Mark Murphy shares insights from his research on maximizing team effectiveness.
You’ll Learn
- Why you don’t want a team of all “team players”
- The simple trick for more decisive teams
- How to get your team to generate 3X more valuable ideas
About Mark
Mark Murphy is a New York Times bestselling author, Senior Contributor to Forbes, and Founder of Leadership IQ, a research and training firm. His latest book is TEAM PLAYERS: The Five Critical Roles You Need to Build A Winning Team. Mark’s previous bestselling books include: Hiring for Attitude, Hundred Percenters, HARD Goals, Managing Narcissists, Blamers, Dramatics and more.
Mark leads one of the world’s largest databases of original leadership research, and his work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Fortune, Forbes, Bloomberg, BusinessWeek, Harvard Business Review, and U.S. News & World Report. He’s been a featured guest on programs including CBS News Sunday Morning, ABC’s 20/20, Fox Business News, CNN International and NPR.
Some of his most well-known research studies include “Why New Hires Fail,” “Are SMART Goals Dumb?,” “Why CEO’s Get Fired,” “High Performers Can Be Less Engaged,” and “Don’t Expect Layoff Survivors to Be Grateful.” Mark has conducted training for The United Nations, Harvard Business School, Microsoft, IBM, MasterCard, Merck, and thousands more.
- Book: Team Players: The Five Critical Roles You Need to Build a Winning Team
- Quiz: “Team Player Quiz: What Type Of Team Player Are You?”
- Website: LeadershipIQ.com
Resources Mentioned
- Study: “Studies in the Principles of Judgments and Attitudes: II. Determination of Judgments by Group and by Ego Standards” by S.E. Asch
- Book: Escape from Freedom by Erich Fromm
- Previous episode: 256: Science-based Solutions for Delivering Tough Truth at Work with Mark Murphy
Thank you, Sponsors!
- Strawberry.me. Claim your $50 credit and build momentum in your career with Strawberry.me/Awesome
- Vanguard. Give your clients consistent results year in and year out with vanguard.com/AUDIO
- Quince. Get free shipping and 365-day returns on your order with Quince.com/Awesome
- Cashflow Podcasting. Explore launching (or outsourcing) your podcast with a free 10-minute call with Pete.
Mark Murphy Transcript
Pete Mockaitis
Mark, welcome back!
Mark Murphy
Thank you for having me. I’m glad I got invited back.
Pete Mockaitis
Well, yeah, you know, well, it took seven years. What’s that? It’s almost like a biblical punishment. You were exiled for seven years, Mark. But now…
Mark Murphy
I had to go wander out there for a bit and I made my way back now.
Pete Mockaitis
Well, I’m excited to talk about teamwork, team players. And could you maybe kick us off by sharing a particularly surprising, fascinating discovery you’ve made about teams in the seven years since we chatted last?
Mark Murphy
So, the biggest thing, one was not surprising, and that is there are plenty of people that find that the teams they’re on, that they’re forced to sit on every day, aren’t always great uses of their time. But the bigger issue was that, when we started studying this and we asked people, “Listen, is the team you sit on presently, is it actually taking advantage of your talents? Like, do you feel like you get to use your real abilities?”
And two thirds plus of people were like, “No, not really. Like, I’m forced to sit here. I have to go through, I’m part of the group and, you know, that’s good. But I don’t really get to use my strengths. I don’t get to do the thing that I am really well suited to.” And that led to the big kind of aha discovery about teams is that the most successful teams are teams that aren’t focused on trying to make everybody operate the same.
We have this kind of cliche definition of, “What is a team player?” Well, a team player, it’s usually like, they’re kind of outgoing, they’re very friendly, super agreeable, very conscientious, and they have high-end followership, they can get along, all that.
But it turns out that the best teams are more like a rock band, or a symphony orchestra, or an NFL team, or an NBA team. That is, if you look at an NFL team, you got some guys are like 350 pounds, you got others that are 220, some are six foot eight, some are five foot seven, some are really good at throwing a ball, some are good at catching a ball, some are good at pushing people, some are good at running fast.
There’s a weird mix of talents and abilities, and the best teams in business in the real world are ones that assemble sometimes weird seeming groups of people and let everybody do the thing that they’re really good at, rather than trying to stuff us all into a room and go, “We all got to act the same way. It’s all about cohesion. We can never say a cross word.”
