 Yeah, good morning everyone. Welcome to this morning seminar. I will start and hand over the word Leila Jungberg. She has been working with himing and doing a lot in what you call agile environments and driving this. But what I know her also a lot from is that she is the contributor to the book that Pia Maria has written. So if you have written, if you had read the book, you surely have heard some of the sayings from Leila. So I will hand it over to you. Thank you so much, Ingla, for that introduction. Yeah, that was many years ago, that book. That was fantastic and great and I hope that it provided some insights for you if you read it. So my name is Leila Jungberg and nowadays I actually work as a consultant at a bureau called Doings. And we have the humble aim as I would presume that many of you have to make this world a little bit of a better place. Person by person, team by team and organisation by organisation. So that's just briefly who we are. And I'm really, really happy to be here today to talk about himing because collective intelligence is really what I strongly, strongly believe in. And you can just see that by the power of all of you here today. That's a collective with a bunch of intelligence that I know of seeing a lot of your names on the list. So it's going to be super interesting to see how we can leverage that today. Can we just say that if they have any questions, they can write it in the chat and there will also be an opportunity afterwards to address the questions to Leila. So sorry for that. Yes, that's how we will manage the collective intelligence. So right in the chat box, Ingla will help me out to see if you have asked something that's super nice and I will leave some time by the end as well if you have anything that you want to ask me. But I would also like to hear from you to talk more about teaming. So this is the team that I work with every day. And we work a lot with coaching team development and organizational change. We do that from a lot of leadership questions, a lot of culture questions trying to make sure that companies are living and doing their very, very best. Let's see if this works. Yes. And these are our values and principles that we live by, which actually made me choose doings because if you look at these pretty closely, you can see that they are really, really closely connected to the agile values, which made me think that this is the perfect match. We will work so greatly together. And that actually stands true. We believe in a co-leadership. So we are 17 people, 18 I think actually nowadays that are doing that together, co-leading ourselves to live according to our values. So just briefly, I've struggled. I have one work life where I mostly struggled upstreams. And in that work life, I actually met PME and many others from the agile people community, other heroes out there struggling to create something else. I really wanted to see if there were another way that we could work together that was well suited towards being a human being with other human beings where we were supposed to leverage this brain we have here inside of us. Because everywhere where I looked, that were not really what we were doing. And I continued this quest for many years. I tried to work from the HR box. And fortunately, what happened to me was that in a very early stage, I was at the IT consultancy firm and I discovered a competence network that was focusing on working in agile ways. This made me super curious. What is all of this about? And I really quickly realized that these values, they were really resonating with me and they were resonating with being a human being, leveraging this capital that we have inside of our heads and really working authentically with that. So I worked as a people and culture manager in many different global organizations for many years. And I tried to build HR functions from the notion of the agile values and principles. So that is kind of what you can see in these pictures, my constant struggle. And then all of a sudden I realized that something has changed and shifted. People wanted to work in this way. So that became an opportunity to me to really kind of a little bit let go of the struggle. And I joined doings to work a little bit more with these type of questions that I was really passionate about. Which was all about coaching individuals, growing teams and growing organizations from these perspectives. So that is actually what I do mostly nowadays. And I would say that a majority of my time has been spent with teams and figuring out different ways for teams to be as engaged and as efficient that they can be. And I love that. It's so much fun. Which brings us to today's topic. I met Ingella the other month actually, it wasn't this month, it was another month. And we were at this lunch webinar and we started to talk about teaming actually because it's so interesting about how we do that nowadays. What actually works and how can we apply theories into practical cases. So we started talking about that and so we ended up here having this little stories from reality thingy with all of you. So I'm going to walk you through this today. And I'm going to give you a very brief, brief introduction to three different fantastic, mighty researchers that has a lot of thinking and theories that have been studied and applied on teaming and group development. And then I'm going to talk a little bit about how I actually apply these different theories in real life in practicality with a few of customer cases that I brought here for you today. And of course, I would like to trigger your own thinking in this. It would be really interesting to hear in the end what you think works really well when you work with team development or building teams, what is working for you. And how do you leverage different theories? Okay. So I'm going, are you ready? Yes. This lady, she's a mighty one. So I will not deep dive