Nutshell: High-performing teams

Creating the conditions teams need to work productively together is fundamental to high-performing teams.

Type the words “dream team” into a Google images search, and the chances are we’ll be confronted with the smiling faces of some of the most successful basketball players of all time. It’s a phrase that’s become synonymous with one of the most famous teams ever: the US basketball players who won both gold and notoriety at the 1992 Olympic Games.

It wasn’t all plain sailing, though. A change in rules that allowed professional basketball players to compete in the Olympics for the first time may have brought together legends such as Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. But during their first months of practice, these giants of the game struggled, even losing to a group of college players in a scrimmage.

Scottie Pippen went on record as saying: “We didn’t know how to play with each other.” It was the wake-up call they needed. They adjusted and went on to win gold, beating their opponents by an average of more than 44 points per game.  

Team composition matters when we bring people together in teams. The dream team’s success was certainly — at least in part — due to the sheer quality of the talent it comprised. But just bringing them together wasn’t enough. To perform to the best of their ability, they also needed to learn how to work together.

Teams are made, not born. Bringing the right people together in the right combinations is just the start. As leaders, we also need to create the right conditions for our teams to collaborate and succeed. We need to have an eye to team dynamics.

When Google conducted its famous Project Aristotle to find out what makes for a successful team, it found that who was on a team mattered less than “how the team members interact, structure their work, and view their contributions”. There were five key dynamics at play:

1. Psychological safety: can team members take risks without feeling insecure or embarrassed?
   
   
2. Dependability: can we rely on each other to do high quality work on time?
   
   
3. Structure and clarity: are goals, roles and execution plans clear?
   
   
4. Meaning of work: are we working on something that is personally important for each of us?
   
   
5. Impact of work: do we fundamentally believe that the work we’re doing matters?
   
   

These are themes that also appear in a range of thinking and models that can help us to understand the key elements of team dynamics and effective team working. Let’s take a look.

J Richard Hackman: what makes for team effectiveness?

J Richard Hackman began studying teams in the 1970s. In more than 40 years of research into everything from corporate boards and sports teams to orchestras and restaurant kitchen staff, he developed important insight into what makes for team effectiveness.

Hackman’s conclusion is that what matters most is not the personalities, attitudes or behavioural styles of team members; instead, what teams need to thrive are what he calls “enabling conditions”.

He opens his 2002 book, Leading Teams, with a simple quiz: When people work together to build a house, will the job probably (a) get done faster, (b) take longer to finish, or (c) not get done? The intuitive answer is, of course, (a); it’s logical that teamwork is a good, efficient way to get things done. And there’s always the potential that teams can “generate magic”. But, cautions Hackman, “don’t count on it”.

Research shows that teams often underperform, despite all the potential benefits they bring. That may be because of poor co-ordination or motivation. It might also be down to levels of unhealthy competition that can get in the way.

In the 1990s, evolutionary biologist William Muir conducted an experiment to improve egg-laying productivity in chickens. He isolated two groups: one made up of nine random chickens that were left to their own devices, the other a crack team of the most productive, specially selected Superchickens. After several generations, the first group were healthy and productive. The Superchickens fared less well. Only three had survived because the high producers had pecked all of the others to death.

When things get really bad, it seems that having a team can be worse than having no team at all.

For Hackman, overcoming these potential pitfalls means shifting our leadership perspective. It’s not about the all-powerful “I can do it all” team leader (Superchicken?). Instead, he calls for leaders with the interpersonal and collaboration skills who can “get a team established on a good trajectory, and then to make small adjustments along the way to help members succeed.” The best team leaders understand the conditions teams need to succeed and devise strategies for creating them.

He identified five key conditions that can increase the chances of success, often known as his Five-Factor model. If the five factors are in place, the right deployment of effort, strategies and talent will lead to team effectiveness, which manifests itself in three key ways:

• The team serves the needs of both internal and external stakeholders (outputs).
  
  
• It becomes stronger and more capable as it continues to work together (ability to collaborate).
  
  
• (Google-like), the members find meaning, satisfaction and opportunities for development within the group (individual development).
  
  

1. Being a real team

Effective teams have boundaries so that it’s clear who is part of the team and who is not. Hackman talks of dysfunctional senior teams chock full of people because a CEO may not want to be seen to be excluding anyone or has included someone for purely political reasons. This is not a recipe for a coherent team. It’s a leader’s job to delineate who’s on the team and who’s not.

Team members are also interdependent, and membership is typically stable.

It’s also important to know when teamworking may not be the answer. Some creative work — design, for example — is much better done by an individual rather than by a committee.

Simple tasks may also be better tackled by looser groups who are less dependent on each other and can make quick, independent decisions. Leaders have to find the right balance between individual autonomy and collective action. There are plenty of downsides to extreme individualism, but teams can be just as destructive if they’re not used appropriately or where individual voices and contributions and learning are crowded out.

2. Compelling Direction

One of the characteristics of a team is that team members share a common purpose and goal that drives them forward. Members need to know, and agree on, what they’re supposed to do together. Leaders must articulate a clear direction and goals, with the right level of challenge and enough meaning to motivate the team to work together.

3. Enabling Structure

A team can only work if it has the right structure, by which Hackman means its conduct and the way it organises and works on what it needs to do. Red tape, unnecessary competition and conflict can all undermine a team’s performance. For example, if only one person can authorise the work of the rest of the team, then that will lead to bottlenecks and compromise the team’s effectiveness. Or if team meetings are a Superchicken free-for-all, there’s much less chance of high performance.

4. Supportive Context

As Google’s Project Aristotle showed, safe and enabling contexts matter. Hackman identifies three key elements for the right supportive framework: rewards, development and information. This means that teams need access to the right resources for their work, to be fairly rewarded, to be kept informed, and to be able to develop and grow in co-operative and supportive environments.

5. Expert Coaching

Top teams have access to coaching and guidance to help them arrive at agreed team processes and to work through any obstacles or issues.

The more we can set up the enabling conditions that allow teams to grow and thrive, the more successful our teams are likely to be.

When teams go bad: Lencioni’s five dysfunctions of a team

Sometimes, considering the absence or presense of something can help us to arrive at the right conclusion or solution. Instead of team effectiveness, we might consider its opposite: team dysfunction, where teams are dogged by infighting, a lack of direction and accountability — or even just a lack of energy and drive.

That’s the approach taken by author Patrick Lencioni. In his work as a coach, Lencioni observed thousands of teams, and was able to identify patterns of behaviour associated with team dysfunction and breakdown. Because teams are made up of people who are messily human, there’s always the potential for them to slip into unproductive and unhealthy behaviour. But if, as leaders, we are aware of the potential for dysfunction, then we can take remedial action.

In his 2002 book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, he boiled these down into five key dysfunctions, shown as a pyramid. Like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the dysfunctions are hierarchical. Without a strong foundation at the bottom, the higher-level goals will be unattainable.  

For each of the five dysfunctions, Lencioni describes the impact that dysfunction has on the team and proposes solutions leaders can adopt to address each issue. He also encourages us to ask ourselves some key questions. If we can’t honestly answer with an unequivocal “yes” to each of them, we may have some work to do.

• Do team members openly and readily disclose their opinions?
  
  
• Are team meetings compelling and productive?
  
  
• Does the team come to decisions quickly and avoid getting bogged down by consensus?
  
  
• Do team members confront one another about their shortcomings?
  
  
• Do team members sacrifice their own interests for the good of the team?

An absence of trust

If team members are afraid to be vulnerable, or don’t feel safe asking for help from one another, giving or accepting feedback or admitting weaknesses or mistakes, it’s hard to establish a foundation of trust. For Lencioni, this is the most serious dysfunction: without trust, productive work and growth are almost impossible. Instead, teams spend time and energy protecting themselves, holding grudges, undermining and even avoiding each other rather than focusing on common team goals.

What to do about it?

Teamwork begins with trust, and that begins with the team leader. We need to set a good example by asking for help and input, admitting our own weaknesses and vulnerabilities and owning up to mistakes. We need to show that we are trustworthy, keeping our word, being honest and acting with integrity and empathy.

A fear of conflict

Conflict can be productive where trust is well established. If we try to preserve peace at any cost, we miss out on opportunities to challenge and improve ideas and take on board a diverse range of views. Holding back on what we really think or avoiding uncomfortable truths wastes time, makes for poor decision-making and often leads to back-channel griping and division.

What to do about it?

We need to establish the ground rules for healthy conflict and establish that productive debate is to be welcomed. Actively look to open up discussion and invite contributions. Use pros and cons lists. Think about nominating what Hackman calls a “deviant”, someone who will play devil’s advocate and challenge a tendency towards too much homogeneity.

