One of the factors that separate outstanding companies from those that are average or mediocre is teamwork.  Quite simply, wherever you find people who collaborate with one another, who support one another, who are committed to one another, and who are intent on placing best interests of the group ahead of their own vested interests, you will find a team of people who get results that are far superior to those groups who do not have these attributes.

The benefits of teamwork are obvious to anyone who is prepared to give the matter even some thought.  Yet how do we get a group of people to work together in a spirit of co-operation so that the well-being of the group is the prime consideration of every team member?

To answer this question, some have advocated communal, outdoor activities such as river rafting, abseiling, nature trails, etc.  I have participated in many of these and I enjoy them immensely.  However, in my experience, while they are a wonderful form of recreation, they seldom having any long term effect in improving overall team performance.  If, for example, the team was a dysfunctional one before the outdoor intervention, it will probably still be a dysfunctional team after the event.

So, how do leaders go about creating high performance teamwork?  Perhaps the best way is to contrast the workings of teams that do not consistently achieve outstanding results (to see what we can learn from them) with those that are highly effective.

In this regard, Lencioni has spent years studying the reasons why teams fail to get their act together.  He published his findings in a book entitled “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”.

The first dysfunction is absence of trust between colleagues.  Essentially this means that people feel insecure and threatened.  They are unwilling to be open and genuine with one another for fear of being manipulated, ridiculed and even abused.

Without trust the second dysfunction will emerge.  This occurs when people are unwilling to collaborate with one another or when they readily comply out of fear. Instead, they create facades and resort to guarded comments and feigned agreement even when different views are upheld.  A lack of collaboration and authentic interaction results in a lack of commitment, which is the third dysfunction.  In this scenario team members fail to support decisions either by being apathetic or by expressing covert disapproval.

Because of a lack of commitment team members are likely to succumb to the fourth dysfunction, avoidance of accountability.  When things go wrong, or opportunities bungled, team members are inclined to shift blame or make excuses.  They also disregard below standard performance, and fail to call on peers to account for actions and behaviours that negatively affect the well being of the team.

The fifth and last dysfunction is inattention to results. At this stage people place their individual needs and goals above the best interests of the team.

Patric Lencioni has given us an understanding of the factors that inhibit or destroy teamwork.  By taking these dysfunctions and applying their opposites, we get the five characteristics of highly effective teams.

To validate whether the antithesis of the dysfunctions are indeed characteristics of high performance teams, I applied the reverse of Lencioni’s model to many teams in all walks of life, including sports’ teams, business teams, church teams, project teams, etc.  In every case I found that the five characteristics were highly applicable and an integral part of optimal performance.  With this in mind we will examine each characteristic.

Characteristic #1:  Trust

Trust lies at the very heart of a fully functioning, cohesive team.  Without trust meaningful teamwork is not possible.

Trust, in the context of teamwork, is being able to rely one another.  It is the confidence among team members that the intentions of co-workers are honourable.  It is based on relationships that are open, without team members having any concerns that they will be manipulated, taken advantage of, or abused in any way.

The nature of trust is demonstrated by team members being comfortable with one another without feeling vulnerable in any way.

Genuine trust is rare in organisations.  This is because there are two values, commonly upheld, that destroy trust.  These are the values of ambition and competitiveness.

Although ambition is often a highly sought-after and desired characteristic in the business world, it usually destroys trust and teamwork.  The reason is that ambition is typically fuelled by greed and the desire for power.  When these two qualities come together in individuals, they become narcissistic and self-indulgent, placing their vested interests at the centre of  behaviours and actions.

When this happens you get a highly charged, political corporate environment where people put their personal well-being ahead of the good of others, thereby destroying trust and breaking down teamwork.

Similarly, people who are highly competitive have a strong need to win, whatever the cost.  Yet, if one person wins, others must lose because there can only be one winner.  Consequently, when internal competitiveness occurs, people pit themselves against one another in an adversarial relationship.  This is the antithesis of co-operation and teamwork.

If teamwork is to occur, personal ambitions and competitiveness must be set aside for the good of the team.  The welfare of the group must always come before one’s egotistical desire to prevail as an individual.  It is difficult for some people to turn off the instincts of ambition and competitiveness in the best interests of the team, but that is exactly what is required for team members to trust one another.

Characteristic # 2:  The willingness to express disagreement

Weak managers fear conflict, so they avoid it.  Dictators and authoritarian managers don’t want people to think for themselves, so they stifle initiatives and subdue any dissent.

Strong, effective managers build teams, where people are able to express their views and disagree without fear of ridicule or disapproval.