into the different theories, but I will talk a little bit about what I personally like with them. And I will also talk a little bit about what the critics say about them. So for you who don't know, psychological safety has been booming for a few years now. So this theory is about how we create an environment for teams where they can be as efficient as possible and engaged as possible when we have a lot of complexity around us. And we have an environment that requires us to be really good problem solvers or really creative thinkers. So in that context, how can we become the best possible versions of ourselves? So you can read and see here on the slide about the definition about psychological safety from Amy Edmondson. There are a few other ones as well, but let's focus on her for this session today. So psychological safety is, I believe, that no one will be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes. So that is her definition of a psychological safety is. And I'm going to talk a little bit more about how you can create that. But I wanted to tell you first that what I do like with psychological safety, talking about practical application, is how well suited psychological safety actually is when you have complex environments, when you have a lot of uncertainties, a lot of unknown areas. And you really need to have a strong collaborative environment for the team. And you need to be able to get the most innovation power out of people that are involved. So I think that is my personal take on how psychological safety has been really suitable when I meet teams that are in that type of environment. So let's just look a little bit on how you do it. So I really like this short sheet sheet, we can call it, that Amy uses herself. And she talks about hardware or software of teams. So for me, this has been a really good like checklist while working with teaming in this case. So you need to have the hardware, a lot of structural things, like we need to scope what type of challenge we are looking at, why are we a team, what are we trying to accomplish. We need to understand that to be able to find the expertise in the team that is needed. And when we know what we are doing, we need to talk about how we actually are building value. How do we do things? And then of course, if we have a complex environment, this question, sorting priorities and interdependencies is not as easy as it might seem. That could be really complex, but who is doing what first? And what do we need to succeed? So those are more of the hardware, the structural things in regards of psychological safety. And then we have the software of psychological safety that is, you know, understanding and connecting to a deeper purpose of why we are doing things. What are we doing and why? And this is of course good for many different benefits, but mostly triggers internal motivation do things and it creates a glue in the team that sticks us together. And we also talk about how we are doing things. And this is something that helps us to, you know, let go of that energy to constantly drain ourselves with figuring out how we're doing things. Rather, we talk about it very explicitly, so it's out there. And then of course, the hot question of learning actually. So it does seem simple on the surface, but we all know that if we are in teams with a little bit more higher diversity, both if it's demographic or neurodiversity, it requires a little bit more from us. And there will be divergent ideas. There will be mistakes. And it's really good also to have made it more explicitly how we actually handle that type of learning. So I'm not going to dive any deeper into psychological safety. I'm presuming most of you have heard of it. And if you haven't, I hope that you will be curious to learn more after this session. But I'm also going to highlight actually what some critics talk about when they hear psychological safety. So one thing is culture variation. And that would be also interesting to see if there are some of you here from from other cultures, rather than my perspective, which is one specific one. But some critics says that there is an aspect of culture variation, which does not make psychological safety universal. Rather, you could see that it is influenced by different types of cultures and it doesn't apply straight away to all type of cultures that we have around us. And there are also potentials for misuse. This is something that I actually meet very often that psychological safety is seen as a way to be really nice as an example, just be nice to each other, which is a bit of a misunderstanding of what psychological safety is. But if you just dive into it very briefly, that might be how you perceive psychological safety, which might also be something that could create some confusion of how it actually should be working in reality. So that was Amy Edmondsson on psychological safety. A little bit of what I like about it, a little bit about what the critics say about it. I'm moving on to another mighty woman. This is Ruth Wagnerman. I don't know if you have heard about her. She's not as famous as Amy is, but her research is pretty impressive. So the thing I like with Wagnerman's research is that she has a lot of recent research. We're talking about the 30 years that has been upcoming for now. So it's pretty recent research, even though it's very longitudinal. And she has been looking at efficiency for leadership teams a lot, which has been relevant for me because I've worked a lot with teaming for leadership teams as well. But she has also looked at other teams. And she has found these six conditions that collectively could lead up to, predict up to 80% of team efficiency. So it's pretty solid research and that's impressive for me. And I think that the thing with Wagnerman's research is that it's very similar, but a little bit more concrete in structure towards Edmondsson's research on psychological