シャドーイング練習: Why Great Teams Don't Need to Like Each Other - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

各モードは全画面の練習ルームで開きます。

461 文

文が短すぎたり長すぎる場合は、Editをタップして調整してください。

I've heard a lot of CEOs complain in the last five years, we've lost our creative collisions in the hybrid and virtual world of work.

And I do think most people are missing creative collisions, but it's not spontaneity.

It actually drives the power of those.

The reason that creative collisions work was you end up having new ideas

when you interact with people you don't normally have access to because they bring you fresh perspectives.

And when you have informal interaction, because you're not just stuck to a rote agenda.

And so there's no reason why we can't structure more unstructured interaction.

And probably the best data I've seen on this show that

if you take salespeople and you just have them do a simple 30 -minute activity every week,

four months later, their individual revenue has spiked by 24%.

That is a tremendous return on a 30 -minute weekly investment per pair.

Adam, welcome to IdeaCast.

Thanks, Adi.

Great to be here.

Yeah.

All right.

Let's set it up.

Give us a sense of what the book is trying to do, what you're trying to address.

Well, I think we live in a world that's just starving for connection.

I think people feel like they're isolated from their teams.

They often feel disconnected from their bosses, certainly from their CEOs.

And so I'm really excited about trying to understand how we can build and maintain and even scale our connections.

And as I've dug into that topic over the last few years,

I've discovered basically we need four kinds of people in our work and our lives.

And I've come to think of them as associates, allies, pals, and companions.

So Adia, your associates are people who fulfill your needs.

It's a pretty transactional relationship.

Your allies are the people who share your goals.

You're on a mission together.

Pals are people who share your interests and hobbies, and you just have fun together.

And then companions are people who share your values, and you have deep affection for each other.

And I have watched so many leaders make the mistake of saying, look, if we want to strengthen our bonds in our company,

if we want to build stronger cultures, then we all need to be friends or pals or we need to build a company that's a family,

which is about being companions.

And those are not necessary steps.

Sometimes they're even counterproductive.

A great team and a great organization is made up of allies, but being pals or companions is optional.

So on teams, you know, as you said, many people assume that to succeed together, we need to like each other.

Your data suggests otherwise.

So what really matters then for teams to function effectively?

Well, it's not affection or even agreement.

It's alignment that matters the most.

And I think the evidence on this is so clear.

If you look at the research on team cohesion, it turns out there are two types of cohesion.

There's social cohesion, which is what most of us think of when we think of cohesion.

It's about singing Kumbaya and wanting to hang out together after work and do happy hours.

And then there's task cohesion, which is we say we share a purpose and we're not necessarily bonded within a group.

We are bonded to the group.

And if you look at the data,

what you see in work teams and also in sports teams is that task cohesion matters more than social cohesion for performance.

And so I think that a leader's first job is not to get people to enjoy each other's company.

It's to get people to say, look, we're bought in to a common direction and we have a set of values that unite us.

All right.

So if alignment is what matters, how do you encourage that if you're a leader, if you're an executive?

Well, I think the table stakes is to have a meaningful purpose that people think matters.

And the way I like to start on that is to ask executives, if your company didn't exist, if the work you do weren't happening,

who would be worse off?

The people who come to mind, they are the reason your work matters.

They're why you make a difference.

They're the mission that you want.

I've actually found in my research that when leaders articulate the impact of their mission on clients,

customers, patients, and users, it doesn't have nearly as strong of a motivating effect as when you actually bring in the customers,

clients, patients, or end users directly.

Because people know that leaders have an ulterior motive.

You are trying to convince people that their work is important so that they will work harder, smarter, and longer.

When the beneficiary comes in, the person who's directly affected by the work,

you feel a real connection between what you do and the effect on that person's life.

And so So I actually think

that a first step for leaders is to outsource their inspiration to the people who ultimately rely on the work you do.

So another thing you say in the book is that great gatherings are choreographed rather than spontaneous.

And that also goes a little bit against conventionalism, you know, that we work from home.

We miss the spontaneous interactions that are supposed to be very valuable.

Make the case that the gatherings, the meetings should be choreographed, that that's an advantage.

Well, I've heard a lot of CEOs complain in the last five years, we've lost our creative collisions in the hybrid and virtual world of work.

