisco:CA:

Jossey-Bass.Ginnett, R. 1993. “Crews as groups: Their formation and their leadership.” In E. Wiener, B. Kanki, and R. Helmreich (eds.),

CockpitResourceManagement.SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress,pp.71–98.4.Hackman,J.R.2002.LeadingTeams:SettingtheStageforGreatPerformances.Boston:HBSPress.5.Ibid.6.Steiner,I.D.1972.GroupProcessandProductivity.NewYork:AcademicPress.

Forsyth,D.R.2006,2010.GroupDynamics.Belmont,CA:Wadsworth,CenpageLearning.7.Edmondson,A.C.December1999.“Psychologicalsafetyandlearningbehaviorinworkteams.”AdministrativeScienceQuarterly

44(4),pp.350–83.8.Liden,R.C.,Wayne,S. J., Jaworski,R.A.,andBennett,N.2004.“Social loafing:Afield investigation.”JournalofManagement

30(2),pp.285–304.9.VanDick,R.,Tissington,P.A.,andHertel,G.2009.“Domanyhandsmakelightwork?Howtoovercomesocial loafingandgain

motivationinworkteams.”EuropeanBusinessReview21(3),pp.233–45.10. Köhler, O. 1926. “Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit.” [“Physical performance in individual and group work.”]

IndustriellePsychotechnik3,pp.274–82.11.Weber,B.,andHertel,G.2007.“Motivationgainsofinferiorgroupmembers:ameta-analyticalreview.”JournalofPersonalityand

SocialPsychology93(6),pp.973–93.12. Hertel, G., Deter, C., and Konradt, U. 2003. “Motivation gains in computer-mediated work groups.” Journal of Applied Social

Psychology33(10),pp.2080–2105.

7:SUCCESSFULPAIRING

1. In terms of an effect onmodern life, perhaps no one has ever been better at spotting and developing these “perfect pairs” thanFrederick Terman Jr., the professor who set up the first electrical engineering program in the western United States at StanfordUniversity,wherehis fatherhadbeenpresident.Terman is rightlycelebratedas the fatherofSiliconValleybecauseofhis lab,hisstudentswhowentouttobuildtheelectronicsindustry,andhissuccessfuladvocacyofthecreationofthefirstgreatindustrialpark.

Less noticed is that Terman, perhaps alone among any academic or business executives, helped create and then successfullymanagedtwoCastorandPolluxpair-teams,eachexemplifyingadifferenttype.Themostfamousoftheseperfectpairsis,ofcourse,BillHewlettandDavePackard.Bothmenhadcrossedpathsforyearsbutdidn’treallymeetuntiltheywereinTerman’slab.ItwasTermanwhosuggestedthatthetwomenworktogether,beginninginthecelebratedPackardgarage.Healsofoundthememployees,contracts,andclients,andevengavethembusinessadviceuntiltheirskillsfaroutpacedhisown.

BillandDaveintimecreatedwhatisstillgenerallyconsideredamongthegreatestcompaniesofalltime.Lessappreciatedistheiralmostsuperhumanfriendship:overthecourseofnearlysixtyyears,thetable-poundingPackardandthegenialHewlettappearnevertohavehadanargument,muchlessafight.Notonlydidtheyworktogethereveryday,buttheirfamiliesoftenvacationedtogether—despitethestressofpresidingoveroneofthefastest-growingandmostinnovativetechnologycompaniesinhistory.

AlsoinTerman’slabinthemid-1930swasanevenmoreunlikelyCastorandPolluxteam,theVarianbrothers.Thetwomenmayhavebeensiblings,butinpersonfewwouldhaveguessedthatfact.RussellVarianwasagentlegiant,withagreatsquarejawandhugehands;phlegmaticandslowmoving.SigurdVarian(“Sig”)wassmallandhandsome.TheywerethesonsofIrishtheosophistsandhadbeenraisedintheutopiancommunityofHalcyon,California.Asboys,thebrothershadbuiltandflowntheirownairplanes,aswashbuckling career that Sigurd pursued (he flew for Pan Am, opening new routes over Latin America) after dropping out ofcollege.Russelltookadifferentpath.Developingadeepinterestintheemergingfieldofelectronics,hewasacceptedtoStanford.Becausethefamilywaspoor,hechosetohikethe220milestoschool—andduringhisyearsstudyingunderTerman,heoftenlivedoffthefruitgrowingoncampus.TurneddownforworkonaPhD,Russelltookajobinprivateindustry.

