Playing the Same Game: Aligning Teams for Success in high-Stakes Situations
High-performing teams don’t just do the work; they share a common understanding of how to approach it. This shared understanding, a “meta-conversation” about the situation at hand, is crucial, especially when facing uncertainty or pressure. Before diving into tasks,successful teams align on three key questions,ensuring everyone is “playing the same game” and maximizing their chances of success.
The first, and often most critical, question is: Is this a crisis? A clear understanding of the stakes dramatically alters a team’s behaviour.When everyone recognizes the gravity of the situation – that failure isn’t an option – it unlocks creative problem-solving and a willingness to bend rules to achieve a vital goal.Consider a manufacturing firm facing a critical order; if the team understands the potential for company failure, they’re more likely to act decisively. Conversely, if some members underestimate the risk, their hesitation can create roadblocks. This principle is formalized in fields like emergency medicine, where a “trauma activation” instantly signals a serious situation requiring immediate, specialized protocols.
Once the urgency is established, teams must define the scope of their mission. Are they focused on a narrow fix,or tackling a larger systemic issue? Misalignment here leads to wasted energy and conflicting efforts. A team split between addressing the immediate problem and investigating root causes,while both doing valuable work,will ultimately pull in diffrent directions. leaders should proactively clarify the mission through a concise brief,intent statement,or clear call to action,encouraging questions to ensure everyone is on the same page. In emergency medicine, the initial focus is typically on the patient at hand, but recognizing the potential need to address broader systemic issues is also significant.
teams need to discuss their risk tolerance. How much uncertainty are they willing to accept? Teams comfortable with ambiguity can pursue bolder, possibly higher-reward strategies. Those demanding certainty prioritize safety but may move more slowly. Internal discrepancies in risk tolerance can be particularly disruptive - one person’s calculated risk can appear reckless to another. This ties directly back to the crisis question; teams generally accept higher risk levels during a crisis than during routine operations. A helpful framework for understanding risk tolerance comes from former SWAT commander Kevin Cyr, who distinguishes between “51 percent” and “110 percent” decisions. A 51 percent decision requires only a moderate degree of confidence – if a course of action is more likely to succeed than not, it’s taken. A 110 percent decision demands complete certainty before any action is initiated.
Operationalizing this meta-conversation is simple: before beginning any operation, teams should dedicate just one minute to collectively answer these three questions.While the answers may need to be revisited as the situation evolves, starting with alignment significantly increases the likelihood of success. Teams that prioritize this initial conversation are the ones that can move cohesively and effectively when it truly matters.