And I do think most people are missing creative collisions, but it's not spontaneity.

It actually drives the power of those.

There's nothing about creativity that requires us to just bump into each other.

The reason that creative collisions worked and the reason

that Steve Jobs designed the Pixar headquarters for people to run into each other on their way to the bathroom

or the cafeteria was you end up having new ideas

when you interact with people you don't normally have access to

because they bring you fresh perspectives and when you have informal interaction because you're not just stuck to a rote agenda.

And so there's no reason why we can't structure more unstructured interaction.

And probably the best data I've seen on this show that

if you take salespeople and you just have them do a simple 30 -minute activity every week,

four months later, their individual revenue has spiked by 24%.

That is a tremendous return on a 30 -minute weekly investment per pair.

And all they've been assigned to do is they've been randomly paired up, one salesperson with another who didn't know each other,

to just have lunch for 30 minutes.

You could do that in person.

You could do that virtually.

Guess what happens when two salespeople have lunch together?

They start to compare notes.

They exchange tips.

They learn from each other, and they get better at their jobs.

And so I think any leader who's not just inviting people who don't know each other to chat informally is missing out.

Now, another interesting idea in the book is that people can form truly meaningful connections relatively quickly.

And I'm wondering, so what does that tell us about onboarding, team formation, bringing strangers together inside organizations?

Are we thinking the right way about these things?

100

I don't think we are.

101

I think we're making two systematic mistakes when we do onboarding and socialization.

102

The first is we wait too long.

103

One of my former doctoral students, Konstantinos Kutifres, studied this, And he found that there's this waiting period between

104

when somebody accepts a job offer and when they start where they're just in limbo.

105

They're not formally a member of the organization yet, but they feel like they want to connect and they want to learn.

106

And he found that if you accelerate your onboarding

107

and do what he calls pre -boarding

108

and just have the hiring manager reach out two weeks before the start date to clarify the culture,

109

to say, hey, here's why I think you're going to add a lot of value here.

110

And, you know, give them a sense of belonging.

111

that that accelerates their learning of the culture

112

and it ultimately makes them more proactive and more effective in their job

113

and so i think we should we should not wait until day one to begin onboarding

114

and then the other mistake is once people do arrive

115

we are all about as my colleague dan cable found in research

116

he led we're all about breaking people in we say look

117

we want you to absorb our values we want

118

you to internalize our norms we're going to serve you the kool -aid your job is to drink it.

119

And that is less effective in connecting people to a meaningful contribution than if instead of trying to help them fit in,

120

we invite them to stand out.

121

So I love this experiment done at Wipro where people, when they are new hires,

122

instead of just going through standard on -the -job training or getting sort of indoctrinated into the organizational culture,

123

they're asked to come up with a personal highlight reel.

124

Come up with your career peak moments and share that with your new team.

125

Six months later, they have higher performance reviews

126

and they are significantly less likely to quit because they were able to bring their distinctive strengths to the table.

127

They felt seen and they felt valued.

128

Well, so that gets into the question about do employers truly want people to bring, you know, their full selves to work?

129

You know, several years ago, I think I would have said and HBR would have written, of course you want that.

130

You know, that's how you build strong teams.

131

That's how you get the most out of your employees.

132

There is a backlash to that.

133

And I think it was Mark Andreessen who said, you know, why would I want people to bring their whole selves to work?

134

I just want them to do the job.

135

You know, where do you come down on that question?

136

Well, I think in an ideal world, instead of bringing their full selves to work, people would just bring their best selves to work.

137

And if we could stop there, we'd be in good shape.

138

But the reality is we're dealing with human beings nobody is

139

going to be at their best for the majority of their waking hours every single day.

140

I think what's much more realistic is to say, bring your professional self to work.

141

And that means two things.

142

Number one, I want you to deliver on your job.

143

We've got a set of expectations for that.

144

And number two, I want you to live by our values.

145

We should have behavioral guidelines for what it means to uphold our principles and also what it looks like to violate them.

146

I think fundamentally, professionalism is about delivering results, maintaining good relationships.

147

And if you pay attention to what's in your job description and you follow the organization's values, you should be in good shape.

148

Let's talk about the best friend question.

149

So Gallup, and probably a lot of listeners have taken this survey.

150

Gallup famously, in its workplace survey, asked, do you have a best friend at work?

