Latest news with #teamperformance
Forbes
22-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
High-Performing Teams Aren't Born – They're Led
By Hilde Rosenboom, Executive Education, ESMT Berlin In one of our ESMT programs for emerging leaders, young leaders participate in the tower building exercise. Assigned to construction teams and given building blocks, we ask them to construct the tallest possible tower. One team member is the designated leader – they may direct the team, but not touch the blocks. The team's builders may not speak. After a set time, we measure the towers. The teams that build the tallest towers perform the best. In the second round, leaders must leave their teams. Leaderless and silent, the builders continue. Surprisingly, some teams perform better – building taller towers – without their leaders. You probably won't doubt that organizations benefit from capable leaders. But what exactly can leaders do to enhance their teams' performance? Shot of a group of businesspeople stacking building blocks together in an office In uncertain times, organizations often revert to familiar strategies –focusing on individual performance, efficiency, returning to the office, or protecting the status quo. 'Never change a running system' becomes the guiding principle. But which of these beliefs are actually supported by science? And are there overlooked, evidence-based levers for improving team performance? It's time to put the leadership toolbox to the test. There is a vast array of frameworks, theories, and studies describing the dimensions crucial to team performance. Their sheer volume suggests it is empirically and theoretically nearly impossible to pinpoint where high performance originates and what leaders can do to achieve it. That's not surprising when you consider how hard it is to define 'high performance.' A high-performing team is one that consistently delivers exceptional results – relative to comparable teams. This definition shows how context-dependent high performance is and underscores the critical role of leadership. Leaders must develop their own context-specific understanding of what high performance and team excellence looks like. Despite the complexity, research findings and frameworks can be clustered into three key dimensions that leaders can focus on to improve team performance. The first dimension: a compelling direction with shared vision and goals. Mission statements and team goals are often carefully crafted to avoid disagreement, which can make them uninspiring. Yet, teamwork is necessary for pursuing goals that cannot be achieved alone – and a team is only as good as its goals. One key to team success is their continuous engagement with overarching goals, interpreting what they mean in different situations. This sense-making process creates clarity, enabling team members to make better decisions on their own. A hand places a wooden cube with "T" next to other cubes, spelling out SMART, standing for Specific, ... More Achievable, Measurable, Realistic and Timely concepts. While 'SMART' goals (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) are often cited as best practice, most goals don't – and shouldn't – meet all five criteria. That's why smart goals are really quite dumb. As psychology has shown, people are more inspired to pursue something than to prevent something. Motivation mainly comes from seeing progress, not only from reaching final goals. Learning goals are more motivating than performance goals – growth matters more than numbers when it comes to motivation. Not all goals need to be quantitative. Stretch goals – ambitious targets – are more motivating than aiming for a minimum goal or a goal that is certainly achievable. The second dimension: a strong team characterized by high psychological safety. In our programs, leaders can assess the level of psychological safety in their teams. According to Amy Edmonson, the Harvard professor and researcher who coined the term, psychological safety is the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. Assessment results often land in the middle range, with leaders frequently astonished by how much room there is for improvement. The absence of psychological safety is not easily spotted – it shows most in what teams don't do: They don't disagree, propose unusual ideas, or raise difficult questions. They remain silent. Yet, psychological safety is one of the most powerful levers for high-performing teams. Google's Project Aristotle found that the most critical variable for team success wasn't individual talent or team composition, but psychological safety. Team performance exceeds the sum of individual performers when psychological safety is high. That's why overemphasizing individual performance diminishes team performance. The third dimension: a supportive work environment with the right resources, information, and space for reflection. The 'sandwich feedback' approach (praise – critique – praise) is so familiar that most people see through it: the praise merely cushions the critique. This exposes a broader issue: feedback usually follows problems, not successes, and often targets individuals rather than teams. But it pays off to give and solicit feedback on team performance, after both successful and unsuccessful efforts. Accounting for the whole team's perspective, not just individuals, can uncover additional levers to improve team performance. When a team reflects together, leaders can more easily identify ways to improve the team's work environment or structure. Cropped shot of two businesspeople stacking wooden blocks together in an office While leadership may seem redundant in some tightly constrained situations – as the tower exercise suggests – leaders are far from optional when it comes to sustained high performance. They play a defining role in shaping what performance means, motivating teams through meaningful and challenging goals, fostering a psychologically safe environment, and enabling learning, growth, and feedback. High performance is never a fixed formula. It requires leaders to adapt continuously to context, challenge assumptions about what works, and use research-backed tools to reflect on and fine-tune their leadership approach. Done right, leadership doesn't just manage performance – it inspires teams to build higher than they imagined possible.