A lack of commitment

Without productive conflict, it is difficult for team members to commit to decisions, and ambiguity prevails. A lack of clear direction and commitment can mean that people won’t follow through on decisions or deadlines. It can also lead to disengagement and disgruntlement and bring with it the risk of missed opportunities or prevarication.

What to do about it?

Team success is dependent on buy-in and commitment. Clarity is all here. Set clear goals, deadlines and expectations. Involve people in decision-making whenever possible, and show our workings if decisions need to be made elsewhere. Reinforce closure with clear discussions about what needs to happen next after decisions have been made. Contingency planning can support people to take the plunge, helping them to face their fears and commit. Encourage people to understand that we can never make a 'perfect' decision; we have to learn to accept some level of uncertainty, and inaction is often worse than making a decision based on imperfect information.

Avoidance of accountability

When we avoid team accountability, we don't challenge each other about actions or behaviours that hamper team effectiveness. We don’t question, encourage others to improve or hold them to high standards. We may resent each other for having different standards, duck the difficult conversation we should be having and allow performance to slip without doing anything about it.

What to do about it?

Team members need to be accountable to themselves and also to other members of the team. If teams have come this far, they have trust and commitment and should know that calling someone out is not a personal attack, but a sincere wish to get back on track with a task or deadline.

As leaders, we can reinforce this with clear standards, progress reviews and team rewards.

Make sure everyone is taking responsibility for their own work. Encourage people to offer and receive feedback (and offer and solicit it ourselves). A team charter can help by involving everyone in setting and agreeing roles, responsibilities and expectations.

Inattention to results

If people aren’t held accountable, they tend to focus more on their own personal goals rather than helping the team to meet overall collective goals. Team performance takes a back seat and the team loses sight of the need to achieve.

What to do about it?

If people are clear about what the team is working towards, it's harder for them to misunderstand or ignore those goals and focus instead on their own interests. Team purpose can also be encapsulated in a team charter. Think about how individual goals align (or not) with team and wider organisational goals. We also need to stay focused ourselves and show that we are working hard towards shared objectives too.

The five dysfunctions may not cover all of the factors involved in established positive team dynamics, but they’re a useful checklist and diagnostic to help us understand the factors that can get in the way.

Katzenbach and Smith: The Wisdom of Teams

When ex-McKinsey staffers Jon Katzenbach and Douglas Smith published The Wisdom of Teams in 1993, alongside their seminal Harvard Business Review article, The Discipline of Teams, they were unequivocal about the power of what they called “real” teams. The went as far as to say that teams are “the primary work unit in high-performance organizations”.

That is only possible, though, if we truly understand what a team is and the basic discipline required to make teams work. Fortunately, their research into teams led them to a useful definition, that a team is “... a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable”.

And with that they identified their top five factors that they believe characterise a high performing team rather than a mediocre one or a group of individuals who just happen to be colleagues.

In fact, for Katzenbach and Smith, teams and good performance are “inseparable”; if the team is applying these key disciplines well, then it will be a real team and high performance will follow.

A meaningful common purpose

Katzenbach and Smith’s number one factor is a familiar one: they discovered that the most effective teams all had a meaningful common purpose. Without it, teams operate as groups of individuals.

A common purpose must also be “owned” and developed by team members themselves: “Teams develop direction, momentum, and commitment by working to shape a meaningful purpose.”

Specific performance goals

The best teams also translate their common purpose into specific performance goals. A lack of alignment can lead to confusion, a team pulling apart and plummeting performance. In contrast, when purpose and goals work in tandem, they become “a powerful engine of performance”, energising teams to focus on overall goals.

A mix of complementary skills

With a nod to the importance of team composition and balance, Katzenbach and Smith state that all teams must have a minimum foundation of skills on which to operate, bearing in mind how those skills will combine effectively. They also remind us that most successful teams don’t emerge fully formed and that skill potential also matters: the best teams develop the skills they need as they work together.

They identify three key skill requirement categories:

• Technical or functional expertise

• Problem-solving and decision-making skills

• Interpersonal skills, such as effective communication, active listening and empathy

A team commitment to how the work will get done

Teams need to commit to a common approach to how they will work together to accomplish their purpose. Team members must agree on who will do what, how schedules will be set and met, what skills need to be developed, how continuing membership in the team is to be earned, and how decisions will be made and modified. An approach that delegates most of the work to a few members is not a real team; every member of a successful team, including the team leader, contributes in “concrete ways” to the team’s purpose.

