What are the key factors and indicators of team effectiveness according to the Katzenbach and Smith model?

According to the Katzenbach and Smith model, key factors and indicators of team effectiveness include a compelling direction (clear goals and purpose), strong structure (clear roles and responsibilities), supportive context (adequate resources and organizational support), shared mindset (common values and norms), and competent team members (appropriate skills and capabilities). These elements contribute to high-performance teams by fostering collaboration, communication, trust, and accountability. Katzenbach and Smith emphasize the importance of these factors in achieving synergistic outcomes and driving organizational success.

This definition makes sense and yes not all groups are teams in the true sense of team. A team must have a common goal, purpose, and accountability. Must truly understand the direction and be in alignment

When a group of people, who recognized their presence as well as the presence of other team members, acknowledges and accepts every member, and mutually accountable towards a common goal, we have a team. Effective teaming is an the cornerstone for success as the power of effective teaming comes from the ability to bring forth the differing strengths of individuals and mitigating the weakness. If done well, it brings forth multiple returns. A good way to understand a team is to appreciate the difference with a working group. A Working Group brings a group of individuals who may have a common interest with a subject matter but do not have a common purpose/goal. They may share best practices but not accountable towards a common goal.

Katzenback and Smith (K&S)'s team performance curve has similar characteristics with Tuckman's model (forming, storming, norming & performing) but the relationship between team effectiveness versus performance is plotted in reverse order. Interestingly, both K&S and Tuckman shows that as team effectiveness improves, the team performance also improves. However, the two models differ only on the earlier stage whereby K&S's so called working group may offer reasonably good performance but may not deliver team effectiveness (since working groups are not teams), in contrast with Tuckman's forming stage where team effectiveness may be good but low performance. Both models shows the importance to have a foundation (team basics) for success.

I can get behind this thinking. I have not always thought of working groups as teams. However, they are- common goal and accountable albeit for a very defined period

Working groups in my experience can be set up to have a specific, agreed objective to be delivered against a shorter time frame with a much briefer life span than is typical for a team. In these cases the energy and focus of the working group can lead to enhanced ‘team performance’ with excellent results. When the deliverable is met, it is a good idea to either disband or to proactively and consciously work towards moving from a working group mindset to a team mindset and ascend the team performance curve.

Drawing from my experience on effective teaming, this so-called team basics has similar considerations to: 1. team norms [whereby team members defines and commit to social norms to work together] 2. team size, typically 3-9 pax 3. fit for purpose [members joining the team with a clear purpose of contribution] 4. Cross-collaboration, team members have complimentary skillsets required to achieve the goals. Of most importance is the team dynamics which is formed from developing trust, understanding and commitment for a team to forge forward. A good book by Charlie Gilkey titled "Team Habits - how small actions leads to extraordinary results" explains the most often neglected yet powerful human factor in driving high performing teams.

The discipline of leverage, utilising all the skills and strengths in a team is often overlooked leaving insight, experience or efficiency underutilised. In addition to frequent team engagement, profiling tools can provide valuable insights for teams and leaders both on existing capabilities as well as areas which can be developed over time across the team.

Drawing from my practice as Agile Practitioner and Coach, K&S's approach on team improvement is similar to the Team Retrospective event in Scrum. Retrospective events bring forth team members to discuss in an open respectful manner looking at how the team has performed over the last sprint (iteration). It could look at how work has been carried out, how team members has contributed, the working relationship, with an eye for improvement so that the team may adapt with new changes to drive for better performance in the next iteration. This retrospective event happens on a routine basis to identify room for improvement. It also foster team bonding as one also get to know one-another in this event. If done well, it brings discoveries.

Muito interessante observar o quão importante é o grupo estabelecer uma boa relação, baseada em confiança, comunicação e foco, para alcançar níveis mais altos de eficácia de equipe. E o quanto gestão, processos e governança podem contribuir para que essas interações e trocas aconteçam de forma estruturada e efetiva.

3 potential short comings of the Katzenbach and Smith model are: 1. Overemphasis on small teams and challenging to apply in the context of teams of teams 2. Limited focus on continuous team development and evolution vs overemphasis on initial team set up 3. Limited systemic lenses and high focus on the internal team dynamics