151

Which they say tracks with things like engagement and satisfaction.

152

Does that make sense based on your research?

153

I don't think we need a best friend at work.

154

But my colleague Segal Barsade found that just having one friend at work is enough to prevent people from feeling lonely.

155

So you don't necessarily need a strong connection to your entire team or multiple departments to feel like you're not isolated.

156

And I think Gallup's data on, you know, do you have a best friend at work?

157

We're probably picking up.

158

Do you have a friend at all?

159

I think this really goes back to the question of, are we associates or allies, or do we need to be pals or companions too?

160

And I think that really depends on the kind of work

161

that people are doing and the stability of the team they're in.

162

The longer that a team is going to stay together, the more it becomes useful to have a personal connection outside your professional interactions.

163

And so if you're building long -term teams that are going to spend months or years working on hard problems together,

164

there probably is the case to be made

165

that you want them to occasionally eat together

166

or socialize together outside of the office so that they can get to know each other on a more human level.

167

I think, though, that that is that is very much a secondary consideration relative to are we coming together,

168

knowing what our individual contribution is and creating a line of sight between

169

that and what the team or the organization is trying to accomplish.

170

So I want to talk about conflict.

171

And I think you make the case that conflict can strengthen relationships.

172

You know, most leaders spend a lot of energy trying to reduce that, you know, hiring for nice people.

173

Should they be doing the opposite?

174

it?

175

I don't think you should be hiring for jerks, but I have in a lot of my research over the years,

176

I found that what we're really asking about is not, is somebody nice or not?

177

We should be focusing on, are they givers or takers?

178

Givers are people who are trying to figure out what can I add for you?

179

What can I contribute?

180

Takers want to know what can I get out of this relationship?

181

They're all about me.

182

And I found that a lot of people, they basically stereotype givers as friendly, agreeable, warm, polite, nice, Canadian.

183

They think about disagreeable people as really unpleasant and they want to avoid them.

184

And what they forget is there are agreeable takers in every organization.

185

They are great fakers, Adi.

186

They kiss up and kick down, watch out.

187

Why did you mention my name?

188

I mean, I'm not pointing fingers here or anything, but I think that the higher you climb in your career,

189

the harder it is for you to gauge which agreeable takers are actually fakers because they are highly motivated to impress you.

190

If you have power and status, they will put their best foot forward with you.

191

It's actually their peers and subordinates who get to see their true colors.

192

So you can't always rely on your own judgment.

193

On the other side of this, we forget that there are also disagreeable givers who are vital to any workplace.

194

If you're a Ted Lasso fan, they're the Roy Kent's of the world, right?

195

They are dishing out tough love.

196

They're asking hard questions.

197

They're giving the critical feedback that people don't want to hear, but they desperately need to hear.

198

And I do think we under hire, we under reward, we under promote disagreeable givers

199

because we overreact to the kind of crunchy exterior

200

and we don't realize they're challenging because they care and they're trying to make us better.

201

And that is behavior we need to reward and incentivize.

202

Yeah.

203

Yeah.

204

So the model for the person who is obsequious up and stomps on people down, for me, is John Cleese,

205

Basil Fawlty and Fawlty Towers.

206

It perfectly exemplifies that.

207

But okay, so maybe more nuanced.

208

I mean, we hire for something called cultural fit, right?

209

Is that a trap?

210

Does that end up not giving us the kind of complementary skills and talents?

211

And, you know, what do you think about hiring for cultural fit?

212

I think it's a double -edged sword.

213

I think on the one hand, we know that early on it can be helpful.

214

So there's a 15 -year study of biotech startups,

215

for example, where the ones that prioritize cultural fit over just looking for skills or star potential,

216

they had dramatically lower failure rates and they were faster to IPO.

217

And if you stop there, you think, okay, I think bringing people in around culture fit is a great way to promote alignment and ultimately performance.

218

But then post IPO, those companies grew at slower rates.

219

They basically were too homogeneous and they didn't have people who were going to stretch.

220

anyone else is thinking and they were at risk for groupthink in a nutshell.

221

I think the antidote to that problem is to identify your core cultural values.

222

Um, my, my colleague

223

Drew Carton has found that you want a maximum of four.

224

If you start getting a longer list of values, people can't remember them all.

225

They don't define them the same way.