safety. So they're really like well suited together. Let's look at it a little bit closer. So maybe this picture is a little bit small for you, but I'm going to read you through it. So you can see there are two triangles in this picture. And it's actually a chronological order of these different triangles in her model. So the first triangle is what you're supposed to kind of walk through first. And the top of that triangle says real team. So this is actually a really tricky question that I've met myself during a lot of, I made a lot of mistakes during the years. I've tried to create teams of a bunch of people who are not really a real team. And this is the hard way to do this lessons learned. So I can just tell you this directly that that doesn't work. People do not want to work together if they are actually not a real team because there are no genuine need for each other in that context. And I've tried to do this actually from the agile perspective because I've thought, okay, but we are all HR, we are finance, we are IT. We are all here to make something great for the employees as an example. That was like my really naive idea of how to create a team in this context. But the thing is like IT, finance and HR had really like not the same goals in this and maybe not the same perspective. I mean, maybe not even the same value base actually to stand from. So that is something I've worked upstream with a lot of times during the years trying to create teams of groups of people who actually are not a team. So it's a good question to ask yourself actually. It's very existential, but it starts there. Are we a real team? Is this a real team? And if it is, what is this team's purpose? And if you dive into Vagamon's research a little bit deeper, you will see that she has also like different alternatives for this. Like when we're talking about the team's purpose, there are a bunch of different purposes that could stand true for this team. But yeah, so is this a real team? And if it is, what is the team purpose? As you can see very closely connected to Edmondson's hardware and the software of teams as well. And so we are also talking about who are in the team and why are we in the team. And in this case, we are referring to, you know, competencies and roles, which expertise is needed again to be able to create our mission at hand. And maybe we're also missing somebody. That could be the case as well. So does this team have a compelling purpose? So compelling is kind of a keyword in this as well. And it is again, we're talking about internal motivation. That is the thing because we know that when we trigger this area in the brain, we will have more grit. We will have more stamina. We will stand tall through the challenges that we will meet as a team. So co-creating a compelling purpose is one of the core structures here. And then we go to the lower triangle. And as you understand, if we have these three parts first, we have cleared out some foundational questions about teaming together. But the lower triangle here, that asks what is the structure of this team? Do we have a sound structure for this team? And I think this is very easy to see if you work with a leadership team, but also in other teams that, you know, they might have those first three questions in check. But maybe they haven't worked so much on making the structure of this team explicit. How we actually are building structure and value together. How we are communicating with other teams, what we're doing in which orders, et cetera, et cetera. And then I think this question is really interesting because this is an external perspective of the team that is not maybe often looked at. Do they have a supportive context? So does this team have a supportive context? And I like this because this resonates with the servant leadership, you know, that we're building foundations or structure in an organization that actually helps this team to be their very best. But this could also be about, you know, training, it could be about resources, all types of things around the team that can make the team even better. And then I don't know if this is a really smart sales trick from Wagerman, or if it's just meant for us consultants in general, or no, I have a person of view on this, of course, but she talks about team coaching. There is an upside of having a neutral facilitator who helps the team to develop and go through their evolutionary phases. Of course, this could be someone external like me, you can hire me, of course, but it could also be somebody in the team who takes on this role. And I think it's a good thing to do within the team to take on the facilitator role and to actually shift so different persons works on developing the skillset. But that is mostly maybe from my personal point of view that I think facilitating is, you know, the leadership for the future. And Wagerman talks about essentials for the first triangle and then she talks about enablers for the later triangle. And I think this is really connected to this. A facilitating skillset is really an enabler for a group's evolution to become more engaged and efficient. Yes, so what I like about Wagerman's model and way of thinking with six condition is that this is really clear. It's a really solid clear structure. You can dive deeper into this and you will have questions and more details in the different parts. I really like that. What critics says is that there are some rigidity in the conditions like there are a little bit too rigid sometimes, which makes it harder to apply in all team contexts. And the critics also say that it overemphasizes a little bit on structure. When you have a more dynamic and fluid team, it might be harder to leverage the structure. So that is a little bit of my point of view and a little bit of the critics point of view on Wagerman's research about teaming. Okay, this lady is maybe somebody you recognize as well. So