After 10 Days: A Review of the iPad from a Regular Guy

I don’t consider myself a techie type by any means. So when I heard the new iPad was coming out, I was curious, but hardly ready to break down the door to be the first to have one. It wasn’t clear to me the iPad really performed any function that couldn’t already be performed on a PC or smart phone. And being a Blackberry user, I wasn’t conditioned by the fancy apps on iPhones that screamed at me “go buy an iPad.” This being said, I responded to the buzz at the release of the iPad and did spontaneously buy one on “opening day” (I didn’t pre-order and only waited 20 minutes to get mine). After messing around with it for a week or so, I just bought another one for my son.

As a little background, I am an executive coach/consultant and travel extensively. I need my laptop to e-mail and create documents in Word, PowerPoint and Adobe. I’m 51 and not particularly technology-oriented, although I’ve learned to use social media the past few years.

So here’s what I’ve learned after ten days. Since buying the iPad, I’ve taken one business trip to Boston and a long weekend trip to Phoenix. I took both my laptop and iPad to Boston and I’m glad I did. For heavy duty e-mailing, making spreadsheets and creating PowerPoint presentations, iPad is not the tool of choice. There’s no USB port for printing and memory sticks and the keyboard on the screen is clunky and slow. If you are a business user, you’ll need your PC or Mac.

During my weekend vacation trip to Scottsdale, the iPad has been superb. It is sleek, stylish and Ferrari fast. It weighs just over a pound. Fantastic to watch movies, view pictures, read (not so much write e-mail) e-mail, enjoy a book, listen to music, play a few games (my favorite is Flight Control) and with its fabulous applications, read the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Time and my other favorite publications – at incredible speed. It picks up WiFi connection fast and easily at coffee shops and restaurants. At only a pound and a half and smaller than a legal pad, it’s easy to carry, sort of like a folder.

My 4 year old grandson can’t keep his hands off it. The interface is so easy; he “gets it” and can start it up and go to games and note pad to write and spell. Because the interface is so simple, it is an excellent tool for an older person who is uncomfortable with “the computer” but would still like to see family pictures or read a book. It’s so much simpler than using a PC, so perfect for kids and older folks, too.

I had one long line at the rental car counter at the Phoenix airport. Pulled out the iPad and had fun for 20 minutes in line, rather than just standing. Lots of people will ask you about it; so it also serves as a great conversation starter and you’ll look so hip.

Bottom line: I love my iPad. You’ve got to tip your hat to Steve Jobs and the team at Apple. The iPad doesn’t do some things for certain, but what it does do it does with style and speed. For on-line surfing, moving watching, books, music, etc., it can’t be beat. As a tip, suggest you purchase the $40 case that fits snugly to protect the device. I give my iPad a two thumbs up. I’m sure I’ll be buying a few more for family come birthdays.

Can High Individual Performance Hurt Top Team Performance?

A fascinating article in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal, The Superstar Effect, suggests the mere presence of an A+ performer tends to shut down versus stimulate competition in others. Examples from golf, to chess, to sales, to the literary world, to the boardroom are cited. When faced with competing head-to-head to a true superstar, other high-performing opponents tend to second guess and quit on themselves.

The article’s author, Jonah Lehrer, dives deep on the “Tiger Woods phenomenon” in professional golf. Over a seven year period, Woods intimidated his opponents to such an extent that every golfer in each tournament took on average, 0.8 more strokes. In a sport where the margin of wins is often a single stroke, this difference is significant. The researcher of this study, Jennifer Brown of Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, calculated the “superstar effect” boosted Woods’ PGA earnings by nearly $5 million.

Most leaders believe that competition among their team members is not necessarily a bad thing. Jack Welch, who served as Chief Executive Officer of General Electric for twenty years when the company’s market capitalization increased from $14 to 400 billion, instituted a 20-70-10 rule. Welch’s philosophy at GE rewarded the top 20% of performers extremely handsomely, the 70% OK and the bottom 10% were weeded out of the company.

So here’s the big question: does the Welch rule cause the 80% to throw up their hands and just give up? If that’s the case, the impact on company performance could be disastrous. The findings of the Superstar Effect would suggest it does. Could that be an unintended consequence of too much recognition of A+ individual performance on top teams? Is there a lesson here for CEOs and other leaders? Sounds like there might be….

