In our research, we found that success comes with a trap: It can cause teams to rely more heavily on their most influential members or stars—in other words, the team’s hierarchy becomes entrenched. This makes the team less friendly and more likely to get stuck in old ways of doing things. And, ultimately, it increases your chances of failing the next time.
ball hog
To investigate how team dynamics work, we began by looking outside the business world—at basketball. In our study, published in Organization Science, we examined teams competing in the National Basketball Association in more than 60,000 games spanning 34 years. Taking advantage of motion-tracking-camera data, we examined how teams’ passing patterns and shot distribution changed after wins and losses.
We found that after winning, teams became more dependent on their star players. Teams passed the ball to stars about 6% more, and their shot distribution was skewed 15% more toward big players.
Although it was instinctive to repeat (“we want to take advantage of what worked before”), it reduced the teams’ chances of winning the next game. The increased reliance on star players made teams more predictable and easier to defend against the next opponent—and therefore less likely to win games.
This tendency to stick with the stars isn’t just true in competitive sports. All teams – especially those in the business world – double down on the work they’ve done. And it’s often a bad idea.
hold the reins
Next, we looked at teams that are commonly found in organizations and how they make their choices. We recruited participants to engage in several rounds of decision-making tasks as three-person teams. In each round, only one person could make the team’s final call.
Unbeknownst to the participants, we randomly manipulated their response: some teams were told after making a decision that they were doing very well; Others were told that they were doing very poorly. He was then asked who would decide the team for the next round.
Result: Participants whose team was successful exerted twice as much influence over the person who previously had the most influence – giving them 30% more influence over decisions in the next task than teams who lost.
We did not specifically look at how those teams with higher hierarchies performed. But a large body of research supports the idea that a steep hierarchy has negative effects. For example, one study conducted a meta-analysis of 54 existing studies with over 13,000 employees and found that overall, team hierarchy is negatively associated with team effectiveness – teams with a steeper hierarchy tend to exhibit lower performance.
Taken together, our two studies show that success threatens teams. What can leaders do? We have three evidence-based recommendations:
Build an egalitarian culture: In our research, we found that when teams started with a relatively egalitarian distribution of influence, they were less likely to fall into the “success trap”. Team. Likewise, assigning blame solely to the stars is less likely, so the team can have a clearer picture of what went wrong.
But managers need to keep a close eye on teams to make sure they are as egalitarian as possible. Sometimes factors irrelevant to expertise – such as gender, ethnicity, personality or socioeconomic background – can influence people’s perceptions of who is an expert and who is entitled to influence. Team leaders need to intentionally provide avenues of influence for more marginalized or socially reserved members.
For example, research conducted on major animation studios found that continued success was achieved by creating benchmarks that allowed any member to provide input even on areas outside their traditional domains of expertise.
Review your results: After a project, teams should conduct a structured review of what happened and why. Research shows that 30- to 60-minute questioning — a system pioneered by the military — can help teams uncover the interdependent contributions of all team members.
This helps teams develop a more accurate understanding of why things work and avoid unfairly doubling up on certain members or processes. Such debriefs have been shown to be particularly helpful in learning from success, improving team effectiveness, compared to many more expensive training programs such as managerial training and employee-error-management training.
think long term: Our research found that a strong desire to quickly replicate short-term success can harm a team by creating a greater disparity in influence. Because the goal is to be successful again soon, teams double down on the stars who got results last time—making the team more rigid and less adaptable.
For example, when leaders are focused on the near term, they are less likely to hear feedback and feedback from non-star employees – 12% less likely than when the team is oriented to the longer term. occurs, as found in our research.
To achieve sustained success, managers must move the focus away from short-term success – which can lead to rigidity – and set long-term goals, allowing teams to remain flexible and versatile. This means shifting the focus away from short-term success to redefining team deadlines, giving teams time to experiment and learn, and giving employees the opportunity and incentive to take risks.
Dr. Yan is Adjunct Professor of Organization and Innovation at the School of Management, University College London. Dr. Sherf is Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior and Sarah Graham Kenan Scholar at UNC Kenan-Flagler. Christopher To, an assistant professor in the Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations, also contributed to this research. Them[ईमेल संरक्षित]can be reached.