226

And they also don't agree on the relative importance of them.

227

So we want a small number of core values.

228

And what we want to do with those is we want people to fit on those.

229

So if your core values, for example, are excellence, integrity, generosity, those should be non -negotiable.

230

You should never hire somebody or promote somebody who violates those values.

231

But outside of those core principles, instead of culture fit, you should be looking for culture add.

232

The question is not, is somebody going to clone every single norm that we have here?

233

But rather, are they going to enrich our culture by filling gaps and bringing things that are missing right now?

234

So you worked with the U .S.

235

women's national soccer team.

236

And, you know, in your description, they came up with a really interesting short list of values.

237

Can you talk about sort of how you sort of drew

238

that out of them and what they were and what they said about, you know, what was of value to that particular team?

239

Yeah, I got called in to help them improve their vibe, which some of their superstars just thought was not even necessary.

240

They said, look, we should be focusing on our skills on the field, not our culture and our team's dynamics.

241

I think over time, they began to believe that culture actually drives how much you get out of your talent.

242

And one of the things that I did to try to help them align was I said,

243

look, we're going to throw out the cliches and buzzwords that normally define team values.

244

So when I initially asked them to list their values, they said winning.

245

They said teamwork.

246

They said respect.

247

They said accountability.

248

And I came back to them and I said, yeah, sounds like every other team on the planet.

249

Nobody's going to get fired up.

250

Sounds like an HBR article.

251

I mean, it could be.

252

You said it, not me.

253

I wanted them to come up with language that really met the criteria

254

that we use for building a collective identity in my field of organizational psychology, which is you want values that are distinctive,

255

central, and enduring to your group.

256

And so I challenged them to go to the stories that really defined when was the culture at its best?

257

What were the phrases?

258

What were the narratives that jumped out?

259

And they ended up aligning on four core values that I think are much more meaningful and emotionally evocative.

260

So one was leave it better.

261

And that was essentially about don't leave the break room a mess.

262

Try to make also the team better than you found it.

263

there was, I think, a more colorful way of capturing accountability.

264

And they said, look, we know you don't like testing your pee, but we need to find out if you're hydrated.

265

And we also need to make sure you're not on drugs.

266

This, by the way, does not sound like an HBR article.

267

No, I'm glad.

268

I'm glad.

269

I do not expect to see pee testing showing up in many behavioral guidelines for corporate values.

270

But then if you go up to the top, so we rank order them,

271

Value should be rank ordered so that you know when there's a conflict between two, which one is more important.

272

The top two for them.

273

Number two was what they called bloodbath mentality.

274

And that was a complete rebranding of excellence because they said, we want to win.

275

We want to be the best team in the world.

276

We want to be the greatest ever.

277

But that didn't really capture what it meant to live that value.

278

And I said, how will you know?

279

and one of the players said well what really made this team stand out the reason

280

that this is the greatest women's soccer team in history is

281

we will play through blood even in practice not just in games

282

so what really defines our attitude of winning is we are

283

the people who would rather bleed to death than walk off the field even

284

when the stakes are low and

285

that is a completely different statement about the culture than we're here to win

286

or dominate and then the last one Adi was my personal favorite.

287

They said, don't be an asshole.

288

I think it's, you know, it's become sort of a popular approach in a lot of organizations, but they codified it.

289

They said, look, what does it mean to be an asshole here?

290

It means no prima donnas.

291

It means you don't haze junior players.

292

This is not a fraternity or a sorority.

293

It means you actually show respect to staff, not just to fellow players.

294

And I think that really mattered to, you know, a fair number of junior players who felt like they were not being heard.

295

It also made the staff feel included and welcome.

296

And they ended up contributing, I think, more ideas because of that.

297

And, you know, fast forward a few years, they've had a lot of player turnover.

298

They brought in a new coach who's amazing, Emma Hayes.

299

But they have rekindled their vibe.

300

And I think coming up with the values that they were really passionate about may have been a big part of that.

301

You have a great line in the book that's associated with

302

that team that building a great squad is not about minimizing the differences between people, but about channeling their differences toward a higher purpose.

303

How does a manager try to do that, make that happen?

304

Well, I think this goes back to your question about conflict.

305

There are really three major kinds of conflict.

306

Actually, there are probably four.

