Stories from reality - How do we do teaming today - Leila Ljungberg

yeah good morning everyone welcome to this um morning seminar I will start and hand over uh the word Lea Yung by she is been working with teaming and doing a lot in what you call Agile environments and driving this but um what I know her also a lot from is that she is the contributor to the book that P Maria has written so if you have written if you had read the book you surely have uh heard some of the sayings from Leila so I will hand it over to you thank you so much engla for for that introduction yeah that was many years ago that book uh and that was uh fantastic and great and I hope that it provided some insights for you if you readit so my name is Leila Yung and nowadays I actually work as a consultant at a bureau called doings and we have the humble aim uh as I would presume that many of you have to make this world a little bit of a better place uh person by person team by team and organization by organization so that's just briefly who we are and I'm really really happy to be here with today to talk about theming because collect intelligence is really what I strongly strongly believe in and you can just see that by the power of all of you here today uh that's a collective with a bunch of intelligence that I know of seeing a lot of your names on the list so uh it's going to be super interesting to see how we can leverage that today um can we just say that if they have any questions they can write it in the chat and there will also be an opportunity afterwards to to to address the questions to Lea so sorry for that yes that's how we will manage the collective intelligence so right in the chat box Ina will help me out to see if you have asked something uh that's super nice and I will leave some time by the end as well if you have anything that you want to ask me but I would also like to hear from you to talk more about teaming so this is the team that I work with every day uh and we work a lot with the coaching team development and organizational change uh we were we do that from a lot of leadership questions a lot of culture questions trying to make sure that um companies are living and doing their very very best let's see if this works yes and these are our values and principles that we live by which actually made me choose doings because if you look at these pretty closely you can see that they are really really closely connected to the agile values uh which made me think that this is the perfect match we will work so greatly together and that actually stands true we believe in a co-leadership so we are 17 people 18 I think actually nowadays that are doing that together co-leading ourself to live according to our values so just briefly uh yeah I've struggled I had one work life where I mostly struggled upstreams uh and and in that work life I actually met pmia and many others from the AG people community other other Heroes out there struggling to create something else uh I really wanted to see if there were another way that we could work together that was well suited towards being being a human being with other human beings where we were supposed to leverage this you know brain we have here inside of us because everywhere where I looked that were not really what we were doing and I I continued this quest for many years uh I tried to work from the HR box and fortunately what happened to me was that in a very early stage I was at the it consultancy firm and I discovered uh competence Network that was focusing on working in agile ways this made me super curious what what is all of this about and I really quickly realized that these values they were really resonating with me and they were resonating with being a human being leveraging this um Capital that we have inside of our heads and really working authentically with that so I worked as uh people in culture manager in uh many different Global organizations for many years and I tried to build HR functions from the notion of the agile values and principles um so that is kind of what you can see in these pictures my my constant struggle and then all of the sudden I realized that something has changed and shifted uh people wanted to work in this way so that became an opportunity to me uh to really kind of a little bit let go of the struggle uh and I joined doings to work a little bit more with these type of questions that I was really passionate about which was all about you know coaching individuals growing teams and growing organizations from these perspectives so that is actually what I do mostly nowadays and I would say that a majority of my time has been spent with teams and figuring out different teams uh different ways for teams to be as engaged and as effic efficient that they can be and I love that it's so much fun which brings us to today's topic I met Ina the the other month actually it wasn't this month it was another month and we were at this lunch webinar and we started to talk about teaming actually because it's so interesting about how we do that nowadays what actually works and how can we apply theories in practical cases so we started talking about that and so we ended up here uh having this little stories from reality thingy with all of you so I'm going to walk you through this today uh and I'm I'm going to give you a very brief brief introduction to three different fantastic Mighty researches that has a lot of thinking and theories that have been studied and applied on teaming and group development and then I'm going to talk a little bit um about how I actually apply these different theories in real life in practicality with a few of uh customer cases that I brought here for you today and of course I would like to trigger your own thinking in this and it would be really interesting and to hear in the end what you think works really well when you work with Team development or building teams what is working for you and how do you leverage different theories okay so I'm going are you ready yes this lady she's a mighty one so I will not