The Ultimate Team Performance Framework (v 0.7)

What makes a group of people a real team? What makes a team achieve high performance? What is team performance? Did you ever think about that?

Still today in most organizations prevails the belief that team performance is something that happens spontaneously or by Divine Providence over time. Managers just toss some people together and say “You guys are now a team, come on, do your work”. The belief that every group of people is a team is fairly widespread, and teams are used for everything, even when individual work would be much better.

Managers waste their time in meetings and discussions about performance, delivery, engagement. They define processes, and job descriptions and roles, but who takes care of the team?

We have to understand that teams are not for everything. We must see the difference between teams and groups, and how to develop teams and help them improve their performance over time. Team development needs a conscious and honest effort and a lot of energy from team members, from their coach and/or leader and from the organization supporting them.

Let’s get started by reading some definitions.

What is a Team?

  • A group of people with a common goal and interdependent tasks.
  • A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purposeperformance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable. – Katzenbach and Smith, 1993, “The Wisdom of Teams”
  • All teams are groups but not all groups are teams. A team has an explicit shared purpose and/or task, usually in a broader organizational context with communication patterns and a network of relationships already established. – “Group and Team Coaching”, Christine Thornton
  • Real work teams in organizations have four features: a team task, clear boundaries, clearly specified authority to manage their own work processes, and membership stability over some reasonable period of time. – “Leading Teams”, Richard Hackman
  • A small group of people with complementary skills committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals and shared by which they feel mutually accountable. The common approach needs to include effective ways to meet and communicate that raise moral and alignment, interfacing effectively with all key stakeholders and so that the team members and continually learn and develop.– “Leadership Team Coaching”, Peter Hawkins
  • It is important to differentiate between team and group. A team is a set of interrelated people organized in order to perform a specific task, with their own identity that defines and gives coherence to it. On the other hand a group is a set of people without considering the task (target or ultimate objective). – “Configuración de un equipo de proyecto informático eficiente”, Rafael Fernández Millón
  • A group of people with a full set of complementary skills required to complete a task, job, or project. Team members operate with a high degree of interdependence, share authority and responsibility for self-management, are accountable for the collective performance, and work toward a common goal and shared rewards(s). A team becomes more than just a collection of people when a strong sense of mutual commitment creates synergy, thus generating performance greater than the sum of the performance of its individual members. – Business Dictionary

What is Team Performance?

The very best work teams always serve their customers well, of course. But they also become increasingly capable performing units over time, as members gain experience and discover new and better ways of working together. And, finally, they provide settings in which each individual member can find in his or her teamwork a good measure of personal learning and fulfillment. An effective work team does all three of these things:

  • Serving Clients: The productive output of a team meets or exceeds the standards of quantity, quality and timeliness of the team’s clients. Effectiveness criteria is not so straightforward for teams that perform work in organizational settings. Coach’s job is first to help the team identify the standards that are used by its real clients, and then do whatever can be done to help them meet those standards.
  • Growing as a Team: The social processes the team uses in carrying out the work enhance member’s capability to work together interdependently in the future. Effective work teams operate in ways that build shared committment, collective skills, and task-appropriate coordination strategies. They become adept at detecting and correcting errors before serious damage is done, and at noticing and exploiting emerging opportunities. And they periodically review how they have been operating, milking their experiences for whatever learnings can be had from them.
  • Individual Member’s Learning: The group experience, on balance, contributes positively to the learning and personal well-being of individual team members. We cannot count as effective any team for which the impact of the group experience on members’ learning and well-being is more negative than positive.

These three criteria can be used to assess the effectiveness of any team, regardless of task or setting. The relative weight of the three criteria, however, varies across times and circumstances.

Introduction to the Framework

In this framework there are four main areas which determine team performance. In later versions you will be able to click on each area to obtain an explanation, relations with other areas and tools and techniques to use:

  • Organizational Context (System)
  • Team Structure (System)
  • Team Psychology (Individual)
  • Communication (Individual)

A rule of thumb of this framework, is that anything on the left hand side has greater impact on team performance than things on the right. Another way of looking at it, is that there is no way you can improve team performance by working on the items on the right, unless you have successfully worked on the items on the left. For example, a high-level of trust is distinctive of high-performing teams, but if you coach or lead a team you won’t start by increasing trust, you’d rather start by looking at team size or information system. Building trust when team is too big is a waste of time. Or, do you think you will be able to grow cohesion and sense of belonging if roles and responsibilities are not well-defined and agreed?

