# The Surprisingly Simple Reason Teams Fail | Tessa West | TED Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IYKojMhBy4 Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/7IYKojMhBy4 Generated: 2026-02-01T16:33:33.448+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview Teams fail because they rely on shared, obvious information and ignore unique, critical information held by individuals, leading to poor decision-making, as demonstrated by the Mars Climate Orbiter failure due to metric vs. imperial unit confusion. **Key Points:** - The Mars Climate Orbiter failed on September 23, 1999, because one team used the metric system (Newtons) while another used imperial units (pounds) for force calculations. - The core issue was Communication Mishap #1: Two sets of teams failed to communicate about basic information that seemed obvious to them (metric vs. imperial units). - Communication Mishap #2 involved people with critical information (like the unit discrepancy) being ignored for a 'very dumb reason' (the assumption that everyone knows the standard). - Research shows that when teams are given information where some is shared and some is unique, they often focus only on the shared information, ignoring the unique, critical data. - In experiments, when Applicant C had unique positive information (winning cake baking awards), 20% of 370 teams unanimously chose Applicant C, but the best decision requires sharing all unique information. - The speaker advises that 'level setting' (stating the obvious) is a necessary tool to combat hidden languages and ensure critical information is processed. - The key takeaway is to make it comfortable for people to ask, 'What did you mean by that?' to prevent failures stemming from assumptions about shared knowledge. ![Screenshot at 00:41: Four NASA engineers in clean suits look confused while surrounding a model of the Mars Climate Orbiter, illustrating the visible confusion and failure point caused by miscommunication.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/7IYKojMhBy4/00-00-41.jpg) **Context:** Tessa West discusses common causes of team failure, using the highly publicized failure of the NASA Mars Climate Orbiter mission in 1999 as a central case study. The failure resulted from a crucial unit conversion error between two engineering teams (one using metric Newtons, the other using imperial pounds). West frames this incident within broader patterns of team communication breakdown observed in social science research, highlighting how teams often overlook unique, critical information in favor of easily shared, common knowledge. ## Detailed Analysis The speaker explains that the failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter on September 23, 1999, which burned up in the Martian atmosphere, stemmed from a communication failure between teams using different units of force (Newtons vs. pounds). This is classified as Communication Mishap #1: teams failing to communicate about basic, seemingly obvious information. Mishap #2 involved critical information being ignored because people assumed others knew it. Research analyzing team decision-making revealed that when presented with four candidates (A, B, C, D), where one person holds unique information, teams often neglect that unique data in favor of information everyone shares. For instance, in one study, 20% of 370 teams unanimously chose Applicant C (who had unique cake baking awards) over the truly best candidate, because they focused on shared data. The solution proposed is to state the obvious—or 'level set'—by repeating critical information, even if it feels awkward, and creating an environment where people feel comfortable asking, 'What did you mean by that?' to prevent critical information from being lost due to assumed understanding or hidden professional jargon. ### Mars Climate Orbiter Failure - Failed on September 23, 1999 - Caused by using metric (Newtons) vs. imperial (pounds) units for force - The failure cost 125 million dollars. ### Communication Mishap #1 (Obvious Information) - Two sets of teams failed to communicate about basic information that seemed obvious to each subgroup (e.g., metric vs. imperial). ### Communication Mishap #2 (Critical Information Ignored) - People with critical information were ignored for a 'dumb reason'—the assumption that others knew what they knew. ### Social Science Experiment - Teams were shown four candidate profiles; the best candidate required integrating unique information held by one person, but teams often failed to select them. ### The Hidden Language of Jargon - Teams develop localized languages (jargon, acronyms) that exclude those unfamiliar, making critical information hard to interpret across sub-groups. ### The Solution - State the Obvious/Level Setting: It is okay, even necessary, to restate critical information multiple times to ensure shared understanding, normalizing the question, 'What did you mean by that?' ![Screenshot at 00:04: The speaker, Tessa West, standing on stage at TEDxCatawba with the date September 23, 1999, displayed on the screen, referencing the Mars Orbiter failure.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/7IYKojMhBy4/00-00-04.jpg) ![Screenshot at 00:41: Four NASA engineers in clean suits looking confused around a model of the Mars probe, visually representing the failure point caused by miscommunication.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/7IYKojMhBy4/00-00-41.jpg) ![Screenshot at 01:18: On-screen text summarizing the communication issue: "The people working on this project were not talking to each other about the right stuff, at the right time."](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/7IYKojMhBy4/00-01-18.jpg) ![Screenshot at 06:25: A graphic illustrating the hiring experiment: Applicant C is highlighted as 'The BEST!' only if the person sharing unique information is selected.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/7IYKojMhBy4/00-06-25.jpg) ![Screenshot at 11:20: A slide showing two identical office setups described differently by two hypothetical teams \(Team A: 'Wall Fern', Team B: 'Tidy vibe'\), illustrating differences in 'hidden languages'.](https://ss.rapidrecap.app/screens/7IYKojMhBy4/00-11-20.jpg)