Exploring Team Dynamics: The Role of Psychological Safety

What makes a team intelligent? Brian and Linda Rising explore the surprising factors that foster group intelligence, from psychological safety to diversity, backed by groundbreaking research from MIT and Google.

Overview

In this episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast, Brian Milner sits down with Agile thought leader Linda Rising to explore the concept of group intelligence. They dive into what makes teams intelligent, discussing the importance of diversity, psychological safety, and social perceptiveness.

Using research from MIT and Google, Linda also highlights how storytelling and a growth mindset can enhance team dynamics, leading to more effective and innovative collaboration.

References and resources mentioned in the show:

Linda Rising
Fearless Change: Patterns for Introducing New Ideas by Mary Lynn Manns & Linda Rising
MIT Center For Collective Intelligence
Project Aristotle
The Fearless Organization by Amy C. Edmonson
Amy Edmonson’s TED Talks
3 ways to better connect with your coworkers - Mark T. Rivera’s TED Talk
Advanced Certified Scrum Product Owner®
Advanced Certified ScrumMaster®
Agile For Leaders
Mountain Goat Software Certified Scrum and Agile Training Schedule
Join the Agile Mentors Community
Subscribe to the Agile Mentors Podcast

Want to get involved?

This show is designed for you, and we’d love your input.

• Enjoyed what you heard today? Please leave a rating and a review. It really helps, and we read every single one.
• Got an Agile subject you’d like us to discuss or a question that needs an answer? Share your thoughts with us at podcast@mountaingoatsoftware.com

This episode’s presenters are:

Brian Milner is SVP of coaching and training at Mountain Goat Software. He's passionate about making a difference in people's day-to-day work, influenced by his own experience of transitioning to Scrum and seeing improvements in work/life balance, honesty, respect, and the quality of work.

Linda Rising is an internationally recognized consultant, speaker, and author with a Ph.D. in object-based design metrics. Known for her expertise in agile development, retrospectives, and the intersection of neuroscience and software, Linda has authored five books and numerous articles. In 2020, she received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the World Agility Forum for her impactful contributions to the industry.

Auto-generated Transcript:

Brian (00:00)
Welcome in Agile Mentors. We're back here with you for another episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast. I am with you as I always am, Brian Milner. And I wanted to introduce you today to someone I think you're really gonna enjoy here on this episode. I have the one and only Linda Rising with me. Linda, thank you so much for coming on.

Linda Rising (00:09)
Okay. It is my pleasure, Brian. Thank you so much for inviting me. It's a beautiful day here in Nashville, Tennessee.

Brian (00:32)
In Nash Vegas, yes. I actually spent a couple years in Nash Vegas. So I know that area back in the day, back in the day, because I worked at Opryland. So that'll tell you how long ago it was. Yeah, back in the dark times, right? But Linda, for those, if anyone who might not be aware, Linda is an author. She is...

Linda Rising (00:33)
Yeah! wow okay

Brian (00:58)
really what people would call an agile luminary. She has been involved with this movement for quite a while and has really, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say shaped the conversation around this a lot with her research and other things that she's provided. we wanted to have her on because she, well, because it's Linda Rising, right? We wanted to have her on for that, but. Recently, she spoke at the Scrum Gathering, the regional Scrum Gathering that took place in Stockholm, and her topic just sounded really fascinating. I thought it would be fascinating for us to talk about. It was a topic of group intelligence. So Linda, I'm sure there's a lot of people out there like me that when they heard that the first time thought, I have no idea what that means. What does group intelligence mean?

Linda Rising (01:43)
Yeah. Actually, normally when I do anything, give a keynote or an interview on a podcast or the interviewer or the person who's inviting me will say, what would you like to talk about? That's what you did. What would you like to talk about with the idea that I could come up with a list of things I was interested in that I wanted to talk about because I knew something about it.

Brian (02:09)
Yep, it's true.