deep dive into the different theories but I will talk a little bit about what I personally like with them and I will also talk a little bit about what the critics say about them um so for you who don't know psychological safety has been booming uh for a few years now so this theory is about how we create an environment for teams where they can be as efficient as possible as engaged as possible when we have a lot of complexity around us and we have an uh environment that requires us to be really good problem solvers or really creative thinkers so in that context how can we become the best possible versions of ourselves so you can read and see here on the slide about the definition about psychological safety from am Edmonson there are a few other ones as well but let's focus on her for for this session today so psychological safety is I believe that no one will be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas questions concerns or mistakes so that is her definition of a psychological safe that is and I'm going to talk a little bit more about how you can create that but I wanted to tell you first that what I do like with psychological safety talking about practical application is how well suited psychological safety actually is when you have complex environments when you have uh a lot of uncertainties a lot of unknown areas and you really need to have a strong collaborative environment for the team and you need need to be able to uh get the most Innovation power um out of people that are involved so I think uh that is my personal take on how psychological safety has been really suitable when I meet teams that are in that type of environment so let's just look a little bit on how you do it so um I really like this uh short uh sheet sheet we can call it that uh Amy uses herself and she talks about Hardware or software of teams so for me this has been a really good like checklist while working with teaming uh in this case so you need to have the hardware a lot of structural things like we need to scope what type of challenge we are looking at why are why are we a team what are we trying to accomplish we need to understand that to be able to find the expertise in the team that is needed and when we know what we are doing we need to talk about how we actually are building value how do we do things and then of course if we have a complex environment this question sorting priorities and interdependencies is not as easy as it might seem that could be really complex but who is doing what first and what do we need to succeed so those are more of the hardware the structural things in regards of psychological safety and then we have the software of psychological safety that is you know understanding and connecting to a deeper purpose of of why we are doing things what are we doing and why and this is of course good for many different benefits but mostly it triggers internal motivation to do things and it creates a a glue in the team that sticks us together and we also talk about how we are doing things and this is something that helps us to you know let go of that energy to to constantly drain ourself with figuring out how we're doing things rather we talk about it very explicitly so it's out there and then of course the hard question of learning actually so it it does seem simple on the surface but we all know that if we are in teams with a little bit more higher diversity both if it's demographical or neurodiversity it requires a little bit bit more from us and there will be Divergent ideas there will be mistakes and it's really good also to have made it more explicitly how we actually handle that type of learning so I'm not going to dive any deeper into psychological safety I'm I'm presuming most of you have heard of it and if you haven't I I hope that you will be curious to learn more after this session but I'm also going to highlight actually what some critics talk about when they um hear psychological safety so one thing is cultural variation and that would be also interesting to see if there are some of you here from from other cultures rather than my perspective which is one specific one uh but some critics says that there is a aspect of cultural variation which does not make psychological safety Universal rather you could see that it is influenced by the different types of cultures and it doesn't apply straight away to to all type of cultures that we have around us and there are also potentials for misuse this is something that I actually meet very often that psychological safety is seen to as a way to you know be be really nice as an example just be nice to each other uh which is a bit of a misunderstanding of what psychological safety is but if you just dive into it very briefly that might be have you receive a psychological safety which might also U be something that could create some confusion of how it actually should be working in reality so that was Amy Edmonson and psychological safety uh a little bit of what I like about it a little bit about what the critics say about it uh I'm moving on to another Mighty woman uh this is Ruth wagaman I don't know if you have heard about her uh she's not as famous as Amy is but her research is pretty impressive um so the thing I like with vman's research is that she has a lot of recent research we're talking about the 30 years that has been upcoming for now so it's pretty recent research even though it's very uh longitudinal um and she has been looking at efficiency for leadership teams a lot uh which has been relevant for me because I worked a lot with teaming for leadership teams as well but she has also looked at other teams and she have found these six conditions uh that collectively could lead up to predict up to 80% of Team efficiency so it's pretty solid research and that's impressive for me um and I think that the thing with vman's research is that it's very uh similar but a little bit more Concrete in structure towards edmonson's research on psychological safety so they're really like Well Suited together let's look