Nice and tall.

We’ve all heard it before – whether during resistance training, a speed workout, or a sport practice – the cue ‘nice and tall’ is arguably one of the most commonly utilized to address posture. 

Utilized so much, in fact, that I would bet in many instances it has lost all meaning and is akin to background noise in many training environments. 

From an organizational standpoint (beyond just sport) we have an equivalent term. One that is thrown around so often it has lost all meaning – simply a buzz word.

High-Performance.

There are no prerequisites. There is no minimum standard. 

It’s a descriptor that no longer describes anything – because it describes everything!

Is your team really high performing? Or is it simply high functioning? 

I would argue there are key differences between the two and that we currently have many high functioning teams claiming high performance. 

Let’s get into the differences…

Keeping things comfortable

Let me begin by saying there is nothing wrong with ‘settling’ for high functioning (it’s obviously better than being dysfunctional!). High functioning teams can experience success, but it will likely be short-lived and difficult to replicate. On the upside, they can facilitate things like ‘work-life balance’, security, and comfortableness.

Part of this comfort comes hand in hand with an avoidance of conflict, which is often characteristic of teams that lean to the left on the continuum above. When these teams do experience conflict, which they inevitably will, it can be debilitating. 

As we move to the right of the continuum, conflict becomes a positive – an instigator of progress. These teams experience growth as a result of their conflict as ‘moderate conflict can assist reevaluation, stimulate new ideas, and simply clarify misunderstandings that have occurred’ [1].

A critical point here is that conflict does not surpass the distinction of moderate. Two common avenues of conflict escalation that need to be recognized are task interdependence and jurisdictional ambiguity [1]. 

When two or more tasks are dependent on each other to attain a desired outcome a ‘tug of war’ can occur between the parties involved if the whole of the team is not carefully integrated with clearly defined roles and responsibilities.

When a fragmented culture exists, we end up with an over-specialization of support services and disjointed athlete development practices [2]. We have multidisciplinary practices that operate in isolation towards departmental goals as opposed to a unified goal for the benefit of the whole. 

Rather than multidisciplinary, adopting a transdisciplinary view of integration ‘aims to implement a shared scientific language and conceptual framework needed in a truly integrated approach’ [3]. This shared language facilitates a consolidated effort and allows the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts. 

Diving deeper, we can look at various behaviors exhibited within high performing teams that help facilitate conflict being a net positive for the environment.

Identifying Problems versus Supplying Solutions

High functioning teams are often great at identifying problems. The trouble is, this is both the start point and end point. 

Problems are identified. 

They may, or may not, be communicated.

Complaining ensues. 

And the cycle repeats. 

High performing teams start with identifying the problem as well. The difference is that they then act. After identifying the problem, they identify the knowledge or experience required and apply it. This action and application produces an output, which is then reviewed, assessed and utilized to drive further action – further iterations of problem-solving. 

Feedback loops are never ending – reminiscent of the Cynefin Sense-Making Framework from Snowden. This framework was developed to help leaders understand their challenges and to make decisions in context [4].

It begins with determining if your problem is simple, complicated, complex, or chaotic in nature. From this we can determine how best to respond, ensuring that our actions match the reality of the situation. 

As you can see in the image above, complex problems warrant a probe-sense-respond course of action. This is the domain we spend most of our time in in sport due to the complexity of the human element.

Rigidity versus Agility 

Process accountability leads to step-by-step instruction which leads to mindlessness and rigidity. We become so absorbed with ‘checking the boxes’ and ‘doing our part’ that we lose sight of the outcome. We clock in and clock out and negate our ability to think critically. 

We take no ownership, no real responsibility. 

Outcome accountability, on the other hand, means the team shares all ownership and all responsibility. It facilitates freedom and agility in our actions – actions which we are driven to by the context of the situation at hand. We are not restrained by a particular way of doing things. We do the things that are most appropriate at that time for that situation.  

Outcome accountability means we have a shared agenda and allows the whole of the team to be greater than the sum of its parts.

True integration happens when decisions are reached collaboratively, with individuals bringing to the table their specific perspectives and ‘toolkit’, while leaving egos and agendas at the door.” [5]

In an environment that prioritizes outcome accountability we feel safe to offer up our expertise and opinions. We are not afraid of sounding stupid or being wrong because there is a common understanding that everything is in aim of a unified target. We are safe to fail. We fail early and we fail often – but we collaborate and iterate until we attain the desired outcome. Together. 

A side note on team size and its impact on accountability. When attempting to achieve high-performance status with a large team we must be aware of the danger of social loafing. Social loafing is a phenomenon that occurs in large groups and describes the feelings of invisibleness that can be present in team members, ultimately leading to less personal responsibility being taken for performance [1]. Leaders must therefore play an active role in ensuring outcome accountability and personal responsibility are present throughout the whole of the team. 

Zooming In versus Zooming Out

A side effect of the rigid nature of high functioning teams is a heightened focus on day-to-day operations – to the detriment of bigger picture thinking. When we are accountable to the process and not the outcome, we are attempting to satisfy minimum expectations. When expectations are thrown out and replaced with standards of behavior, we are more likely to offer our unique perspectives and ‘toolkits’. We are more likely to leave egos and agendas at the door. 

Expectations are akin to a hope or a wish. 

Standards of behavior are clear lines in the sand. 

The discipline required to uphold and achieve a high standard of behavior allows for the freedom to zoom out and look at the big picture. If we know a high standard of behavior is at the core of our team, we will not get caught up in micro-managing the often chaotic day-to-day operations of a team. Rather, we will have a clear perspective on how each day, each action, each process, fits into the grand scheme.

Breaking Down Barriers

Up until this point we have talked mainly about what High Performing teams do –

take advantage of conflict, supply solutions, share an agenda, and balance the day to day with the big picture. 

Now we can look at two of the most common barriers to achieve high performance – the individuals within the team and the overall team culture [5].

So, what about the people that make up these teams?

Who are they?

They are knowledge holders – both experientially and empirically.

Too often a gap exists within a team between members who know what they know because of ‘years in the trenches’ and members who know what they know because of rigorous academic study. There is no place for dogmatic thinking in high performance – we have to bridge the gap between the artistic and scientific approaches in the name of ensuring the whole of the team is greater than the sum of its parts. 

“Whilst experiential knowledge will never act as a surrogate for empirical knowledge gained from rigorous experimentation, it can clearly complement empirical knowledge to enrich our understanding of sport performance.” [6]

They are a mix of specialists and generalists – but they share a common language.

Similar to the gap that often exists between experiential and empirical knowledge, another common gap is found between those who specialize in a particular field and those who possess a more general knowledgebase. 

We discussed a transdisciplinary view of integration earlier, but that is not to say specialists do not play a role – they are a vital piece of the puzzle. And the glue that holds all the pieces together is the shared, common language. 

When the members of the team, rather they be a specialist or generalist, share a common language, we are afforded the opportunity to truly integrate and problem solve together. 

“…the quality of internal communication within a team was associated with both injury rates and player availability. Teams with high internal communication quality had lower injury rates and higher player availability than teams with low communication quality.” [7]

They are moonshot thinkers – proactive in nature.

Functionable teams can get away with operating reactively – high performing teams cannot.

Functionable teams can think small and survive – high performing teams cannot.

Achieving grandiose things requires ambition and forward thinking but as Google co-founder Larry Page pointed out in the forward for, ‘How Google Works’, “…it’s tremendously hard to get teams to be super ambitious. It turns out most people haven’t been educated in this kind of moonshot thinking”. [8] 

That means we must structure our environment to facilitate such behavior. Members of the team must feel safe to bring ideas to the table and genuine discussions should take place around ideas that seem outlandish and unrealistic. 

They are both similar and different.

Not everyone on the team needs to hang out outside of work. You don’t need to be comfortable sharing a drink with all of your co-workers. 

“The best working groups need some homogeneity for solidity but also some heterogeneity for adding tension or a different vantage point. Getting the balance right seems to be the key—different groups in different stages of development benefit from different balances.” [1]

Hiring processes are critical in the construction of a high performance team and within this, we must attempt to strike the right chord between homogeneity and heterogeneity. Further, this balancing act often needs revisited prior to the acquisition of each new team member. 

A closing note on leading a high performing team…

Impact > Tenure

Too often, tenure or ‘time served’ lays its roots in an organization’s culture, begins to cloud judgment and serves as the basis for decision making. Merit and impact get shunned and the morale of newcomers plummets early in their employment as the prevailing wisdom becomes that the only way to move onward and upward is to be patient, not to be great. 

High performing teams operate as meritocracies. 

Impact is what counts, not titles or tenures. 

We need to engender a culture where there is an obligation to dissent and we need to prioritize the interests of highly valued individuals [7]. When we do this, we empower the team to strive for and achieve greatness. 

Next time the descriptor of high-performance gets used, I urge you to think critically about if it really applies. Likewise, if you know you are a part of a high-functioning team but would like it to advance to the next level make sure you are ready to be uncomfortable, bring solutions to the table, take accountability for outcomes, and uphold a high standard of behavior.

References

1. Reid, C., Stewart, E., & Thorne, G. (2004). Multidisciplinary Sport Science Teams in Elite Sport: Comprehensive Servicing or Conflict and Confusion? The Sport Psychologist, 18(2), 204–217.

2. Springham, Matt & Walker, Gary & Strudwick, Tony & Turner, Anthony. (2018). Developing strength and conditioning coaches for professional football. 9-16. 

3. Fabian Otte, Martyn Rothwell & Keith Davids (2022) Big picture transdisciplinary practice – extending key ideas of a Department of Methodology towards a wider ecological view of practitioner-scientist integration, Sports Coaching Review, DOI: 10.1080/21640629.2022.2124001

4. Snowden D. J., Boone M. E. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harv. Bus. Rev. 85, 68–76.

5. Sporer BC, Windt JIntegrated performance support: facilitating effective and collaborative performance teamsBritish Journal of Sports Medicine 2018;52:1014-1015.

6. Greenwood, D., Davids, K., & Renshaw, I. (2012). How elite coaches’ experiential knowledge might enhance empirical research on sport performance. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 7(2), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1260/1747-9541.7.2.411

7. Ekstrand J, Lundqvist D, Davison M, et al Communication quality between the medical team and the head coach/manager is associated with injury burden and player availability in elite football clubsBritish Journal of Sports Medicine 2019;53:304-308.

8. Schmidt, E., Rosenberg, J., & Eagle, A. (2014). How Google Works. London, John Murray.