Could Spring Training Help Top Leadership Teams?

I had a terrific afternoon last Saturday, watching the first ever baseball game played at the new Target Field in Minneapolis, future home of the Minnesota Twins. But watching the University of Minnesota Golden Gophers host the Louisiana Tech University Bulldogs got me thinking about the Minnesota Twins and the other MLB teams at spring training in Florida and Arizona. If spring training is good for baseball teams, wouldn’t spring training also be beneficial for top leadership teams?

When I played college baseball 30 years ago in Minnesota, our spring training consisted of playing catch in a gymnasium, taking swings in the batting cage, fielding ground balls on a hardwood floor, engaging in an endless series of drills and running, running and running. Our coach assessed our fitness levels as individual players and helped us get our bodies and minds in game shape. We learned our coach’s philosophy and approach to playing the game. We knew we would be lucky to get outside once or twice in the Minnesota cold before leaving for our annual “spring trip” in mid-March to play colleges and universities in the southeastern US. And our “spring training” games in Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri prepared us for what mattered: winning our conference games.

During our spring training, we improved our individual skills as baseball players. Just as important, we improved our collective capabilities as a team. With our coaches, we got clear about our purpose (winning); we got clear about our team rules and regulations; we got clear about the strategies and tactics to win; we became clear about our roles and responsibilities within the team; we strengthened our relationships as players and coaches and we developed trust. In summary, spring training allowed us to build our individual and collective capabilities in a common pursuit to become our best and win.

Now let’s look at top leadership teams. It’s the job of the leader (let’s say the CEO) of the top team to put a group of individuals on “the field” capable of winning. To win, the leader should to commit to becoming the best leader he can be. He should be open to feedback and committed to his own on-going learning. The leader must be clear about the vision, mission and values of the company. He needs players on the team who will support and hold themselves and others accountable for achieving the vision, mission and values. The team and CEO must be clear on its purpose and norms of behavior in working together, too. CEO and team together must map out the strategies, tactics and metrics to successfully compete in their marketplace. They must agree on roles and responsibilities and mutual expectations of one another. To win, they must build strong, supportive working relationships with one another, so that trust is created.

Here’s the problem with top teams. In the business world, top teams are constantly on the field, playing the game. Rarely do they take the time to temporarily get off the field in order reflect, realign and renew. As individual executives, team members would benefit from annually receiving feedback on their behaviors and styles, the results they achieve and the working climate they create for others.

As a top team, the leader and team members would benefit from reviewing their collective performance and the conditions under which they work to ensure clarity exists, the capabilities of the team are increasing and commitment and trust are on the rise in the pursuit of results. Fortunately, spring training for top teams would not require six weeks in Florida or Arizona, but two or three dedicated days together for open, candid discussion, the sharing of feedback and a willingness to work together to create a winning team formula. Additionally, this time is valuable for each individual team member to receive feedback and make adjustments to ensure they are on a path to become their best as a team member and in their individual executive roles.

I’m intrigued by the promise of spring training for top teams. Getting off the treadmill and making the commitment to spring training as a top team might just be the catalyst needed for a winning season and more.

Don’t Let Rejection and Disappointment Get You Down

Before they were titans, moguls and newsmakers, these people were …rejected by Harvard. So reads the headline in today’s lead article in the Wall Street Journal’s Personal Journal by Sue Shellenbarger. Warren Buffett, Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway; Lee Bollinger, Columbia University President; Ted Turner, founder of CNN; Tom Brokaw, former NBC Nightly News announcer and Meredith Vieira, co-host on NBC’s Today show are among the crowd of those who’ve been turned down by Harvard.

Rejections are not uncommon. Harvard only accepts 7% of the 29,000 undergraduate applications it receives every year. Stanford’s acceptance rate is about the same. The news of the rejection by the school we have our heart set on can be crushing. Yet, every one of the individuals profiled has viewed the turndown as a blessing in disguise; putting them on a path different than they would’ve been on if they had enrolled at their school of choice. For instance, Meredith Vieira met a mentor at Tufts who inspired her to give journalism a try. She doubts she would have entered that field had she not been rejected at Harvard. And Warren Buffett sent off a last minute application to Columbia, where he learned the key concepts that guided his investing strategy.

