Leadership & Teams
Frameworks and practices to build healthy, high-performing teams
All Cards in This Deck
Explanation
Google's massive Project Aristotle studied 180 teams and found psychological safety was the single most important factor for team success—more important than individual talent or resources. Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson discovered that when people feel safe to speak up, admit mistakes, and take risks without fear of punishment, teams perform dramatically better.
Example
Pixar's 'Braintrust': Directors show unfinished films, get harsh feedback, no judgment. Result: 15/16 films were #1. Google: Engineers can say 'I don't know' without shame. Result: They solve harder problems. Hospital: Nurses can challenge doctors. Result: 50% fewer deaths.
Explanation
Created by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, this model recognizes that effective leaders adapt their approach based on each person's skill level and motivation for specific tasks. A new employee needs clear direction, while an experienced team member needs autonomy. Even the same person may need different approaches for different responsibilities.
Example
New hire, new task: Tell exactly what to do (Directing). Some experience: Guide and explain why (Coaching). Competent but unmotivated: Support and encourage (Supporting). Expert and motivated: Set goals, get out of way (Delegating). Using wrong style = frustration or failure.
Explanation
Psychologist Bruce Tuckman identified four predictable stages every team goes through. Forming is the honeymoon period where everyone's polite but unclear about roles. Storming brings conflict and competition as people assert themselves. Norming establishes agreements and working relationships. Performing is when the team hits its stride. Most teams either get stuck in conflict or fake harmony to avoid difficult conversations.
Example
New team seems great (forming). Month 2: Arguments about everything (storming). Leader panics. But this is normal and necessary. Push through with clear norms. Month 3: Real alignment (norming). Month 6: Magic happens (performing). Teams that skip storming never truly perform.
Explanation
Developed at General Electric, this diagnostic tool recognizes that most team dysfunction isn't about personality conflicts—it's about lack of clarity. The hierarchy matters: unclear goals create role confusion, which creates process problems, which damage relationships. Start at the top and work your way down, or you'll be treating symptoms instead of causes.
Example
Team failing. Leader does trust falls. Still fails. Why? Goals were unclear. Another team has conflict. Personality workshop? No—roles overlapped. Two people thought they owned same decision. Fix roles, conflict disappears. Start at top, work down.
Explanation
Management consultant Patrick Lencioni discovered that team problems aren't random—they follow a predictable pattern. Without trust, people won't engage in productive conflict. Without conflict, they won't truly commit to decisions. Without commitment, they won't hold each other accountable. Without accountability, everyone focuses on personal success instead of team results. Each level depends on the foundation below it.
Example
Team misses targets (inattention to results). Why? No one holds each other accountable. Why? No real commitment to plans. Why? Decisions made without real debate. Why? People don't trust each other enough to disagree. Start with trust, everything else follows.
Explanation
Most leaders delegate badly by telling people exactly what to do step-by-step, which creates dependency and stifles growth. Effective delegation gives people ownership of results while providing clear boundaries and support. When you delegate the outcome but let them figure out the method, you develop their problem-solving skills and free up your time.
Example
Bad: 'Send these three emails, format them like this, send at 2pm.' Good: 'We need partners excited about launch. Success = 5 confirmed attendees by Friday. Budget is $1k. Weekly check-ins. You decide the how.' Second approach develops people.
Explanation
Intel's legendary CEO Andy Grove calculated that 90 minutes of quality one-on-one time can improve someone's performance for two weeks—an incredible return on investment. These aren't status meetings (which waste everyone's time) but focused conversations about their challenges, growth, and career development. The key is making it their agenda, not yours.
Example
Bad 1:1: Manager talks whole time about project status. Good 1:1: 10 mins personal connection, 20 mins their challenges/growth, 15 mins feedback both ways, 15 mins career development. Employee leaves energized, not drained.
Explanation
Most workplace conflict stems from confusion about who's responsible for what decisions. The RACI matrix eliminates this by clearly defining roles: Responsible people do the actual work, Accountable people own the final outcome (and there can only be one per task), Consulted people provide input before decisions are made, and Informed people are updated afterward.
Example
Product launch chaos. Why? Three people thought they were accountable. Five thought they should be consulted on everything. RACI clarified: PM accountable, Eng responsible for build, Design consulted on UX, CEO informed of progress. Chaos → Clarity.
Explanation
Research shows that leaders naturally develop different quality relationships with different team members. Some people become part of the 'in-group' with high trust, challenging assignments, and frequent communication. Others remain in the 'out-group' with basic, transactional relationships. While this might seem unfair, it's natural—and the quality of these relationships strongly predicts performance and retention.
Example
Same leader, two employees. One gets challenging projects, mentoring, flexibility (high-LMX). Other gets routine tasks, standard rules (low-LMX). Guess who performs better, stays longer, gets promoted? Not about favoritism—about relationship investment.
Explanation
Former Google and Apple executive Kim Scott identified why most feedback fails: it's either too soft to be useful (ruinous empathy) or too harsh to be received well (obnoxious aggression). Radical candor means genuinely caring about someone as a person while also being willing to challenge them directly about their work. Both elements are essential.
Example
Ruinous empathy: 'Great job!' (when it wasn't). Obnoxious aggression: 'That sucked.' Manipulative insincerity: Says nothing. Radical candor: 'I care about your success. That presentation missed the mark because of X. Let's work on it together.'
Explanation
Most team conflicts arise from unspoken assumptions about how things should work. A team charter makes these expectations explicit by documenting the team's purpose, values, norms, and operating procedures. Unlike rules imposed from above, effective charters are created collaboratively by the team and serve as their 'constitution' for working together.
Example
Team charter: Purpose: Ship delightful features fast. Values: Customer first, bias for action. Norms: Cameras on, start on time, disagree openly. Decisions: Driver proposes, team debates, leader decides if no consensus. Meetings: Daily standup 9am, weekly retro Friday. Posted on wall.
Explanation
Originally from Agile software development, retrospectives are regular team meetings focused on learning and improvement. Without this structured reflection time, teams tend to repeat the same mistakes and miss opportunities to get better. The key is focusing on processes and systems rather than blaming individuals, which requires psychological safety.
Example
After project: What went well? (Ship on time, great teamwork). What didn't? (Unclear requirements, late nights). Why? (No customer input, poor estimation). Actions: Customer in sprint planning, buffer estimates 20%. Next project: 50% fewer issues.
Explanation
Most people avoid conflict until it explodes or becomes personal. Healthy conflict resolution involves addressing disagreements when they're still small and focusing on underlying interests rather than stated positions. The goal isn't to eliminate conflict but to make it productive by separating the people from the problem.
Example
Position: 'We need more people.' Position: 'We need fewer people.' Interest behind first: 'We're overwhelmed with work.' Interest behind second: 'We're spending too much.' Now you can solve the real problem: how to manage workload cost-effectively. Maybe better tools, not more people.
Explanation
Robert Greenleaf's philosophy flips traditional leadership: instead of accumulating power and having others serve you, you serve others to help them succeed. This approach builds stronger teams because people feel genuinely supported rather than just managed. It's about developing people, not just directing them.
Example
Traditional leader: 'What can you do for me?' Servant leader: 'How can I help you succeed?' Traditional: Takes credit for team success. Servant: Gives credit to team, takes responsibility for failures. Traditional: Hoards information and decisions. Servant: Shares information and develops decision-making skills in others.
Explanation
These meetings help you understand what's really happening in your organization beyond what your direct reports tell you. They also show you care about people at all levels and give you early warning about problems. Skip-levels aren't about going around your managers—they're about getting a fuller picture and building relationships across levels.
Example
You learn that a policy you thought was working well is actually causing frustration two levels down. Your direct report didn't mention it because they didn't realize the impact. Or you discover that someone has great ideas but feels their voice isn't heard. These insights help you make better decisions and coach your managers.
Explanation
Daniel Goleman's research shows emotional intelligence (EQ) is more predictive of leadership success than IQ. It has four components: self-awareness (recognizing your emotions), self-regulation (managing your emotions), empathy (recognizing others' emotions), and social skills (managing relationships). Leaders with high EQ create better team climates and get better results.
Example
Low EQ: Snaps at team when stressed, doesn't notice when team member is struggling, takes feedback personally. High EQ: Recognizes stress signals in self and takes a break, notices team member's body language and checks in privately, receives feedback with curiosity and asks clarifying questions.
Explanation
Unclear decision-making authority kills team speed and creates frustration. People either make decisions they shouldn't or avoid making decisions they should. Clear decision rights eliminate this confusion by explicitly stating who owns what types of decisions and what input they need before deciding.
Example
Team lead can make hiring decisions up to certain level with input from team. Budget decisions over $X require manager approval. Technical architecture decisions belong to senior engineer with consultation from team. Customer policy changes require product manager approval with legal review. Clear boundaries eliminate guesswork.
Explanation
Managing is about getting immediate results through direction and control. Coaching is about developing people's capability to get results themselves. Great leaders do both but know when to coach (when you have time and they have potential) versus when to manage (urgent situations or performance issues). Coaching takes longer initially but creates lasting capability.
Example
Managing: 'Here's how to handle this customer complaint...' Coaching: 'What do you think this customer really needs? What options do we have? What would you recommend and why?' The second approach takes longer but develops their judgment for future situations.
Explore More Decks
Get Full Access in the App
Unlock AI-powered conversations, create custom decks, and track your learning progress.
Download on App Store