Linda Rising (02:20)
But in this case, no, it was, want you to be the opening keynote for this amazing gathering in Stockholm. and by the way, we want you to talk about group intelligence. So. That was about a year ago and I thought to myself, I don't know anything about, well, maybe I do. Maybe I do know something about group intelligence. But I have spent the past year getting ready for that talk. It was just a few weeks ago and along the way, what I found was it pulled together the research around this topic. pulled together a lot of things that I have been thinking about and it is still not over. I had to give that talk, there was a date for that, but now there are little threads that, as you say, I'm following those down various rabbit holes because they're connected to other things that I'm interested in. So this turned out to be, even though I didn't pick it and I didn't know a whole lot about it, It's turned out to be a great introduction to a different way of thinking. So we know what intelligence is, I think. Don't you? Do you know you have an idea? And aren't you intelligent?

Brian (03:41)
That's so awesome. Well, that's a quite a loaded question, right?

Linda Rising (03:53)
Of course you are and and so are our listeners our listeners are intelligent and what's interesting is that the psychologists who measure that They don't really have a definition for intelligence. What they do is they can test for it So have you ever had you know an intelligence test You know, an IQ test. Have you? Have you ever had one?

Brian (04:25)
You know what, I don't think I ever have, but I know my wife has, my daughters have, I'm very familiar with them, but I can't point back to one to say, hey, I know what my score was.

Linda Rising (04:28)
I'll bet you have. Well, sometimes you're given that test at a particular point, maybe in high school, and they didn't tell you that it was an intelligence test. You just took it along with the other battery of tests that you were taking at the time. And maybe they didn't tell you, you have an IQ of 145. They didn't tell you how smart you were.

Brian (04:47)
Yeah.

Linda Rising (05:06)
but somebody, somewhere, somehow along the way, they did. They measured it. And that's without having a definition for whatever it is. So what that test does is it says you're pretty good at solving a bunch of problems. And that's what the test is.

Brian (05:17)
That's amazing.

Linda Rising (05:32)
it asks you to look at some math problems, logic problems, spatial problems, different kinds of problems, and you either solve them pretty well or not so well, and when they are finished with that, that score on that test says something about how well you do at solving those problems. And that's what they're calling intelligence.

Brian (06:03)
I think I see where you're going with this because to me, if we're going to try to be very precise with words on that, I would say that sounds more like education. If I know how to solve a particular kind of math problem, that's because I've been educated to learn that. It's not a measure of my...

Linda Rising (06:13)
Yeah. Yep, yep. And so those tests, yeah, those tests do have a bias. They're biased toward people who have a certain kind of education biased against people who maybe didn't have that kind of education. Also, it doesn't even begin to talk about music. Here I am in Music City. Doesn't talk about musical talent.

Brian (06:43)
Yeah

Linda Rising (06:46)
It doesn't talk about your ability to perform, say, some sports activity, whether you're going to be a great basketball player or a baseball player. There are a lot of things that intelligence tests don't even, they don't even think about. Now, it doesn't mean this isn't a valid exercise because those IQ tests have been around a long time and they do measure what they measure, they measure it very well. And they do correlate with a lot of performance activities. In fact, if you were hiring somebody, the absolute best thing, if you could just do one thing, would be to give them an IQ test. That correlates most strongly with any kind of performance on the job. So it's a valid test, even if it has some biases, some problems. So that's individual intelligence and we call that IQ. So now the question is, can you do that for a group or a team?

Brian (07:53)
Yeah.

Linda Rising (08:03)
Could you say this group, could we measure it somehow? And if so, would it have the same kind of validity? That is, if they do well on this test, would that mean they would do well in the workplace? If we had that, then could we use it to say, all right, this team. is really going to be great for whatever it is that we wanted them to do. Is that possible? So obviously the answer is yes, or I wouldn't be here talking about it. Yeah. So the research is fascinating and it would take a long time to actually go into it, but it was started at MIT. The organization is called the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. and they have been doing this now for over a decade. So this is not brand new out of the box. We're not sure where this is going. This has been happening and has been happening successfully. They do have a test. They can give it to a group. And what they find is that if the group does well, that group will also do well on other, just like IQ, other kinds of things that the test measures. And so, yes, they can measure group intelligence.

