Shadowing Practice: Why Great Teams Don't Need to Like Each Other - Learn English Speaking with Video
Kies een oefenmodus
Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.
461 zinnen
Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.
1
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.
2
And I do think most people are missing creative collisions, but it's not spontaneity.
3
It actually drives the power of those.
4
The reason that creative collisions work was you end up having new ideas
5
when you interact with people you don't normally have access to because they bring you fresh perspectives.
6
And when you have informal interaction, because you're not just stuck to a rote agenda.
7
And so there's no reason why we can't structure more unstructured interaction.
8
And probably the best data I've seen on this show that
9
if you take salespeople and you just have them do a simple 30 -minute activity every week,
10
four months later, their individual revenue has spiked by 24%.
11
That is a tremendous return on a 30 -minute weekly investment per pair.
12
Adam, welcome to IdeaCast.
13
Thanks, Adi.
14
Great to be here.
15
Yeah.
16
All right.
17
Let's set it up.
18
Give us a sense of what the book is trying to do, what you're trying to address.
19
Well, I think we live in a world that's just starving for connection.
20
I think people feel like they're isolated from their teams.
21
They often feel disconnected from their bosses, certainly from their CEOs.
22
And so I'm really excited about trying to understand how we can build and maintain and even scale our connections.
23
And as I've dug into that topic over the last few years,
24
I've discovered basically we need four kinds of people in our work and our lives.
25
And I've come to think of them as associates, allies, pals, and companions.
26
So Adia, your associates are people who fulfill your needs.
27
It's a pretty transactional relationship.
28
Your allies are the people who share your goals.
29
You're on a mission together.
30
Pals are people who share your interests and hobbies, and you just have fun together.
31
And then companions are people who share your values, and you have deep affection for each other.
32
And I have watched so many leaders make the mistake of saying, look, if we want to strengthen our bonds in our company,
33
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,
34
which is about being companions.
35
And those are not necessary steps.
36
Sometimes they're even counterproductive.
37
A great team and a great organization is made up of allies, but being pals or companions is optional.
38
So on teams, you know, as you said, many people assume that to succeed together, we need to like each other.
39
Your data suggests otherwise.
40
So what really matters then for teams to function effectively?
41
Well, it's not affection or even agreement.
42
It's alignment that matters the most.
43
And I think the evidence on this is so clear.
44
If you look at the research on team cohesion, it turns out there are two types of cohesion.
45
There's social cohesion, which is what most of us think of when we think of cohesion.
46
It's about singing Kumbaya and wanting to hang out together after work and do happy hours.
47
And then there's task cohesion, which is we say we share a purpose and we're not necessarily bonded within a group.
48
We are bonded to the group.
49
And if you look at the data,
50
what you see in work teams and also in sports teams is that task cohesion matters more than social cohesion for performance.
51
And so I think that a leader's first job is not to get people to enjoy each other's company.
52
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.
53
All right.
54
So if alignment is what matters, how do you encourage that if you're a leader, if you're an executive?
55
Well, I think the table stakes is to have a meaningful purpose that people think matters.
56
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,
57
who would be worse off?
58
The people who come to mind, they are the reason your work matters.
59
They're why you make a difference.
60
They're the mission that you want.
61
I've actually found in my research that when leaders articulate the impact of their mission on clients,
62
customers, patients, and users, it doesn't have nearly as strong of a motivating effect as when you actually bring in the customers,
63
clients, patients, or end users directly.
64
Because people know that leaders have an ulterior motive.
65
You are trying to convince people that their work is important so that they will work harder, smarter, and longer.
66
When the beneficiary comes in, the person who's directly affected by the work,
67
you feel a real connection between what you do and the effect on that person's life.
68
And so So I actually think
69
that a first step for leaders is to outsource their inspiration to the people who ultimately rely on the work you do.
70
So another thing you say in the book is that great gatherings are choreographed rather than spontaneous.
71
And that also goes a little bit against conventionalism, you know, that we work from home.
72
We miss the spontaneous interactions that are supposed to be very valuable.
73
Make the case that the gatherings, the meetings should be choreographed, that that's an advantage.
74
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.
75
And I do think most people are missing creative collisions, but it's not spontaneity.
76
It actually drives the power of those.
77
There's nothing about creativity that requires us to just bump into each other.
78
The reason that creative collisions worked and the reason
79
that Steve Jobs designed the Pixar headquarters for people to run into each other on their way to the bathroom
80
or the cafeteria was you end up having new ideas
81
when you interact with people you don't normally have access to
82
because they bring you fresh perspectives and when you have informal interaction because you're not just stuck to a rote agenda.
83
And so there's no reason why we can't structure more unstructured interaction.
84
And probably the best data I've seen on this show that
85
if you take salespeople and you just have them do a simple 30 -minute activity every week,
86
four months later, their individual revenue has spiked by 24%.
87
That is a tremendous return on a 30 -minute weekly investment per pair.
88
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,
89
to just have lunch for 30 minutes.
90
You could do that in person.
91
You could do that virtually.
92
Guess what happens when two salespeople have lunch together?
93
They start to compare notes.
94
They exchange tips.
95
They learn from each other, and they get better at their jobs.
96
And so I think any leader who's not just inviting people who don't know each other to chat informally is missing out.
97
Now, another interesting idea in the book is that people can form truly meaningful connections relatively quickly.
98
And I'm wondering, so what does that tell us about onboarding, team formation, bringing strangers together inside organizations?
99
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.
App downloaden
Alles wat je nodig hebt om vloeiend te spreken
AI UitspraakScoor elke zin
IPA OefeningBeheers elk geluid
WoordenschatBouw je woordenschat op
WoordenspelLeren terwijl je speelt
Zelfde Kanaal
B21
How to Find a Mentor Who Can Accelerate Your Career | Christine vs. Work
Business EnglishInterview EnglishUniversity Students
C17
Turn Anxiety into Action
Business EnglishWorking Adults
B2Stand Out in a Job Interview | The Harvard Business Review Guide
Business EnglishInterview EnglishUniversity Students
C15
How to Be Creative on Demand
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C15
Commander's Intent Enables Great Leadership
Business EnglishWorking Adults
C11
Leisure's Not a Luxury. It's a Requirement for Top Leaders
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
The Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B22
How to Get Good at Small Talk, and Even Enjoy It
Business EnglishDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
What Makes a Great Leader?
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
Can Work Make You Happy? Should It?
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
Use Strategic Thinking to Create the Life You Want
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
How AI Is Changing Strategy—and 4 Skills Leaders Need Next
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C16
A Smarter Way to Delegate: What to Keep vs. What to Hand Off
Business EnglishWorking Adults
C13
Identity Crisis: Why Defining Yourself by Your Career Is a Problem
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C13
Lean Into Imposter Syndrome, Don't Give In to It
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
If Your Team Never Fails, It Isn’t Learning
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C14
A Plan Is Not a Strategy
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C140
You Need to Be Bored. Here's Why.