307

But for our purposes, I think most of us, when we think about conflict, we think about what's called relationship conflict, which is the personal, emotional,

308

I hate your guts, I wish we didn't have to work together, and also, you smell.

309

Not productive at all.

310

There are other kinds of conflict that organizations actually need.

311

Task conflict and process conflict are the two that I think seem to have the most consistent benefits.

312

Task conflict is when we disagree about decisions, visions, and strategies.

313

If we don't do that, we're going to miss out on opportunities and threats.

314

And process conflict is when we disagree about who's going to do what, when.

315

If we don't do that, we're going to assign the wrong roles to the wrong people.

316

We're not going to have an effective workflow or cadence to getting things done.

317

And so I think channeling and harnessing people's differences to a higher purpose is really about saying,

318

how do we get productive task conflict and process conflict without it spilling into relationship conflict.

319

And one of the, I think the easiest steps for a leader to take on this comes out of Corinne Bendersky's work.

320

She shows that if you just preface a disagreement by saying, hey, can we debate this?

321

You activate a mental model that says,

322

look, we're actually supposed to disagree and we're okay with that and we can even have some fun with it.

323

So you also write about Metallica, which essentially saved itself by learning to fight better.

324

Um, you know, using that example, that anecdote, you know, what, what are lessons in how they kind of struggled,

325

but then came out on the other side?

326

What are lessons that, that, you know, teams and organizations can learn from that?

327

I think the biggest lesson I took away from Metallica going to group therapy, which was not something I ever expected.

328

Amazing.

329

Heavy metal band.

330

Yeah.

331

Was they were, they were actually failing because they were avoiding confrontation.

332

uh they had you know they'd had a couple of of particularly nasty fights

333

and they you know they insulted each other it even got physical at one point

334

and they were so afraid of the band falling apart

335

that they started walking on eggshells and nobody spoke their minds

336

and so you have this very passive aggressive dynamic uh people you know have real creative differences

337

but they're not willing to voice them or verbalize them

338

and i think that what they had to recognize was when When you give somebody constructive criticism, when you raise a difficult conversation,

339

you are doing that as an investment in improving your relationship with them.

340

Because relationships stagnate in silence and candor is the key to growth.

341

I'm not talking here about being brutally honest because as the saying goes,

342

people who take pride in being brutally honest are sometimes just interested in being brutal.

343

and I think the goal is to be both clear and kind.

344

And so one of the things that Metallica learned to do was to say, hey, instead of like this piece is crap,

345

to say, I want us to produce the best possible sound.

346

I'm not sure if what we just created is gonna measure up.

347

I know you're committed to that shared standard.

348

Let's talk about how to reach it.

349

I think this is true for all kinds of conflicts.

350

It's not the message that makes people defensive.

351

It's the motives of the messenger.

352

When people feel attacked or judged, they put their guard up.

353

If you can clarify, I'm raising this because I want us to be better.

354

I'd love to find out from you how I can do better.

355

And I have a couple notes for you if you're open to them.

356

Then we're actually allies, right?

357

We are on a team trying to solve a problem together from the same side of it, as opposed to pitting us against each other.

358

So we haven't talked about AI yet.

359

But, you know, it seems like AI technology is taking us away from human interaction to a degree

360

that we're having intimate interactions sometimes, conversational interactions with machines.

361

You know, do you feel like we're abandoning connection or we're just redefining it?

362

I think there's reason to be concerned that people are starting to abandon connection.

363

People are spending more time alone than they have at any point on record in most Western countries.

364

Not just teenagers, but many adults say they have an AI companion.

365

And some of them even say they'd rather talk with their AI chatbot than with an actual friend of theirs.

366

And I think the reason that's happening is chatbots are really good sick events.

367

They like us.

368

They flatter you.

369

Yeah, they tell you exactly what you want to hear.

370

It's like if your dog could talk.

371

All right.

372

They're wagging their tail and sticking their tongue out and you just feel loved all the time.

373

And human relationships are messy.

374

They are full of friction, but that friction makes us stronger.

375

And ultimately it can bring us closer too.

376

Because a relationship that cannot be tested is just a charade.

377

Every time you have an argument with someone

378

or you have a fight with someone or you take some tough feedback from them,

379

you are making an investment and saying this relationship is important enough to us that we're going to keep committing to it.