Brian (09:38)
Very interesting. This is really fascinating. Yeah. It's fascinating. I'm going to interrupt you for just a moment because I know, and forgive me if I'm taking you off track with where you were intending to go. But I know, having heard some of your other talks in the past on agile mindset and what you've written about, I know there's kind of this fundamental idea of the fixed verse.

Linda Rising (09:39)
It is interesting. Yeah. No, no, no, it's okay.

Brian (10:05)
growth mindset and the idea of intelligence being not necessarily a thing you're born with, but really something that you have the potential to change and grow. And how does that translate then to the group environment and the group's intelligence?

Linda Rising (10:23)
Yeah, so that's a great lead in because the next part of it was, well, okay, so we have this test and we can give it to a group, but we'd like to tease out some attributes of teams to say, you know, the teams that do really well on this test, they all seem to have, and they found there were three things that characterized

Brian (10:26)
Yeah.

Linda Rising (10:52)
intelligent group. The first one was called social perceptiveness. That is, are the people on the group, are they able to relate to each other? If one of the persons in the groups having a struggle for some reason, are they able to pick up on that? It's kind of hard to say, well what is that social perceptiveness? and we can come back to that, but that's first on the list. The second attribute is that when they have any kind of a discussion, that everybody talks. And that's pretty easy to see, and I know that you've probably been on teams as I have, where really not everybody talked, where maybe mostly one or two

Brian (11:24)
Yeah. Okay.

Linda Rising (11:49)
You know the loud people they did all the talking and the rest of us We just kind of sat in the corner and we said well, you know, whatever Yeah We've been there. Well, have we have we have seen that and I don't know how you're gonna feel about the third one But we all are concerned about diversity

Brian (12:00)
Yeah. Yeah, for sure.

Linda Rising (12:17)
We know that diversity is an issue. All organizations are struggling with the best way to deal with that. But the third attribute has to do with the percentage of women on the team.

Brian (12:34)
Really?

Linda Rising (12:35)
So this isn't like 50-50. This doesn't mean that you should have some women. It means the more women you have, the better. Ooh. You wanna think about that one?

Brian (12:38)
Yeah. You know what? I would not argue with that one bit because all the women that I've had in my life have been the most intelligent people I have known. So I would wholeheartedly concur with that. We're just a bunch of knuckleheads, the guys are. So I completely...

Linda Rising (12:58)
Ha!

Brian (13:17)
You know, I'm having some fun, but you're right. I can see that, you know? Like, I could see how that would be a really distinguishing characteristics.

Linda Rising (13:22)
Wow! So the researchers say maybe it's really not a gender thing because women are very good at social perceptiveness. And maybe what this third attribute, and they did a lot of statistical analyses, you you have to really dig down into the statistics and we don't want to do that. Maybe this third attribute is really a reflection of the first. And then if you, and here we're going to come to your growth mindset, if you could work with the people on the team who were not women, but who were these nerdy guys, know, could you somehow have them grow, improve, get better at social perceptiveness, then that would have the same effect as having more women on the team. And that's kind of where they are right now is can you do this? Are they equivalent? Are they really measuring the same thing? But they know that somehow that's what you've got to have is this ability to read. It's called theory of mind. Read the minds of the people on the team and that typically You know, we're stereotyping here. Typically men are not as good. So can you, could you, can you grow that characteristic? Can you get better? Can you get better at that?

Brian (15:06)
Yeah, I'll take a slight little side trail here and say that that makes perfect sense to me because one of the things that I found when I was doing my research on neurodiversity and specifically autism was that there's a book out there that I think I've shared on the podcast before, but it's called Autism in Heels. And basically the point of the book is to really examine autism in women. And one of the key points that's made in the book is the fact that when you see statistics about autism, you'll find that there's a huge number, there's a disparity. There's a large number of men, of males that are diagnosed and a few, a smaller percentage of females. And it gives the impression when you look at the data that you might think, well, this is a male thing, right? It's something that happens much more often than male. But this book is making the point that really,

Linda Rising (16:02)
Yeah.