at it a little bit closer so maybe this picture is a little bit small for you but I'm going to read you through it so you can see there are two triangles in this picture and it's actually uh chronological order of these different triangles in her model so the first triangle is what your supposed to kind of walk through first and the top of that triangle says real team so uh this is actually a really tricky question that I've um met myself during a lot of I made a lot of mistakes in this area during the years I've tried to create teams of a bunch of people who are not really a a real team uh and this is the hard way to do this Lessons Learned so I can just tell you this directly that that doesn't work uh people do not want to work work together if they are not actually not a real team because there are no uh there are no genuine need for each other in that context and I've tried to do this actually from the agile perspective because I've thought you know okay but we are all okay we are HR we are Finance we are it we are all here to make something great for the employees as an example that was like my really naive idea of how to create a team in this context but the thing is like it finance and HR had really like not the same goals in this and maybe not the same perspective and maybe not even the same value base actually to stand from so uh that is something I've I've um I've worked upstreams with a lot of times during the years trying to create teams of groups of people who actually are not a team so it's a good question to ask yourself actually it's very existential but it starts there are we a real team is this a real team and if it is what is this team's purpose and if you dive into vag's research a little bit deeper you will see that she has also like different alternatives for this like when we're talking about the team's purpose there are a bunch of different purposes that could stand true for this team um but yeah so is this a real team and if it is what is the team purpose as you can see very closely connected to edmonson's uh hardware and the software of teams as well and so uh we are also talking about who are in the team and why are we in the Tim and in this case we are referring to you know competencies and roles which expertise is needed again to be able to create our mission at hand and maybe we're also missing somebody that could be the case as well so does this team have a compelling purpose so compelling is kind of a key word in this as well and it is again we're talking about internal motivation that is the thing because we know that when we trigger this area in the brain we will have more grit we will have more stamina we will stand tall through the challenges that we will meet as a team so co-creating a compelling purpose is one of the core structures here and then we go to the lower triangle and as you understand if we have these three parts first we have cleared out some foundational questions about teeming together but the the lower triangle here that asks what is the structure of this team do we have a sound structure for this team and I I think this is um it's very easily to see if you work with a leadership team but also in other teams that you know they might have those first three questions in check but maybe they haven't worked so much on making the structure of the sche explicit how we actually are building structure and value together how we are communicating with other teams what we're doing in which orders etc etc and then I think this question is really interesting because uh this is an external perspective of the team that is not maybe often looked at do they have a supportive context so does this team have a supportive context and I like this because this resonates with the servant leadership you know that we're building foundations or structuring an organization that actually helps this team to be their very best but this could also be about you know training could be about resources all types of things around the team that can make the team even better and then I don't know if this is a really smart sales trick from vagan or if it's just meant for us consultants in general or no I have a personal view on this of course but she talks about team coaching there is an upside of having a NE neutral facilitator who helps the team to develop and go through their evolutionary phases um of course this could be some someone external like me you can hire me of course but it could also be H somebody in the team who takes on this role and I think it's a good thing to do within the team to take on the facilitator role and to actually uh shift so different persons works on developing the skill set but that is mostly maybe from my personal point of view that I think facilitating is you know the leadership for the future and vag talks about Essentials for the first triangle and then she talks about enablers for for the later triangle and I think this is really connected to this a facilitating skill set is really an enabler for a group's Evolution to become more engaged and efficient yes so what I like about vaman's uh model and way of thinking with six condition is that this is really clear it's a really solid clear structure you can dive deeper into this and you will have questions and and more details in the different parts I I really like that um what critics says is that there are some rigidity in the conditions like they're a little bit too rigid sometimes which makes it harder to apply in all team contexts and the critics also say that it overemphasizes a little bit on structure uh when you have a more Dynamic and fluid team it might be harder to average this structure so um that is a little bit of my point of view and a little bit of the critic's point of view on vagam man's research about teeming okay this Ladi is may be somebody you recognize as well so uh we can't talk group development if we're not referring to Susan wheen huh it's kind of a must have in this mix uh I think it's also interesting because we wheel's perspective applies a little bit of another dimension in regards to edmonson's and to vman's uh research but as you know wheen has built on on tak's theory of group development and what she is looking at is more of the natural group development over time you know all of these different developmental phases that a teams go through so uh the good thing that her research shows is that usually when you work just with looking at the different phases that a team go through with a team that the team themselves becomes really you know skilled on recognizing the different signs of which kind of evolutionary phase they are in that actually brings more team efficiency in engagement because the team feels more ownership they become more skilled at moving from one phase into another so um that is just really short on Will's theories I'm also going to just show this picture if you don't know about wheel theories this is what they look like so uh you usually use the metaphor of a person growing up when you talk about wheel's um natural team development phasal so first you're in this more polite phase uh where you have the dependency and inclusion and then when things have been polite for a while you start to go into conflict when you realize that you have things that you think differently about and you want to disagree a little bit upon to be able to get the next phase uh the conflict phase and then when you have gone through that you are supposed to have more of the trust and the structure which naturally happens when you gone through the hard times together as well and then you get to a higher performing stage and then there's also a closer face in this but I think most of you have seen Susan Will's model before maybe even tried out GQ which is the test questionnaire connected to this where you actually can work a little bit more Clos closer on this so I personally think that it's really good and easy language to to leverage wheel's you know this analysis of where a team is at when I go into a new team to kind of recognize what has happened here where are they at right now where do we need to go and I also like that you can Pro provide the team with the self-efficiency of actually themselves making these analysis being able to recognize where they're at in their Journey so some of the critiques towards uh vence theories is that there are somewhat of an overgeneralization uh that is oversimplified uh with the Team Dynamics and it's a bit more of a linear approach so it's a little bit harder to apply in more complexity or when you have more of this fluid space the team are acting with um so that is just just really briefly on on wheel's Theory and how I like it and what the critics say so the good thing with these Mighty researches and their theories is that they are really good to just mix together uh I love that uh I love to to take the best parts of of theory and apply into practical uh scenarios so what we can see that is similar for all of these three theories is that they are both very focused on team effect iess and they're very also focused on team inter dependencies that we are realizing that we are dependent of each other within a team to be able to create what we want to have the outcomes of the team the differences between these teams is that they have a bit of different approaches to teaming and how that works um there have a bit of different views on the environmental perspective around the team uh and also what type of conditions a team need need and they're also focusing a little bit more depending on which Theory you look at at the individual in the team context or the the team as a collective uh a group that is moving together just to highlight that but I think that the the most important part to realize as well is that they are all working very well together um so I'm really curious to see how you are thinking when uh you are maybe meeting a new team and you're trying to help them to move on forward uh maybe just becoming better or maybe resolving something that has been tricky but this is a bit of questions that I'm thinking about when I'm meeting a new team to understand where they are currently at and since I'm a consultant I need to do this pretty quickly actually uh there's no slack because they charge me by hour or I charge them by hour so this need to be an efficient process uh so I'm usually looking at you know uh what what is uh this team supposed to do together why do they need each other why are there supposed to be a team a pretty provocative question sometimes but sometimes really good to just realize and go back to basic it's a bit of of understanding the why in a really deep level and this is something you can ask of course if there's a team leader or a team manager uh or yourself if you're a team leader or a team manager but also the individuals in the team because it's really interesting to see if this is something that is really well anchored with all or if this a question that still has um a bit of unclarity to it and it also directs the rest of the efforts that you want to do when you need to understand who are in the team um who needs to be in the team maybe if there are not uh if there are competencies or role missing when you need need to understand where the team is at it's also good to see uh what they are supposed to do do together some type of background you know there could be conflicts or things that has been happening before or there have been a lot of movement uh and you recognize that this is maybe not a stable team is more of a fluid team uh and that is the context that they are acting in and it will be that way that requires certain things and then of course what type of structure do they have already what does it look like right now so these are a few of my questions um and and the things that I'm thinking about when I meet a new team and I really uh mix all of the theories actually when I do this and I'm G to be even more explicit in how I actually do this with a few of Team cases and when I talk about these team cases now feel free to you know drop a question