Beyond High Performance
Article highlights:
Based on an analysis of our assessment data (N = 169), many employees perceive their team to be in the Performing stage – and yet, we still see many teams needing team building.
We must go beyond high-performance because teams do not stay in the Performing stage forever.
Teams need to have members who are “team-aware” and empowered to be able to go beyond high performance.
Team Journeys provides value to your team building through using 3 Levels of Insights. We use these insights as a basis for recommending activities and designing a program that would help your team reach its ideal next stage of maturity. These 3 Levels of Insights are:
Level 1: Tuckman’s Stages of Team Maturity (blog post here)
Level 2: Tuckman’s Measures of Team Maturity (blog post coming soon!)
Level 3: Activities to Increase Team Effectiveness (blog post coming soon!)
In providing interventions for teams, intentionality is key. A team building must not only be an opportunity for bonding; it must also target a team’s specific needs.
Full article:
After analyzing data from 169 individual respondents who took the Tuckman Assessment for Team Maturity, we found that most team members perceive their team to be in the Performing stage (45% of respondents). In Tuckman’s model, it seems like the ultimate goal is to get a team to this Performing stage. But if many teams are already on that level, why are there still teams telling us that they need team building?
Is there a need to go beyond high-performance?
Teams do not stay in the Performing stage forever because changes that affect organizations are happening at a faster rate and with greater intensity. These changes trickle down to the teams within those organizations. In turn, each individual employee is increasingly subjected to these fast-paced conditions that require a lot of mental and emotional management. Thus, employees must not only manage their own reactions to change, they also must be aware of how their reactions are influencing their own team and other bigger groups around them.
Because of these conditions present in the modern business environment, it is not enough for teams to just “perform”. We need to revisit our understanding of what conditions can create truly high-performing teams.
What is beyond high-performance?
Tuckman defines a Performing team as a group that has moved beyond understanding differences to valuing the unique strengths of each member. Accountability is also present as members value their own responsibilities and appreciate task dependencies. Given the need to go beyond high performance, we need to do all this… and more.
A team that goes BEYOND high performance has members who are:
“Team-aware”
Being “team-aware” requires members to be able to take a step back and evaluate the current conditions experienced by the team. They carefully observe the behaviors of team members and their interactions with each other to gain insight on what the team needs to function optimally.
Empowered
Empowered members feel safe enough to speak up and act when they have ideas for how to make the team more effective. Everyone is a leader. Members take it upon themselves to ensure that the team is not only working in the right direction to achieve its goals, but also supporting each other through the changes they encounter.
Eventually, teams that go beyond high performance don’t just adapt – they thrive in the opportunity to be challenged.
What can teams do to go beyond just the Performing stage?
This is where team building can come into play. More accurately, what we need are team building interventions that can identify and target specific activities that a team can do to increase effectiveness.
Using these three data points: (1) foundational models for team development, (2) research on how teams can operate in the current work environment, and (3) a statistical analysis of 169 assessment responses to our Tuckman Stages of Team Maturity Test, we came up with 3 levels of insight that can provide actionable ideas for you and your team.
Team Journeys provides value by first identifying a team’s specific team building needs. We believe that spending time on this diagnosis helps target the most value-adding activities. This is Level 1 of our assessment. (For more information on this, see this blog post on Tuckman’s 4 Stages of Team Maturity).
Level 2 expands on Tuckman’s model by looking into the 2 dimensions used to measure Team Maturity:
Task Functions = typically referred to as the quantitative aspect. This includes a team’s ability to define a goal and organize its members in such a way that aligns individual tasks to achieve that team goal.
Personal Relationships = typically considered as the qualitative aspect. This includes how members interact with each other as they spend time in the team.
Level 3 goes into the Activities to Increase Team Effectiveness. Based on Richard Beckhard’s GRPI Model, we identified 6 key activities that teams should pay attention to:
Defining Goals
Clarifying Roles
Setting Processes
Strengthening Attachments
Handling Conflict
Appreciating Individual Differences
More information on Level 2 and Level 3 will be posted soon – stay tuned!
So, what are we learning with all this information?
In this current work environment, we need to move beyond high-performance. Teams need to develop the muscle to handle constant changes that require a continuous movement through various stages of team maturity. Members have to be team-aware and empowered to be equipped in handling these changes. Thus, intentionality is key. A team building must not only be an opportunity for bonding; it must also target a team’s specific needs. This will save the team lots of time and effort, and will give it the maximum chance of reaching true effectiveness.
Curious to find out what stage your team is in? Take our Team Maturity Test at https://www.teamjourneys.com/discover
Sources:
Carlock, R. S. (2012). Assessment tools for developing and leading effective teams. Working paper no. 49811, INSEAD, Singapore.
Rubin, I. M., & Beckhard, R. (1972). Factors influencing the effectiveness of health teams. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 50(3), 317-335.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63(6), 384.