The Framework

Team Performance Framework v0.7

Click on the links below to jump to the required topic:

  1. Organizational Context (System)
    1. Real Team
      1. Boundaries
      2. Interdependence
      3. Stability
      4. Authority/Autonomy
    2. Purpose
    3. Reward System
    4. Information System
    5. Education System
    6. Culture
  2. Team Structure (System)
    1. Leadership
    2. Composition
      1. Size
      2. Mix
      3. Interpersonal Skills
    3. Roles & Responsibilities
    4. Design of the Work
      1. Task Characteristics
      2. Size/Meaningfulness
      3. Autonomy
      4. Feedback
    5. Team Ecosystem
    6. Working Agreements
    7. Distribution
    8. Vision & Mission
    9. Culture
  3. Team Psychology (Individual)
    1. Trust
    2. Conflict
    3. Commitment
    4. Accountability
      1. Peer Pressure
    5. Attention to Results
    6. Alignment
    7. Psychological Safety
    8. Continuous Improvement
    9. Belonging/Affiliation
    10. Cohesion
    11. Self-Awareness
    12. Teamwork Mental Scripts
  4. Communication
    1. Feedback
    2. Transparency
    3. Language

This framework is evolving. Any feedback and comments will be highly appreciated.

Thanks for reading, sharing and commenting!


  • Richard Hackman, 2002, “Leading Teams”, Harvard Business School Press, USA
  • Richard Hackman, 2011, “Collaborative Intelligence”, Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA
  • Jacqueline Peters and Catherine Carr, 2013, “High Performance Teams – A Comprehensive System for Leaders and Coaches”, FriesenPress, Canada
  • Richard Hackman and Greg R. Oldham, 1980, “Work Redesign”, Addison-Wesley, USA
  • David Clutterbuck, 2007, “Coaching the Team at Work”, Nicholas Brealey International, London, UK
  • Peter Hawkins, 2012, “Coaching y Liderazgo de Equipos”, Ediciones Granica, Argentina
  • Alain Cardon, 2003, “Coaching de Equipos”, Gestión 2000, París, Francia
  • Patrick Lencioni, 2002, “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA
  • Gil Broza, 2012, “The Human Side of Agile”, 3P Vantage Media, USA
  • Rachel Davies, Liz Sedley, 2009, “Agile Coaching”, The Pragmatic Bookshelf, USA
  • Lyssa Adkins, 2010, “Coaching Agile Teams”, Addison-Wesley, USA
  • Jurgen Appelo, 2011, “Management 3.0”, Addison-Wesley, Crawfordsville, Indiana, USA
  • George Smith, 2001, “Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions”, IAF, USA
  • Bruce W. Tuckman, Mary Ann C. Jensen, 2010, “Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited”, IAF, USA
  • Susan A. Wheelan, Barbara Davidson and Felice Tilin, “Group Development Across Time – Reality or Illusion?”, Small Group Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, April 2003 223-245, Sage Publications
  • Jim Hall, “Dynamic Interactions Between Two Models of Team Development and Learning: Implications for Performance and Human Resource Managers”, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, vol. 18 no. 3, Fall 2007, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
  • Susan A. Wheelan, “Group Size, Group Development, and Group Productivity”, Small Group Research, Vol. 40 No. 2, April 2009 247-262, Sage Publications
  • Artemis Chang, Julie Duck and Prashant Bordia, “Understanding the Multidimensionality of Group Development”, Small Group Research, Vol. 37 No. 4, August 2006 327-350, Sage Publications
  • Alan R. Dennis, Monica Garfield and Bryan Reinicke, 2008, “Towards an Integrative Model of Group Development”, Indiana University, USA
  • Gervase R. Bushe, Graeme H. Coetzer, “Group Development and Team Effectiveness”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 43 No. 2, June 2007 184-212 (Winner of the 2007 Douglas McGregor Memorial Award for best paper in JABS)
  • George Smith, “Group Development: A Review of the Literature and a Commentary on Future Research Directions”, Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal – Number 3, Spring 2001
  • Kim S. Cameron, Robert E. Quinn, 2011, “Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture”, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, USA
  • William Bridges, 2010, “Character of Organizations”, Davies-Black, Boston, MA, USA
  • Donella H. Meadows, 2008, “Thinking in Systems”, Chelsea Green Publishing, White River Junction, Vermont, USA, Pages 145 – 165
  • Peter M. Senge, 1990, “The Fifth Discipline”, Doubleday, USA, Pages 8-9, 42-54, 68-73, 129-190
  • John P. Kotter & James L. Heskett, 1992, “Corporate Culture and Performance”, Free Press, NY, USA
  • Hai, D. M., 1986, “Organizational Behavior: Experiences and cases”, West Publishing, St Paul, MN, USA
  • Hampden-Turner, C., 1990, “Creating Corporate Culture”, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, USA
  • Jason Little, 2014, “Lean Change Management”, Happy Melly Express
  • Schein, E., 1990, “Organisational Culture”, American Psychologist, 45 (2)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s