Mutual accountability

No group ever becomes a team until it can hold itself accountable as a team. Rather than feeling accountable just to a leader, members of an effective team ultimately trust other members and feel a strong commitment to them. Mutual accountability can’t be forced or enforced. Trust and commitment come from “the time, energy, and action invested in figuring out what the team is trying to accomplish and how best to get it done”.

Bringing it up to date: Haas and Mortensen

So much for these classic theories, we might say. But are they still relevant today?

In their article The Secrets of Great Teamwork American academics Martine Haas and Mark Mortensen recognise that teams today are not like the teams of the past. They describe them as 4-D: diverse, dispersed, digital and dynamic. But, while teams may be more complex — and face increasingly complex challenges — team success is still based on some familiar fundamentals first identified by our old friend J Richard Hackman.

A compelling direction is even more important for 4-D teams, where membership might be dispersed and diverse. Haas and Mortensen give the example of a multi-location team who had very different interpretations of how to serve client needs.

Team members in Norway thought this meant producing a product of the highest possible quality. Their colleagues in the UK felt that a 75% solution would better fit the bill. Resolving that tension meant that both sides had to reach consensus on how the team as a whole defined what it needed to do.

Teams still need a strong structure, with the right number and mix of members, a good balance of skills, agreed processes and clear expectations around behaviours, to establish positive dynamics. These might need to be re-iterated regularly in teams where membership is more fluid (dynamic).

Having the right supportive context is also more important than ever. Leaders of 4-D teams need to be aware of the potential downsides of, for example, regional discrepancies in the availability of resources.

So far, so familiar. But Haas and Mortensen’s research also suggests that the challenges of 4-D teams need a new fourth factor: shared mindset. Because of their distinctive nature, 4-D teams can perceive themselves as several sub-groups rather than a single cohesive team, and we’re likely to view our own sub-group more positively than others. Working digitally also means that we don’t have the benefit of the nonverbal and contextual cues we can rely on when we meet in person.

Shared mindset among team members can be fostered by actively establishing a common identity and common understanding. We need to make sure that each sub-group feels valued for its contribution to overall goals. “Structured unstructured time” — time allocated to talk about things not directly related to the task at hand — can also build bridges.

For example, a few minutes of social chat at the beginning of a Zoom call can make all the difference, especially if team members have never met in person. We need to find every opportunity to establish that common ground and to encourage everyone to see how team membership means that, because of our compelling direction, we have more in common that we might think.

How to improve team performance

Even the most successful teams can improve and grow. Here’s a simple, three-step process that can help boost team performance:

Assess

Performance improvement starts with knowing how our team is performing right now.

We need to get to know our team members as individuals: their strengths, weaknesses, what more they can offer and how they might develop. Think about the balance of skills and approaches we have already, and what more we might need.

We might conduct a SWOT analysis with our team to explore together where we’re doing well and what the opportunities are to improve.

Or use the team evaluation diagnostic created by Haas and Mortensen to see how our team shapes up against some key criteria.

Plan and implement

Armed with this intelligence, make a plan for one or two key areas of improvement, for example:

Might a new or revised team charter help?

Do we need to work more actively on shared mindset?

Do we need to focus in on psychological safety? 

Are we providing enough opportunities for team development?

Do individual goals align properly with purpose?

Review

As we’ve seen, teams are increasingly dynamic and may need to respond and adapt to changing organisational needs. Keep team performance under regular review.  

Despite all the challenges that effective team working presents, the fact remains that, in the words of the immortal Helen Keller, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” We need only think of examples as diverse as geese flying in a V formation who take it in turns to reduce air drag during migration; the team at NASA that put a man on the moon against all odds, or the extraordinary scientific collaborations that brought us life-saving COVID-19 vaccinations.

But to make the most of the benefits teamworking offers, we need to understand what constitutes a team in the first place, consider carefully the right team make-up and size, and ensure that we’re creating Hackman-like enabling conditions to give us the best chance possible of team dynamics that make for healthy and productive collaboration. We may lose the odd match along the way, but gold awaits us if we can create dream teams of our own.

Test your understanding

• Identify two positive team dynamics identified by Google’s Project Aristotle.

• Outline Hackman’s five enabling conditions that improve the chances of team success.

• Explain what Haas and Mortensen mean by 4-D teams.

What does it mean for me?

• Consider Patrick Lencioni’s five questions related to his key team dysfunctions. If you can’t answer an unequivocal “yes” to all of them, plan for two or three things you might do to take remedial action.