Brian (16:04)
the criteria that was set aside to designate whether someone was autistic or not was really geared towards how it presents in males. So women were vastly underdiagnosed and still are to this day vastly underdiagnosed. And one of the things that makes it difficult to diagnose them is women are better at masking their symptoms. very much, they adapt to the environment around them. They pick up on the people around them.

Linda Rising (16:18)
Yeah.

Brian (16:34)
and they will mask the things that maybe are naturally a part of them, but they've learned in other parts of life how to do that. And so they're applying that to their autism as well. So that makes perfect sense to me.

Linda Rising (16:43)
Yeah. Yep, exactly. And of course, if we want to talk about women who have this tendency or on the spectrum, we have to mention Temple Grandin, who is one of the most famous female autistics in the world. I she's done more to gain attention for this problem, and she's definitely female. yeah, it's not it's not a male thing. But you're right that what's happened is that the women have had a growth mindset and whatever they inherited or were born with, they've done a better job at learning how to adapt given what they had as a limitation, adapting to working with others and using that as a strength. So that means that possibly, We could do that kind of thing to improve our teams if we included men in, well, what would it be? Would it be a training program? Would it be just coaching? Maybe this could be the job for a coach can certainly watch. The behavior of the team can notice, for instance, for that second attribute, is the discussion.

Brian (17:54)
Ha Linda

Rising (18:10)
Does that involve everybody equally? That could be a first step. And to encourage the growth in that direction. So one of the experiments that was done to follow on with that was to try to get male members of the team who didn't do well, you can actually measure social perceptiveness. And you mentioned autism, one of the tests. for autism is called reading the mind in the eyes. And with that test, you can show that people are better than others. And so maybe this could help us identify people who might benefit from this experimental approach. And that is to have something like, you know, I'm a patterns fan. So a collection of patterns that we used to talk about back in the day was written by Joshua Kerievsky and it was for running a study group where you read a book together a chapter at a time and you talk about it. So in the experiment the hypothesis was that reading a book together would improve the theory of mind or the social perceptiveness if it were a book that was fiction.

Brian (19:37)
Huh.

Linda Rising (19:37)
It's a story. A story. There's a hero and a beautiful princess and an adventurer and a bad guy and a good guy. in reading that, you learn to identify with the characters. And you talk about it. What was the character feeling when the handsome prince ran in to rescue the what was he thinking?

Brian (19:39)
Yeah.

Linda Rising (20:05)
So in a structured study group situation like that, reading fiction together and the results so far are positive but not enormous. It does help. It does help.

Brian (20:20)
Yeah. Yeah, I can see that, because you're trying to collectively interpret and you're getting a peek into someone else's mind of how they might interpret a situation and that can help you to interpret other situations. Yeah, I can see that.

Linda Rising (20:23)
May not. Yeah! Yeah, especially if someone was not in the habit of doing that. There are a lot of people who say, I've never even stopped to think about how the other members of my team are feeling.

Brian (20:43)
Yeah.

Linda Rising (20:56)
So attached to all of this is an enormous project that Google also started called Project Aristotle. And their idea was we wanna know what the secret is, what makes great teams. And they looked at everything. They spent years. mean, Google collects data, data they've got. and statisticians and analysts, they got it. And they spent years collecting and analyzing. And the summary at the end of all that was they found nothing.

Brian (21:38)
Hahaha

Linda Rising (21:40)
Did you read that? Did you read about that study? Yeah.

Brian (21:44)
I I'm familiar with that study. I really like what they did. Because when you have that kind of data available to you across cultures, across business units, it was an ambitious kind of study. I'm really thankful that they did it because I think they had some good findings there that came out of that as well. you're right.

Linda Rising (21:52)
Yeah! Yeah. Yeah? Yeah, they didn't find anything.

Brian (22:12)
Right, they thought it was gonna be, you know, it's a skill, it's the right mix of skills that makes it a high performing team or expertise and none of that really had a bearing. Yeah. Yeah.