The president of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, offers some sage advice to all. “To allow other people’s assessment of you to determine your own self-assessment is a very big mistake. The question really is who at the end of the day is going to make the determination about what your talents and interests are? That has to be you.”

Fast forward to adulthood. It’s dangerous to let events and other people impact our views of ourselves and our identity. See if any of these situations apply to you or someone you know:

1. How many of us have an identity that consists of limiting beliefs? Beliefs that no longer work for us. A belief that we adopted following an action, or comment from a well-meaning family member or work colleague (or not so well-meaning) that occurred years ago and that we still carry with us today. Too often we allow comments from ghosts of the past to haunt us. An example could be, “Since I didn’t get into Harvard, I guess I won’t be successful in life in the future.” Or, a comment shared with me by one of my CEO executive coaching clients, Jerry, who grew up on a North Dakota farm, but now in his late 50s, was experiencing a heart condition. His father’s comment continued to echo in his brain, “Jerry, you’ve always got to be the first to work and last to leave.” This advice may have been fine on the farm, but wasn’t appropriate for a CEO of a thriving organization where value is added in ways beyond physical toil.

2. Related to #1 is the situation when we’ve been programmed for a future by others. Well-meaning parents, relatives, teachers and coaches are often guilty of this. “Junior, your father went to Harvard, his father went to Harvard and his father went to Harvard. We’re a Harvard family.” What a difficult situation when others program our identity of who we must become! By the way, Warren Buffett comments in the WSJ article that upon his rejection, his father offered him unconditional love.

3. Mistakes of the past. Or how about those people who constantly remind us of mistakes we’ve made in the past? If we hear the same things over and over, it reinforces a picture we have of ourselves. If we’re not careful, this can be self-fulfilling. Even if that feedback is accurate, it doesn’t have to be predictive, and we can all change. An example might be, “I’m no good at public speaking and will never be.” Not true! We can change and we can learn and apply the skills if we are motivated.

While not shared specifically in the article, but I believe implied, is a healthier approach in our development as adults. We each must create our own identity that is not controlled by our past or by other people or events. The individuals profiled in the article created the identities to become the human beings they chose to become. Each of these successful people made conscious decisions to change their identity and the way they defined themselves. They didn’t let the Harvard rejection define themselves.

So there’s good news all. We can change behaviors at any time in life if we are motivated to do so. And if we don’t care for our identity, because it’s been programmed by someone else, or is impacted by limiting beliefs or mistakes of the past, we can change that too. We can change the way we define ourselves. And we can do this in an authentic way. It’s worth remembering Bollinger’s quote, “Don’t let rejections control your life.”

For more information on how we can change our identity, author Marshall Goldsmith discusses the topic in greater detail in his new book, Mojo: How to get it, How to keep it, How to get it back If you lose it.

Three Keys for Success for Any Speaker (Or Leader)

I recently attended a breakfast event in Minneapolis where we listened to a few speakers. One speaker stood out – for the wrong reasons. While no doubt the executive was successful in his field, the stories he shared were self-aggrandizing and only about him. As he was breaking his arm patting himself on his back for how smart and wonderful he was, it was very difficult for me to stay objective, focused on his key points. I noticed I wasn’t the only one in the audience who was counting ceiling after ten minutes of his stories. He lost me. And from the comments around the table following the event, he lost others, too.

I was reminded of a short article in The Power of The Platform: Speakers on Purpose by Dick Bolles, author of the job hunter’s bible which has sold 10 million copies, What Color is Your Parachute? Bolles, who has been a successful professional speaker for over 40 years, reminds us there are certain facts to remember if you seek to become the best speaker possible:

1. Never talk about anything unless you care deeply about it. There’s no substitute for passion.

2. Speaking, at its best, is truth coming through our personality. Both ingredients are required. Listeners need to hear about the experience of the speaker to provide the rich coloring and context. But they also need the truth. The statistics, the proofs, the examples, the case studies. Great speakers marry the two.

3. And speakers don’t delude themselves into thinking they are the smartest or most important person in the room. They treat each audience member who comes to them afterward with respect, as if a king or queen were approaching them. For in the end, the best speakers are also the best listeners.

These three keys are important to speakers, but important to leaders as well, don’t you think? Substitute the word “leader” for “speaker”. I like working with leaders who operate that way.