in the chat box or raise your hand if if you want to ask something I I won't be able to dig into details uh from the customer and team aspect but maybe in how I apply Theory so quizer this is one of my customers where I have a role as a I usually say as a janitor or something similar because I do a little bit of everything and what is needed at certain times sometimes it's sweeping floors sometimes it's building something new VI or sometimes is making sure that the elevator is working um but this is um a scaleup uh that works with educational Technologies um they are spread all over the world uh so it's a really hybrid team setup they they have a few offices they have a few persons that are like uh you know alone in different parts of the world because they need to um they have a global customer base they are in some kind of scaleup phase so uh things are moving fast there are never enough hands uh I think a lot of you recognize this phase to be in uh and uh it's a lot of change it's constant change so um I've I've done a lot of different things with these companies but in this case we're focusing on on team development and uh working with the CEO as well because I think that the thing here with with this customer in this case is that when you have fluid teams which I think psychological safety is a really well suited theory for uh you need to be able to create you know both um a big structure uh that enables uh this psychological safety to happen in smaller context because the team needs to be uh set up in a fast and small structure and then it might be you know let go of and then there might be another team constellation um so in this case is a lot about creating both uh organizational structure for smaller teams to be able to set it up uh and that is also very highly connected to each and every individual in the company to be able to have the self- awareness the self- leadership to see and build small teams and contribute to small teams as they need so in this case we have been working on the organizational purpose a lot and we have also been working on making sure that each individual is connecting to that overarching purpose a lot uh because the team purpose is a bit harder in this context because it's constantly fluid so the team purpose might be set up in a smaller context depending to need towards a certain customer in different times but we have worked a lot on the Bigg structure and the individual um uh um self leadership from that perspective so they both have this common language that where they actually can refer to psychological safety and how you do that and how they contribute to that but also that they have the organizational structure presets to be able to do that uh in the bigger picture this also becomes more important when you have a lot of remote and hybrid working team members because um a lot of things within psychological safety is about min izing the threat response to make sure that we can be the best version ourselves and if you are supposed to do that you need to be clear on the structure that you have for different things like how do I give feedback in this organization if I have an idea for the product where do I go or if I want to connect to other team members and then I'm all alone here in my country in my home office how do I connect with them what kind of areas and surfaces is there for me to connect to others so a lot of you know organizational setup from that perspective and co-creating and refining that together for them to be able to feel that they have the presets in the organization to be able to contribute and build the psychological safety they need together so uh the case at quiser has been a lot about growing fluid safe teams together and I think that psychological safety has been the theory that I I definitely apply the most here to be able to provide them with what they need in this kind of constantly moving uh Team structure okay I'm moving on so the Red Cross uh so uh this has been a really interesting uh assignment as well because it's changed a lot uh during the process and I will see the most important thing in this case actually has been the question question of a real team is this a real team so the mission at first was actually to uh work with one isolated team in the organization to see if they could try out more agile ways of working and if that then later on could be applied to other teams in the organization as a whole so a bit of uh experimental uh first case super interesting uh the challenge was though that this team was actually like four teams that had been uh just merged to one team and uh we had this you know ambition in the beginning to work with directly the agile ways of working uh moving on right into those kind of practices but in this case which we realized after failing a bit that's that's how I do it I fail a bit and then I realize new things was that uh it's not doable to jump into the agile ways of working without understanding if this is a real team uh and if it's not uh what is a real team here uh so we started out with the way of working we realized me and the team manager in this case that this was not the path that we could take to move on forward um and we changed the scope so what we instead did was to structure up the real teams Within These team to understand what are a team in this context what is the scope of their challenge there there was of course just to be clear already very clear missions for this different teams that were merged that they were supposed to work with the problem was just that we couldn't just merge these four different um Team challenges or Scopes to one because there were two different and there were no natural dependencies of each other if we would just have merged them to one um so we actually yes question yeah the question is uh what did you do in the team development sessions yeah so we we SE we started with separating them actually because we realized that we couldn't work with them all together as one and in in this team development session it was a a lot