ItwasSigurdwhocameupwiththeideaforanewkindofmicrowavedevice,theklystrontube.Thismightseemsurprising,butinfactSigVarianhadagoodreason:dealingwitholdflightmapsthatsometimesshowedswampswhenthereweremountainsinstead,hewantedawaytoseetheflightpathaheadatnightorthroughinclementweather.ThankstooneofRussell’soldclassmates,nowaprofessorattheiralmamater,RussellwasinvitedbacktoStanfordwithhisbrothertoworkonbuildingaklystron.

Whathappenednextwassomething thatnoonewhosawiteverforgot. Inexchangeforgivingawayhalfofanyroyalties, thebrotherssetup inaphysics labnearTerman’sandbegantowork.In theweeksandmonths thatfollowed, thebrothersseemedtowork continuously, day and night. Visitors, including Hewlett and Packard, were astounded by what they saw: despite being sodifferent,andhavinglivedsuchdifferentlives,RussellandSigurdworkedtogetherlikeakindofperpetualmotionmachine—rarelytakingabreak,seeminglysharingthesamethoughts,finishingeachother’ssentences,liketwomindsinone.Officially,Russellwasresponsibleforthedesign,Sigforthebuildingoftheprototype,buteachwasdeeplyinvolvedintheworkoftheother.

InAugust1937,theVarianbrotherscompletedandsuccessfullyfireduptheprototypeklystron.Withinayear,itwaslicensedby

SperryGyroscope—andjustintime.TheBritish,facingtheprospectofGermanattack,weredesperatetobuildalow-weightversionoftheirnewradartechnologytoputintoplanesandships.TheVarianklystronwastheperfectsolution.Inradar,itplayedacrucialroleintheAlliedvictory.

Afterthewar,theVarianbrothersfoundedVarianAssociatestobuildmultipleversionsoftheklystron.Interestingly,oneoftheirmostimportantcustomerswasStanfordUniversity,whereRussell’soldprofessorandsupporterWilliamHansenlinedupscoresofklystronsonamile-longpathandcreatedthelinearaccelerator.Bythen,RussellandSigurdhadgonebacktotheiroldlives:Sigurdtobuildingmachineryandflying(hewoulddieinaplanecrashoffthecoastofMexico)andRusselltohelpingdesigntheequallymonumentalMRItechnologyforthemedicalworld.

8:TRIOS

1.Bytheway,someNFLteamslearnedtocountertheWestCoastoffensebytakingacuefromtheotherNinerhalloffamerofthoseyears, the defensive safetyRonnieLott.Lott’s solutionwas to breakup the precisionof the offense, and thusWalsh’s controlledrandomness,byassertingarandomnessofhisown,improvisinghisownplayresponsesonthefly,shorteninghisdecision-makingtimetowhatalmostseemedlikeintuition,unmatchedopenfieldtackling,andsufficientlyintimidatingreceiverssothattheyhesitatedandheregainedanylosttime.Thisresponseresultedinanewkindofdefensiveback,thehybrid“elephant”linebacker—huge,fast,andfreetotakeanyrolefrompasscoveragetorushingthequarterback—bestexemplifiedbyCharlesHaleyof theCowboys(thoughtrainedbytheNiners)andLawrenceTayloroftheNewYorkGiants.Thisunderscoresthefactthatoneofthebiggestweaknessesoftriosiscoordinationandthetimeittakestoachieveit.

9:FOURANDMORE

1.BelbinM.2011.“Sizematters:Howmanymaketheidealteam?”Belbin.es,www.belbin.es/rte.asp?id=153&pressid=31&task=View.

11:THEBIRTHANDLIFEOFTEAMS

1.Scheer,GeorgeF., andHughF.Rankin. 1957.Rebels andRedcoats: TheAmericanRevolution Through theEyes of Those ThatFoughtandLivedIt.NewYork:WorldPublishingCompany,p.504.

Index

Thepaginationofthiselectroniceditiondoesnotmatchtheeditionfromwhichitwascreated.Tolocateaspecificentry,pleaseuseyoure-bookreader’ssearchtools.