Business EnglishUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C1Masterclass: Match Your Pace to the Moment
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
FOR YOU
Aanbevolen Video
C11
346 zinnen
Trust the Process: How to Design Teams That Actually Work
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
382 zinnen
Why trying to make the “best” choice can make you less happy
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
127 zinnen
Leadership Has To Be Learned | Simon Sinek
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
1164 zinnen
Trevor Noah Makes My Brain Hurt | A Bit of Optimism Podcast
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
828 zinnen
Harvard AI Professor: The People Most at Risk From AI Aren’t Who You Think
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
450 zinnen
How to Speak so That People Want to Listen - Julian Treasure
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C138 zinnen
"Dive Deep" Leadership Principle Explained by Amazon CEO Andy Jassy
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
784 zinnen
Confidence Expert: The Quiet Habit Behind Self-Belief You Can’t Fake | Dr. Shadé Zahrai
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
388 zinnen
A Matter of Meaning: What Other People Teach You About Your Communication
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C12
145 zinnen
Emotional Intelligence: The #1 ability for leaders | Daniel Goleman
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
251 zinnen
Things That Are Not What They Seem and the Truth About Life | Advanced Podcast for Conversations
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze spreekles is gebaseerd op de video “Why Great Teams Don't Need to Like Each Other”. Deze video bevat 461 zinnen en 5740 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 31:30. De spreker praat snel, ongeveer 182 woorden per minuut, dus reken op verbonden en ingeslikte klanken. 85% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden; de rest kun je beter vooraf bekijken.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
15 woorden uit de video die het leren waard zijn, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| interaction zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/ | wisselwerking, interactie |
| hire werkwoord | /ˈhaɪɹ/ | huren |
| messenger zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈmɛs.ən.d͡ʒɚ/ | boodschapper, bode |
| companion zelfstandig naamwoord | /kəmˈpæn.jən/ | metgezel |
| collision zelfstandig naamwoord | /kəˈlɪʒn̩/ | botsing |
| ally zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈæl.aɪ/ | bondgenoot, bondgenote |
| meaningful bijvoeglijk naamwoord | /ˈmiː.nɪŋ.fl̩/ | zinvol |
| vibe zelfstandig naamwoord | /vaɪb/ | vibraties |
| lesson zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈlɛs.ən/ | les |
| disagree werkwoord | /dɪsəˈɡɹi/ | niet overeenkomen, niet overeenstemmen |
| workplace zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈwɝkˌpleɪs/ | werkplek, arbeidsplaats |
| colleague zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈkɒliːɡ/ | collega, medewerker |
| necessarily bijwoord | /ˌnɛs.əˈsɛɹ.ə.li/ | nodig, noodzakelijk |
| relative zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɹɛl.ə.tɪv/ | familielid, bloedverwant |
| soccer zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈsɑk.ɚ/ | voetbal |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| come up with werkwoord | bedenken, verzinnen | |
| end up werkwoord | belanden, terechtkomen | |
| figure out werkwoord | uitvogelen, er achter komen | |
| find out werkwoord | ontdekken, onderzoeken | |
| come together werkwoord | /ˈkʌm tʊˈɡɛðɚ/ | bijeenkomen, samenkomen |
| fall apart werkwoord | uiteenvallen, uit elkaar vallen | |
| pick up werkwoord | oppakken, optillen |
Zinnen om te herhalen
Korte, volledige zinnen uit de video die je in alledaagse gesprekken kunt gebruiken:
- 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?
Grammatica in deze video
De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:
| Structuur | In de video |
|---|---|
| Voorwaardelijke zinnen if + zin, will/would + werkwoord — een voorwaarde en het gevolg | if we could stop there, we'd be |
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | I've heard · I've seen · has spiked |
| Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet | is made · are bonded · are choreographed |
| Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding | people who fulfill · people who share · cohesion, which is |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 133 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals we're, don't, they're. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: gathering /ˈɡæð.ɚ.ɪŋ/, strengthen /ˈstɹɛŋ(k)θən/, threaten /ˈθɹɛt.n̩/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, collision /kəˈlɪʒn̩/, associate /əˈsoʊʃi.ət/, essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, contribution /ˌkɑntɹɪˈbjuʃən/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, associate /əˈsoʊʃi.ət/, necessarily /ˌnɛs.əˈsɛɹ.ə.li/, essentially /ɪˈsɛnʃəli/, experiment /ɪkˈspɛɹ.ə.mənt/
Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:
- Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: vibe /vaɪb/, onboard /ɒnˈbɔːd/, colleague /ˈkɒliːɡ/, relative /ˈɹɛl.ə.tɪv/, reward /ɹɪˈwɔɹd/
- /æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, companion /kəmˈpæn.jən/, ally /ˈæl.aɪ/, pal /pæl/, rank /ˈɹæŋk/
- /g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: disagree /dɪsəˈɡɹi/, colleague /ˈkɒliːɡ/, gathering /ˈɡæð.ɚ.ɪŋ/, integrity /ɪnˈtɛɡɹəti/, organizational /ˌɔː(ɹ)ɡənɪˈzeɪʃənəl/
Zo oefen je met deze video
- Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
- Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
- Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als interaction, hire, messenger.
Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?
Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.