380

And that builds your shared resilience over time.

381

It allows both of you or all of you to know we are all in on this relationship.

382

We're going to do whatever we can to preserve it.

383

And I think we should be more willing to embrace the messiness of human interaction,

384

because after all, human connection is one of the few things that AI cannot replace.

385

So, you know, I have worked for companies

386

that viewed themselves as sort of politeness cultures and never in a compliment complimenting way.

387

I mean, that we're a politeness culture and therefore we're not we're not questioning the status quo.

388

We're not, you know, we're sort of just kind of going along.

389

There's something nice about a politeness culture.

390

There's something debilitating about it how do we know if we're in a politeness culture?

391

And if so, how do we move toward something a little bit more real?

392

I think the clearest test of a politeness culture is do

393

people say different things behind each other's backs than they say to their faces?

394

So are people constantly having a meeting after the meeting where they reveal what they really think?

395

If so, you might be in the middle of a politeness culture.

396

And I think the danger of that is

397

that you are only saying what makes people feel good today instead of communicating what's going to help them do better tomorrow.

398

And I think that's where disagreeable givers have a really powerful role to play.

399

I think the first thing

400

I would want to do is I would find the people who are good at challenging the status quo,

401

but are doing it because they care about the group or the organization.

402

And I would empower those people.

403

I would tell them, look, I don't think we have enough dissent around here.

404

I think we have too many people keeping the peace.

405

I want you to challenge me when I've seen leaders do this, it's extremely powerful.

406

So Konstantinos and I did an experiment

407

and also some longitudinal CEO surveys where we showed that it's one thing for leaders to ask for criticism.

408

People don't really know if you mean it.

409

Are you gonna take my concern seriously?

410

Are you gonna be too busy to pay attention?

411

Or are you gonna get threatened and shoot the messenger?

412

And most people decide it's just safer to stay silent.

413

What we found often works better is instead of just asking for criticism, to criticize yourself out loud.

414

When CEOs say, here's something I'm bad at, or here's what I've been told I need to work on,

415

or here's what my 360 revealed is a weakness of mine.

416

They're not just claiming that they're open.

417

They are actually proving that they can handle the truth.

418

And I think that leaders role modeling that behavior has two effects.

419

One is that other people do then speak up to you

420

and you start hearing the critiques and you get out of the politeness culture.

421

But also other people become more open about their own limitations too.

422

And you start to cascade a culture where people are really invested in not just trying to look good, but actually improve.

423

And I think what's so important about that is a lot of leaders say, you know, I get the effect.

424

I've had this conversation with more CEOs than I can count and very often what they'll say is, I see the power of admitting your flaws,

425

but I don't want to do it because then everyone's going to find out.

426

And I'm like, they already know.

427

You can't hide your shortcomings from the people who work around you.

428

They are acutely aware of everything you suck at.

429

So you might as well get credit for having the self -awareness to see your own foibles

430

and the humility and integrity to admit them out loud. So, Adam,

431

you know, there's a ton of great wisdom in your book that I think it's super valuable for companies and for teams.

432

Is there something, you know, we like to be very practical at HBR and with these podcasts.

433

You know, if somebody's listening to this and thinks, yeah, I want to do a lot of this stuff, it's a lot.

434

You know, we talked about a lot of things, like something they can do immediately to try to improve the culture,

435

improve the functioning of their teams.

436

You know, any sort of quick, quick starter advice that you might have?

437

Well, one place I'd love to see leaders start is, you know, we were just talking about shooting the messenger.

438

And I think the obvious advice is don't shoot the messenger.

439

Thank the messenger.

440

I would go a step further and say it's not enough to thank the messenger.

441

You really want to make a statement?

442

Promote the messenger.

443

Even Steve Jobs understood the power of this.

444

If you go back to the 1980s, the Mac team gave out an award for the person who most courageously challenged Jobs himself.

445

And when I first learned about that, my assumption was, okay, you're about to get fired.

446

They wanted to, you know, they wanted to praise you on your way out the door.

447

But what's remarkable is every year, the winner of that award was promoted by Steve Jobs himself.

448

He understood that he could have a chilling effect on the culture.

449

He knew that he needed people to challenge him.

450

And he thought the best way to make it clear

451

that he valued that was to actually elevate the person who did that productively.

