Found a correlation between a good result and the lack of personal communication in the team


    The study showed that the participants of the winning CyberDawgs team (in the photo) during the competition focused mainly on work, and not on personal interaction. Photo: US National Cybersecurity Center

    What do you think, which team of hackers (cybersecurity experts) will be better at solving a complex problem? A team in which participants communicate with each other or the one in which everyone is working intently? The correct answer is the second. These are the results of a study conducted by scientists from the Department of Cybernetic and Network Systems of the US Army Research Laboratory as a result of the Collegiate Cyber ​​Defense Competition.

    Maybe someone will find the results illogical. After all, it is known that communication and communication improve mutual understanding. Consequently, the more communication - the better mutual understanding, and the better the result. But for some reason, an inverse correlation was found. And if you think about it, it is quite understandable. The fact is that in this case the absence of communication is a sign of excellent mutual understanding.

    At least this is true for cybersecurity teams that participated in this particular competition. Scientists have no reason to generalize the found patterns in general to any working groups, although there is reason to put forward the hypothesis that this rule is observed for all.

    “Successful cyber teams should not discuss every detail when protecting a network; they already know what to do, ” says Dr. Norbou E. Buchler (Norbou E. Buchler), head of the research team in the cybernetic and network systems section of the US Army Research Laboratory, which conducted the study with colleagues from the National Cyber ​​Security Center USA and Carnegie Mellon University.

    As part of the study, teams tried to protect their network from cyber attacks aimed at destroying critical infrastructure. They were evaluated by four performance indicators: 1) maintenance of network services; 2) response to events that were part of the script; 3) assignment of tasks to those who played the role of chief executive officer; 4) reporting incidents to the authorities.

    To measure the level of communication between specialists, they were put on the neck by special sociometric badges produced by Humanyze Inc., which had to be worn continuously.



    This recorders collected statistics on a number of metrics. The most valuable of them are personal interactions between team members (via infrared sensors).

    In addition, army researchers developed a questionnaire to measure leadership style, task distribution, meeting quality, level of communication, and cooperation based on the opinions of observers assigned to each group.

    Properties that showed a positive correlation with the success of the team:

    • effective leadership;
    • functional specialization within the team.

    A feature that showed negative correlation with team success:

    interpersonal interaction (strong negative correlation)
    “In other words, teams whose members interacted less during the exercise were usually more successful,” said Buchler. “These results are important because current curriculum programs usually underline cybersecurity knowledge and do not provide training for effective team management.”

    “High-performing teams demonstrate fewer interactions within a team because they function as targeted social systems — in such systems, people easily identify the role and position of each other and work interdependently to achieve one or more collective goals,” explained the author of the scientific work, citingTakman model .



    According to Takman's model, the entire life cycle of a team is divided into five phases: formation, collision, normalization, execution, and completion. They are necessary and inevitable as the maturity of the team grows.
    Formation - the beginning of the transition of each member of the group from an individual model of behavior to a group, the formation of a team.

    Collision - a clash of interests and ambitions, the struggle for informal leadership, the search for their place in the team.

    Normalization - stabilization of relations, development of internal rules of behavior, the beginning of teamwork.

    Performance is productive work.

    Completion - the final stage of the project.

    Each phase is characterized by a certain level of team productivity. The model is cyclical. Any noticeable change in a team (employee’s departure / arrival) can drop the team to an earlier phase (usually to “Formation” or “Collision”).
    The scientific article was published in the journal Computers & Security for March 2018 (doi: 10.1016 / j.cose.2017.10.013, pdf).

    Also popular now: