Developing High-Performing Teams: Best Practices

As we all know, the most recent recession in the United States had a lasting impact on both employees and employers. Although the unemployment rate has inched lower since then, employers are still being cautious about rehiring. Instead, they are relying on their smaller remaining workforce to do the work done by a much larger workforce before the recession. This requires employees to fundamentally change how they work in order to do more in the same amount of time. At no time in recent history has the development of high-performing teams been more important than it is today. To get high-quality results and maintain a high level of productivity with a smaller workforce requires a different way of thinking about team efficiency and team effectiveness. In our work and research with a wide variety of companies, we have identified the following best practices that employers are using to address this gap.

1. Individual or Team

Companies have identified that a significant time-waster is having more than one person do the job of one person. There has been more scrutiny on redefining job specifications to ensure that, regarding manpower, 1 + 1 does not equal less than 2. Becoming clearer about what outcomes are essential, as opposed to “nice to have,” requires companies to develop a sharper sense of how jobs are done and to look for more efficient ways to do them. Now, companies find that they are able to get the same or better outcomes with fewer people or only one individual on a task. The takeaway is this: rather than immediately jumping to a group, determine whether the task, project, or initiative really requires the involvement of more than a single individual.

2. Project Charter

Assuming the project or initiative to be accomplished requires only a small group, the next best practice is having a project charter. The more clear and articulable a project mission is, the more likely it is that the team will be successful. It is important that the purpose and expected outcome of the team are clearly understood prior to the selection of team members and well before the team’s first meeting. Clear goals and a vision become the foundation for the team’s work. It would be better not to have a team at all than to have a group of your finest without a clear mission. A clear charter includes a statement of what the problem is (and why it’s a problem) and what the expected outcomes are. It is important to build in accountabilities with regard to the quality, quantity, and timeliness of the project and to address what, if any, resources are required to accomplish the outcome. A team should have no more than three objectives, with one to two being ideal. Research has shown that the more objectives a team has, the less likely it will be to accomplish them. Likelihood of accomplishment drops precipitously once the objectives exceed three.

3. Team or Committee

What is often not asked in the undertaking of a task that rises above the level of the individual is whether a team or a committee is required. What is the difference? A committee is made up of individuals, with a strong central leader, who is in a position of discussing, deciding, and delegating. The committee is made up of each individual’s work products or reports that are delivered as part of a whole. As such, the committee typically reviews, provides oversight, and recommends. It is typically aligned with the organization’s mission. A committee can have a lifespan that is long and ongoing. The committee focus tends to be more routine and members rotate on and off over time.

A team is different in scope, governance, and tenure. Although a team has a leader, it has characteristics that are different from a committee, including:

• A single and unified task or work product that members work on together
• Projects that may be “one off,” new, and creative, or focused on issues that have proven to be roadblocks or impediments to organizational growth
• More shared responsibilities (as opposed to the hierarchy of a committee)
• An existence that is time-limited, has a specific goal, and disbands when the project is completed
• Members who stay on for the duration of the project; at most, external experts can be called upon to provide input on an invitation basis

When identifying why you want a group of people to spend their valuable time on a project or an initiative, make the distinction between having a committee (working on routine and ongoing tasks or initiatives) versus a team (serving as a strike force on high-impact, out-of-the-ordinary projects). It is important to make this distinction so that productivity and impact will be maximized and downtime minimized.

4. Team Composition

If the initiative requires a team rather than a committee, involving the right people is fundamental to team success. Getting the right people has become even more important in a downsized environment. It used to be that teams were composed of volunteers, and people volunteered based on the “sexiness” of the project or because their friends, acquaintances, or colleagues were on the team. Having volunteers has a greater social impact than a business impact. Hand-selecting team members based on project requirements, having just the right number of members, having members in the right “seat” on the team, and aggressively deselecting non-performing members are critical to the success and effectiveness of the team.

Although a team has a shared leadership component, it still needs to have a strong leader who is selected by management (neither volunteered nor voted upon). In addition, a team requires a strong subject matter expert (or two, maximum) and a couple of very strong critical thinkers who are able to challenge the team (no shrinking violets). The team must tie their solutions to both the broader organization and the future of the organization, not simply routine or incremental changes.

For most initiatives, the maximum number on a team should be eight, with six being the ideal number. With more than six members, there becomes an inverse relationship between the number of members on the team and the team’s productiveness and impact. There should be a compelling reason for the selection of each team member. Keep the team a small but potent group.

5. Team Dynamics

Research on effective teams has found that the best teams have great energy, great engagement, and a rigorous problem-solving process that includes dialogue, debate, disagreement, and, ultimately, agreement. In order for a team to establish this kind of process, a significant amount of front-end time together is required to establish rapport, trust, and the ability of the members to challenge individual and group thinking without reprimand or reprisal.

High-performing teams are careful not to fall into the traps of:

• Deferring to authority (team members are equal on the team—status and position are checked at the door)
• Rushing to consensus as the push to completion nears
• Under-valuing the unique expertise of members in favor of the much easier, but less impactful, knowledge shared by the group

In addition, members of highly effective teams spend time outside of formal meetings looking for alternative data or ideas to bring back to the team. This makes the process more rigorous and helps mitigate “group think.”

6. Conclusion

The research over the past few years has been clear about the importance of time and impact when putting key employees together to solve critical business problems. The time-value of employees is more important than ever. Identifying the importance of the project or initiative to the organization and assigning the fewest and best employees to tackle it will yield the best results in the most expedient manner. When facing the challenges of your organization, consideration of these Best Practices in creating and managing teams can give your organization the greatest opportunity for making sure each team is a high-performing team and each outcome is a high-impact outcome.