Autor: Michal

Superior teams tended to be very stable

The late Richard Hackman’s research into teams showed that superior teams tended to be very stable; they work together for a long time, getting to know and trust one another. Switching people in and out didn’t make them more creative—it was disruptive and dangerous: newness was a liability. Shuffling roles within a stable team produced enough change, while preserving the value of familiarity that develops from working together over time.

Margaret Heffernan: Beyond Measure: The Big Impact of Small Changes

Everyone had to see the whole company through eyes not their own

When it came time to draw up the company’s annual budget, each department head drew up a budget for that department—but then had to explain it so cogently to one colleague that the colleague could defend it at the leadership team meeting. The chief technology officer would argue the case for marketing, the head of sales spoke on behalf of operations, customer care explained technology’s needs. The impact of this simple exercise was profound. Everyone had to see the whole company through eyes not their own.

Margaret Heffernan: Beyond Measure: The Big Impact of Small Changes

Features that made some teams much better than others

[The] goal was to identify the salient features that made some teams much better than others. What they found was that individual intelligence (as measured by IQ) didn’t make the big difference. Having a high aggregate intelligence or just one or two superstars wasn’t critical. The groups that surfaced more and better solutions shared three key qualities. First, they gave one another roughly equal time to talk. This wasn’t monitored or regulated, but no one in these high-achieving groups dominated or was a passenger. Everyone contributed and nothing any one person said was wasted. The second quality of the successful groups was social sensitivity: these individuals were more tuned in to one another, to subtle shifts in mood and demeanor. They scored more highly on a test called Reading the Mind in the Eyes, which is broadly considered a test for empathy. These groups were socially alert to one another’s needs. And the third distinguishing feature was that the best groups included more women, perhaps because that made them more diverse, or because women tend to score more highly on tests for empathy. What this (and much more) research highlights is just how critical the role of social connectedness can be.

Margaret Heffernan: Beyond Measure: The Big Impact of Small Changes

Problém je v tom, že Bůh není

Svěřuje se mi: „Často se mi v duchu vrací výjev, který nedokážu zvládnout. Že jsem měl nehodu, přišel jsem o nohy, jsem na vozíku a dělá mi radost pomyšlení, že se o mě bude někdo starat a že lidé na mě budou hodní. Násilím se musím nutit k návratu do skutečnosti. Mám přece nohy, stojím na ulici a žádnou nehodu jsem neměl. Děti mě milují, lidé mě mají rádi, já se mám taky rád, obě manželky se teď dokonce spřátelily. Co bych tedy ještě mohl chtít? S psychoterapeutem jsme došli k názoru, že možná já, ateista, takhle sním o nadlásce, o jakési milosti boží.“
„Takže by stačilo, abys začal věřit v Boha.“
„Ano, ale problém je v tom, že Bůh není.“

Mariusz Szczygieł: Udělej si ráj

Všichni umírají stejně

Ošetřovatelka Bronislava Husovská (roku 2010 se stala Sestrou roku) říká, že když ještě nepracovala v hospici, myslela si, že se věřícím umírá lehčeji. „Ale teď vidím, že před smrtí pociťují pokoru jak věřící, tak nevěřící. A také vidím, že všichni umírají stejně. V naprostém klidu. Zpočátku jsem si myslela, že člověk musí být vnitřně téměř svatý, aby se dostal do nebe. Ale teď se nemůžu ubránit dojmu, že tam přijdou všichni.“

Mariusz Szczygieł: Udělej si ráj