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. 84 ff) The Team Performance Curve "The 'team performance curve' (Figure II-1) illustrates that how well any small group of people performs depends on the basic approach it takes and how effectively it implements that approach." "...working groups rely on the sum of 'individual bests' for their performance. They pursue no collective work products requiring joint effort." "By choosing the team path instead of the working group, people commit to take the risks of conflict, joint work-products, and collective action necessary to build a common purpose, set of goals, approach, and mutual accountability. People who call themselves teams but take no such risks are at best pseudo-teams." "Potential teams that take the risks to climb the curve inevitably confront obstacles. Some teams overcome them; others get stuck. The worst thing a stuck team can do, however, is to abandon the discipline of the team basics...Performance, not team building, can save potential teams or pseudo-teams, no matter how stuck." "Most team leaders must develop skills after they take the job. Those who succeed have an attitude that they do not need to make all key decisions nor assign all key jobs. Effective team leaders realize they neither know all the answer, nor can they succeed without the other members of the team. The wisdom of teams lies in recognizing that any person, whether previously an autocrat or a democrat, who genuinely believes in the purpose of the team and the team itself can lead the team toward higher performance." (p. 91) The five key points on the team performance curve are: 1. Working group: This is a group for which there is _no significant incremental performance need_ or opportunity that would require it to become a team. The members interact primarily to share information, best practices, or perspectives and to make decisions that help each individual perform within his or her area of responsibility. Beyond that, there is no realistic or truly desired 'small group' common purpose, incremental performance goals, or joint work-products that call for either a team approach or mutual accountability. 2. Pseudo-team: This is a group for which there could be a significant, incremental performance need or opportunity, but _it has not focused on collective performance and is not really trying to achieve it._ It has no interest in shaping a common purpose or set of performance goals, even though it may call itself a team. Pseudo-teams are the weakest of all groups in terms of performance impact. They almost always contribute less to company performance needs than working groups because their interactions detract from each member's individual performance without delivering any joint benefit. In pseudo-teams, the sum of the whole is less than the potential of the individual parts. 3. Potential team: This is a group for which there is a significant, incremental performance need and _that really is trying to improve its performance impact._ Typically, however, it requires more clarity about purpose, goals, or work-products and more discipline in hammering out a common working approach. It has not yet established collective accountability. Potential teams abound in organizations. As our performance curve illustrates, when a team approach makes sense, the performance impact can be high. We believe the steepest performance gain comes between a potential team and a real team; but any movement up the slope is worth pursuing. 4. Real team: This is a small number of people with complementary skills who _are equally committed to a common purpose, goals, and working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable._ Real teams are a basic unit of performance... 5. High-performance team: This is a group that meets all the conditions of real teams, and has _members who are also deeply committed to one another's personal growth and success._ That commitment usually transcends the team. The high-performance team significantly outperforms all other like teams, and outperforms all reasonable expectations given its membership. It is a powerful possibility and an excellent model for all real and potential teams. (p. 105) 'What will it take for us to achieve significant performance results?' "This is the most important question members of a group assigned to work together can ask themselves. The answer depends on the specific nature of the performance challenge at hand." Along with the questions about the elements of the team definition, or team basics, any team may want to monitor these: 1. Themes and Identity: Teams inevitably rally around a favorite set of themes that convey meaning about their basic purpose and identity. "The key to these themes lies in the richness of their meaning to the team. Like a special language or code words, team themes reflect shorthand ways to communicate what is important and why it is important inside the team. Such critical and deeply shared meaning, however, cannot be manufactured; T-shirts and coffee mugs do not make teams. But where there is meaning behind the logos, you will find teams." 2. Enthusiasm and energy level: Teams work hard and enthusiastically. They also play hard and enthusiastically. No one has to ask them to put in extra time; they just do it. No one has to remind them not to delegate jobs to others; again, they just do the work themselves. To outsiders, the energy and enthusiasm levels inside teams are unmistakable and even seductive. ... The energy and enthusiasm that characterizes a team, however, cannot be mandated from on high--it must derive from the interactions of the members. 3. Event-driven histories: As teams evolve, their stories often progress through a series of galvanizing events--often unplanned and sometimes 'failures'--that propel team performance. 4. Personal commitment: ...members' strong personal commitment to one another's growth and success is what distinguishes a high-performance team. When this commitment exists, it always enriches the team's sense of purpose, stretches its performance aspirations, and makes its members' approach to working with one another more powerful. Once again, however, this vital sign is either present or absent--people cannot be ordered to care about one another. 5. Performance results: In the final analysis, performance is both the cause and effect of teams. Real teams almost always outperform similarly situated and challenged individuals acting as individuals. High-performance teams, in addition, outperform all reasonable expectations for the group, including those of the team members themselves. Without specific, tangible performance results, in fact, little else matters. (p. 108) "Significantly, if a review of either set of vital signs suggests that a group is not a team, there may be reasons to try imporving performance as a working group instead of pursuing the team option. The upside potential gain in performance may not be worth the risk, or the group may not be ready to make the leap from working group to team. Evaluating these trade-offs carefully can prevent a premature decision one way or the other. In any case, the important thing is to rigorously consider both options and then be disciplined about pursuing whichever choice is made."