Adams,FranklinPierce,175additivetasks,97AdelphiaCommunications,9aftermathphase,218,239–46agediversity,73,76,86–87Aglioti,Salvatore,48AlcoholicsAnonymous,129Alibaba,5,14Allen,Paul,14,125Allen,Steve,147alumnigroup,248Amazon,5,8,93Anderson,Darrell,105–12,125Andreessen,Marc,8antagonisticpartnerships,121–24Aparaicio,Luis,175Apollo13,7Apple,xii,7–15,94,119–20,190,193,208Aramis,160ArcadeFire,193ArcadiaInvitationalrace,104–5Armani,Giorgio,134Armstrong,Louis,118,131Arnold,Benedict,249Artist-Angelpairs,133–35,154,159AttilatheHun,147attitudes,223AustralianAboriginals,26,203Australopithecine,38averagingcontributions,98

Ballmer,Steve,14Baran,Paul,137–38Bardeen,John,120,166–68,170,179Barton,BruceFairchild,145–46BeachBoys,122,183Beatles,15,184–85Beck,Jeff,122Becker,Greg,81Behar,Howard,102Belbin,Meredith,185beliefs,79–80BellLabs,166–68,170Benét,StevenVincent,187Berra,Yogi,142Berteig,Mishkin,23

Best,Pete,184bestpractices,248–49Bezos,Jeff,188–89,198BigData,32–34BismarckHighSchoolteam,105–12Blaine,Hal,193Bligh,William,140blisspoint,85

bodylanguage,57bonding,44–47Bono,Sonny,193boundedness,88,94–95Boyer,Ken,142brain,xix,22,36–37,43,47–54,59–62,68–70Brando,Marlon,137Branson,Richard,49Braque,Georges,120–21Brattain,Walter,120,166–68,170,179Brewer,Marilynn,46–47Brin,Sergey,20,119BritishArmy,21,142,158,210BritishEmpire,24Brock,Lou,142Brubeck,Dave,118Bryant,BoudleauxandFelice,128Bryant,Kobe,81Buffett,Warren,126Burns,Ursula,49Bushkin,Henry,131Busicom,150–51,169

Caesar,Julius,18Calloway,Cab,122Campbell,Glen,193Carnegie,Andrew,127,139Carson,Johnny,131Carson,Kit,116,140Castor-and-Polluxpairs,102,117,122,126–28,143,154–55Catz,Safra,136celebrationsandritualsdeparture,229endoftask,238–39formation,220–23welcoming,229–30

Chained-Together-By-Successpair,121–24Chambers,John,3Chance,Frank,165,175–78,181Chanel,Coco,134change,1–15ChicagoCubs,175–78ChicagoWhiteSox,175Chinesearmy,18,21Christensen,Clayton,xiii,208Chrysler,9Churchill,Winston,148Cincinnatus,246Cisco,3Clapton,Eric,184

Clark,Jim,8Clark,William,116,136Clausewitz,Carlvon,147Clinton,George,193Coakley,Andy,175cognitivediversity,65–73cognitivefitness,87collaboration,38–39,55–56,62–64,71,118–19.SeealsocooperationCollins,Bootsy,193combinatorics,32,71communication,58–59,64,72,84,89,188–89,224,227compellingtasks,97compensatorytasks,98–99completionphase,217,237–39componenttasks,96configuraltasks,99conflicts,70conformity,67–68,85–86congruence,82–83conjunctivetasks,98consequentialtasks,95,97consolidationandmaturationphase,217,230–35context-dependentthinkers,66–67context-independentthinkers,66–67control,19,95,189controlledrandomness,162–64convergentthinkers,69conversationalturn-taking,72Cook,James,7,140Cook,Tim,13cooperation,38–41,54.Seealsocollaborationcoordination,89,97Cortés,Hernán,7Counterweightpairs,135–38,158Cox,Wally,137Craig,Roger,161–65,177creativeabrasion,69–70creativity,51,67–68,84–85Crosby,Bing,122culture,66–68,73,93,95,216,223,226–28Custer,GeorgeArmstrong,107

Davis,Jim,93Dean,John,81debate,56debriefings,57,99Dell,Michael,94–95departures,216–17,229–30Descartes,René,115Desmond,Paul,118Difference,The(Page),72–73DigitalEquipmentCorporation,169DiMaggio,Joe,142Dior,Christian,134discretionarytasks,99discriminationandfairnessperspective,79disjunctivetasks,97Disney,Roy,127,139Disney,Walt,127,132,139,183dissent,84