Forbes
16-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Research Says Star Talent Alone Won't Save Your Team. But Why?
SOUTHAMPTON, ENGLAND - May 10: Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola before the Premier League match ... More at St Mary's Stadium, Southampton. (Photo by Andrew Matthews/PA Images via Getty Images) Leaders love to talk about talent. Hiring top performers is often seen as the surest path to innovation, agility and competitive advantage. Whether in Fortune 500 boardrooms or high-growth startups, leaders prize elite résumés and high-potential hires—believing that the more stars you have, the better your team will perform. But what if that logic is flawed? What if adding more top talent doesn't automatically lead to better outcomes, and might actually undermine them? That's the question at the heart of research published in Academy of Management Discoveries, titled 'When More Is Less: The Role of Social Capital in Managing Talent in Teams.' The underlying study—conducted by Andy Loignon and Sirish Shrestha of the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL), along with Fabio Fonti and Mehdi Bagherzadeh of NEOMA Business School and Andrei Gurca of Queen's University Belfast—shows that the relationship between talent and performance is more complicated than many leaders assume. As legendary soccer coach Pep Guardiola once put it: 'When people say Manchester City Football Club wins because Pep spent money, I say this is true. Absolutely true. Without intelligent players, good skills, good quality—it is impossible.' But what Guardiola also knows (and what the research confirms) is that talent is only part of the story. Without the right conditions, even the most skilled teams can underperform. The study analyzed performance data from men's professional soccer teams across Europe's top five leagues. These are clubs where player value is measured in millions of dollars and talent is stacked across the roster. Still, even among the sport's elite, outcomes varied widely. Crucially, teams with similar levels of individual skill produced very different results. Loignon, a senior research scientist at the Center for Creative Leadership, explained that what made the difference wasn't who was on the team, but how the team operated. Specifically, the researchers examined passing networks: how players distributed the ball during a match. Bagherzadeh, a professor in the department of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at NEOMA Business School, explained that teams with decentralized passing—where more players shared responsibility and played interdependently—consistently outperformed those where ball movement was overly reliant on one or two stars. The takeaway? Teams with high talent but low connectivity underperform. And that's not unique to sports. The same principle applies in business. Star employees who operate in silos (or teams that orbit around a single dominant voice) rarely outperform more collaborative, integrated groups. It's not about how brilliant your people are, but how well they interact. This study reinforces a crucial distinction that every leader should understand. Human capital refers to what people know and can do. Social capital refers to how people interact, collaborate and build trust. While many organizations focus heavily on human capital (recruiting, retaining and rewarding top talent) they often neglect the social systems that determine whether that talent delivers. At the Center for Creative Leadership, this insight is foundational. CCL defines leadership not just as a role or trait, but as a social process: one in which individuals collaborate to achieve outcomes they couldn't reach alone. This study extends that philosophy with rigorous data, showing that teams perform best when their workflows are distributed, collaborative and intentionally structured. In fact, the researchers found that teams made up of less individually talented members can sometimes outperform more gifted teams—if they work together more effectively. As Loignon explained, it's not just about who's on the team, but how the team functions. Even a group without big-name stars (like West Ham United Football Club) can outperform a more talented opponent (like Arsenal Football Club) when roles are clearly defined and collaboration is strong. A recent example: West Ham's 1–0 win over Arsenal at Arsenal's own stadium—a match that seriously weakened Arsenal's chances of winning the English Premier League. The lesson? Raw talent isn't enough. Without the right structure and teamwork, even the most skilled individuals may fall short. LONDON, ENGLAND - FEBRUARY 22: Jarrod Bowen of West Ham United scores a goal past David Raya of ... More Arsenal during the Premier League match between Arsenal FC and West Ham United FC at Emirates Stadium. (Photo by) The implications for business leaders are profound. Many executive teams are built like all-star rosters: packed with highly capable individuals but often lacking cohesion or shared purpose. In these settings, adding more top talent can create diminishing returns—or worse, increase dysfunction. To avoid this trap, the study suggests three strategic shifts that organizations can begin applying right away. First, leaders should stop assuming that more talent will always drive better performance. Particularly in highly interdependent environments—cross-functional teams, innovation hubs or product squads—too many dominant voices can erode clarity, increase competition and stifle collaboration. Second, organizations must shift focus from 'who' to 'how.' Instead of obsessing over individual brilliance, leaders should ask how people interact. Who collaborates with whom? Where does information or work flow, or bottleneck? Is responsibility shared, or does it default to a few visible contributors? Third, leadership itself must evolve. Great leaders act not only as motivators but as designers of collaboration. That means building systems where trust, communication and role clarity are intentionally cultivated. And, like the researchers found, it also means ensuring the system can respond to setbacks and unforeseen circumstances ultimately, structuring their team's social dynamics that help their people do their best work. The most successful teams of the future won't be the ones with the flashiest credentials or biggest personalities. They'll be the ones designed for deep collaboration, shared ownership and adaptive workflows. That's especially true in today's landscape, where hybrid work, global teams and agile business models demand more than individual contribution—they require networked coordination. An accompanying animated explainer from the Academy of Management illustrates the research's implications in a concise visual summary. But its message is best captured by the study's core insight: the best teams aren't just built—they're engineered for connection. That means moving beyond talent acquisition toward talent orchestration. It means treating team design as a strategic competency. And it means accepting that more is not always more, especially when what you really need is cohesion, not just capability. In the rush to build high-performing teams, it's easy to be dazzled by résumés, pedigree and past performance. But the true challenge of leadership isn't assembling talent—it's enabling that talent to deliver. That requires a shift in mindset. Leaders must ask not just 'Do I have the right people?' but 'Have I built the right environment?' Are workflows inclusive? Are interactions decentralized? Are roles fluid enough to respond to real-time demands, but stable enough to ensure accountability? Because when performance matters most, it's not just about who's on the team. It's about how the team works.
News.com.au
11-05-2025
- Sport
- News.com.au
Wests Tigers coach Benji Marshall says his team showed no fight in 64-0 smashing
After being 'embarrassed' in Melbourne, Wests Tigers coach Benji Marshall conceded he can only hope the 64-0 smashing doesn't hit the confidence his side was building but said they would all need to 'look in the mirror' as part of a hard review of what went wrong. Marshall knows he'll have to pick his troops up after conceding a staggering 11-tries, including three in the opening 20 minutes, all the momentum his team had made in five wins this season crashing in to a Storm brick wall. The rookie coach said all his players failed to meet the standards 'that we want to live by' and he didn't see the 'fight' he'd witnessed from his group so far this season. 'Everyone's disappointed, embarrassed. Probably a few other words you could use, but it's not good enough,' he said in the wake of the horror loss. 'There's losing the game, and then there's been beaten, and we got actually beat today. 'We've got a team that usually fights for everything, and I just didn't see the same fight today, you know. 'So in the balance of our season, we're five, and five now reflect where we are, and we gotta learn from it, and we gotta get back up for next week. 'We can't dwell on that. You can hurt from it. Take the hurt into next week and improve. 'I don't make any excuses like we just got to be better.' Marshall said it was a 'couple of steps forward and then a few steps back' in his team's ongoing learning which would include a 'hard review'. 'They got on a roll, and we just couldn't get anything back, you know,' he said. 'So it's going to be a hard review and a hard watch. 'We've set expectation now where we expected to be better than that, and we are better than that.' Deflated Tigers co-captain, Api Koroisau said the defeat could 'light a fire' before his team takes on South Sydney next week. 'I think if anything, it lights a fire inside you,' he said. 'You're never as good as you think you are. So for us, it's a great look in the mirror from where we want to be. So I think it'll be a good thing for us.'
