What we know about teams
Key-Findings
In our quest to demystify team performance and provide practical insights, we've uncovered five headline findings that challenge conventional wisdom and offer actionable guidance for organizations. These discoveries stem from years of rigorous research in collaboration with Monash University, where we studied real teams in their natural work environments. Let's delve into each finding:
Teams are complex
Our research shows that 18 factors influence team performance in different ways, and our model explains between 60% and 80% of the variability in team performance. To put it another way, even with our model’s complexity and its consideration of 18 factors, there remains 20% to 40% of team performance unexplained by our current research. In social sciences, explaining 60% to 80% of variability with a model is excellent; it places us well beyond random explanations which sit below 30%.
Read MoreLess
In terms of giving our clients confidence, we are highly confident that by working with our model—and by considering what you’re doing well versus where improvements can be made—you will gain actionable insights for improvement.
However, we also recognize that there remain factors unexplained by our model. Therefore, our research is ongoing as we continue exploring new ideas about how best to consider team performance.
Context is critical
Like a glasshouse, context creates the conditions for high performance. Building a top team starts with intentionally establishing and clarifying the context. When we think of context, we consider it on two dimensions.
Read MoreLess
The first dimension is what is internal to the team. These elements set us up to be a great team and include the foundation of the team: why do we exist, what are our goals, how are we going to work together, who is on the team, and what are our roles and responsibilities?
On the other side, we have the external context. This involves factors outside of the immediate team that impact their ability to perform as a team. The external context falls into three categories: our stakeholders and relationships with them; understanding how well we fit within the broader organization; relationships with other teams and leaders in the organization; and finally, staying connected to external environments by monitoring factors outside of our organization that may affect our team’s performance.
The data tells us that internal and external contexts are mutually reinforcing. A well-set-up internal team fosters better external relationships—and vice versa. Understanding stakeholders’ needs enhances internal setup effectiveness.
Why does context matter? It drives team performance. A well-established internal setting enhances goal achievement capabilities, while effective processes externally boost positive individual experiences within teams, ultimately leading to the establishment of effective processes internally.
Performance drives performance
Which brings us to our third finding: performance drives performance. Achieving your goals as a team will lead to greater effectiveness as a group. So where to start? Define your goals, work towards achieving them, and you are more likely to achieve more together than individuals can working alone. I shared this finding with a sports psychologist who said to me, “Absolutely, the worst place to be is a losing team’s locker room.”
Read MoreLess
This illustrates that if you as a team aren’t clear on your goals and aren’t achieving them, you are less likely to work together effectively as a group.
This has been an interesting finding that is potentially unsurprising when considered intuitively and from experience. It leads us to our third finding: the critical role that processes play in being an effective team and working together effectively as a group.
Processes drive performance
How you work together matters. Establishing intentional processes leads to improved performance as a group. In our research, we found that processes fall into two categories:
- Critical processes: Accountability, task-oriented operations and creative collaboration
- Supporting processes: Skill development & coaching, celebrating successes, inquiry and individual contribution.
Read MoreLess
We have three critical processes that directly drive the outcome of group effectiveness:
- Accountability: This is unsurprisingly crucial and often lacking in organizations, particularly in Australia. If you set your goals, how do you hold yourselves accountable?
- Task-Oriented Operations: These focus on guiding the team’s work—how do we stay on track, set priorities, make decisions, and solve problems?
- Creative Collaboration: This people-oriented process involves seeking perspectives, integrating those perspectives, managing conflict, caring for each other, and stepping in when needed.
Together, these three critical processes have the greatest effect on working effectively as a group. Additionally, we have four supporting processes that enhance our ability to be more effective at these top three:
- Skill Development & Coaching: How do we develop our skills and coach each other as a group?
- Celebrating Successes: How do we celebrate our achievements?
- Inquiry: This includes listening, questioning, and giving feedback.
- Individual Contribution: How am I able to contribute within the team?
These supporting processes create conditions that support us in accomplishing those more challenging tasks effectively.
Performance drives trust
The fifth finding, which might be a bit controversial but also relieving for many people, is that our data shows when teams perform, positive feelings like trust, inclusion, belonging, identity, and adaptability emerge—not the other way around.
Read MoreLess
What this means is if you notice your team feels broken—and this is why there’s often such a focus on things like trust, respect, and value—it’s because these are the elements you’re most likely to notice as absent in your team.
If you notice these things are missing or if your team feels broken, our model helps you identify and act on the root cause rather than just addressing the symptom.
This is where we believe models like Lencioni get it wrong. Trust may indeed be the first thing you notice as broken; however, fixing trust alone doesn’t necessarily improve team performance. Our model—which is statistically validated and contains significant relationships—suggests that trust emerges from when the team is performing well. Team performance itself is driven by context and processes.