Linda Rising (22:15)
Get off! And what was interesting about all of this is it sort of all came together because the folks at Google kind of looked over and said, well, look at what these folks at MIT are doing. And they said, maybe we're just not looking at the right thing. And they had talked about this social perceptiveness and what is that anyway? And it was kind of serendipity at about this time. Amy Edmondson wrote a book called The Fearless Organization, and it was about something she called psychological safety. And it was bigger than what the folks at MIT had identified. This has, I am free, I feel safe. Well, that would mean that you could speak up in a discussion and that would make the discussion more, okay, now we would think about what, I mean, what she talked about kind of put a big blanket around all of it and said, hey, I think we might be all talking about this. And the folks at Google said, well, you know, that makes sense. Maybe that's what we're looking for. And how do we do it? How do we do this? So your listeners might wanna just wander out to the Google site because now Google's been very transparent about this. How do you make this work? How do you bring about this psychological safety? How do you get people feel free to talk and to discussion? How do you help people be aware? of what other people are feeling. And they've got a whole raft of suggestions for managers, suggestions for team members, for, you know, and they're really all singing the same song. It's about this awareness of others, feeling that you are safe and that thinking about what other people are thinking. can lead your team to behave in more intelligent way.

Brian (24:41)
That's so, that's awesome. Right, right.

Linda Rising (24:41)
It's kind like a miracle. It's like a miracle. It all just came together. They weren't planning that. know, here at MIT, going one direction, Google going another direction. Here's Amy Edmondson at Harvard, and that it all kind of came together.

Brian (24:48)
That's awesome. You came together now. Yeah, Amy Edmondson is definitely one of my heroes. we've tried to get her on. We tried to get her to come on, but I know that there's layers to get to people like that. so if anyone's listening and has an end to Amy Edmondson, tell her that this is a welcome, this is a psychologically safe podcast to come on. We'd love to have her, but yeah.

Linda Rising (25:07)
Yeah. Well, yeah. think she did go out and talk to Google. I think there's a Google talk about psychological safety. So they did have her come in and give them some ideas, some suggestions or yeah. And she's on to failure now because her book, After Fearless Organization, which was about psychological safety, the one that, in fact, I just finished it is about failure.

Brian (25:44)
Yeah. That,

Linda Rising (25:59)
and their case studies of failures and what can you do about failure and yeah but anyway so she she's on she's she's on to whatever but yeah.

Brian (26:07)
That's awesome. Yes, she does great research and it's it's chock full in her book So I highly recommend her writing to anyone who's listening if that if this interests you Yeah, definitely read Amy Edmondson's work. You'll really enjoy it

Linda Rising (26:14)
Yeah Yeah. So, and if you do, then the story is not over, it's still going, which is, not just Amy Edmondson, but there's a fellow named Kevin Dunbar. This is not Robin Dunbar who did the 150 is kind of the magic number. This is a different Dunbar, same last name, but he did a lot of studies about thinking and. especially in science, how do scientists think? And in particular, he was interested in failure. And you know that as a scientist, you propose some hypothesis and then you test it in an experiment and then you stand back and you do an analysis and you say, well, did this work out or not? And he found that some scientists don't... like it when things don't go well. What a surprise, huh?

Brian (27:26)
Yeah, right.

Linda Rising (27:28)
Yeah, and they just ignore it. They either pretend it didn't happen or they put it in a drawer saying, we'll come back and, you know, we'll look at it later. But some scientists do a really good job of accepting that failure, working with it, and building on it. saying, hey, this is something we didn't think about. Maybe we can, they, you know, and they're off and running. It doesn't slow them down at all. And it turns out that the scientists who have that characteristic, who are able to do that, are scientists in groups. and they're in groups that are intelligent. They're diverse and open. They let everybody speak. They think about what other people are thinking if they're discouraged or not with this bad result. So the characteristics of those groups of scientists who do well with failure is the same.

Brian (28:22)
you

Linda Rising (28:40)
as the groups that MIT identified, the groups that Google is trying to grow. And I think it's really what we want in Agile development. We want groups like that. Not just because we think, intelligence is what. No. We want groups that have that characteristic. We want groups that feel psychologically safe. We want groups that feel free.