Best teams are like, “Nah, no, no, this is, like, I need a center. I need a point guard. I need a forward. I need a shooting guard. I need a bunch of different talents. And y’all don’t have to look the same or act the same or think the same. In fact, it’s better if you don’t.” And that was kind of the big aha moment of this.
Pete Mockaitis
Well, I like that a lot. And to your point about high agreeableness, well, we’re going to get there in a moment in terms of the five critical roles, one of them is a trailblazer. And, indeed, they don’t agree so much, and that’s super useful. And I think that’s just great to highlight right off the bat in terms of being a team player does conjure up images of what that’s “supposed to be.”
And I think I’ve even had moments in team conversations where it’s like, “Hmm, this doesn’t quite sound right to me, but I don’t want to cause trouble and I want to be a good team player. So maybe I’ll just keep quiet for now.” And, occasionally that’s the right move and, often, that’s the exact wrong move.
Mark Murphy
We just are releasing a new study next week on teams, and one of the findings was, we asked people, “Have you ever had an idea that you raised to the team and the team rejected out of hand?” And that was like nine out of 10 people. Or, “Have you had an idea that you were afraid to bring up to the group because you were afraid how people were going to react?” And that was, again, like, nine out of 10 people.
And it’s like, “How many brilliant ideas and innovations are we leaving on the table because people in the room were just afraid to say the thing that the emperor has no clothes, or there is a way better, faster way of doing this, or we are heading down a path that is going to waste all of our times?”
And if the idea of having a team is to get the best thinking possible out of all the people in the room, well, what good is that if we have people that are afraid to speak up because we told everybody, “You know, you got to go along to get along”? No. It kind of runs counter to what a team is supposed to be in the first place.
Pete Mockaitis
Yeah, we heard some of those messages before when it comes to the benefit or value of diversity is, “Hey, we get to have different people with different experiences and that’s great.” And so that’s why we can see some relationships between, mathematically, in research, associated with diverse teams and better outcomes. But my understanding is that you get none of the benefit of that diversity if folks don’t feel like they can, in fact, speak up and share from their unique different experiences.
Mark Murphy
That’s exactly the thing, is that you can even assemble a great diverse group, and all various kinds of diversity, you can have – racial diversity, gender diversity, cognitive diversity, take your pick. It doesn’t matter. But if there is not an environment where we are actively seeking out the input from those folks, or we are telling everybody, “Listen, this is what it takes to be a team player.”
And again, usually, whenever we use the word team player, we’re usually using it in a pejorative, like, “You need to be more of a team player, and here’s what that means.” And we’re trying to, like, sand off the edges of people. And, well, it’s like, “Listen, sometimes it’s the edges that give us the brilliant insight.”
So, if I’m not making it safe enough for you to actually come into this room and do what you do well, if you don’t get to come in here and use your strengths and leverage them, well, then, I’m not getting any of the advantages of having diversity.
And the other side of it is, one of the reasons that so many people, I mean, and every one of your listeners, I would venture to guess, has, at one point or another, sat on a team where they’re like, “Well, there’s an hour of my life I’m never getting back. And it’s like this is an absolute nightmare.”
And one of the reasons people will sometimes feel like that is, like, “I don’t know what I’m doing here because you’re asking me to either be something I’m not, or you’re ignoring the thing that I am. Like, I have this particular set of skills and talents. Let me use those skills and talents. And if you’re not going to let me use them, then I don’t know why I’m here.”
Pete Mockaitis
A particular set of skills. Shout out to Liam Neeson. Well, yeah, so your book, Team Players: The Five Critical Rules You Need to Build a Winning Team, whenever I hear a sort of a typology, like, the five, I have to grill you a bit, Mark. What is the underlying research that says, in fact, there are five and not nine and not three? And how do we know that there are five and that this is real as opposed to something that Mark slapped together because he’s got to get another book out?
Mark Murphy
Yeah, a great question and a very fair one. So, the way this all came about was we started looking at teams, really effective teams and really ineffective teams, let’s say nicely.
And we started to look at, “Okay, well, what are the functions that actually get fulfilled in this team? Like, is there a task function? Is there a decision-making function? Is there an interpersonal smoothing over function, kind of a diplomacy function. “Is there a brainstorming or an ideation, an innovation kind of function? Is there a tracking function like, know, to-do list, milestones, Gantt charts, that kind of stuff.”