about defining the scope and the challenge of their mission at first so kind of containing that structuring that so much closer in co-creation of course with that natural team uh what is the the scope and the challenge where should we cut and slice it and when the challenge was a little bit more clearer working on um that team's way of working and in this case there were a lot of changes actually a lot of structural changes so I would say in this case it was um both in the beginning to realize that okay when we when we put all of these persons together in the room there's um the uh you could apply Will's Theory to the to this because you saw that there is something really wrong here it does not work as it should um and then when we separated them you could apply whe and Theory again because you could see that they were in so different phases all of the different teams and they needed a little bit of different things so one team need to work really a lot with you know what's the what's the scope and challenge ahead another team they needed new roles they actually needed to shift roles and they needed um different competencies in different roles and then a third team needed to work a little bit more on their their ways of working so we separated it into these different team working uh value tracks instead and work with this during a long time actually to figure out and make it a bit more clear for each of these teams what they were doing how they were working and which roles were needed so a lot of change uh on both structural and behavioral areas as well and in the end they could actually come together and start working on their agile Manifesto they had their own um principles that they uh could start to co-create and then they could do that uh all of them together because it was more on a principal basis and they could start to see that they had synergies across the teams that still could be appliable in case of learning uh mostly from each other and leveraging insights across the different teams uh so that was kind of a a interesting process uh that I learned a lot from myself in um in how to work with analyzing uh teams and working with real teams I hope that uh gave some answers on the team development sessions uh I can talk a bit more about that in this last case as well uh so I might have cilia online I don't know that would be fun um Cecilia is uh one a chro at Exum one of my customers as well uh where we have been doing a lot of things together and they have also worked a lot with teams in this company actually as well but uh Cecilia came to me with a specific team in mind so this was also really different case from the other two so this was a specific team who were in a challenge uh and the aim was to get back to a stage where this was a really trusting and high performing team because they needed to be really Innovative uh which is one of the core competencies that this company has have and they needed to leverage that even more in this specific team so there had been a a conflict earlier and the result in this has also been that there was not this you know even air time in this team but rather a few persons had a lot more air time and this uh this you know it's a super nice team and all of that but the thing is that you couldn't leverage the full innovation of the full collectives intelligence here so what we did was a very structured approach here with uh different team development sessions and then some individual coaching as well between uh the manager and the team members so I think that was really key in this as well because since there had been a conflict it would have been super challenging to walk in for me to as a team facilitator to walk into this team when the conflict was you know in full blossom that would probably not have worked very well so the team manager had already worked with the individuals who were involved in this case and and have talked a lot about this and it was like you know at the uh at a calmer calmer level and these persons these individuals were really ready to take the next step so I think that was an important preset uh for me to be able to come in here and deliver value when I was working with the whole group in these team development sessions so in this case we worked a lot with psychological safety um and we also uh worked a lot with the real Team question because this is a matrix organization with uh cross functional teams so in this case this is a team that um had a specific purpose together but maybe not uh the same purpose as as most teams have uh because they shared Purpose with other teams as well so we actually had three very structured questions where we uh sessions where we worked first on the team purpose why are we a team and and how are we working together and each in each of these sessions we did this co-creation phase together together but I also gave them um commun communicative tool of some sort for each session to be able to improve their uh communication skills with each other at the same path so we worked with you know the purpose of the team and then we practiced active listening or we worked with ways of working in the team how do we want to behave towards each other how are we doing things and then we practiced a feedback method um so these this was the setup of the three different team sessions um to be able to get to a stage where they felt more safe uh to express um how they were feeling or their ideas Divergent ideas when co-creating and doing Innovation together but they also became a little bit better at facilitating how they work together since that was a bit of the challenge to be able to get to this stage of more of an Innovative climate when when they were supposed to great things together so I would say in this case I worked a lot with both vagan and edmonson's Theory psychological safety and six conditions for a team to be able to uh provide them with the structure uh that they needed uh to uh work in a more Innovative way structure and Innovation that's how it goes cool so uh now I've been