That question was put to 276 companies, of which the following answered “Yes”: 68% of senior management, 53% of middle managers and 40% of team leaders. The result? Only 34% of the employees on the floor knew why the organisation made big decisions, and could therefore see the point of them (T. Watson, 2013). The logical reason the percentage drops is that you can’t get others to understand something you don’t understand yourself. It’s like asking you to teach me Japanese when you don’t speak Japanese yourself.
When you, as a manager, have to explain big decisions, your job has a lot in common with an entrepreneur’s. The entrepreneur often works at the edge of the known and the unknown. So does the manager of big decisions — and therefore of change. Even though the entrepreneur is trained within the industry he works in, he typically operates outside it or at its edge. So does the manager. Both the entrepreneur and the manager have to be able to communicate so that even complex initiatives make sense to others. If they make sense, others can get behind them and work together to make them succeed. If they don’t make sense, misunderstandings, friction and conflict easily arise.
This article is about how you form a shared picture of ends and means. That is, what the task is, and how it should be carried out. In other words, it’s about how you share your understanding of the task, the situation and reality. Having the same understanding is what’s called shared mental models.
One mental model we didn’t understand was that of Lars Løkke Rasmussen, when he had to explain the government’s tax policy in the Danish parliament:
Conversely, we knew exactly what Forrest Gump meant when he compared life’s little surprises to a box of chocolates. Precisely because tax policy is so complex, it takes real practice before the message is delivered. When it works, it seems easy, and when it doesn’t work, it sounds complex.
When you, as a manager, have to explain big decisions, your job has a lot in common with an entrepreneur’s. The entrepreneur often works at the edge of the known and the unknown. So does the manager of big decisions — and therefore of change.
The magic of Lego bricks
Entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were both brilliant at sharing their mental models with others. How do we know that for sure? Otherwise they couldn’t have grown their companies the way they did. They were able to share their mental models with employees, suppliers, customers and investors. Shared mental models are like Lego bricks. The more we have, the more we can build. The bricks don’t have to be identical, but they have to fit together. If they don’t, we can make up for it with glue, nails and screws, but the building doesn’t go anything like as fast, nor is it as flexible, as when the bricks fit together.
Shared mental models are to the team what the studs are to Lego bricks. They’re your shared starting point for everything you do. If you share the same understanding of what you’re doing and how, you can predict each other’s needs and reactions in the work (C. Junker, 2010). Conversely, the teamwork quickly turns sour if you don’t share mental models. Misunderstandings, friction and discussions that go round in circles keep arising. It drains your energy, your happiness at work and your morale, because it feels as if you can’t connect. Shared mental models help describe, explain and predict a team’s behaviour, and are therefore absolutely crucial to your performance (J. Mathieu, 2000). Because having the same understanding is so central to teamwork, elite military forces train constantly to share mental models. When they’re out on a mission and something unexpected suddenly happens, their shared mental models mean they’re able to help each other in the best possible way in that situation. So shared mental models can also be a matter of life or death.
Shared mental models are like Lego bricks. The more we have, the more we can build. The bricks don’t have to be identical, but they have to fit together.
A team I visited
I visited a team where one colleague was annoyed that the others didn’t ask questions when he proposed an initiative for a task: “My idea isn’t the best one, after all. They show no engagement at all — they just get started.” I asked about his earlier experience: “Does that mean you have a sense that people only engage when they actively take a critical but constructive view of the task you propose?” “Yes,” he replied, at which point a colleague broke in: “That’s not how I see it at all. I always think your ideas are good. When you put them forward, I take them on as if they were my own, and get started on implementing them. I don’t need to discuss the proposal to engage with it.” He looked a little sceptically at his colleague, but after a while they synchronised their different understandings of what engagement can also look like. That created understanding and good energy in the team.
A mistake we typically make
The classic mistake we make is when we take for granted that our colleague attaches the same meaning to words and concepts. “Surely they must know that!” you’ve probably thought about your colleagues. They may not, and you may not notice it until you come under pressure, or something unexpected happens where you really have to pull together. The bank HSBC describes the difference very well in its ‘Different Values’ campaign from 2008.
When to be careful
Maybe you’re thinking: “We haven’t experienced any differences in my team. We’re very alike in our understanding.” That may well be. Because as long as your work goes on as usual, and the day or the project progresses as planned, you won’t notice the big differences. The challenge of different mental models really shows itself when we get a task that:
- comes suddenly
- is urgent
- is complex
- is new.
When that happens, notice how you react. Do doubt and confusion arise? If they do, that’s typically a sign that you don’t share the same understanding of how the task should be approached. At best, you’ll probably have to spend a lot of time and energy coordinating the effort.
Signs that you share the same understanding are that you react calmly in the situation and show an overview. A large part of your communication will probably be non-verbal, because you know each other’s needs and patterns of reaction. The better you do that, the better you’ll be able to help each other in good time, and perhaps get ahead of each other — before you even notice that you need help. Having the same mental model in teamwork is very much about knowing who needs help, when, why, how and with what (J. Mathieu, 2000).
Which mental models should you share?
To get a shared understanding of what the goal of your teamwork is, and how the task should be solved, here’s an overview of which mental models you should share. You could use this list at your next team meetings to make sure you share the same understanding of your team, work, tasks, interaction and tools (S. Converse, 1993). Such a review can sound trivial, which is why many teams often skip the exercise and then spend a lot of energy on misunderstandings, friction and conflict.