It is important to differentiate between destructive conflict and constructive disagreement.  In the latter, team members are willing to disclose their ideas, beliefs and experiences, with the sole purpose of providing the highest quality input.  There is no self-indulgence, no desire to upstage team members and no ulterior motive.  Consequently, co-workers are able to have constructive debates expressing diverse perspectives.  Team members may strongly disagree with proposed decisions or actions yet, at the end of it all, will bear no hard feelings towards colleagues.

Whenever a group of people come together there will always be different ways of looking at things, with contrasting opinions and even contrary experiences.  The wonderful thing about teamwork is that this diversity may be used to explore issues from many perspectives.  The result is healthy debate and higher quality decisions in the shortest period of time.

It is important to bear in mind that the willingness to express disagreement is contingent upon the existence of trust.  Without trust people will not expose themselves or their ideas. This is why constructive dissention is built on the foundation of trust.  With trust and the freedom to differ we can progress to the third characteristic, commitment.

Characteristic # 3:  Commitment

To be committed is to pledge oneself whole-heartedly to a cause; in this case the goals, decisions and actions of the team and its members.

A committed team:

• knows where it is going
• is in touch with the needs of customers and the strategies of competitors.  Consequently, they exploit advantages and neutralise threats
• involves all members in strategic decision-making
• faces facts honestly and does not cover-up or hid mistakes.  Members regularly review progress and take remedial action whenever necessary
• maintain high standards and are proud, yet never complacent, of their achievements
• is comprised of members who respect and support one another (even when they disagree).

The three essential ingredients of commitment are:  clarity of purpose, communication and involvement.  If any of these is missing or inadequate, it will adversely affect the commitment that members have towards the goals of the organisation and one another.

Characteristic # 4:  Accountability

Accountability refers to the willingness of team members to take responsibility for their own performance, as well as holding colleagues answerable for achieving agreed outcomes.

This characteristic follows the progression of the first three (trust, willingness to disagree and commitment) factors.  In many ways it is the most difficult to attain as there is a natural inclination to shift blame or make excuses when things go wrong.  Alternatively, when a peer has not performed, it is unpleasant to call him or her to account for this misdemeanour.

People who maintain a good working relationship are naturally reluctant to hold one another accountable for fear of jeopardising that relationship.  Yet paradoxically, not addressing the issue is what ultimately breaks-down relationships because team members begin to inwardly criticise and resent one another for not fulfilling expectations.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, that members of high performance teams confront one another’s non-performance, awkward as it may be.  Bear in mind that the ultimate good of the team is always the prime consideration with no malicious or vengeful attacks made. People are simply expected to do what they are supposed to do and, when they don’t, colleagues make sure non-performance is respectfully and quickly, but directly addressed.

Holding one another accountable is the most efficient means of maintaining high performance standards; people do not want to fail and they do not want to be seen as wanting by colleagues.  In itself peer pressure is, therefore, a highly effective way of ensuring that sustained results are achieved.

Characteristic # 5:  Results-Orientation

Being achievement-oriented is crucial to success.  However, when applying this factor to teamwork, it must shift from one that is individually based to one that places the collective goals of the group ahead of personal achievements.  In other words the vision and objectives of the team, override any personal goals for self-aggrandisement or individual gain.

An unrelenting focus on achieving objectives agreed by the group is essential, and teams should have zero tolerance towards non-performance.

Bear in mind that financial measures should never be the only criteria.  A successful team is not myopic. Team members look beyond the numbers to address the full range of key performance areas that drive a business towards its vision.

Thus problems must be tackled and accounted for, opportunities taken advantage of, internal processes and products/services constantly reviewed, high customer service levels maintained, and so on.  Remember that profits, income and shareholder returns, are the result of doing many things right and it is essential for teams to address the full range issues and actions that lead to the desired outcomes.

So while financial measures are reflected in the final scorecard, a broad range of objectives (both tactical and strategic), that safeguard continuous, efficient operations, are what the team should strive for.

To be results-oriented in a balanced manner, many teams apply a process called “The Balanced Scorecard”.  This is the name given by authors Nortan and Kaplan to the system of pursuing a range of balanced objectives that address all key areas of a business, and not financial aspects alone.

Conclusion

High performance teamwork never occurs by accident.  It is created by the sustained efforts of leaders to genuinely obtain the support, and harness the creative power of individuals, to do what is in the best interests of all.  Ultimately it comes down to consistently practicing a few, common-sense principles over time; the principles outlined in this paper.