Distant-Idolpairs,145–49divergence,69,85–86diversity,xix,xx,65–91,95–96challengesof,72–77cognitive,65–71formationphaseand,219framingand,78–79mitigatingcostof,77–87teamsizeand,189–91,199,207

diversitypredictiontheorem,74divisionoflabor,18,64,88,96,140,190,194divisions,27–30,186,206DomesdayBook,25Dumas,Alexandre,160Dunbar,Robin,25–28,43–44,185Dunbarnumbers,24–28,31,43,185–86,198,203.Seealsoteamsizeinterconnectionsand,31multipliersand,26–27

Durant,William,120,139dyadicinteractions,46

Earl,Harley,134Earp,Wyatt,116EastmanKodak,7eBay,119,190Ebert,Roger,122Edison,Thomas,120educationaldiversity,74,82egalitarianvalues,92Egypt,ancient,18,188Elizabethanactingtroupes,203ElizabethI,queenofEngland,148Ellison,Larry,127,136,139Ely,Robin,79EminentVictorians(Strachey),147endphase,217–18,236–37Epstein,Brian,184ESPN,104establishmentphase,215,220–24ethnicdiversity,74–75,82EverlyBrothers,122,128Evers,Johnny,165,175–78,181evolution,37,46–48exclusion,76Exner,Virgil,134experience,72–73,82,86–88Explorer-Navigatorpairs,140extroverts,56

Facebook,11,14,25,30,190,197,202Fadell,Tony,70Faggin,Federico,151,169–70failingteams,245healthy,242–44unhealthy,227,239–40

FairchildSemiconductor,1,137,151,169fakedresults,241–42farewells,246–50feedback,56,98

field-effecttransistor,167Fields,Dorothy,131Finder-Grinder-Mindertrios,139–40Finder-Grinderpairs,139–40finish,good,236–37Fisher,Lawrence,134Flatt,Lester,118Fleming,Lee,71focus,96,207Forbes,4,34,148,162forced-rankingsystem,95formationphase,215,218–20FourTops,193Fox,Craig,90Fox,Nellie,175framing,78–79freeriders(socialloafers),55,89,91,97,241Frémont,JohnC.,116,140Frick,HenryClay,127,139fulfillmentpartnerships,125functionaldiversity,76functionalphase,215–16FunkBrothers,192–93FutureArrivedYesterday,The(Malone),203

gaps,208–9Garbo,Greta,118Garland,Judy,118Garvey,Steve,175Gates,Bill,14,125gatingfactor,5Gauguin,Paul,121Gehrig,Lou,175genderdiversity,70,73–75,77,82GeneralElectric(GE),14generalists,83GeneralMotors,9,120,134GeorgeIII,kingofEngland,246Gershwin,GeorgeandIra,126ghostpartnerships,146,148Gilbert,John,118Gilbert,William,121Gillespie,Dizzy,118,122Glaser,Joe,131Goleman,Daniel,36Goodwin,DorisKearns,148Google,2,5,8,11,20,30,70,190,197,217Got-Your-Sixpairs,116–17,130,149,155Grant,UlyssesS.,127,130Greene,Nathaniel,212,247Grove,Andrew,20,122,150–51,171–74Guggenheim,Peggy,134

Hackman,J.Richard,31–32,95Hamilton,Alexander,212,247–48Hammerstein,Oscar,122,131Hardy,Oliver,125Harrison,George,184Hart,Lorenz,122,131

Hatch,Orrin,137Hazel,Eddie,193healthyteamssuccessful,244–45unsuccessful,242–44

Heathfield,Susan,20,21Henrich,Joe,42Henson,Matthew,140Here-and-Therepairs,124,159Hewlett,William,8,27–29,126–27,226–27Hewlett-Packard(HP),27–29,120,127,148,226–27hierarchy,194–95,198–99,206,219Hillary,Edmund,140Hines,Earl,118HireVue,34hiring,33–34,74,103Hirshberg,Jerry,69Hoff,Ted,150–51,169–70,170Holiday,Billie,118Holliday,Doc,116hominids,16–17,21Hope,Bob,122Hopkins,Margaret,50HPWay,The(Packard),27Huawei,20Hunter,Joe,192hunter-gatherers,16–17,21,26–27,38,203Hutterites,25

IBM,xii,xiii,5,13,18independence,66–68,93–94information,76,80,84,96innovation,xiii,67–68,208Inside/Outsidepairs,138–39,154–55,159InstrumentalTrios,174–78,181integration,79,83,89,99Intel,1,20,122,137,150–51,169–74interdependence,92,94–98Internet,2–3,30–31,138interpersonalcongruence,82interpretations,73,74intuition,53–54,68Isaacson,Walter,148Iwerks,Ub,132