The Power of the Platform: Speakers on Purpose is a newly released compilation book, containing a vast array of information from thought-leading speakers and authors from the field of leadership and personal development. In addition to my chapter on The Dirtiest Little Secret in Business: The Absence of Supportive Candor, several New York Times best-selling authors have contributed chapters, including Jack Canfield, Brian Tracy, Keith Ferrazzi, Marci Shimoff and Robin Jay. For a copy of my chapter, click here.

Better Results From Your Team Through Subtraction

Recently, I conducted a team alignment session with a top team that is a market leader in the medical device industry. This is a results-oriented, dedicated top team, highly committed to the company’s goals and the team’s success. Their agenda is packed and the team is a hard-charging, pacesetting group, giving it their best efforts. While directionally this full-plate approach seems to make sense, it unfortunately triggered two unintended consequences: 1. While going so fast on so many fronts, the team lost clarity of the critical few priorities and 2. The team was so busy they had no time to develop and strengthen their working relationships with one another.

This team experienced a lousy climate. Using the HayGroup Organizational Climate Survey to provide a snapshot of the current state, we “worked out” the biggest gaps in the working climate they were currently experiencing. As the team worked out their top two climate gaps, they tightened their list of critical priorities, taking a number of initiatives off the agenda so they could sharpen their focus on the highest impact initiatives. They actually killed projects and decided what to stop doing. They identified projects that could be delayed or delegated to others in the company. They also agreed to take one of their weekly staff meetings each month and make it unstructured, with no agenda, to encourage open discussions and share information. And they agreed to reserve an hour on Fridays for a “Friday lunch” to connect with one another and informally re-cap the week.

My prediction is when we get together for our next team alignment session in three months, this top team will still have their relentless drive for results, but will feel a dramatically improved working climate within in their team. And that climate is key for a sustained team performance.

Leadership sage Peter Drucker was quoted as saying in Marshall Goldsmith’s What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, “We spend a lot of time teaching leaders what to do. We don’t spend enough time teaching leaders what to stop. Half the leaders I have met don’t need to learn what to do. They need to learn what to stop.”

This same statement holds true for many top leadership teams. Less is often more. Addition through subtraction.

What can your team do less of or stop to actually improve their performance?

Five Lessons CEOs Can Learn From Team USA

A few weeks ago at the initial press conference in Vancouver, Team USA General Manger Brian Burke, asked the group of writers who they thought would win gold: Canada, Sweden, Russia? Hands shot up for each team. When he asked how many thought Team USA would win the gold, he saw no hands.

As we now know, Team USA won the silver medal in the Vancouver Winter Olympics men’s hockey, losing a thrilling game 3-2 in overtime to host Team Canada. While Team USA fell a bit short of its goal of gold, this was one incredible performance, led by Brian Burke and coach Ron Wilson. And while all of Team Canada’s and Team USA’s players are current NHL players; consider the combined NHL payroll of Team USA came in at $83.6m, only 65% of the $128m Canadian payroll. And Team USA was the youngest team in the tournament.

Flashback to the 2006 Olympics when Team USA, with an 8th place showing, consisted of slow, aging and a lethargic group of players. The team was negative in attitude as Mike Modano and others complained about travel, accommodations, playing time, etc. Brian Burke took notice and jettisoned the old guard for hungry youngsters when he took over.

Burke, responsible for assembling a team of American hockey players to take on the world’s best hockey players, had a winning formula, not matched by other teams. In a short six game tournament, he believed that great goaltending combined with young, tenacious players who hustled every second, played a physical style and left their egos at home, would carry the day. Their boundless energy and swarming style overwhelmed older opponents, not prepared to handle relentless pressure at a frenetic pace for the entire game.

Burke wanted speed, youth, grit, toughness and a hunger to win. The skills he looked for were versatility – a combination of skill players and “beef”. He made it clear they didn’t come to Vancouver to medal, they came to win gold.

