The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization
Jon R. Katzenbach and Douglas K. Smith
McKinsey & Company, 1993
ISBN 0-87584-367-0

(p. 62) a checklist of questions based on the definition of teams

1.  Small enough in number:
    a. Can you convene easily and frequently?
    b. Can you communicate with all members easily and frequently?
    c. Are your discussions open and interactive for all members?
    d. Does each member understand the others' roles and skills?
    e. Do you need more people to achieve your ends?
    f. Are sub-teams possible or necessary?

2. Adequate levels of complementary skills:
    a. Are all three categories of skills either acutally or potentially
represented across the membership (functional/technical,
problem-solving/decision-making, and interpersonal)?
    b. Does each member have the potential in all three categories to
advance his or her skills to the level required by the team's purpose
and goals?
    c. Are any skill areas that are critical to team performance missing
or underrepresented?
    d. Are the members, individually and collectively, willing to spend
the time to help themselves and others learn and develop skills?
    e.  Can you introduce new or supplemental skills as needed?

3. Truly meaningful purpose:
    a. Does it constitute a broader, deeper aspiration than just
near-term goals?
    b. Is it a _team_ purpose as opposed to a broader organizational
purpose or just one individual's purpose (e.g., the leader's)?
    c. Do all members understand and articulate it in the same way?  And
do they do so without relying on ambiguous abstractions?
    d. Do members define it vigorously in discussions with outsiders?
    e. Do members frequently refer to it and explore its implications?
    f. Does it contain themes that are particularly meaningful and
memorable?
    g. Do members feel it is important, if not exciting?

4.  Specific goal or goals:
    a. Are they _team_ goals versus broader organizational goals or just
on individual's goals (e.g., the leader's)?
    b. Are they clear, simple, measurable?  If not measurable, can their
achievement be determined?
    c. Are they realistic as well as ambitious?  Do they allow small
wins along the way?
    d. Do they call for a concrete set of team work-products?
    e. Is their relative importance and priority clear to all members?
    f. Do all members agree with the goals, their relative importance,
and the way in which their achievement will be measured?
    g. Do all members articulate the goals in the same way?

5.  Clear working approach
    a. Is the approach concrete, clear, and really understood and agreed
to by everybody?  Will it result in achievement of the objectives?
    b. Will it capitalize on and enhance the skills of all members?  Is
it consistent with other demands on members?
    c. Does it require all members to contribute equivalent amounts of
real work?
    d. Does it provide for open interaction, fact-based problem solving,
and results-based evaluation?
    e. Do all members articulate the approach in the same way?
    f. Does it provide for modification and improvement over time?
    g. Are fresh input and perspectives systematically sought and added,
for example, through information and analysis, new members, and senior
sponsors?

6.  Sense of mutual accountability:
    a. Are you individually and jointly accountable for the team's
purpose, goals, approach, and work-products?
    b. Can you and do you measure progress against specific goals?
    c. Do all members feel responsible for all measures?
    d. Are the members clear on what they are individually responsible
for and what they are jointly responsible for?
    e. Is there a sense that 'only the team can fail'?