we can't talk group development if we're not referring to Susan Whelan. It's kind of a must have in this mix. I think it's also interesting because Whelan's perspective applies a little bit of another dimension in regards to Edmundson's and to Wagerman's research. But as you know, Whelan has built on the theory of group development and what she is looking at is more of the natural group development over time. You know, all of these different developmental phases that a team goes through. So the good thing that her research shows is that usually when you work just with looking at the different phases that a team go through with a team, that the team themselves becomes really skilled on recognizing the different signs of which kind of evolutionary phase they are in. That actually brings more team efficiency in engagement because the team feels more ownership. They become more skilled at moving from one phase into another. So that is just really short on Whelan's theories. I'm also going to just show you this picture if you don't know about Whelan's theories, this is what they look like. So you usually use the metaphor of a person growing up when you talk about Whelan's natural team development phase. So first you're in this more polite phase where you have the dependency and inclusion. And then when things have been polite for a while, you start to go into conflict when you realize that you have things that you think differently about. Then you want to disagree a little bit upon to be able to get the next phase, the conflict phase. And then when you have gone through that, you are supposed to have more of the trust and the structure, which naturally happens when you've gone through the hard times together as well. And then you get to a higher performing stage. And then there's also a closer phase in this. But I think most of you have seen Susan Whelan's model before, maybe even tried out GDQ, which is the test questionnaire connected to this where you actually can work a little bit more closer on this. So I personally think that it's really good and easy language to leverage Whelan's, you know, this analysis of where a team is at. When I go into a new team to kind of recognize what has happened here, where are they at right now? Where do we need to go? And I also like that you can provide a team with the self-efficiency of actually themselves making these analyzes, being able to recognize where they're at in their journey. So some of the critiques towards Whelan's theories is that there are somewhat of an overgeneralization that is oversimplified with the team dynamics. It's a bit more of a linear approach, so it's a little bit harder to apply in more complexity or when you have more of this fluid space the team are acting with. So that is just really briefly on Whelan's theory and how I like it and what the critiques say. So the good thing with these mighty researchers and their theories is that they are really good to just mix together. I love that. I love to take the best parts of theory and apply it to practical scenarios. So what we can see that is similar for all of these three theories is that they are both very focused on team effectiveness. And they're very also focused on team interdependencies that we are realizing that we are dependent of each other within a team to be able to create what we want to have the outcomes of the team. The differences between these teams is that they have a bit of different approaches to teaming and how that works. They have a bit of different views on the environmental perspective around the team and also what type of conditions a team need. And they're also focusing a little bit more depending on which theory you look at at the individual in the team context or the team as a collective, a group that is moving together. Just to highlight that, but I think that the most important part to realize as well is that they are all working very well together. So I'm really curious to see how you are thinking when you are maybe meeting a new team and you're trying to help them to move on forward maybe just becoming better or maybe resolving something that has been tricky. But this is a bit of the questions that I'm thinking about when I'm meeting a new team to understand where they are currently at. And since I'm a consultant I need to do this pretty quickly actually. There's no slack because they charge me by hour or I charge them by hour. So this needs to be an efficient process. So I'm usually looking at, you know, what is this team supposed to do together? Why do they need each other? Why are there supposed to be a team? A pretty provocative question sometimes, but sometimes really good to just realize and go back to basic. It's a bit of understanding the why in a really deep level. And this is something you can ask, of course, if there's a team leader or a team manager or yourself, if you're a team leader or a team manager, but also the individuals in the team because it's really interesting to see if this is something that is really well anchored with all or if there's a question that still has a bit of an clarity to it. And it also directs the rest of the efforts that you want to do when you need to understand who are in the team, who needs to be in the team maybe if there are competencies or role missing. When you need to understand where the team is at, it's also good to see what they are supposed to do together. Some type of background, you know, there could be conflicts or things that has been happened before or there have been a lot of movement. And you recognize that this is maybe not a stable team, it's more of a fluid team. And that is the context that they are acting in and it will be that way that requires certain things. And then of course, what type of structure do they have already? What does it look like right now? So these are a few of my questions and the things that I'm thinking about when I meet a new team. And I really mix all of the theories actually when I do this. And I'm going to be even more explicit in how I actually do this with a few of team cases. And when I talk about these team cases now, feel free to, you know, drop a question in the chat box or raise your hand if you want to ask something. I won't be able to dig into details from the customer and team aspect, but maybe in how I apply theory. So a quiz there. This is one of my customers where I have a role as a janitor or something similar, because I do a little bit of everything and what is needed at certain times. Sometimes it's sweeping floors. Sometimes it's building something new or sometimes it's making sure that the elevator is working. But this is a scale up that works with educational technologies. They are spread all over the world. So it's a really hybrid team setup. They have a few offices. They have a few persons that are like, you know, alone in different parts of the world because they have a global customer base. They are in some kind of scale up phase. So things are moving fast. There are never enough hands. I think a lot of you recognize this phase to be in. And it's a lot of change. It's a constant change. So I've done a lot of different things with these companies, but in this case we're focusing on team development and working with the CEO as well. Because I think that the thing here with this customer in this case is that when you have fluid teams, which I think psychological safety is a really well suited theory for, you need to be able to create, you know, both a big structure that enables this psychological safety to happen in smaller contexts because the team needs to be set up in a fast and small structure. And then it might be, you know, let go of and then there might be another team constellation. So in this case, it's a lot about creating both organizational structure for the smaller teams to be able to set it up. And that is also very highly connected to each and every individual in the company to be able to have the self-awareness, the self-leadership to see and build small teams and contribute to small teams as they need. So in this case we have been working on the organizational purpose a lot. And we have also been working on making sure that each individual is connecting to that overarching purpose a lot. Because the team purpose is a bit harder in this context because it's constantly fluid. So the team purpose might be set up in a smaller context depending to need towards a certain customer in different times. But we have worked a lot on the bigger structure and the individual self-leadership from that perspective. So they both have this common language where they actually can refer to psychological safety and how you do that and how they contribute to that. But also that they have the organizational structure presets to be able to do that in the bigger picture. This also becomes more important when you have a lot of remote and hybrid working team members. Because a lot of things within psychological safety is about minimizing the threat response to make sure that we can be the best version ourselves. And if you're supposed to do that you need to be clear on the structure that you have for different things. Like how do I give feedback in this organization? If I have an idea for the product where do I go? Or if I want to connect to other team members and I'm all alone here in my country, in my home office, how do I connect with them? What kind of areas and surfaces is there for me to connect with others? So a lot of organizational setup from that perspective and co-creating and refining that together for them to be able to feel that they have the presets in the organization to be able to contribute and build the psychological safety they need together. So the case at Quizzer has been a lot about growing fluid safe teams together. And I think that psychological safety has been the theory that I definitely apply the most here to be able to provide them with what they need in this kind of constantly moving team structure. Okay, I'm moving on. So the Red Cross. So this has been a really interesting assignment as well because it's changed a lot during the process. And I will see the most important thing in this case actually has been the question of a real team. Is this a real team? So the mission at first was actually to work with one isolated team in the organization to see if they could try out more agile ways of working. And if that then later on could be applied to other teams in the organization as a whole. So a bit of experimental first case. Super interesting. The challenge was though that this team was actually like four teams that had been just merged to one team. And we had this ambition in the beginning to work with directly the agile ways of working, moving on right into those kind of practices. But in this case, which we realized after failing a bit, that's that's how I do it. I fail a bit and then I realize new things was that it's not doable to jump into the agile ways of working without understanding if this is a real team. And if it's not, what is a real team here? So we started out with the ways of working. We realized me and the team manager in this case that this was not the path that we could take to move on forward. And we changed the scope. So what we instead did was to structure up the real teams within these teams to understand what our team in this context, what is the scope of their challenge. There was, of course, just to be clear, already very clear missions for this different teams that were merged that they were supposed to work with. The problem was just that we couldn't just merge these four different team challenges or scopes to one because there were two different. And there were no natural dependencies of each other if we would just have merged them to one. So we actually, yes, question. Yeah, the question is, what did you do in the team development sessions? Yeah. So we, we said we started with separating them, actually, because we realized that we couldn't work with them all together as one. And in this team development session, it was a lot about defining the scope and the challenge of their mission at first. So kind of containing that, structuring that so much closer in co-creation, of course, with that natural team. What is the scope and the challenge where should we cut and slice it? And when the challenge was a little bit more clear, working on that team's way of working. And in this case, there were a lot of changes, actually a lot of structural changes. So I would say, in this case, it was both in the beginning to realize that, okay, when we put all of these persons together in the room, there's, you could apply Willem's theory to this because you saw that there is something really wrong here. It does not work as it should. And then when we separated them, you could apply Willem's theory again because you could see that they were in so different phases, all of the different teams. And they needed a little bit of different things. So one team needed to work really a lot with what's the scope and challenge I had. Another team, they needed new roles. They actually needed to shift roles and they needed different competencies in different roles. And then a third team needed to work a little bit more on their ways of working. So we separated it into these different team working value tracks instead and work with this during a long time actually to figure out and make it a bit more clear for each of these teams, what they were doing, how they were working and which roles were needed. So a lot of change on both structural and behavioral areas as well. And in the end, they could actually come together and start working on their agile manifesto. They had their own principles that they could start to co-create. And then they could do that, all of them together because it was more on a principle basis and they could start to see that they had synergies across the teams that still could be viable in case of learning mostly from each other and leveraging insights across the different teams. So that was kind of an interesting process that I learned a lot from myself in how to work with analyzing teams and working with real teams. I hope that gave some answers on the team development sessions. I can talk a bit more about that in this last case as well. So I might have Cecilia online. I don't know. That would be fun. Cecilia is a CHRO at Exilum, one of my customers as well, where we have been doing a lot of things together. And they have also worked a lot with teams in this company actually as well. But Cecilia came to me with a specific team in mind. So this was also a really different case from the other two. So this was a specific team who were in a challenge. And the aim was to get back to a stage where this was a really trusting and high performing team because they needed to be really innovative, which is one of the core competencies that these companies have. And they needed to leverage that even more in this specific team. So there had been a conflict earlier. The result in this has also been that there was not this, you know, even airtime in this team, but rather a few persons had a lot more airtime. And this, you know, it's a super nice team and all of that. But the thing is that you couldn't leverage the full innovation of the full collective intelligence here. So what we did was a very structured approach here with different team development sessions and then some individual coaching as well between the manager and the team members. So I think that was really key in this as well, because since there had been a conflict, it would have been super challenging to walk in for me as a team facilitator to walk into this team when the conflict was, you know, in full blossom that would probably not have worked very well. So the team manager had already worked with the individuals who were involved in this case and have talked a lot about this. And it was, you know, at a calmer level. And these persons, these individuals were really ready to take the next step. So I think that was an important preset for me to be able to come in here and deliver value when I was working with the whole group in these team development sessions. So in this case, we worked a lot with psychological safety. And we also worked a lot with the real team question because this is a matrix organization with cross functional teams. So in this case, this is a team that had a specific purpose together, but maybe not the same purposes as most teams have because they shared purpose with other teams as well. So we actually had three very structured questions where we, sessions where we worked first on the team purpose, why are we a team and how are we working together. And each, in each of these sessions, we did this co-creation phase together, but I also gave them a communicative tool of some sort for each session to be able to improve their communication skills with each other at the same path. So we worked with, you know, the purpose of the team and then we practiced active listening or we worked with ways of working in the team. How would we want to behave towards each other? How are we doing things? And then we practiced a feedback method. So this was the setup of the three different team sessions to be able to get to a stage where they felt more safe to express how they were feeling or their ideas, divergent ideas when co-creating and doing innovation together, but they also became a little bit better at facilitating how they work together since that was a bit of the challenge to be able to get to the stage of more of an innovative climate when they were supposed to create things together. So I would say in this case I worked a lot with both Wagner and Edmundson's theory, psychological safety and six conditions for a team to be able to provide them with the structure that they needed to work in a more innovative way. Structure and innovation, that's how it goes. Cool, so now I've been talking for so much time. I can't hear my voice anymore. But I'm curious to hear from you. I'm really curious to hear from you what you think works or if you have any questions for me talking about how you apply theory into practice. We have a question from your Jonas album. Do you want to address it yourself maybe? Because I missed that it was about the first example. We cannot hear you. Jonas, are you there? We cannot hear you. So what he's asking is how did you come up with this set and workshops with the whole team online then? Sorry, the whole team. At your first workshop with the whole team and did you do it online? Was this for the first case with the quiz sir? Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, cool. So, yeah, that has been not a straight cut line process but we have worked a little bit with different ways actually but I think the one thing that made the most impact which I could see at least, that's a problem with Harvard. You don't know. But the thing is they had an all hands, a physical all hands where they gathered the whole company and when they did that it was like for a week or something like that. And then we took the opportunity to make a bigger both educational and co-creating thing where we worked with the team purpose behaviors to succeed with this and actually also which organizational structures, forums, meeting spaces they needed to be able to do this. And I think that physical room was really well needed to make sure that people went home back into their remote space and felt like they knew now that this was okay and that I could use this. Because this is also one of these companies where culture differences has cultural variation is a big question because the employees are from all over the world so a lot of different cultures mixed up together. But yeah, physical. And if I would have done it in another way we would try to make it of course remote but I would have preferred at least to do one thing physical or a first thing physical and then the next thing remote because that's how we have worked afterwards as well. Thank you. We have a question from Mattias Valberg. Would you like to? Yeah, I'm curious about how we can move from the typical stable teams set up where we say need to re-team more and more often to handle cross-value stream collaborations. Any ideas, any tips? Yeah, I'm so happy you brought this up because maybe I haven't or I haven't had the chance to talk about this but this has been one of my like trickiest challenges like do we even have stable teams anymore? Is that a thing nowadays? Or maybe do we only have teaming like the verb that we're like constantly doing teaming because everything is fluid around us all the time. And I think what for me has been a key as a facilitator for teams which I also try to work with team managers and team leaders on is to take these theories like psychological safety as an example, hardware and software for teams or lag amongst conditions or something that has this structure thing to it and make it in a smaller format when you go into a fluid team. Am I only working with this team for like two or three months? I could still leverage a lot of those structural components to make sure that some threatening stuff that could be on people's brain is taken care of and cleared out like why we're doing things, how we're doing things and even to make a small investment in co-creation of that not telling as a manager or a facilitator how it is but having that element of co-creation even though it's really small makes the engagement I think personally it's my experience, I don't have any research to back this up it's just my experience that that makes it a lot more efficient. Do you have any other ideas yourself? I totally agree that there's a lot of progress and value to be found when you invest time in that way but from my point of view I see from organizations a tendency to invest in the hardware setup of the team and less on the software setup and how can we show them the value of investing also in the software of the team? Yeah, good question. That's a challenge for me. If you have the answer please provide me with those insights and I would leverage that to all my customers. Okay, thank you very much. No, but I think you're onto something because the thing is that the hardware of the team is also sometimes set up already in an organization like it's clear but I think the software of a team is a lot about the co-creational phase. For me one key has been in understanding that the leadership of the future requires facilitation that's like key because if you're a good facilitator you can facilitate these things in the smallest of contexts in a hybrid context, in a real life context in short and long term. So I would invest in facilitation as a company or as a team or as a manager or whatever but I know it's always a challenge of making somebody realize this investment. Great outcomes from the team later on maybe. Great, thank you. We have a question from Kashik also. Do you want to address it yourself? Hi, I'm Audible. Hi. Yeah, my question is a bit specific to teams that are following the agile methodology and well what I'm curious about is to understand if it's a good practice that a team that's following the agile methodology which kind of states that teams need to be flexible enough to accommodate ad hoc work that comes in. Is that kind of a good practice to have multiple focuses or have situations where you need to shift focus every now and then and related to that is how is such a team going to be able to achieve like a high performance? You know how is that kind of a team going to reach that stage? Yeah. I think you're addressing one of our