UPI Study › Courses › Foundations of Leadership › Free lessons › Lesson 10.8 Free with a free account
Team Communication and Collaboration Strategies
Foundations of Leadership · Chapter 10: Teams ModuleSection 10.8 · lesson 72 of 9011 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Foundations of Leadership.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Foundations of Leadership
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Group Dynamics and Organizational Team Development →← Cultural Differences in Global Team ContextsNext lesson: Group Dynamics and Organizational Team Development →
In this lesson
The patterns, channels and rituals through which a team thinks together.
- Recognise communication as the medium for every other capability
- Identify the patterns of high-functioning teams
- Match synchronous and asynchronous mode to the work
- Apply cadence, ritual and documentation deliberately
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,511 words). Read along, or search it.
Teams Module
Team Communication and Collaboration
Two teams of equal talent can produce dramatically different work. Very often the difference is not skill, or effort, or even leadership in any grand sense. It is the pattern by which they talk to each other. Communication is not one of a team's capabilities among many. It is the medium through which every other capability operates. This section treats it as a practical discipline. The patterns that distinguish high-functioning teams, the choice of mode and channel. And the rituals that keep a team improving rather than repeating itself.
The Medium
Not One Capability Among Many
Communication is to a team roughly what the bloodstream is to a body. It carries everything the team needs, to wherever that thing is required. Information, decisions, feedback, encouragement, correction, context. A team whose communication is healthy can recover from many other deficiencies. A team whose communication is poor cannot fully recover from any of them. And that is not merely a metaphor. Research on team performance consistently finds communication patterns among the strongest predictors. Of output quality, of learning, and of member satisfaction. Often outweighing the technical skill composition that organisations fixate on. Which is worth sitting with, because skill composition is what hiring optimises for.
By Default
Whose Habits Became the Team's Norms?
The implication is that communication deserves explicit design. Not the implicit assembly of habits that most teams settle into by default. Look closely at where those default patterns come from. They are usually the patterns of whichever members are most vocal, or most senior. Generalised across the whole team, without examination. Those patterns serve some purposes well and others poorly. And nobody in the team ever actually chose them. The deliberate team examines its communication and makes choices about it. In the same way it makes choices about any other consequential practice.
Project Aristotle
What Actually Separated Google's Best Teams
Google's Project Aristotle ran between twenty twelve and twenty fifteen. It examined data on a hundred and eighty of the company's own teams. The aim was to find what distinguished high-performing teams from ordinary ones. Five factors emerged, and they are not the ones most managers would guess. Psychological safety. Dependability. Structure and clarity. Meaning, and impact. Psychological safety was the strongest single predictor of team performance. That concept comes directly from Amy Edmondson's research, which we met earlier.
The Finding
How the Team Works Beat Who Is On It
Take the five factors one at a time, because each is measurable. Psychological safety is the shared belief that members can take interpersonal risks without retaliation. Dependability means members reliably complete what they commit to. Structure and clarity means clear roles, clear goals, and clear execution plans. Meaning is work that is personally important to the members doing it. And impact is work members believe matters beyond themselves. But the most consequential finding was about what did not predict performance. The study did not find that team composition mattered as much as communication patterns and norms. Who was in the team mattered less than how the team worked together. Which implies something uncomfortable for organisations that treat hiring as the main lever. Performance improves more reliably by changing how a team works than by changing who is in it. That finding has substantially shaped corporate investment in team development since.
Four Patterns
What High-Functioning Teams Do Differently
Several research programmes converged on the same picture of high-functioning teams. Anita Williams Woolley and colleagues at Carnegie Mellon. Alex Pentland at MIT. And Project Aristotle. Four patterns recur. The first is equality of conversational turn-taking. Members contribute in roughly equal proportions across a meeting or working session. Rather than concentrating airtime in one or two dominant speakers. The second is high social sensitivity. Members read one another's emotional cues accurately, and adjust accordingly. The third is direct engagement. Members talk to one another. Rather than serially addressing the leader, which is the default in most hierarchical rooms. The fourth is frequent informal exchange outside formal meetings. The team is in continuous low-grade contact, rather than communicating only at scheduled times.
Practices
These Are Not Personality Traits
Here is the practically important part. These patterns are not personality traits of the team's members. They are practices. They can be observed, measured, and improved. A leader who notices that airtime is concentrated in two members has options. They can deliberately invite contributions from quieter members. They can structure meetings so that equal participation is required rather than merely welcome. And they can build the norm that interruptions get noticed and corrected. None of those interventions is large. The cumulative effect is substantial. The teams that perform best on complex work did not happen to communicate this way. The patterns were built into them, deliberately, over time.