Brian (28:54)
Yeah.

Linda Rising (29:08)
to express their ideas. We want groups of people who are aware of what other people are thinking. That's what we want.

Brian (29:16)
Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That's so cool.

Linda Rising (29:18)
So they're all talking about the same thing. They may be using different words, but they are really, and one thing that we might wanna note right here is that all these different researchers made the same mistake in the beginning. And it's the same mistake organizations make. Is they thought in the beginning that what makes a smart team is smart people. Wrong. Not that you don't want smart people.

Brian (29:48)
Yeah. Right.

Linda Rising (29:53)
But that's just an okay thing to have. You can have a team of very smart people that doesn't have any of these other characteristics that is not intelligent as a group. So I think we really have to wake up and realize, first of all, that we're doing that, that we're valuing IQ or individual intelligence, smartness, you went to this school or you got that particular SAT score. It has nothing to do with that. It's not that there's no correlation, but it's weak, it's very weak. It's much better to have people who have these other characteristics.

Brian (30:33)
Yeah, let me just, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Let me connect it just a second to maybe someone who's listening who's a Scrum Master or someone like that, right? You might hear this and think, those foolish leadership people, they make these kinds of mistakes. I wouldn't make that kind of mistake. I know better than this kind of thing, right? Well, how much emphasis are you placing on whether your team knows all the details of what they should be doing in Scrum versus... helping them to know and understand each other, communicate with each other, right? How much effort and energy are you putting into those things versus the facts, right? I think that's where it can hit home for us is, these other areas, I think are, as you said, really much stronger predictors of success. And I think as Agilist, that's where we should be pouring our attention into because that's what's going to make the most significant difference.

Linda Rising (31:40)
Yeah. And I think since software development and I've been in it for a long time has had this really strong emphasis on smartness. We like smart people. And it's not that that's a bad thing necessarily. It's that it's not enough. So as a mathematician, you could say necessary, but not sufficient. Not even close. and that all of these researchers all said the same thing, that we thought it was going to be about smart people. We thought it was about IQ, that teams of smart people would be smart. And you and I both know that's not true.

Brian (32:32)
Right, right, right. I've been on some teams with some very smart people that were horrible teams.

Linda Rising (32:35)
Yes. Yes, yes, exactly. And I guess without belaboring it or beating it up, what's happening to me right now is that in reading about all of these different research activities, more and more things start to bubble up. that sort of are like the glue that holds all of this together. And the one that just, it just happened yesterday has to do with brainstorming. So I've been on a ramp to not, you know, I'm against brainstorming because there's plenty of evidence that it doesn't work. They've done experiments, they've said, okay, here's a group of people and they're gonna get together and they're gonna come up with ideas. Okay, we know how many ideas they came up with and whether they're any good or not. And now let's just take individuals and tell them individually, you come up with ideas and then we'll just measure. And the results are always the same, the individuals do better. So I have come up with explanations for that and I'm like, okay, well here's what. Well, I was wrong. Because in the research, it just was like an accident. I just happened to discover it in one of the papers that the groups that are intelligent, the groups that are aware, the groups that embrace failure, the groups that do well also do better at brainstorming. Why is that? Well, because everybody feels free to talk. Everybody feels psychologically safe. Everybody's aware of how other people are feeling and that impacts how they come up with ideas or think about things that other people suggest. So as a group, they do superbly at brainstorming. So it's not the brainstorming, it's the group and how they...

Brian (34:43)
Yeah. Ha

Linda Rising (34:48)
get in a room together and discuss things and share ideas. And so, you know, I hate to say this is gonna be the answer to all our prayers. And of course we still don't, we're still working on, well, how do you do this? How do you make this happen? And I remember a story. It's in fact, it's in one of the documents, I'm trying to think now on the Google website. It's a story of a team.

Brian (34:58)
Hahaha Yeah.