What can CEOs learn from the US Men’s Olympics Hockey team to apply to their own top teams?
1. The purpose of the team was clear. Named as GM in 2008, at the Team USA’s first evaluation camp, Burke made it clear the team was there to win gold in Vancouver, not to prep for 2014 in Sochi. While CEOs may be clear about the purpose of their enterprise, too often they are unclear as to the purpose of the top team.
2. The norms of behavior were explicit. No complaining, no excuses, nothing less than 100% effort were the norms. Burke believes that complaints are a prelude to excuses and excuses are a prelude to losing. Most CEOs aren’t explicit about the acceptable/unacceptable norms of behavior of their top team. Norms are crucial as they define essential behaviors for teams to win.
3. The right team members were selected and understood their roles. With only 23 roster spots, getting the right mix of attitude and skills was crucial. Team USA had a bunch of nameless kids, many only recognizable with a program or media guide. The right mix of highly skilled players and with hard hats and grinders. There were no prima donnas. Each team member knew their role before they arrived in Vancouver. It’s surprising to me in working with executive teams how frequently there is confusion about roles/responsibilities, mutual expectations and goals.
4. The talk was straight. Burke practiced absolute candor and demonstrated a lack of tolerance for anything but excellence. While the team had initial success against Canada, Switzerland and Finland, their eyes were on the ultimate prize. When Team USA beat Team Canada a week before the gold medal game, Burke went public saying that only 10 guys were pulling their weight. Straight talk is desperately needed within top teams. The lack of supportive candor is one of the biggest problems that face most executive teams.
5. There was excellent, supportive, on-going coaching. Burke and coach Ron Wilson made the right adjustments along the way, shaking up the lines, ensuring the team played with purpose and confidence. In hockey and in business, adjustments and coaching are necessary on an on-going basis. It’s the responsibility of the top team leader to ensure it occurs.

An entertaining and impressive performance from Team USA. A number of similarities between a world-class hockey team and a high-performing, winnning executive team. And many fine examples of leadership from Team USA that can be emulated by CEOs, senior leaders and their top teams.

How Strong is Your Personal Brand?

The Nobel Prize. Everyone knows this prestigious prize is awarded annually in Stockholm to individuals who’ve made outstanding achievements in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Medicine and Peace. The Nobel Prize brand is strong and well-known worldwide.

It wasn’t always this way, however. Brenda Bence, internationally-recognized branding expert and author of How You™ Are Like Shampoo, describes in her chapter in The Power of the Platform: Speakers on Purpose, that Alfred Nobel, for whom the Nobel Prize was named, was a successful and wealthy Swedish industrialist in the late 1800s credited with inventing dynamite and the dynamite detonator. He made millions. When his brother Ludwig Nobel died in 1888, the obituary that showed up in the Stockholm newspaper was Alfred’s not Ludwig’s. The headline on the obituary described him as “The Merchant of Death”, because of his work with dynamite and detonators. Aghast, Alfred Nobel knew at that moment his name would forever be associated with death and destruction unless he took control of his personal brand. He created a plan to launch the Nobel Prize, and today we know Alfred Nobel for this legacy – not dynamite.

Brenda Bence asks us a fundamental question: “Do you have the personal brand YOU want?” Is your brand bringing you greater success of holding you back? Not knowing the answer to that question could mean the difference between living a great life and feeling lost.

In her chapter, Brenda shares five keys for mastering your personal brand. I recommend you read her chapter to learn and apply these keys to your brand. You can access her chapter below.

Brenda Bence is a contributing author to a newly released compilation book to which I have also contributed a chapter: The Power of the Platform: Speakers on Purpose. This book contains a vast array of information from thought-leading speakers and authors from the field of leadership and personal development. In addition to my chapter on The Dirtiest Little Secret in Business: The Absence of Supportive Candor, several New York Times best-selling authors have contributed chapters, including Jack Canfield, Brian Tracy, Keith Ferrazzi, Robin Jay, Marci Shimoff and Richard Bolles. For a copy of Brenda’s chapter, click here; for a copy of my chapter, click here.

Management’s Conspiracy Of Silence

Today’s article in Canada’s Financial Post is an interview of me by Allison Graham, following my presentation at the Human Resources Professional Association’s National Conference in Toronto, on The Dirtiest Little Secret in Business: The Absence of Supportive Candor. To read the article, click here. For a copy of my presentation slides, click here.