And as we started to dissect the various functions, one thing that quickly became clear was that the best teams are pretty good at making decisions, and we didn’t even care at the moment who was making the decisions, just, “Do decisions get made? Okay, cool. Is there a tracking kind of function on this team? Like, do you have any mechanism for ensuring that to-do’s get met? Do you have any kind of a peacekeeping function? You know, is there anything where, when conflict arises or conversations get a little tense, etc.?”
And so, the first thing was we identified that there are five kinds of rough buckets. Now, you can cut these buckets more finely. At one point, we had these cut into like 13 different functions. And we looked at that and said, “Well, okay, probably half of those are like played by the same people. And so maybe 13 is a little much.”
And so, we threw some, not to go too deep into this, but through some K-means cluster analysis, we kind of distilled this down into five that were notably distinct from each other, kind of buckets of work. And then we started to look at, “Okay, who are the people on the team? And what roles are they actually filling?”
And that’s where we discovered that, most of the time, for example, there’s usually somebody on the team, and a really good team, who is capable of making a tough decision. Maybe the group can decide for themselves, they take a vote, “Poof. No fuss, no muss.” But when the rubber hits the road and there you get a sticking point, is there somebody in the group who’s willing to raise their hand and go, “Wait a minute, okay, we’ve debated this long enough. Here’s the path we’re taking, let’s just go.”
That role was often not the same person that was playing that kind of peacemaker sort of role. Because as you might imagine, to play that tougher decision-maker role is a different kind of personality than the person who is kind of smoothing over ruffled feathers and smoothing over hurt feelings and bringing people back into feeling safe and comfortable in the group. Those were very distinct personality types.
So that’s how we came up with the five. It really wasn’t about the people, initially, as much as it was, “What does a team actually have to do to be successful?” I mean, you can take any kind of team. If you can’t make a decision, hey, it’s not going to be a good team. If you can’t hit a deadline on time, not going to be a good team.
When things get really heated, if you don’t have a way to resolve conflict, team’s not going to work all that well. So that’s the origin of this.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And so then, tell us a bit more about the subsequent research associated with the outcomes that teams that have these roles see better stuff than teams that don’t.
Mark Murphy
Then, once we had these five roles, and so the five roles are there’s the director, and that’s the person who makes those decisions when necessary. They’re not making every decision, but they’re capable of making that decision. There’s the achiever. This is the person that they don’t necessarily want to be in charge. They’re the person who’s like, “Give me a task. Let me go do some stuff, and I’ll be the worker bee. Okay, cool.”
There’s a stabilizer, and that’s like your to-do list Gantt chart calendar milestone person. Then you have your harmonizer. That’s like your peacekeeper. And then there’s the trailblazer, and that’s the person that, you know, will come up with the crazy innovative ideas, the out-of-the-box, even if it’s sometimes annoying and irritating, but they will shake things up a bit.
Now, when we had those roles, we then went back and started to look at, “Okay, the really effective teams versus the less effective teams.” And what we discovered was, number one, that the best teams, really, really good teams, if you ask somebody, “What’s the best team you’ve ever been on?” start there. And in 97% of those teams, all five roles were filled.
Then ask people, “Okay, well, what’s the worst team that you’re currently sitting on?” Okay, and look at those teams. And what you would find is only about 20% of those teams actually had all five roles filled. They were missing roles.
So, for example, if you think about a team that, when you go, “Hey, can your team, does it actually decide anything? Like, is it capable of just pulling the trigger and making a real decision?” and they say, “No,” well, nine times out of 10, that’s because that team doesn’t have a director. It doesn’t have somebody who is willing to ante up and say, “Even if this is unpopular, I will make that really hard decision.” Every team needs somebody.
Or, if you ask the team, “Hey, do you guys actually hit your deadlines? Like, when a team decides it’s going to do something, do you actually deliver that thing on time?” And people say, “Nah, not really.” Well, it’s usually because you don’t have that person, and every good office has one, it’s the person who keeps the calendar, and is like, “Hey, wait a minute, timeline here. We got a deadline to hit. Like, let’s move this along. Don’t forget the to-dos.” You need that kind of task master.
