Hypothesis: The trust level a team can sustain is almost entirely a function of recent win/loss record. The sweet spot is strongly win-biased but clearly short of 100%.
Conversation
You have to win enough that you appreciate your team-mates, but not so much you think can go solo and take the winning habit with you somewhere you can be king.
3
1
11
Corollary: if you want to sustain trust for a long time you have to keep ratcheting up the ambition enough to keep win record bounded away from 100%, but not so much it exits the sweet spot at the other end..
Trust for teams is basically like flow for individuals.
Replying to
Individual defections from too much or too little success is the equivalent of focus dissipating for a single mind. Many strands are coherently focused during flow on the same thing. When you lose flow, some strands “defect.” Your eyes wander or zone out, you fidget or doodle…
1
10
Related, the longest-lived trusted teams are probably at a sweet spot of size as well: small enough for each person to have a relatively irreplaceable role, big enough to do ambitious things. I think 8-12, the crucible range. 2 pizza teams.
1
9
Replying to
How do you define a “win” in a team context? (outside of sports where it’s obvious)
1
Replying to
The popular idea in change management about "small wins" is related, I think.
"Wins/losses" are often subjective/a matter of perception, and highlighting small wins and making progress salient can help enhance trust.