Jackson,Michael,131Jackson,Phil,142Jamerson,James,192James,LeBron,81Janusteams,138Java,40Jeter,Derek,49Jobs,Steve,xii,9–15,119–20,131,208John,Elton,131Johnson,Kelly,xiiJones,Ben,71Jones,Quincy,131Jordan,Michael,142

Kandinsky,Wassily,134Kasparov,Garry,53Kaye,Carol,193KeepingTogetherinTime(McNeill),42Kellogg,Harry,81Kennedy,Ted,137Kenobi,Obi-Wan,141Kern,Jerome,131keyemployees,65King,Don,135kinrelations,38–39Kirk,Captain,136Kleiner,Eugene,126Kluszewski,Ted,175Knight,Phil,109knowingteams,201knowledge,88Knox,Henry,212,247–48Köhlereffect,98KPMG,144–45,158Krzyzewski,Mike,49Kurosawa,Akira,187

Lafayette,Marquisde,247Lameralapeople,42Lane,Ray,127,139Lasseter,John,12Latané,Bibb,89–90Laurel,Stan,125Lazzeri,Tony,142leaders,19,21,63,92–100,185diversityand,67,69–71,76–79launchtasksand,94–96mirrorneuronsand,49–51processlossesand,96–100teamlifecycleand,219–20,223–28,234,237–45teamsizeand,90,186,194–99,206

Leakey,Richard,17,21learnedsynergy,52learning,56Lee,Charles,249Lee,Henry,212LehmanBrothers,9Leingang,Jake,105,109–10Lennon,John,118,122,184Lewis,Jerry,122,132Lewis,Meriwether,116,136Lifeboatpairs,129–31,155,158Lincoln,Abraham,148Loewy,Raymond,134logicalapproaches,68logistics,97,163loneliness,55–56lonewolves,70–71longitudinalstrength,143Lopes,Davey,175LordoftheRings,The(Tolkien),152,187LosAngelesDodgers,175Love,Mike,122Loy,Myrna,118

Lu,Jonathan,14

Ma,Jack,14Machiguengapeople,42Magellan,Ferdinand,7Magic-Momentpairs,117–21,158MagicNumbers,22–24,188,192.SeealsoDunbarnumbersmanagement,92–1007±2teamsand,191–9215±3teamsand,194–9950/150teamsand,201,205–6diversityand,76–78pairsand,153–59storytellingand,228triosand,179–82

Mandela,Nelson,246maneuverability,5–13ManNobodyKnows,The(Barton),145–47marketshock,202Markkula,Mike,12Martin,Dean,122,132Martin,George,184–85Masuda,Takahiko,66maximizingtasks,97Mazor,Stan,151,169–70McCartney,Paul,118,122,184McNally,Luke,37McNeill,William,42mentorpartnerships,141–45Meredith,Burgess,129meritocraticvalues,93Metcalfe’slaw,2–4Microsoft,5,125,190,193milestones,225militaryunits,18,21–22,24,195battalions,27bootcamps,221–22companies,25,203patrols,231platoons,195squads,18,21–22,186

Milkman,Katherine,90Millard,Steve,137–38Miller,George,22mirrorneurons,47–52missioncreep,238moderation,83–84monolithicteams,196Montana,Joe,7,161–65,177moodcontagion,49Moore,Gordon,1–2,20,137,151,171–74Moore’sLaw,1–2,4–5,11Morgan,Dan,247Motown,192Mozilla,40Mr.SmithGoestoWashington(film),152Mulally,Alan,49Munger,Charlie,126Musial,Stan,142

Napoleon,146Neanderthals,17NestLabs,70networks,2–4,30–32,89neurodynamics,59–60neurophysiologicsynchronies,59–60newcomers,85–86,89,216–17,229–30Newman,Mark,34NewYorkYankees,142NeXT,12NineOldMen,183Nisbett,Richard,66NissanDesign,69nonlinearapproaches,68nonthreateningclimate,97Nooyi,Indra,49Norgay,Tenzing,140normsofconduct,94–97NorthwestAirlines,9Noyce,Robert,20,122,137,150–51,169–74

object-propertiestask,62O’Gorman,Rick,46O’Hara,Maureen,118Omidyar,Pierre,119open-sourcesoftware,40–41operationalphase,215,224–25optimizingtasks,97Oracle,136,204OregonDucks,109O’Reilly,CharlesA.,75–77oscillators,53–54oxytocin,44–47,54