hardest challenges in more than time. Like if we're moving from the notion of what we just talked about the teams and environments being constantly fluid we see that okay so we need to create a space to be able to context switch or we need to create a space where we're able to handle multiple value streams at one time. On the other hand we also know that a human being is not made for context switching. We know that context switching costs a lot every time we do that and of course if you think about this as an individual then you have to multiply it when you put it into team context because if we're context switching and doing multiple things at the time in a team context it costs even more because it also requires understanding in between us to be able to get an outcome from every time we're switching to a new value track. I think you know there is a core value that we might have lost during the time in big limits you know working progress limits and how much things we're supposed to do at one time. I think also there is a strong value in trying to organize for chaos as I like to call it. You know we have a solid structure where we keep an awareness to be able to be resilient in the face of change that things are going to change like that that's a constant and that we know that that is happening so we need to kind of build that in the system. But I also think there should be a balance. Sorry this is like a really consultant answer it's so much better than ifs and maybes. But they need to be a balance because otherwise we know that we won't finish anything. What are you thinking yourself? Well for me personally I feel in this kind of situation like with the four stages that a team can be in that you showed in one of the points earlier. I think if a team has like a solid focus on one goal for example and diligently and consistently works towards that then I think that team it would be easier for that team to move from stage one to stage four and become more mature and high performing than a team which has these sort of you know shifting of context all that. I feel that it will take that kind of a team more time to become mature and high performing in that sense. So I was just trying to like to wrap my head around how can we strike a balance where the team is handling both addressing both that issue that okay if they need to do the context switching they can handle it and at the same time they are also kind of progressing towards becoming more mature as a team. Yeah I think you're right and like striking the balance that's kind of the key and I would like from a very practical standpoint just recommend to work really hard with retrospectives and when you do the retrospectives you don't work only with what we have done and accomplished to realize how much change we can handle during one period of time but also how we are progressing as a team. There are so many teams that are like a little bit too loose with their retrospectives nowadays. I think you should like be a little bit more struck strict about that from the team needs at certain points of time like so this happened during the sprint how did it actually work for you? Yeah. I see so you're saying that individually we need to address that to the team and was it how did it work for you in this sprint or something like that. I would do it in a group context with a retrospective after a period of time. Both the what and the how. Good luck tell me how it goes. Thank you. Great thank you. We have one more question if you have time. It's from Pontus. Maybe you would like to understand yourself. Yeah hello. I was thinking about conflict handling or conflict resolution which I think is a very important thing with teams and doing structurally. Do you have any thoughts about that? Yes it's super important and this is something you want teams to be kind of self-sufficient in as well so you don't have to go for the external consultant part. So in one of these cases that I actually had I also I told you that I was providing them both co-creation of how to work as a team but also communicative tools for each session. So this was part of one of these communicative tools. How do we work when we have different point of views which you know the first stage of a conflict kind of and how can we become better at meeting each other when we're at that stages. So I think this is something that gives so much return of invests to invest in providing people with communicative tools to be able to solve their own differences both with self-awareness and the concrete ways of working with each other to get to that point. Yeah that's my brief reply to that one. Great thank you. Thank you Leila. It was very interesting listening to you so interesting that I did not really follow properly with the chat but I think it worked out one way. So a big thank you. I really like the three ladies and the researchers and you put it together in a very nice setting. And Wagemann she was a little bit new to me but very interesting so I will definitely dwell into learning more about that concept. Would you like to say something before we run? No just I'm happy if you would share an insight in the chat box when you leave. I hope I sparked some curiosity. That's my main focus. Like if you become more curious life will be funnier. Feel free to add me on LinkedIn if you have any further hot topics that we can discuss because this is my favourite topic to discuss. Thank you so much all of you for being here today. Great thank you everyone. We will share the recording. We will share Leila's presentations in a mail afterwards. We are already planned the next story from reality for March or February sorry. So I will shortly come back with more information about that. So thank you for today. Thanks for attending us. I say yes Leila do please follow us on LinkedIn and look forward to meeting you all on the next story from reality. Have a fantastic day.