Signs that you share the same understanding are that you react calmly in the situation and show an overview. A large part of your communication will probably be non-verbal, because you know each other’s needs and patterns of reaction.
| Mental model of the team
When you share the same understanding of the team, you’ll be able to predict each other’s behaviour and needs. You should talk about:
|
| Mental model of the work and the task
When you share the same understanding of the work and your tasks, you’ll be able to align expectations about how a task should be solved, and how you should react to urgent tasks. You should talk about:
|
| Mental model of how the team interacts
When you share the same understanding of your interaction, you’ll have a strong set of norms that govern the team’s behaviour. That way you avoid anyone talking down to others, bullying, harassment and generally poor communication. You should talk about: .
|
| Mental model of technology and equipment
If you have a knowledge and understanding of the technology and equipment you each work with, you’ll be able to help and bounce ideas off each other when it cuts out or plays up. You should talk about: .
|
How you share your mental models (P. Senge, 1990)
My experience is that misunderstandings and friction in teamwork can really drain a team’s energy. So I also find that when a team works on sharing its mental models, they get an enormous amount of renewed energy. When you sit down at the table and get started, I recommend you use the following ground rules:
- Don’t have too many people at the table. The more of you there are in the team, the more complex it becomes to arrive at the same mental model. As a rule of thumb, a team is 2–9 people. Statistically, the optimal number of participants in a team that has to make decisions is 4.6 people (R. Hackman, 1970).
- Make the differences between what you say and what you do visible. It might be that we say we want a sense of community and happiness at work, but allow unresolved conflicts.
- Point it out when you go from observing to generalising. It might be that you observe a colleague’s specific behaviour, but think it’s probably something everyone does. It’s absolutely essential that you don’t take for granted that we see the world, or how it should be, in the same way.
- Say what you really think. You can’t take for granted that you can read each other’s minds, even if you’re old colleagues. It’s absolutely crucial that you can speak freely and openly.
- Discuss how you think the situation stands, and how the task or problem should be solved. It’s not enough for the others to nod while you talk. That only indicates that the message has been received and understood, not necessarily that there’s agreement. To share a mental model, you also have to reach agreement, and you only do that by discussing it honestly. You’re welcome to disagree and have conflicts over the choice of mental model, as long as your conflict is constructive. In other words, you have to be sure that a rejection isn’t taken personally or emotionally.
- Set limits on what and how long you discuss. Sharing mental models takes discipline. I’ve had good results using Parkinson’s law in management groups. It says: “Work takes the time allotted to it.” Choose one topic, and set aside 30 or 60 minutes for discussion. Have one of the participants write minutes into a shared document, so you can go back and revise when new colleagues join the team.
It’s not enough for the others to nod while you talk. That only indicates that the message has been received and understood, not necessarily that there’s agreement.
The price of the silo
A manager can’t be bothered to waste time on friction and hassle with their staff, and can orchestrate the work by telling everyone exactly who should do what. That way, the manager strips the team of any kind of self-management and coordination. That way, it doesn’t matter if the members have different understandings. The silo mindset gives the manager some quick results, because the team is efficient from day one, but it’s also what I’d call a very optimistic manager. Optimistic, because it goes well as long as he can predict what will happen. The problem is that the world isn’t predictable. As soon as an urgent task arises and the workload shifts, the members have to be able to take over from each other. Pulling in the same direction requires coordination, and coordination requires sharing the same understanding. Because when staff aren’t used to solving tasks together, their different world views come to the surface in a flash. That easily creates discord, conflict and frustration.
Some of those I’ve met who pay the price of the silo are state schools and vocational colleges. The teachers tell me that reforms are forcing them to collaborate in a completely new way. They used to work entirely on their own, and now they have to coordinate preparation, timetabling and so on. That takes a lot of new energy and naturally creates frustration.
Another industry I’ve met that pays the price of the silo is the legal profession. Here, lawyers tell me they’ve worked for many years as a business within the business. Today their services are almost entirely bespoke, but pressure from supermarkets, banks and estate agents, among others, means that the market for their bespoke solutions will, in future, be marginal compared with today. They believe that in future we’ll buy legal services the way we buy a suit and have the trousers taken up. That takes a whole new way of thinking, which takes time.
On the other hand, there’s also a lot to gain when we break down the silos. In the aviation industry, this was done in the cockpit long ago. In the old days, there was a silo between the captain and the pilot. Today, aviation safety has been raised considerably by making shared mental models an absolutely essential part of the training (R. Reynolds, 2009). The same has been done in hospitals. Here, the consultants had the same status as the captains. Today, patient safety has been raised considerably by including shared mental models in their training (H. King, 2008).
What about you? Do you have any mental models that need sharing? Whether you’re a manager or not, you could start by asking around the team what the others understand by your vision, mission and values.
Sources and further inspiration
Only One-Quarter of Employers Are Sustaining Gains From Change Management Initiatives
Towers Watson, 2013
Shared Mental Models: A Conceptual Analysis
C. Junker, 2010, Springer International Publishing
The Influence of Shared Mental Models on Team Process and Performance
J. Mathieu, 2000, Journal of Applied Psychology
Shared Mental Models in Expert Team Decision Making
S. Converse, 1993, Individual and Group Decision Making
P. Senge, 1990, Doubleday Business
Effects of size and task type on group performance and member reactions
R. Hackman, 1970, Sociometry
Crew Resource Management and Shared Mental Models
R. Reynolds, 2009, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
TeamSTEPPS™: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety
H. King, 2008, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