PacificGas&Electric,9Packard,David,8,27–29,126–27Page,Larry,20,119Page,Scott,72–74pairs,xx,12–13,37,45–46,101–59Bismarckpowerhouse,104–12brainand,62,69consolidationandmaturationand,234creatingsuccessful,103,153–59definedbydifference,131–40definedbyinequality,141–53definedbyoccasion,116–24definedbysimilarity,124–31diversityand,69,78,102formsof,112–14,154stabilityand,20triosand,165–68

ParallelTrios,168–71,174,179Parker,Charlie,118Parker,Tom,135Parkinson’slaw,23–24,186Parliament/Funkadelic,193Patton,George,148Peary,Robert,136,140Pentland,Alex,57–58

Perkins,Tom,126perspectives,73–74Picasso,Pablo,120–21Pickens,T.Boone,4Pitcher-and-Fielderpairs,140Pixar,12Pizarro,Juan,7planning,62–64,224point-contacttransistor,167–68Pollock,Jackson,134Polo,Marco,7PolyphonicSpree,193Popovich,Gregg,81postmortems,57Potter,Harry,187Powell,Andy,109Powell,William,118Prefontaine,Steve,105–6,109Presley,Elvis,135Preston,Billy,184PrinceandthePauper,The(Twain),152prisoner’sdilemma,37processlosses,96–100processteams,224–25,228prosociality,41,45–46,51,54Protean,203proximity,87,219Pujols,Albert,142

Qrating,85

racialdiversity,70,73–75,77Reagan,Ronald,132RedHat,40Reinhart,Werner,134Remember-the-Forcepairs,141–45,149,154,158RenZhengfei,20replacements,216–17,229–30reputations,54–55resources,63,81,88,96RevolutionaryWar,148,210–14,218,223,246–49Rice,Jerry,6–7,161–62,164–65,177Riddle,Nelson,131Riggens,John,164Rilke,RainerMaria,134Ringelmann,Max,89risk,10–12rituals.SeecelebrationsandritualsRobinson,Peter,132Rodgers,Richard,122,131RollingStones,183Rooney,Mickey,118Roosevelt,FranklinD.,148Roosevelt,Theodore,148Roosevelt,Theodore,Jr.,189,226Rubinstein,Jon,10rules,177,222Russell,Bill,175Russell,Leon,193

SaintLaurent,Yves,134SamandDave,122SanAntonioSpurs,81SanBushmen,17,26,203Sandberg,Ryne,178Sandberg,Sheryl,14,136SanFrancisco49ers,6,161–65SAS,93scale,4,5,202,204Schmidt,Eric,2,20Schultz,Howard,49,101–2Scruggs,Earl,118Sculley,John,12Sematech,172semiconductors,1–2,150,166–68SerialTrios,170–74,177Shackleton,Ernest,7Shakespeare,William,203sharedexperience,42–43,49Shaw,James,67Sheldon,Kennon,46Sherman,WilliamTecumseh,127,130,226Shima,Masatoshi,151,169–70Shockley,William,167–68,170,179Shorter,Frank,105–6short-termmemory,22,28,185,187Siebel,Tom,204–5silicongate,151,166,169SiliconValley,7,8,120,138,150–51,167,242SiliconValleyBank(SVB),81SiliconValley(TVshow),197Simon,Neil,122Sinatra,Frank,131,193Singh,Jasjit,71Siple,Paul,136Siskel,Gene,12260Minutes(TVshow),15Skoll,Jeff,119Skywalker,Luke,141Sloan,Alfred,120,139Smith,Robert,129Smith,Roger,81Snowden,Dave,26Snowdriftgame,37socialbrainhypothesis,44–45socialidentity,78socialimpacttheory,89–90socialindispensability,98socialintelligence,37,50socialization,51–52,74sociallycontextualthinkers,66–68socialnorms,41–44socialsensitivity,72SocietyofCincinnatus,248sociometrics,57–59Sony,30spindlecells,53–54Spiro,Jarrett,84–85Spock,Mr.,136Staats,Bradley,90

stability,8,19–20,95Stallone,Sylvester,129StandingintheShadowsofMotown(documentary),192StarbucksCoffee,101–2Starr,Ringo,184StarWarsfilms,141Steiner,Ivan,96Stendhal,146stereotypes,74–75,80Steuben,Baronvon,247SteveJobs(Isaacson),148Stewart,Jimmy,152Stewart,Rod,122storytelling,216,227–28Strachey,Lytton,147strategy,63,163stress-reducersvs.-inducers,46–47structure,8,13,19,64successfulteamshealthy,244–45unhealthy,240–42

Sullivan,Arthur,121Sun,40SunshineBoys,The(Simon),122SunTzu,147sustainablephase,217,229–30Sutcliffe,Stu,184Sword-and-Shieldpairs,149–55,159

Tallmadge,Benjamin,211–12Tanner,WilliamJ.,120tasks,61–62,94–99,237Taupin,Bernie,131TeamofRivals(Goodwin),148teams.Seealsopairs;teamsizes;trios;andspecificissues;phases;andtypesbirthandlifeof,210–35humandrivetoform,16–18,21magicnumbersbehind,16–34managing,92–100newscienceof,32–60powerof,xi–xxretirementanddeathof,236–50

teamsizes,xix–xx,87–912members(pairs),xx,12–13,37,45–46,101–593members(trios),20,78,160–823–5members(circleofclosestfriends),26,284members,183–865members(cliques),25–26,28,185–866members,1867±2members,xviii,22–24,26,183–92,194–95,197–9915±3members(sympathygroups),25–26,28,185–87,192–99,204–5,20950±10members(company1),26,28,103,200–206150±30members(company2),xviii,20,24–26,28–29,201–6450members,206–8500members,26,28–291,500members,xviii,26–31,103,206–84,500members(divisions),186additivevs.disjunctivetasksand,97Dunbarnumbersand,24–32formationphaseand,219

free-ridingand,89gapsin,208–9historyof,18large,90–91,200–209midsize,183–92networksand,30–32scalingfallacy,90stabilityand,20tasksand,96–100verylargeorganizationsand,207–8

Temptations,183tenure,76,80–82ThinkandGrowRich(Hill),147thinkingstyles,66–68Thomas,David,79ThreeMusketeer(Dumas),160Tinker,Joe,165,175–78,181“Together,We’reMoreThanTwo”teams,124–26Topsy-Turvy(film),121touch,54training,72–74,96,216transactivememory,64–65transitions,207Tribble,Bud,12trios,20,78,160–82creatingandmanaging,178–82diversityand,78formsof,166–78HallofFame,161–65volatilityof,20,160–61

TrumpEntertainmentResorts,9trust,8,26,45,186,198,201,204,221tugs-of-war,89,97turnover,78Twitter,xii,11,25,30,1902+1trios,165–68,174,177,179“TwoPizza”rule,188–89,198Tyco,9

ultimatumgames,42unitarytasks,96USAirways,9USArmy,21,142USNavy,99,142Uzzi,Brian,84–85

vanGogh,Vincent,121,133VAXminicomputer,150VirtualCorporation,The(DavidowandMalone),xiivirtualizedcorporation,203virtualworkteams,87volatility,19–20,160–61

WallStreetJournal,34Walmart,18Walsh,Bill,6,161–65Washington,George,148,210–14,218,223,246–49WashingtonMutual,9Wayne,John,118

Wegner,Daniel,64Weiss,Howard,67Welch,Jack,14welcomingevent,229–30Wertheimer,Pierre,134Wertmüller,Lina,187WestCoastoffense,161–65“we”versus“me,”51–52Whatsapp,202WhiteAlbum,The(Beatles),184whole-brainteams,69–70Wilcox,Brad,55Wilcox,Ken,81Williams,KatherineY.,75–77Wilson,Bill,129Wilson,Brian,122Wilson,David,46women,72,74–75,142Woolley,AnitaW.,61–63,72WorldCom,9WorldWarII,xii,18,21,166,189Wozniak,Steve,12,119–20,131WreckingCrew,193Wright,OrvilleandWilbur,126,136

Xenophon,7Xerxes,18Xiaomi,xiii

Yanomamopeople,25Yin-and-Yangpairs,126,131–33,135,154–55,168Young,Lester,118Young,Steve,7,161–62,164–65,177

Zittleman,Dave,107–12,125Zuckerberg,Mark,14,136

AbouttheAuthors

RICH KARLGAARD is the publisher of Forbes magazine, where he writes a featured column,InnovationRules,coveringbusinessandleadershipissues.Anaccomplishedentrepreneuraswellasajournalist and speaker, he is a cofounder of Upside magazine, Garage Technology Partners, andSilicon Valley’s premier public business forum, the 7,500-member Churchill Club. He is also theauthorofLife2.0,andTheSoftEdge:WhereGreatCompaniesFindLastingSuccess.HeliveswithhisfamilyinSiliconValley.

MICHAELS.MALONEisoneoftheworld’sbest-knowntechnologywriters.Aveterannewspaperreporter and columnist,magazine editor, and entrepreneur, he is the author or coauthor of nearlytwentyaward-winningbooks,notablythebestsellingTheVirtualCorporation,BillandDave,andTheIntelTrinity,whichwasnamedtheBestBookof2015by800CEOread.com.

Discovergreatauthors,exclusiveoffers,andmoreathc.com.

AdditionalPraiseforTeamGenius

“As technologymovesever faster, teamwork inbusinessbecomesevermorecritical.TeamGeniusoffersgreatadviceonhowtodoitright.”

—TomStaggs,chiefoperatingofficer,WaltDisneyCompany

“TeamGeniusrevealsascience-basedbreakthroughtobuildingteamsofpeopleassmallasapairandaslargeasthousands.Leadersareonlyasgoodastheteamstheybuild.Ifyouwanttobeastandoutleader,youmustreadTeamGenius.”—CameronHerold,executivecoach,formerchiefoperatingofficerof1-800-GOT-JUNKandauthor

ofDoubleDouble:HowtoDoubleYourRevenueandProfitsinThreeYears

“Team Genius is a rewarding look at one of the most fundamental of human forms—the team.Buildingonrelevantandreadabletheories,theauthorsdrawfromanabundanceofreal-world(andfun)examples to showwhat itmeans tounderstand,develop, improve,and retire successful teams.Highlyrecommended!”

—JohnSchlifske,chairmanandchiefexecutive,NorthwesternMutual

AlsobyRichKarlgaardandMichaelS.Malone

ALSOBYRICHKARLGAARD

TheSoftEdge:WhereGreatCompaniesFindLastingSuccess

Life2.0:HowPeopleAcrossAmericaAreTransformingTheirLivesbyFindingthe“Where”ofTheirHappiness

ALSOBYMICHAELS.MALONE

TheIntelTrinity:HowRobertNoyce,GordonMoore,andAndyGroveBuilttheWorld’sMostImportantCompany

TheGuardianofAllThings:TheEpicStoryofHumanMemory

TheFutureArrivedYesterday:TheRiseoftheProteanCorporationandWhatItMeansforYou

Bill&Dave:HowHewlettandPackardBuilttheWorld’sGreatestCompany

TheValleyofHeart’sDelight:ASiliconValleyNotebook,1963–2001

BettingItAll:TheEntrepreneursofTechnology

InfiniteLoop:HowtheWorld’sMostInsanelyGreatComputerCompanyWentInsane

TheMicroprocessor:ABiography

GoingPublic:MIPSComputerandtheEntrepreneurialDream

BigScore:TheBillion-DollarStoryofSiliconValley

Credits

COVERDESIGNBYJARRODTAYLORCOVERPHOTOGRAPH©CSAIMAGES/GETTYIMAGES

Copyright

TEAMGENIUS.Copyright©2015byRichKarlgaardandMichaelS.Malone.AllrightsreservedunderInternationalandPan-AmericanCopyrightConventions.Bypaymentof therequiredfees,youhavebeengranted thenonexclusive,nontransferableright toaccessandread the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse-engineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans,whetherelectronicormechanical,nowknownorhereafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofHarperCollinse-books.

FIRSTEDITION

LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationDatahasbeenappliedfor.

ISBN978-0-06-230254-0

EPubEditionJuly2015ISBN9780062302564

1516171819OV/RRD10987654321

AboutthePublisher

AustraliaHarperCollinsPublishersAustraliaPty.Ltd.

Level13,201ElizabethStreetSydney,NSW2000,Australiawww.harpercollins.com.au

CanadaHarperCollinsCanada

2BloorStreetEast-20thFloorToronto,ONM4W1A8,Canada

www.harpercollins.ca

NewZealandHarperCollinsPublishersNewZealand

UnitD1,63ApolloDriveRosedale0632

Auckland,NewZealandwww.harpercollins.co.nz

UnitedKingdomHarperCollinsPublishersLtd.

1LondonBridgeStreetLondonSE19GF,UK

www.harpercollins.co.uk

UnitedStatesHarperCollinsPublishersInc.

195BroadwayNewYork,NY10007www.harpercollins.com