And when you find these lower-performing teams, the ones that kind of drive us all nuts, what we find is, overwhelmingly, they are missing at least one, sometimes two or three of the roles. And then on the other end of the spectrum, sometimes those teams had too many of one role. If you think about teams where the team is, like, always in a fight over what the decision is going to be and who’s going to get to make the decision, usually, it’s because you got, like, two or three or four directors.
You got like a bunch of people that all think they should be in charge of making the final decision. And then half your team meeting is spent with those people kind of fighting with each other over what it is we’re going to decide. And that becomes every bit as much of a nightmare as a team that can’t make a decision.
That’s basically it. Sometimes you will see in a team, like, “Yeah, we got 10 people who are great at keeping the calendar, but we got, like, nobody actually willing to roll up their sleeves and do the work. We just got 10 people who, you know, want to keep us on track, but nobody actually like doing stuff.”
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And when you mentioned the effective teams and the ineffective teams, what’s the data set?
Mark Murphy
So, this was across, we started with about 1200 teams that we looked at. It has since broadened out to now we’ve got over 100,000 people, and that’s spread across, now I think it’s broken 10,000 various teams. But the initial study, well, the very first pilot study was about 400 teams. Then it went up to about 1200, and then it just started scaling up from there.
Pete Mockaitis
Oh, yes, but like where do you find the teams and assess the performance?
Mark Murphy
So, the teams initially come from either our research or our survey clients or our training clients. And so, we start with pools of people there. So, we’re dealing with organizations, so 95% of them are business organizations. And I say business because some of those are not for profit. So, there’s hospitals, there’s libraries, there’s a few government organizations.
But then the majority are your classic kind of for-profit, but it runs the gamut from organizations that, our initial cutoff, was an organization had to have at least a little over 50 people, and then all the way up to organizations with tens of thousands. And we set that limit, usually in studies like this, initially, because if you have a company with three people or eight people, and that’s like the entirety of the company, there can be a lot of confounding factors when you’re looking at a team.
So, we usually don’t touch the really small companies until later in the process, just because it’s, you never really know exactly what you’re getting because they’re so variable from each other. But then once you have a model, that’s where you can start to get some of the smaller shops.
Pete Mockaitis
Alrighty. And so then, how do we know? Part of it, I guess, you just recognize immediately from these descriptions, “Oh, yep, that’s a director. Yep, that’s a stabilizer. Got it.” But how do you recommend we understand and assess the makeup of a team?
Mark Murphy
Simplest, easiest way is at your next team meeting, go, “Hey, folks. Let’s try a little something. Here are these five roles. I want everybody to jot down, ‘What role do you think others would say that I play?’ and we’ll just go around, okay?” So, I’m Mark, I’m going to ask, “Okay, what’s the role that I think others would say that I most typically play on this team?”
“Okay, Jane, what about you? Oh, Pete, what about you? What role would you say people are most likely to say you typically play. Frank?” and we just go around, and we each identify, “Okay, what’s the role that we are probably most typically playing?” That’s one.
Once you have a pretty good sense of that, if you look around the room, and you’re like, “Huh, everybody said that they’re the director. Huh, we might have a problem here.” That’s step one, is just see what kind of distribution of people you actually have.
The second thing then is, based on those descriptions, is go, “Okay, well, what role really feels like it’s one that I would want to play? And maybe I’m not currently playing it, but what’s a role that maybe I would like to try out?” So, if I’m somebody that I am always in the role of stabilizer, I’m the one who is always keeping track of the deadlines and the to-do list and nagging people to get their work in on time, blah blah blah.
And maybe I look at this and I go, “You know what, I would love to just be the achiever. I would love to not have to manage the to-do list for this group, and I would love if somebody would just give me an assignment and let me go make the PowerPoint presentation. Just let me go roll up my sleeves and do some work without having to manage all of the other to-do’s for this group.”
And sometimes what you’ll find is that the role that we’re currently being forced to play isn’t the one that we necessarily really want to play, but we’re, for whatever reason, sometimes there’s just nobody else to do it, but we’re kind of forced into it.
But if you know, “Here’s the role that I’m usually seen as playing. Here’s the role that I most commonly play in the team. And here’s the role that I would really love to play,” it’s not that you’re going to magically be able to instantly do 100% of the role you would love to do, because you might still be necessary in the role you’re doing.
But if you can start to bleed this out a little bit and merge those two and go, “You know, some days, I want to be the stabilizer, but some days, I want to be the achiever. Some days, I want to be the harmonizer. Or, some days, I want to try that trailblazer thing.” Cool. Now you have a way to kind of identify something about the work you’re doing that might be more interesting to you, something that might get you a little more excited to go to this team meeting.
If your team can come together and say, “Listen, let’s give each other a chance to actually make sure, A, all the roles are covered, but, B, if you want to try and do something a little different in this group, okay, cool, try it. And let’s see if we can make it work because, if we can get you doing something that gets you excited, you’re that much more likely to be invested in the group and committed and feel good about the job.”
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, so let’s say we’ve done this good work, we’ve identified the roles where people are doing the roles that light them up, they’re feeling good about it, we’ve got a reasonable balance or mix on the team. Once that’s in play, what are some of the best and worst practices for really rocking and rolling together?
Mark Murphy
So, a couple of things, and these are going to, some of them are a little weird. So, number one, every group needs somebody to make decisions, yes. So, sounds like I’m advocating for some kind of hierarchy. But one of the things we discovered was that, in really good teams, there’s always somebody who makes the decision, but it’s not always the same somebody. And that was kind of the big aha moment.
So, if you think of it like this, you got a basketball team. You have your Hall of Fame, All-Star player. It’s three seconds left in the game. They’ve got the ball, but three defenders converge on them. They’re looking around, and they’re like, “Okay, I could try and shoot it, but there’s three defenders on me. This is going to go terribly.”
And so, they look around and they see that this guy on the other side of the court, who’s a good shooter, but is not a Hall of Fame, not an All-Star. And they pass them the ball, and they’re like, “You know what, you’re in the best position to take this last-second shot. You’re in charge. You take the shot. Because I got three other bodies draped on me. There’s no way, whatever I do, it’s going in. But there’s a chance that you could actually make the shot.”
That’s what we call an adaptive hierarchy. NASA, very famously implemented the idea of adaptive hierarchies. If there’s a rocket ship that is having problems and you got somebody on the team that’s, like, the expert in fuel cells and knows everything about rocket fuel, and they’re like, “Listen, all the rest of us are pretty good at trajectories and telemetry and all the rest, but we’re not the expert in rocket fuel.”
They go, “Okay, well, who should be in charge of decisions about the rocket fuel?” “I don’t know that person over there who’s the expert in rocket fuel. When it comes to fuel related issues, they’re in charge.”
But the thing that is cool, and this is one thing that makes groups really interesting when they’re really clicking, is that it’s not so much everybody gets a turn necessarily, because that’s not the idea. It’s that everybody who is the expert in that particular area, gets to take charge of that particular area they’re expert in.
So, it’s how you get a team that can always make decisions. They have a clear hierarchy, but it doesn’t feel rigid and like some, you know, royal family thing where I always have to bow and genuflect in front of so and so. No, it’s maybe today is my turn to be in charge of making this particular decision, because it’s an area that I’m really good at.
And so, that’s one big thing that you can do as a team that is trying this out for the first time is just go, “Let’s have whoever is most expert at this thing be in charge of making the decision for that thing. And tomorrow it’ll be somebody else. The day after that will be somebody else, but let’s rotate this a bit.”
Pete Mockaitis
I like that a lot. And you also mentioned in the book the research showing that teams generate three times as many valuable ideas when the rules are each thinking independently before coming together. And can you dig into that a little bit and give us an example of that?
Mark Murphy
Yes, it’s, you know, one of the things that every team has tried at one point or another is brainstorming, right? So, you all sit in a room and you just start ideating. There’s no bad ideas and we’re just going to throw some stuff up on the whiteboard and just toss as many ideas out there as you possibly can. Okay, cool.
The problem is that a herding effect starts to take place. And sometimes it’s known as a conformity bias, is that, as people start throwing their ideas up on the wall, it starts to become clear that some of these ideas are more kind of mainstream than other ideas are. And what ends up happening is people start to coalesce around a very narrow set of ideas. And the crazy ones, which might hold your best thinking, kind of get pushed off to the side.
So, what researchers discovered was that you would get much better ideas, when they put people in a room and had them brainstorm, okay, that was level one. But when you told people, “Okay, we’re going to come into the room and we’re going to have a brainstorming session. But before we do that, you think by yourself for 10 minutes, just come up with your own brainstorming ideas for 10 minutes, then we’ll all come into the room together.”
And what they found was that the ideas got better, more innovative, even more profitable and valuable when people took 10 minutes of thinking by themselves before coming into the room to do the “brainstorming” because they were not filtering themselves when they were thinking alone.
And so, the next time you have a team meeting, one great thing to try is tell your group, “Listen, I want everybody to think about this alone. And I want you to come in with your ideas written down.” One reason for making everybody write down their ideas, or type them up, whatever, before coming into the meeting is that they can’t say, “Oh, I didn’t have any more ideas,” because you wrote them down.
So, this way, it really forces everybody to have their crazy, big innovation ideas, whatever, out of the box, and put it down on paper, and then come into the meeting room. Now you know that you are not going to get people who are afraid to speak up. You’re not going to get people that are filtering themselves and holding back their great ideas because they don’t want to seem like a weirdo. You get all those great crazy ideas and that’s where some of the best stuff comes from.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Well, Mark, tell me, anything else you want to make sure to mention?
Mark Murphy
I think the one other thing to think about is that, and this is just a way of making teams more effective, is going back to something we talked about earlier, Pete, is the, “Listen, what role would you love to play on this team?” I think this one is really important because, one of the things that I found when we were doing this research, is that there are a lot of people who are like, “Listen, I’m kind of quiet. I’m more introverted. I’m not predisposed to love groups necessarily.”
But when we found that even the most introverted of people, when they got to play the role that they were really good at, they’re like, “Yeah, I love groups. This actually isn’t so bad. This isn’t as bad as I thought it was going to be at all,” just because they got to do the thing that really mattered to them. And it’s just such a simple thing, asking people, like, “What’s the role you’d like to try out in this group?”
Give it a shot because, if it gives somebody on your team that maybe didn’t love teams, the chance to actually enjoy working on a team, man, it can make all the difference in the world and it’s not that hard to do.
Pete Mockaitis
Lovely. Now could you share a favorite quote, something you find inspiring?
Mark Murphy
Well, the one that relates to teams, and it’s going to sound weird, Michael Jordan was walking off the court one day after practice in the late ‘90s, one of his assistant coaches, Tex Winters, hollers out to him, “Hey, Michael, there’s no I in team.” And Jordan looks back at him, and goes, “Yeah, but there is in win.”
Now, what Michael meant by that was, “Yeah, you know what? I’m the most important person.” But what he later came to find was that what that really means is that, “I have a role I have to play, but you know what? I got to be willing to pass the ball to the other I.”
So, when he learned to trust Scottie Pippen, when he learned to trust Dennis Rodman, when he learned to trust Steve Kerr, for example, to take the last-second shot, all of a sudden, the idea that there are a bunch of I’s on a team that really do make a team successful, you know what, yeah, they’re not technically an I in team, but there is a me.”
And my whole thing is, listen, find the me’s, allow the me’s on your team to be themselves. And you’re going to have one heck of a higher-performing team.
Pete Mockaitis
All right. And a favorite study or experiment or bit of research?
Mark Murphy
So, one that I quote in the book, but it’s just such a classic study, Solomon Asch in the ‘50s did this study, and this speaks to what you were asking me about with brainstorming, for example. So, there’s eight people sitting in a room, and these eight people have to look at a sheet of paper and there are lines drawn on the sheet of paper.
So, like maybe one line is like the length of your thumb, and then another line is like the length of your first finger. So, there’s clearly a big difference in the length of these lines, right? And so, the people in the room, they were all asked like, “Okay, well, which line is longer?” Now, seven of the eight people in the room were actors. Only one of the eight people was the actual subject of the study.
And so, the seven people would go, “Well, the thumb length line, that’s the longer one.” And the eighth guy in the room, or gal, would look and go, “What? Are you nuts? Like, that’s clearly, that’s the shorter line. That’s not the longer line. Like, anybody could see this.” But because the other seven were like, “Nope, that’s the longer line,” they started to doubt themselves, even though their eyes told them crystal clearly, which is the longer line.
Three quarters of the subjects in that study changed their answers at one time or another through the course of the study to conform with the group. Thirty percent of all of the answers, people knowingly gave the wrong answer because they wanted to fit in. That, I think, is such an important study to bear in mind.
And even though it’s 70, what, 75 years old now, it is still as relevant today as it was back then. Because if you really want to get some innovative thinking in your group, and you want a team to perform, the last thing you want is somebody in the room to lie to you just because they don’t want to look, to be the only one who is willing to tell you the truth. That is just absolute death for a team.
So just always kind of think of that, “If seven other people are saying something, how am I going to get that one person to speak up?”
Pete Mockaitis
And a favorite book?
Mark Murphy
The one I love, still, is a book by Erich Fromm and it’s from 1940-41, somewhere in there, called Escape from Freedom.
And the book is basically an exploration about, “Why do, sometimes, people give up their freedom? Why do they not want to make decisions?” And it comes back to a lot of what we’re talking about here, is that sometimes, it can feel lonely to be the only person making this decision.
And while, you know, it’s, again, it’s what, 80-some odd years old now, there’s a lot of great wisdom in it. And while not everything in it is perfect, it does raise the question, I think, for every team leader is, “How am I taking this into account with my group? Am I making it okay for people to make decisions?”
Like, when we talk about adaptive hierarchies and rotating responsibility, all of this is to try and grow people that are more capable of making decisions so that I don’t have to do everything. I want people to have more freedom and autonomy. And to do that, I have to do some of these things.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite tool, something you use to be awesome at your job?
Mark Murphy
So, there are a bunch. So, I’m going to give an AI answer and I’m going to give the either ChatGPT or Claude, but one of the things that we started doing with it was, so we have statisticians on our team that, when we create new studies, we’re running all of our statistics. But we started using ChatGPT and Claude, both of them, to model out different scenarios with our statistics, not just to get another set of eyes and error check it.
So, like when we, you know, “Let’s run the K-means cluster analysis and see how these groups come up.” But we can then run scenarios that, if we were doing it just like in SPSS or R or something, would take weeks. But now we can just throw it in and say, “Okay, here’s the model we developed. Here’s the statistical model. Here’s all of our data. Now, run this scenario this way. Now run it again this way.”
And so, we can model out a hundred different scenarios in a day, where it used to be, if we wanted to model out five different scenarios, it would take two weeks. And I know it’s kind of a weird use case, but one of the things that AI does exceptionally well is it will take an idea you’ve already developed, with data you already have, and allow you to play with, “What would happen if kind…?” of scenarios, “What would happen if these people weren’t in the study? What would happen if we had 10 more months that looked like this?” and just model out and do a little more scenario planning.
So, that’s one of my favorites, it’s a tool everybody has access to. It’s just, I don’t see as many people using it in that way, but it’s such a fun, cool use case for it.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And a favorite habit?
Mark Murphy
One habit that I do try and maintain, even when I’m traveling, is just 30 minutes of showing up for some kind of exercise. Even if it is nothing more than squats and pushups and sit-ups in my hotel room, it is one habit that does help set the day on a more effective path. And it is sort of like, you know, when you hear retired military folks talk about making the bed.
It’s something over which I do have control and it is something over which I can do pretty much regardless of where I am or what part of the planet I happen to be traveling to. It’s even if it’s just, you know, 15 minutes of some pushups and then some squats and then even not good sit ups, whatever. It’s something. And it’s something you can check the box, and go, “You know what? That’s something done today.”
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. And if folks want to learn more or get in touch, where would you point them?
Mark Murphy
If you go to LeadershipIQ.com, there’s a Team Players section on the website. And one thing that I do encourage people to do is there’s a free quiz on there. It’s called, “What kind of team player are you?” Take the quiz and see what comes out. And then, listen, the thing is free, have your team take it, too, and see how you come out. There’s a bunch of different research studies and resources like that, but it literally takes less than five minutes. So, not that hard to do.
Pete Mockaitis
Okay. Beautiful. Mark, thank you.
Mark Murphy
Thanks again for having me. Hopefully, it won’t be seven years next time.
Vanessa Druskat reveals an overlooked key to unlocking your team’s performance: emotional intelligence.
Shea Belsky shares his top do’s and don’ts for managing neurodiversity in the workplace.
Zach Mercurio reveals the hidden epidemic that’s plaguing the workplace—and what we can do about it.


