Team Performance: Combining individual strengths to achieve better results together

A high-performing team effectively fulfils its shared responsibilities, achieves outstanding results within its context and, at the same time, maintains its future performance capacity. The benchmark is determined by its remit and its aspirations: for a top team, for example, the quality of joint decisions and leadership effectiveness are key; for a project team, it is the reliable delivery of its results. We therefore consider both the team’s ability to accomplish tasks and its capacity to learn and adapt to new requirements.

A team shares responsibility for results, has its own scope for action and relies on the interaction of its members to fulfil its task. Simply having a shared meeting or the same manager is not enough. This distinction shapes the way we provide support: a larger management group may consist of several teams and must function as a cohesive management system. To this end, we structure collaboration within and between the relevant teams.

Alignment means having a sufficiently precise shared understanding of the current situation, the different perspectives and the desired direction. This includes a shared rationale for setting priorities and making decisions. It is crucial that this leads to coordinated action. General agreement on the strategy is not enough if those involved draw different conclusions from it regarding their work.

We work in three steps: Listening, to understand the perspectives of those involved. Discussing to openly address differences, interests and necessary trade-offs. Defining to formulate a common basis, make decisions and identify outstanding issues. In concrete terms, this means, for example: What takes priority? What are we willing to do without? Who decides and who implements? Whether this alignment is sustainable is subsequently evident in the decisions and actions taken in day-to-day life.

No. Alignment does not require complete consensus. Differing views can remain as long as they are understood and it is clear which decision applies and how it will be implemented. A compromise born of an aversion to conflict, on the other hand, is not a sound foundation. That is why we also document any remaining tensions and unresolved issues, rather than equating a harmonious conclusion with shared alignment.

A good working relationship is valuable. However, team performance is also demonstrated by whether difficult issues are addressed, priorities are set and accountability is demanded. If consensus is achieved simply by avoiding dissent, relevant perspectives remain untapped. We therefore work on building trust and dealing constructively with differences, as well as on establishing clear roles and binding decision-making processes.

Trust relates to our expectations of others: can I rely on their abilities, their integrity and their reliability? Psychological safety relates to the space we have to behave as we see fit within the team: can I ask questions, disagree, admit a mistake or point out a risk without being judged for this openness? We consider both perspectives when it comes to development. Personal familiarity alone does not necessarily mean that critical issues are actually addressed openly.

Both form part of our approach. The tasks we undertake together determine which substantive issues and outcomes take centre stage. At the same time, we address the formal and informal interactions required to achieve this. When it comes to a strategic decision, for example, the focus is on priorities and trade-offs, but also on how different perspectives are incorporated and how decisions are supported. If the development of a strategy or the reorganisation of the entire organisation becomes the main task, we agree on a separate project scope for this.

A workshop can be a useful starting point: it creates space to understand the current situation, address key issues and reach initial agreements. Whether further support is needed depends on the specific requirements. What matters most is what happens afterwards in day-to-day practice. New decision-making processes, routines and behaviours must be put into practice and reflected upon. An initial workshop can therefore be commissioned as the starting point for a Top Team Journey, with no obligation to continue.

No. Structured interviews form the starting point for our diagnostic process. Surveys such as the TES complement these if they provide additional insights into the specific issue at hand. Existing project information, observations or feedback from relevant stakeholders can also be helpful. We select the tools based on the insights required and the appropriate level of effort. A larger management group, for instance, requires a different approach to that needed for a single team.

At the outset, we agree on which changes matter to the team. These may include the quality and speed of decision-making, the implementation of shared priorities, clearer lines of responsibility or less friction at the points where different roles overlap. We look at concrete results and observable behaviour in day-to-day work and regularly reflect on progress. Surveys and brief team checks can complement this assessment. For us, satisfaction with an off-site alone is not a sufficient measure.

Yes, if its requirements change or if it wishes to set itself higher shared standards. New members, a transformation or a challenging project can provide an opportunity to review priorities and working methods. The scope must be appropriate: not every team needs intensive support. Our aim is for the team to increasingly identify its own development needs and to further develop its collaboration independently.