452

And I think it's worth looking around your organization

453

and asking who are the culture carriers who aren't just championing the status quo,

454

but are actually looking for the tensions between who you claim you are and who you actually are,

455

who are pushing the organization to evolve give those people a megaphone,

456

give them a promotion, give them a bigger title and an opportunity to spread what they're doing.

457

I think that's a great way to figure out how to improve the vibe in your workplace.

458

All right, Adam, that is fantastic.

459

Thank you for being on IdeaCast and good luck with the book rollout.

460

Thank you.

461

It's always fun to vibe with you.

アプリをダウンロード

流暢に話すために必要なすべて

AI発音採点文ごとに採点

IPA練習すべての音をマスター

単語学習自分の単語帳を作る

単語ゲーム遊びながら覚える

QRをスキャン

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同じチャンネル

Leading with Courage in an Age of Uncertainty

FOR YOU

このレッスンの語彙とスピーキングのポイント

このスピーキングレッスンは、動画「Why Great Teams Don't Need to Like Each Other」を教材にしています。この動画には、シャドーイング用の文が461文、単語が5740語あります。音声の長さは31:30です。話す速さは速く、1分あたり約182語です。音のつながりや弱く発音される音が多くなります。単語の85%は英語の頻出3,000語に含まれます。残りは練習の前に確認しておきましょう。

この動画の重要語彙

動画に出てくる覚えておきたい単語15語を、発音と意味つきで紹介します。

単語	発音	意味
interaction 名詞	/ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/	相互作用
hire 動詞	/ˈhaɪɹ/	借りる
messenger 名詞	/ˈmɛs.ən.d͡ʒɚ/	使者, メッセンジャー
companion 名詞	/kəmˈpæn.jən/	仲間, 友人
collision 名詞	/kəˈlɪʒn̩/	衝突
ally 名詞	/ˈæl.aɪ/	アライ
meaningful 形容詞	/ˈmiː.nɪŋ.fl̩/	有意義な
vibe 名詞	/vaɪb/	氛囲気
lesson 名詞	/ˈlɛs.ən/	授業, 学科
associate 名詞	/əˈsoʊʃi.ət/	提携者
disagree 動詞	/dɪsəˈɡɹi/	反対する, 異なる
workplace 名詞	/ˈwɝkˌpleɪs/	職場, 仕事場
colleague 名詞	/ˈkɒliːɡ/	同僚, 同業者
relative 名詞	/ˈɹɛl.ə.tɪv/	親戚, 身内
soccer 名詞	/ˈsɑk.ɚ/	サッカー, 蹴球

動画に出てくる句動詞

単語	意味
find out 動詞	見出す, 調べる
look around 動詞	見回す
miss out 動詞	逃す
pick up 動詞	拾う, 拾い上げる

繰り返し練習したい文

動画に出てくる短く完結した文です。日常会話でそのまま使えます。

Are we thinking the right way about these things?
Does that make sense based on your research?
Do you have a friend at all?
Why did you mention my name?
Are you gonna take my concern seriously?

この動画の文法

話し手がよく使っている文型を、動画の実際の表現とともに紹介します。

文型	動画での表現
条件文 if + 節, will/would + 動詞 — 条件とその結果	if we could stop there, we'd be
現在完了形 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去の出来事が今も関係している	I've heard · I've seen · has spiked
受動態 be + 過去分詞 — 誰がするかより、何が起きるかに焦点を当てる	is made · are bonded · are choreographed
関係詞節 who / which + 節 — 人や物について情報を加える	people who fulfill · people who share · cohesion, which is

注意したい発音

話し手はwe're, don't, they'reなど、短縮形や弱形を133回使っています。聞こえたとおりの短い形で発音しましょう。

「th」の音: gathering /ˈɡæð.ɚ.ɪŋ/, strengthen /ˈstɹɛŋ(k)θən/, threaten /ˈθɹɛt.n̩/
「sh」と「zh」の音: interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, collision /kəˈlɪʒn̩/, associate /əˈsoʊʃi.ət/, essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, contribution /ˌkɑntɹɪˈbjuʃən/
長い単語（アクセントの位置に注意）: interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, associate /əˈsoʊʃi.ət/, necessarily /ˌnɛs.əˈsɛɹ.ə.li/, essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, experiment /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/