Mode
Both Defaults Fail, In Opposite Directions
One of the most consequential choices a team makes is when to be in the same room. Synchronous communication offers immediacy, allows genuine debate, and builds relationship. It is right when the work requires real-time exchange. Asynchronous communication offers time to think before responding. It accommodates time zones and varying schedules, and produces durable records. The error most teams make is defaulting to synchronous regardless of need. Meetings proliferate. Calendars fill. And the work that requires uninterrupted attention gets squeezed into the margins. So the discipline is to ask, of any given exchange, whether it genuinely needs live time. But notice the opposite error, which is less often discussed. Avoiding synchronous communication for an exchange that needed it has its own cost. A decision drags across several days of asynchronous discussion that one hour would have settled. The discipline is matching mode to need. Not a default preference for either.
Channels
Fit for Purpose, and the Misuse of Each
The same logic applies to channels, and contemporary teams have a great many. Instant messaging suits quick questions, lightweight coordination, and ambient social presence. It is misused for substantive discussion that should have been threaded or documented. Email suits formal communication, external correspondence, and durable records. It is misused for long internal discussion that belongs in chat, and for reply-all storms. Video conferencing suits complex discussion, decision-making, and relationship-building. It is misused for status updates that should have been written down. Collaborative documents suit joint drafting, and capturing decisions with their rationale. They fail through version drift, and through nobody owning their accuracy. Project management software suits tracking work, dependencies, ownership and deadlines. It is misused when it becomes a reporting layer for managers rather than a working tool. Teams without explicit channel norms end up with a strange pair of symptoms. Constant interruption, and routine surprise at decisions made where they were not looking.
Rituals
Cadence, Ritual, Record
Three disciplines hold a team's communication together over time. The first is cadence. A rhythm members can rely on. The weekly team meeting, the daily standup, the monthly review, the quarterly planning session. The specific rhythm varies. The principle is that members know what to expect, and when. Cadence removes the overhead of scheduling and the anxiety of waiting. Teams without it either over-schedule, or leave members unsure when concerns can be aired. The second is ritual. Recurring practices within the cadence that serve a specific purpose. The round-the-table at the start of a meeting. The standup format with its three questions. The retrospective that closes a project. Rituals are not bureaucratic overhead. They are how a team makes space for practices the urgent would otherwise squeeze out. The third is documentation, which makes the team's thinking durable. Decisions captured with rationale. Action items with owners and dates. Teams that document well survive membership change, and the inevitable forgetting.
Case
The Team That Spoke But Did Not Listen
A marketing team of nine shows why volume is a poor proxy for effectiveness. The team was widely regarded as engaged and communicative. Its weekly meetings were lively. Its messaging channels were active. Members rarely complained of being out of the loop. And yet output quality had been declining for a year, with satisfaction scores falling too. An external reviewer observed a single team meeting and found the problem within an hour. Two senior members held seventy per cent of the airtime. Three junior members spoke only when directly addressed. Decisions were announced by the senior members, and acknowledged by everyone else with brief affirmations. The team was communicative in volume, and unequal in distribution. Which meant most of the team's expertise never flowed into its decisions. Three months of small interventions changed that. Structured round-the-tables, and a norm that every member contributed before any was challenged. Plus periodic asynchronous decision-making, to reduce the dominance of the most fluent speakers.
Consolidate
Symptoms, Diagnosis, Repair
When team communication is failing, the symptoms are recognisable. Decisions are made and then quietly unmade. The same issue surfaces repeatedly, because it was never fully addressed. Members report after meetings that the real conversation happened somewhere else. And newer members cannot reconstruct the history of decisions that affect their work. Each of those points toward a specific weakness in the team's communication design. Diagnosis is straightforward. Watch a meeting, and watch the artefacts. Is airtime distributed, or concentrated? Are members addressing one another, or only the leader? Are concerns surfaced openly, or only afterwards in private? Are decisions documented, and is the documentation accurate and findable? Repair is incremental. Patterns shift over weeks and months rather than days. But it is reliably available to any leader who treats communication as a practice. Rather than as a given to be endured.
About Foundations of Leadership at UPI Study
Foundations of Leadership (Business 205) is a self-paced online course of 90 video lessons in 12 chapters, from the roots of leadership theory and the trait, situational and transformational approaches to power, decision-making, communication, teams, conflict, diversity and global leadership. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Foundations of Leadership with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Foundations of Leadership carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Team Communication and Collaboration Strategies
What did Google's Project Aristotle find about effective teams?
What communication patterns do high-performing teams share?
When should a team use synchronous versus asynchronous communication?
What are the signs that team communication is failing?
About the Foundations of Leadership course
How many college credits is Foundations of Leadership?
How much does Foundations of Leadership cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Foundations of Leadership take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Foundations of Leadership.
90 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →