{"id":10379,"date":"2025-10-31T21:03:23","date_gmt":"2025-10-31T20:03:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/salomons.coach\/?p=10379"},"modified":"2026-04-27T21:16:41","modified_gmt":"2026-04-27T20:16:41","slug":"when-teams-work-hard-but-not-together","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/salomons.coach\/en\/when-teams-work-hard-but-not-together\/","title":{"rendered":"When teams work hard but not together"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The paradox of performance<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In many organizations today, teams are moving faster than ever \u2014 driven by data, deadlines, and digitalization. They deliver results, solve problems, and adapt to constant change. Yet behind this energy, something essential is quietly eroding: connection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Teams are busy but fragmented. They perform but rarely reflect. They optimize their part of the system but lose sight of the whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have seen this pattern repeatedly \u2014 in Logistics, where operational speed and specialization can outpace collaboration, and at semi conductor manufacturing, where highly skilled teams risk sub-optimizing for local performance rather than systemic flow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The result?
Short-term wins, long-term inefficiencies, and \u2014 often \u2014 a growing gap between effort and outcome.
Everyone works harder, but the organization delivers less.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The research is clear: connection drives performance<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Decades of research on High-Performing Teams (HPTs)<\/strong> consistently shows that team success isn\u2019t about who works the hardest \u2014 it\u2019s about how people connect, communicate, and align<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. J. Richard Hackman: structure and shared purpose<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Harvard professor J. Richard Hackman<\/strong>\u2019s landmark studies on teams (2002, 2011) revealed that performance is primarily determined by context and conditions<\/em>, not by effort alone.
The best teams share five enablers:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. A compelling direction,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. A strong structure,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. A supportive organizational environment,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Expert coaching, and<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. A stable membership base.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
    \n

    \u201cA team cannot succeed without real boundaries, clear purpose, and enabling structures.\u201d
    \u2014 Hackman, \u201cLeading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances\u201d (2002)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    When these foundations erode \u2014 through shifting priorities, unclear interfaces, or constant reorganization \u2014 even talented teams slide into frustration and fatigue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    2. Katzenbach & Smith: The power of mutual accountability<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    In The Wisdom of Teams<\/em> (Harvard Business School Press, 1993), Jon Katzenbach<\/strong> and Douglas Smith<\/strong> studied high-performing organizations across industries.
    Their conclusion was simple but profound:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cThe essence of a team is common commitment.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    They found that real teams outperform groups precisely because they create mutual accountability<\/strong> around shared goals \u2014 something many modern teams have lost in the rush of metrics and deliverables.
    Without that shared accountability, teams become collections of experts \u2014 efficient but not interdependent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    3. Amy Edmondson & Google: Psychological safety as the core<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    More recently, Amy Edmondson<\/strong> (Harvard Business School) and Google\u2019s Project Aristotle<\/strong> confirmed that psychological safety<\/em> is the strongest predictor of team effectiveness.
    Teams where people feel safe to speak up, admit mistakes, and challenge assumptions consistently outperform those that don\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cIn a psychologically safe climate, teammates feel accepted and respected. They learn faster and innovate more.\u201d
    \u2014 Edmondson, \u201cThe Fearless Organization\u201d (2018)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    \n

    \u201cWhat really matters is less about who is on the team and more about how the team works together.\u201d
    \u2014 Google Project Aristotle, 2015<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

    In operations-heavy environments, this insight is vital.
    When pressure rises, silence often follows \u2014 and silence kills both innovation and operational excellence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The systemic risk: local optimization, global inefficiency<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Fast-moving teams often fall into what Peter Senge<\/strong> called the \u201cfixation on events\u201d<\/em> in The Fifth Discipline<\/em> (1990). Organizations become addicted to quick fixes, metrics, and immediate deliverables \u2014 losing sight of systemic interdependencies. Senge\u2019s research on learning organizations showed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n