3 Questions: The CEO’s Top Team

Last week, I had lunch with a gentleman who has interviewed over 700 CEOs. He shared with me his view that a CEO has only four internal areas which demand his time. In this expert’s view, time spent in other areas is a waste. The four key areas he mentioned were:

1. Defining/refining the business model;
2. Developing talent;
3. Improving processes and
4. Allocating capital.

From my experience working for and with many CEOs and top teams, I know to make real headway on these key activities requires help from those who surround the CEO. In today’s world, no CEO has enough information or time to propel a company alone. The CEO needs a capable, competent and committed top team. Yet, few CEOs are satisfied with the performance of their top team. In a study sponsored by McKinsey, only 20% of CEOs described their team as high performing.

Much of the time, the CEO’s direct reports work in their individual executive roles or in small work groups. Yet, when it’s time to work together on a common work product, CEOs who put in place the conditions that increase the probability their group of senior executives will operate as a superb top team are wise indeed. So to get the biggest bang for the buck from their top team, CEOs would benefit from reflecting and answering the following three questions:

Question #1. What’s the purpose of my top team?

Let’s talk for a moment what the purpose of the top team is not. The purpose of the top team should not be merely achieving the mission and goals of the company. The purpose of the top team should not be sharing information and doing report outs. The purpose of the top team should not be competent functional management. The purpose of the top team should not be the sum of the individual members’ contributions.

The purpose for the top team should be the special contribution only the top team can make to execute the strategy of the company. It should be clear and challenging. What function will the top team serve? What must they really do? It’s important the CEO make explicit the purpose of the top team and what is expected from them.

Here are some ideas:

 Develop/modify company strategies
 Monitor company performance
 Acquire and deploy capital
 Improve company capabilities – operating model, talent review, succession planning
 Acquire and integrate other companies
 Expansion through new products and into underserved markets
 Change initiatives

Here’s an example of the purpose of the top team of a young, rapidly growing company:

The purpose of the XYZ Leadership Team is to create shareholder value through building a strong, market-leading, sustainable company optimizing organizational and human capital and delivering an extraordinary experience for our customers. We will create company strategy, hire and develop the talent, deliver high performance and create a results-oriented, winning climate.

The purpose of the team should be clear. It should not be an advisory, consultative group, but a real decision-making team that effectively coordinates performance and initiatives across the company.

Question #2. What’s the size and composition of my top team?

The top team should be as small as possible, ideally a group of 5 to 8 for most companies. Clearly the requisite skills and experiences needed to lead the business must be represented around the table; the right people on the bus as Jim Collins shared in Good to Great. But many CEOs have a tendency to have too many people on the bus, and that impedes performance.

The more people on the top team, the greater the challenge in creating clarity and gaining alignment. The larger the team, the more difficult communication becomes as required connections rise rapidly. The more connections, the greater the likelihood for misunderstandings and relationship misfires. And the more connections, the more complex the team dynamics.

The following formula illustrates what occurs when additional people are added to the team. If you have “n” people on the team, there are (n² – n)/2 connections. A bloated team creates many, many connections, see below:

Team members / Connections
3 – 3
4 – 6
5 – 10
6 – 15
7 – 21
8 – 28
9 – 36
10 – 45
11 – 55
12 – 66

Large teams create complexity and hurt performance. Keep the top team small for best results.

Question #3. What should be the norms of behavior for how the team will operate?

Norms are explicit, shared expectations about how the team will operate. Unfortunately, this question is often not raised, much less answered, within top teams. Team members, including the CEO, should hold one another accountable for maintaining these norms and enforcing them. Some studies have shown the absence of explicit norms has the single biggest impact on whether the leadership team is effective. While each CEO and top team should develop the norms that best suit their situation, universally useful norms for top teams include: commitment to one another, transparency, constructively raising and resolving conflict, full participation and mutual respect.

An example of the norms of a top team follows:

We will:
 Commit to the team
 Trust each other and give the benefit of the doubt
 Act with candor, providing supportiveness and willingness to share/receive feedback
 Care and respect each other
 Share responsibility ;your problem is our problem
 Address and constructively resolve Conflict early
 Deliver results that meet and exceed our commitments

CEOs should have a strong point-of-view on norms; however, the development of the norms by the full top team is a terrific way to gain commitment and buy-in. Consider creating norms of behavior together with your top team.

In summary, the CEOs should reflect on what is needed from a top team and carefully define its purpose. The size of the top team should be kept as small as possible. And the norms need to be defined and made explicit. Successfully addressing these three questions creates a solid foundation from which to build a high performing top team.