日本語話者が苦手な音：

/r/ と /l/ の区別 — /l/ は舌先を歯茎につけ、/r/ はどこにもつけない: necessarily /ˌnɛs.əˈsɛɹ.ə.li/, relative /ˈɹɛl.ə.tɪv/, principle /ˈpɹɪn.sɪ.pəl/, virtual /ˈvɜɹt͡ʃuəl/, rely /ɹɪˈlaɪ/
/v/ — /b/ にならないように、上の歯を下唇に当てる: vibe /vaɪb/, relative /ˈɹɛl.ə.tɪv/, virtual /ˈvɜɹt͡ʃuəl/, productive /pɹəˈdʌk.tɪv/, distinctive /dɪˈstɪŋktɪv/
/f/ — 「フ」ではなく、上の歯と下唇で出す: meaningful /ˈmiː.nɪŋ.fl̩/, feedback /ˈfiːdˌbæk/, define /dɪˈfaɪn/, affection /əˈfɛk.ʃən/, informal /ɪnˈfɔɹ.m(ə)l/

この動画での練習方法

まず声を出さずに動画を最後まで聞き、知らない単語をメモします。
まず0.75倍速で一文ずつシャドーイングし、慣れてきたら通常の速度に戻します。
自分の声を録音して元の音声と比べます。interaction, hire, messengerなどの単語に特に注意しましょう。

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由

シャドーイング（Shadowing）は、もともとプロの通訳者養成プログラムで開発された言語学習法で、多言語習得者として知られるDr. Alexander Arguelles によって広く普及されました。方法はシンプルですが非常に効果的：ネイティブスピーカーの英語を聞きながら、1〜2秒の遅延で声に出してすぐに繰り返す——まるで「影（shadow）」のように話者を追いかけます。文法ドリルや受動的なリスニングと異なり、シャドーイングは脳と口の筋肉が同時にリアルタイムで英語を処理・再現することを強制します。研究により、発音精度、抑揚、リズム、連音、リスニング力、そして会話の流暢さが大幅に向上することが確認されています。IELTSスピーキング対策や自然な英語コミュニケーションを目指す方に特におすすめです。

シャドーイングのやり方: ステップ別の完全ガイドを読む →

シャドーイング練習: Why Great Teams Don't Need to Like Each Other - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

アプリをダウンロード

Leading with Courage in an Age of Uncertainty

How to Find a Mentor Who Can Accelerate Your Career | Christine vs. Work

Turn Anxiety into Action

Stand Out in a Job Interview | The Harvard Business Review Guide

How to Be Creative on Demand

Commander's Intent Enables Great Leadership

Leisure's Not a Luxury. It's a Requirement for Top Leaders

The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy

How to Get Good at Small Talk, and Even Enjoy It

What Makes a Great Leader?

Can Work Make You Happy? Should It?

Use Strategic Thinking to Create the Life You Want

How AI Is Changing Strategy—and 4 Skills Leaders Need Next

A Smarter Way to Delegate: What to Keep vs. What to Hand Off

Identity Crisis: Why Defining Yourself by Your Career Is a Problem

Lean Into Imposter Syndrome, Don't Give In to It

If Your Team Never Fails, It Isn’t Learning

A Plan Is Not a Strategy

You Need to Be Bored. Here's Why.

Masterclass: Match Your Pace to the Moment

Trust the Process: How to Design Teams That Actually Work

Leadership Has To Be Learned | Simon Sinek

Things That Are Not What They Seem and the Truth About Life | Advanced Podcast for Conversations

Harvard AI Professor: The People Most at Risk From AI Aren’t Who You Think

How to Speak so That People Want to Listen - Julian Treasure

A Matter of Meaning: What Other People Teach You About Your Communication

"Dive Deep" Leadership Principle Explained by Amazon CEO Andy Jassy

Trevor Noah Makes My Brain Hurt | A Bit of Optimism Podcast

Emotional Intelligence: The #1 ability for leaders | Daniel Goleman

Why relationships in 2026 carry impossible expectations | Alain de Botton

How to sound like you belong in every room | Erin McGoff

このレッスンの語彙とスピーキングのポイント

この動画の重要語彙

動画に出てくる句動詞

繰り返し練習したい文

この動画の文法

注意したい発音

この動画での練習方法

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由