
Discover why NASA, Disney, and Nike use the FourSight System. "Good Team, Bad Team" analyzes 6 million data points to reveal why some teams excel while others implode. Can understanding cognitive diversity really transform your team's performance? The answer might surprise you.
通过作者的声音感受这本书
将知识转化为引人入胜、富含实例的见解
快速捕捉核心观点,高效学习
以有趣互动的方式享受这本书
Have you ever sat in a meeting where everyone seemed to be talking past each other, even though you were all supposedly discussing the same problem? Where one person kept asking for more data while another wanted to brainstorm wild ideas, and a third person just wanted everyone to stop talking and start doing something? That frustration isn't a personality clash-it's something far more fundamental. We all approach problems through different cognitive lenses, speaking different "thinking languages" without realizing it. Some of us need to fully understand a challenge before moving forward. Others want to generate possibilities immediately. Some prefer to carefully refine solutions, while others just want to get things done. When these different thinkers collaborate without understanding each other's languages, even the smartest teams make surprisingly dumb mistakes. Every complex problem requires four distinct types of thinking to solve effectively. First, we need **Clarifiers**-the people who want to understand challenges thoroughly, asking questions and gathering information before proceeding. They're factual, focused, and deliberate, though sometimes they suffer from "analysis paralysis." Then come **Ideators**-the adventurous, spontaneous thinkers who generate possibilities and see big pictures, though they can get distracted chasing new ideas. Next are **Developers**-reflective, cautious planners who optimize solutions by weighing options carefully, sometimes getting stuck pursuing perfection. Finally, **Implementers** drive action with persistence and decisiveness, though they sometimes rush ahead before the plan is fully formed. Here's the catch: while we need all four types to solve complex problems, most people naturally prefer just one or two. We gravitate toward those who share our preferences, which means we often avoid the very people who could help us most. A Sydney HR firm discovered this painfully when LinkedIn launched in Australia. Of their 41 managers, 38 preferred implementation thinking-everyone was busy executing while almost no one was scanning for market disruptions or generating innovative responses. Their revenue plummeted because their entire leadership team spoke the same cognitive language, creating a massive blind spot.
将《Good Team, Bad Team》的核心观点拆解为易于理解的要点,了解创新团队如何创造、协作和成长。
将《Good Team, Bad Team》提炼为快速记忆要点,突出坦诚、团队合作和创造力的关键原则。

通过生动的故事体验《Good Team, Bad Team》,将创新经验转化为令人难忘且可应用的精彩时刻。
随心提问,选择声音,共同创造真正与你产生共鸣的见解。

"Instead of endless scrolling, I just hit play on BeFreed. It saves me so much time."
"I never knew where to start with nonfiction—BeFreed’s book lists turned into podcasts gave me a clear path."
"Perfect balance between learning and entertainment. Finished ‘Thinking, Fast and Slow’ on my commute this week."
"Crazy how much I learned while walking the dog. BeFreed = small habits → big gains."
"Reading used to feel like a chore. Now it’s just part of my lifestyle."
"Feels effortless compared to reading. I’ve finished 6 books this month already."
"BeFreed turned my guilty doomscrolling into something that feels productive and inspiring."
"BeFreed turned my commute into learning time. 20-min podcasts are perfect for finishing books I never had time for."
"BeFreed replaced my podcast queue. Imagine Spotify for books — that’s it. 🙌"
"It is great for me to learn something from the book without reading it."
"The themed book list podcasts help me connect ideas across authors—like a guided audio journey."
"Makes me feel smarter every time before going to work"

免费获取《Good Team, Bad Team》摘要的 PDF 或 EPUB 版本。可打印或随时离线阅读。