talking for so much time I can't hear my voice anymore um but I'm curious to hear from you uh I'm really curious to hear from you what you think works or if you have any questions for me uh talking about how you apply Theory into practice Yeah we have a question from y album uh do you want to address it yourself maybe because I missed that it was about the first example please we cannot hear you yeah yunas are you there we cannot hear you so um he what he's asking is how did you come up with this setup and workshops with the whole team online them sorry the whole team what was first uh uh workshop with the whole team and did you do it online um was this for the first case with quer yeah yeah okay cool um so yeah yeah that has been uh not a straight straight cut line process but um uh we we have worked a little bit with different ways actually but I think the the the one thing that made the most uh impact which I could see at least that's a problem with hybrid you don't you don't know uh but uh the thing is we they had an all hands physical All Hands where uh they gathered the whole company and when they did that it was like for a week or something like that then we we took the opportunity to make a bigger um um both educational and co-creating thing where we worked with the team purpose uh behaviors to to succeed with this and actually also which organizational structures forums meeting spaces they needed to be able to do this and I think uh that physical room was really well needed to uh to make sure that people went home back you know into their remote space and felt like they knew now that this was okay and that I could use this because this is also one of these companies where cultural differences has cultural variation is a is a big question because the employees are from all of over the world so a lot of different cultures mixed up together but but yeah physical uh and if I would have done it in another way we would try to made it of course remote uh but I would have preferred at least to do one thing physical or a first thing physical um and then the next thing remote that's um because that's how we have worked afterwards as well thank you we have a question from Matias Matias W would you like to yeah I'm I'm I'm curious about how we can um um move from the the typical stable teams setup where we where we um say need to retam more and more often to handle uh cross value stream uh collaborations any ideas any tips yeah I'm I'm so happy you brought this up because maybe I haven't or I haven't had the chance to talk about this but this has been one of my like trickiest challenges like do we even have stable teams anymore is that a thing nowadays uh or maybe do we only have teaming like the verb that we're like constantly doing teaming because everything is fluid around us all the time and I think what uh for me has been a key as a facilitator for teams uh which I also tried to to work with team manager and team leaders on is to take these theories like psychological safety as an example hardware and software for teams or vaman's you know conditions or something that has the structure thing to it and make it in a smaller format when you go into a fluid team like am I only working with this team for like two or three months I could still leverage a lot of those structural components to make sure that some threatening stuff that could be on people's brain is taken care of and cleared out like why we're doing things how we're doing things um and even to make a small investment in co-creation of that not telling as a manager or a facilitator how it is but having that element of co-creation even though it's really small uh makes the engagement I think personally it's it's my experience I can't I don't have any research to back this up is just my experience that that makes it a lot more efficient do you have any other ideas yourself now I'm I'm I totally agree that there's a lot of um progress and and value to to be found when you invest time in that way but from my point of view I I I see from organizations a tendency to invest in the hardware setup of the team and less on the software setup and how can we how can we show them the value of investing also in the software the team yeah good question that's a challenge for me yeah yeah if you have the answers please please provide me with those insights and I would leverage that to all my customers okay thank you very much no but I I think I I think you're on to something uh because the thing is that the hardware of the team uh is is also sometimes set up already in an organization like it's it's clear but I think uh the software of a team is a lot about the co-creational phase for me uh one key has been in understanding that the leadership of the future requires facilitation that's like key because if you're a good facilitator you can facilitate these things in the smallest of context in a hybrid context in a real life context in short and long term so uh I would invest in facilitation uh as a company or as a team or as a manager whatever but I know it's it's it's always is a challenge of making somebody realize this investment H great outcomes from the team later on maybe yeah great thank you we have a question from cash also do you want to address it yourself um am I hi am I audible hi um yeah my uh question is uh a bit specific to teams that are following uh the agile methodology and uh uh well what I'm curious about is to understand if uh it's a good practice that uh a team that's following the agile methodology which kind of states that okay teams need to be flexible enough to um accommodate ad hoc work that comes in uh is is that kind of a good practice to have multiple focuses or have situations where you need to shift Focus every now and then and uh related to that is is uh how is such a team uh going to be able to achieve um like a high performance um you know how is that kind of a team going to reach that stage yeah yeah yeah I think you're addressing one of our hardest challenges in modern time like if we're if we're