Linda Rising (35:18)
where the team leader tells the other people on the team that he has a terminal illness. And when he did that, everybody else on the team realized that they didn't really know anything about this guy. And they in turn began to share, well, I'm also having some struggles and here's my story. And going through that. cause that team to move up a notch, if you will, to become more intelligent, to be more aware, to suddenly be a little more respectful of how the discussions were. It was just telling stories about what you're going through so that everyone will be aware of how you feel, what you think is gonna be your...

Brian (35:48)
Yeah.

Linda Rising (36:11)
future in the next six months that they didn't have any training or study groups or they just told stories.

Brian (36:26)
They got to know each other as humans. And it's amazing how often we forget that that's who we work with. At least right now, we work with other human beings. And I hope that never changes, because that's where the best ideas, that's where the best creativity comes from. And yeah, it's fascinating, but you're absolutely right. I can see that point.

Linda Rising (36:28)
Yes, exactly. think for me, this is all, it's been really a hopeful journey because in the beginning, I wasn't even sure how it would go. I didn't know anything about the intelligence of groups. And in the beginning, it was all, okay, here's what MIT is doing and reading through, I mean, there were a lot of papers that I slogged through and it wasn't until about halfway through that, I discovered. Project Aristotle and I saw, this really connects. And now all these other things start to bubble up that really make a lot of sense. And of course, that it fits. It fits with Agile. It fits with the Agile message that the big things like that cause you, especially if you've had any experience with Agile, to sort of wake up and say, how do I miss this?

Brian (37:50)
Ha ha.

Linda Rising (37:52)
I should have seen this and it's news to me. So, wow, we're all still learning, I guess, aren't we?

Brian (38:03)
Yeah, I mean, you get presented with something like that and think, I've kind of intuitively known this all along, but I didn't have words for it. And now, now there's a vocabulary that can describe it. And I agree, right? That's exactly what it is. So yeah, you're absolutely right. Well, Linda, this is, this is such a fascinating discussion. And, you know, it's, I had no idea where, you know, group intelligence would lead us, but that it's all just fascinating.

Linda Rising (38:09)
Yeah

Brian (38:32)
the different threads of the spider web and where this kind of ends up. So I know it led you in a lot of places with your research and everything else. I really, really appreciate you sharing that with us and helping us to try to understand a little bit of the journey you've been on and kind of discovering this over the past year or so is what you said.

Linda Rising (38:53)
Yep. And I was going to say, anybody, I know most people don't want to spend the time reading the original research papers, and I don't blame you, that does take a lot of, you know, have a lot of investment in that. But there are some, I would call them sort of lightweight. There's some excellent, excellent Harvard Business Review articles that do a very good job of talking about. what is happening at MIT, what is happening at Google, that kind of a high-level summary, like Harvard Business Review does that like nobody else. And of course, there are TED Talks that Amy Edmondson has given, and there are all the Google Talks, of course, are also out on YouTube. And she has been to Google as well, so you can go listen to what she has to say there. So if you want to dig into this for yourself, there's a lot that you can get without having to read the book or read all the research papers.

Brian (39:57)
Yeah, we'll try to link to as much of this as we can in the show notes of this. So anyone who's listening, if you want to go down one of these rabbit holes like we talked about, maybe we can point the direction and say, hey, try this one. So we'll also include in the show notes some links to some of Linda's work as well so that you can find out more about her and maybe read one of her books as well and see some of the

Linda Rising (40:11)
Yeah!

Brian (40:27)
some of the insights she's already brought to this Agile community. And if you like what you heard here, I know you'll like her books as well. So Linda, thank you so much for making your time. I know it's very busy. Thank you for coming on the show.

Linda Rising (40:41)
It's been my pleasure. Can we close with some good wishes, some thoughts and prayers for all the people who are in Western North Carolina or in Florida who have just been two horrible disasters and are going to be a long time recovering. And that includes my good friend and co-writer Mary Lynn Mans who's in Asheville, North Carolina. So fingers crossed, prayers, good thoughts.

Brian (41:11)
Absolutely. I wholeheartedly concur with you on that. So I agree. Well, thanks again, Linda.