moving from the notion of of what we just talked about the teams and environments being constantly fluid uh we see that okay so we need to create a space to be able to context which or we need to create a space where we're able to handle multiple uh value streams at one time on the other hand we also know that the human being is not made for context switching we know that context switching costs a lot every time we do that and of course if you think about this as an individual then you have to multiply it when you put it into team context because if we're context switching and doing multiple things at a time in a team context it costs even more because it also requires understanding in between us to be able to get an outcome from from every time we're switching to a new value track um I think you know there is a there is a core value that we we might have lost uh during the time in VI limits you know work in progress limits and how much things we are supposed to do at one time I think also there is a a strong value in in trying to um uh organize for chaos uh as I like to call it you know we have a solid structure where we keep an awareness uh to be able to be resilient in the face of change that things are going to change like that that's a constant that and that we know that that is happening so we need to kind of build that in in the system but I also think there should be a balance H sorry this is like a really consultant answer it's so much but and ifs and maybe but but there need to be a balance because otherwise we know that we won't finish anything what are you thinking yourself um well for me uh personally I feel in this kind of situation like with the four stages that a team can be in that you uh showed in one of the points earlier I think if a team has like a solid focus on one goal for example and diligently and consistently Works towards that then I think that team it would be easier for that team to move from stage one to stage four and become more mature uh and high performing than a team uh which has these sort of you know shifting of context uh all that it take it I I feel that it will take that kind of a team more time to become uh mature and high performing in that sense so I was just trying to like U uh to wrap my head around how can we strike a balance where the team is handling both addressing both that issue that okay if they need to do the contact switching they can handle it and at the same time they are also kind of progressing towards becoming more mature as a team in a very yeah I I think you're right and like like striking the balance that's kind of the key and I would like from a very practical standpoint just recommend to work really hard with retrospectives like and when you do the retrospectives you don't work only with what we have done and accomplished to realize how much change we can handle during one period of time but also how we are progressing as a team there's so many teams that are like a little bit too loose uh with the retrospectives nowadays I think you should like be a little bit more Str strict about that from the team needs at certain points of time like so this happened during this Sprint how this did it actually work for you um yeah I see so you're saying that individually we need to address that to the team members that how did it work for you in this Sprint or something like that I would do it in a group context with a retrospective after a period of time yeah both the what and the how yeah I see yeah thank luck tell me how it goes thank you thanks great thank you we have one more question if you have time uh it's from pontus maybe you would like to address it yourself yeah hello uh I was uh thinking about conflict handling or conflict resolution which I think is a very important thing with teams and do it structurally do you have any thoughts about that yes it's super important and this is something you want teams to be kind of self-sufficient in as well so you don't have to go for the external consultant pa um so uh in one of these cases that I actually had uh I uh I also I I I told you that I was providing them both co-creation of how to work as a team but also communicative tools for each session so this was part of one of these communicative tools how do we uh how do we work when we have different point point of views which you know the first stage of a conflict kind of uh and how can we become better at meeting each other when we're at that stages so I think this is something that uh gives so much return of invests to in invest in providing people with communicative tools to be able to solve their own differences both with self-awareness and and uh concrete ways of working with each other to get to that point um yeah that's my brief have one great um thank you thank you Ila it was very interesting listening to you so interesting that I did not really follow properly with the chat but I think it worked out one away so a big thank you uh I really like the three ladies and the resourcers uh and you put it together in a very nice uh setting and um uh vagan she was a little bit new to me but very interesting so I will definitely dwell into learning more about that concept um would you like to say something before we run no just I'm I'm happy if you would share an Insight in the chat box when you leave I hope I sparked some curiosity uh that's my main focus like if you become more Curious life will be funnier and feel free to add me on LinkedIn if you have any further Hot Topics that we can discuss because this is my top discuss thank you so much all of you for being here today great thank you everyone uh we will share the recording we will share uh Leila's presentations in a mail afterwards um we are already planned the next story from reality uh for March um no February sorry uh so I will uh shortly come back with more information about that uh so thank you for today thanks for attending us I say yes Lea please follow us on LinkedIn and look forward to meeting you all on the next story from reality have a fantastic day