Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams

Abstract

Agrees that the evidence of a vast array of research concerning teamwork is conclusive: teams are capable of outstanding performance and are the primary unit of performance for increasing numbers of organisations. Nevertheless, high performance teams (HPTs) are a rarity. Presents the results of collaborative research aimed at determining the factors affecting successful implementation of HPTs. The factors have been derived from literature on teamwork, quality management, and a review of case study literature. This research has led to the development of a model for the successful implementation of HPTs, which has been tested through a case study organisation. Furthermore, the results were used to develop an implementation program aimed at rejuvenating team performance in UK small- to medium-sized enterprises.

Full text

Factors affecting
successful
implementation of high
performance teams
P. Castka
C.J. Bamber
J.M. Sharp and
P. Belohoubek
Introduction
Today’s organisation s have to face a turbulent
environment where change seems the only
constant. To meet this challenge ,
organisation s are forced to: acc eler ate and
make effective all activities, be flexible in
response to change in the external
environment, impro ve quality, reduc e cost
and fully use their intellectual capital.
Furthermor e, as this system is becoming more
and mo re complex, emphasis is given on the
process orientation and cross-functional
approaches. To succeed, the knowledge,
skills, experi ence , and perspectives of a wide
range of people m ust be integrated (Irani and
Sharp, 1997).
Using teamwork for the improveme nt of
organisation al performance is proposed in a
number of the quality literature papers, e.g.
kaizen philosophy represented by Imai (1986)
and Eur ope Japan Centre (C olen so, 2000;
Foster, 2000) put small-group activities and
QC circles as top priority. Total quality
managemen t (TQM) and total productive
maintenance activities are based on teamwork
(Oakland, 1993; Bamber et al., 1999). Peters
and Waterma n (1982) refer to teamwork as a
critical factor in the most successful
companies. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995)
even suggest ’’ the hypertext hierarchy’’ of an
organisation , which is based on teams.
Additionall y, a conceptual framework for
agile manufacturing (Kidd, 1994) comprises
team working as a fundamental pr erequisite
for the next generatio n manufacturing
paradigm.
Furthermo re, knowledge management and
learning organisation principles (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995; Senge, 1990) sugg est that
the individual is the basic eleme nt for
knowledge interaction. While both agree that
individual learning is irrelevant for
organisation s unless such knowledg e is
disseminate d through the organisation where
teamwork is the core tool for this
disseminatio n. Scholtes et al. (1996) argue
that a team outperforms individuals when :
the task is complex;
creativity is needed;
the path forward is u nclea r;
more efficient use of resources is
required;
fast learning is necessary;
high com mitm ent is desirable;
The authors
P. Castka is a PhD student and P. Belohoubek is Reader
in Operations Management, both at Brno University of
Technology, Brno, Czech Republic.
C.J. Bamber is a PhD student and J.M. Sharp is
Professor in Organisational Excellence, both at The
University of Salford, Manchester, UK.
Keywords
Teamwork, Team building, Performance, Modelling
Abstract
Agrees that the evidence of a vast array of research
concerning teamwork is conclusive: teams are capable of
outstanding performance and are the primary unit of
performance for increasing numbers of organisations.
Nevertheless, high performance teams (HPTs) are a rarity.
Presents the results of colla borative research aimed at
determining the factors affecting successful
implementation of HPTs. The factors have been derived
from literature on teamwork, quality management, and a
review of case study literature. This research has led to
the development of a model for the successful
implementation of HPTs, which has been tested through a
case study organisation. Furthermore, the results were
used to develop an implementation program aimed at
rejuvenating team performance in UK small- to medium-
sized enterprises.
Electronic access
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft
123
Team Perform ance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
pp. 123±134
# MCB University Press
.
ISSN 1352-7592

the implementation of a plan requires the
co-operation of others;
the task of process is cross-functional.
The experience of organisations using
teamwork has shown that effective use of
teams can bring significant improvement in
productivity, creativity and employee
satisfaction (Colenso, 2000). In support of
this, Katzenbach and Smith (1993)
summarise the advantages of teamwork:
Teams bring together complementary
skills and experien ce that exceed those of
any individual on the team. This fact
enables teams to respond to multifaced
challenges like innovation, quality and
customer service.
In jointly d evelopi ng clear goals and
approaches, teams establish
commun ication s that support real-time
problem solving and initiative .
Teams provide a social dimension that
enhances the economic and
administrative aspects of work.
Teams have more fun.
Similarly, a number of research papers
indicate that there is a strong correlation
between teams, individual behaviour and high
performance (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993;
Robbins and Finley, 1996; Kur, 1996). When
considerin g other references (mentioned
above), it could be argued that teamwork is
one of the most influential attributes for
success in a turbulent environment, yet other
research has shown that truly high
performance teams (HPTs) are very rare
(Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). Thus, it is of
considerable importance in determining
’’what are the barriers/obstacles to the HPTs’
developmen t’’ and ’’what are the factors
affecting the implementation of HPTs’’.
These are the critical issues identified which
form the main research questions posed for
the collaborative work between Brno
University of Techn olog y, the Czech
Republic an d the University of Salford, UK.
Defining teams and high performance
teams
Francis and Youn g (1979) define a team as
’’an energetic group of people who are
committed to achieving common objectives,
who work well together and enjoy doing so,
and who produce high-quality results’’ .
Johnson and Johnson (1991) also argue that
’’a team is a set of interpersonal relationships
structured to achie ve established goals’’.
Adair (1986) understands a team as ’’ a gr oup
in which the individuals share a common aim
and in which the jobs and skills of each
member fit in with those of the others’’. Kur
(1996) sees a team as ’’ a purposeful, open,
sociotechnical sys tem in a state of tension
between chang e and stability’’ . Katzenbach
and Sm ith (1993) argue that ’’a team is a
small group of people with compl emen tary
skills who are committed to a common
purpose, performance goals, and approach for
which they ho ld themselves mutually
accountable’’.
Performanc e is broad ly understood as the
purpose of teamwork. Performance, in
general, can be determined by three factors
(Stott and Walker, 1995):
(1) ability;
(2) work environment; and
(3) motivation.
These are expressed by equation (1).
Performance ˆ f …ability £ motivation
£ environment†
…1†
In each of the definitions, presented in this
section, by Francis and Young, Johnson and
Johnson, Ad air, Kur, Katzenbach and Smith,
team performance is viewed as a function of
the relationship between ability, motivation
and envi ron men t as shown by Equation 1.
Although it could be argued with the
exception of the factor of environment, which
is understood from an internal perspective
and con sid ered more as a social dimensio n.
However, it is similarly argued by Peters
(1992) that the influence, for instance, of the
working environment, is of high importance.
Many authors (Katzenbach and Smith,
1993; Robbins and Finley, 1996; Kur, 1996)
refer to high performance teams (HPTs) as
the goal of team development because of the
correlation between ’’ team’’ an d
’’performance’’. Kur (1996) defines HPTs as
teams that ’’consistently satisfy the needs of
customers, employees, investors and others in
its area of influence’’ and as a res ult ’’these
teams frequently outperform other teams that
produce similar products and services under
similar conditions and constraints’’. Kur
(1996) observed many HPTs and argues that
these teams are ’’purposeful, social, human-
oriented, technical and systematical’’ . Sharp
124
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

et al. (2000) propose that a hig h per form ance
team is ’’a team of people who have unleashed
their potential toward their stakeholder s
shared purpose’’ and define six key enablers of
HPTs as:
(1) team member competencies;
(2) skills, processes, tools and techniques;
(3) interpersonal skills, communication,
personality pre fere nces ;
(4) value system;
(5) shared vision, purpose, goals, direction;
and
(6) organisational values including openn ess .
Colenso (2000) defin es HPT through
preconditions (purpose, empowerment,
support, objectives) and char acteris tics
(interperson al skills, participation, decision
making, creativity, managing the external
environmen t). Katzenbac h and Smith (1993)
argue that it is a strong sense of personal
commitmen t, which distinguishes HPTs from
other teams. In consequence, HPTs have ’’a
deeper sense of purpose, more ambitious
performance goals, more complete
approaches, fuller mutual accountability, and
interchangeab le as well as complementary
skills’’ . Rickards and Moger (1999) call HPTs
’’dream teams’’ and define seven factors,
which distinguished them from ’’ teams from
hell’’ as:
(1) strong platform of und ers tandi ng;
(2) shared vision;
(3) creative climate;
(4) ownership of ideas;
(5) resilience to setbacks;
(6) network activators; and
(7) learn from experience.
Team development
Stott and Walker (1995) refer to much team
developmen t literature and argue that
according to a number of studies, team
developmen t has more than one dimension.
These di men sion s are rel ated to ’’the
individual, the task, the team and the
organisation’ ’ . Stott and Walker (1995)
present ’’a multidimensional model’’ for team
developmen t and, fu rther mor e, th ey propose:
Team development is best seen as a
multidime nsio nal con struc t, where the
conditions in one di men sion critically
affect the conditions in other dimensio ns.
For effective team development to take
place, attempts must be made to
consciousl y optimise the conditions in
each dimension.
Teams need to identify those dimen sion s
that are in need of attention and to
employ appropriate development
strategies. Performance is dependent
upon accurate diagnosis.
Relative emphasis in dimens ional
developmen t is determined in part by the
developmen t level of the team.
Responsibil ity for team development
should largely lie within the team itself.
Similarly, Scholtes et al. (1996) str ong ly
advocate the alignm ent of individuals, teams
and org anis ation, which are understood as
three dimensions of the organisation. They
suggest a ’’ team development model’’
(Figure 1) and argue that for these three
dimension s, there are three primary tasks:
purpose, partnership and process. In order to
maintain the alignment among the
dimension s, the development of a team
should be considered in view of this model.
There is a general agreemen t that teams
progress through differen t stages (Kur, 1996;
Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Rickards and
Moger, 1999; Robbins and Finley, 1996;
Stott and Walker, 1995). These stages are
defined within the ’’ form-storm-norm-
perform’’ model (FSNP model) of team
developmen t from Tuckman and Jensen
(1977). Accordingly, many authors use this
model as the framew ork for their theories.
Rickards and Moger (1999) extend the
FSNP mode l to ’’ form-storm-norm-perform-
outperform’’. They distinguish three types of
Figure 1 Team development model
125
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

teams  dream teams, standard teams and
teams from hell, and argue, that general
developmen t is that ’’teams start like the
teams from hell and proceed to become
dream teams’’. According to Rickards and
Moger (1999), teams from hell are in the
storming stage, while dream te ams are in the
outperformin g stage. Furthermore, they
mention the ’’glass-ceiling’’ effect, which
prevents teams ’’ from moving from one level
to another’’ . They suggest a creative
developmen t approach to break the norms for
higher level of development.
Kur (1996) suggests the ’’faces model of
team development’’ and similarly to Rickards
and Mog er (1999), he extends the FSNP
model to ’’ inform-form-storm-norm-
perform’’ phases or ’’faces’’ , which are used to
evaluate team performance according to this
model. Kur (1996) argues that ’’ teams move
from moderate to high levels of performance,
then into dysfunctional conflicts, through
self-assessme nt and back to high
performance ’’, i.e. that they put on different
faces. ’’Even the highest performing, most
empowered and most productive teams
periodically put on the other face’’ and Kur
(1996) states that ’’changing faces in any
direction is accepted as normal’’ and this
change can be meaningful and valuable.
Scholtes et al. (1996) support this point of
view and argue that this fact even helps the
team in performance.
An interesting development to the team
performance debate is from Katzenbach and
Smith (1993) who have studied several HPTs
and sum mari se the key lessons learned as:
Significan t performance c hallen ges
energise teams regardless of where they
are in an organisation.
Organisation al leaders can foster team
performan ce best by building a stro ng
performan ce ethic rather than by
establishing a team-promoting
environme nt alone.
Bias toward individualism exist, but need
not get in the way of team performance.
Discipline  both within the team and
across the organisation  creates the
conditions for team performance.
The barriers and obstacles to team
development
The barriers and obstacles to team
developmen t differ as much as teams,
performance challenges or bu sine ss contexts,
but despite this diversity, several features can
be generalised. Robbins and Finley (1996)
argue that team failure is due to mismatched
needs, co nfus ed g oals, u nre solved roles, bad
decision making, personality conflicts, bad
leadership, insufficient feedback and/or
information, ill-conceived reward systems,
lack of team trust and/or unwillingness to
change. Similarly, Katzenb ach and Smith
(1993) summarise the major factors as:
a weak sense of direction;
insufficient or unequal commitment to
team performance;
critical skill gaps; and
external confusion, hostility, and/or
indifferenc e.
A weak sense of direction is attributed to a
managemen t style, which is not fully aware of
the importance of a clear definition of
purpose, goals, and direction for their teams .
Awareness of this fact is crucial, because the
purpose of the team is related to performance.
Insufficient or unequal commitment to team
performance comes from the individual
reluctance towards teams. There are three
primary sources for this reluctance about
teams (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993):
(1) lack of conviction that team or teams can
work better than the alternatives;
(2) personal styles, c apabilitie s and
preferences that can make teams risky or
uncomfortable ; and
(3) weak organis ational performance ethics
that discourage the conditions in which
teams flourish.
Alternatively, Conti and Kleiner (1997) argue
that ’’the most fundamental problem that
teams confront is existing work structure’’ ,
which is oriented toward individual and
standardisation of work activity. Katzenbach
and Sm ith (1993) argue furthermore that
most organisations intrinsicall y prefer
individual over group (team) accountability.
Job description, compensation schemes,
career path and performance evaluations are
more often focused on individuals. Similarly,
Senge et al. (1994) state that ’’ most as pects of
existing infrastructure, such as measurement
and com pen sation systems, as well as
rewards, have not yet ’ captur ed’ the
significance of teams’’. Church (1998) makes
the point that no matter how the team
approach is established, members have their
individual job responsibilities. Ac cording to
Church (1998), ’’this creates a critical
126
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

intersection between an individual’s job
responsibilitie s and his/her team
responsibilitie s’’.
The lack of training or the wrong team
composition will produce critical skill gaps, a
point stated in, for example, Oakland (1993),
Church (1998) and Katzenbach and Smith
(1993). These gaps will inevitably lead to a
decrease in overall team performance. Feurer
et al. (1996) consider team training to be one
of the essential factors for team development.
Finally, external confusion, hostility,
indifference or the lack of conviction o f
teamwork in general causes weak
performance within the organisation. Mestre
et al. (1997) advocate effective orientation
management (OM) to build permanent
liaisons, ide ntify values and ensuring group
interaction. Mestre et al. (1997) furthermore
argue that the perceived success of the
organisation dep end s on each individual’s
contribution through constant growth and
awareness of changes, satisfying cus tome r
needs, teamwork, social and environmental
responsibility, and local and global awareness
in relation to economy and culture. The study
of Japanese experience and success in OM
(Mestre et al., 1997) is contrasted with its
relative neglect in Western businesses.
Critica l factors for successful
implementation of HPTs
These cr itical factors for successful
implementatio n of HPTs are drawn from a
review of literature concerning teamwo rk and
team development, as discussed in previous
sections of this paper. In add ition to which, a
review of literature on quality management
and learn ing organisation has contributed to
the identification of successful factors (e.g.
Ishikawa, 1985; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995;
Senge, 1990; Howe et al., 1993). These
factors, in consequence, have been grouped
into two categories and seven sub-categories,
which provide the basis for the conceptual
model of factors affecting successful
implementatio n of HPTs. All the factors are
presented in Figure 2 and the categories are
considere d in Table I.
Organisational impact
The support of the organisation is crucial to
all activities involving a kind of ’’change’’. T he
organisation or its management is responsible
for:
Creating the organisational culture, which
supports and encourages team
empowerme nt, experim en tation,
creativity and innovation, win-win
approach to conflicts, failures and
mistakes, and ensures open
communic ation and the creation of
communic ation channels.
Team formation, i.e. grou p size, group
composition, team training and the
purpose of the team.
Providing a supportive environment. The
team is supported by sen ior manag emen t
and by the person to whom the team
reports. An important aspect is the
autonomy of the team, which is ne cess ary
for its development (Nonaka and
Takeuchi, 1995; Peters and Waterman,
1982). Furthermore, the organisation has
to make possible access to resources 
time, money, data, information,
knowledge, talents and materials (Senge
et al., 1999; M eyer, 1998). Senge et al.
(1999) strongly advocate the use of an
outside facilitator, who speeds up the
process of team development and team
learning. The supportive workspace also
is of significan t import. This fac t is
strongly advo cated by both Pe ters (1992),
and Nonak a and Takeuchi (1995). They
argue that the supportive workplace
environmen t is crucial for knowledge
exchange among team members.
Monitoring team performance based on
measureme nt of the key performance
indicators, which should be mutually
agreed on by team and management.
Team reward and appra isal system.
Defined foc us
As discussed earlier in the ’’ Team
developmen t’’ section of this paper, successfu l
HPTs have defined their mission, vision and
goals, which are understood by the team
members. These two facto rs  definition of
the framework and its understanding  are
present, for instance, in a participation
managemen t approach (Ishikawa, 1985;
Imai, 1986) which strongly points toward the
importance of the d isse mination of knowledge
and the creation of understanding. Scholtes
et al. (1996) build on the work of Adair
(1986) and propose that ’’teams must have
clearly defined purposes and goals that serve
127
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

the organisation’’. In addition, they ’’need
clearly defined parameters within which to
work’’ and the team members must know the
relative importance of the task and the
expectations from the organisation. Robbins
and Finle y (1996) argue that a good team
focus will comprise:
a task;
a pro mised limit of what you are doing;
a pro mised level of performance;
a dead line ; and
the definitio n of the custom er.
Alignment and interaction with external
entities
This feature can be described as ’’ outward
focus’’ of high performance teams, i.e. seeing
the team as part of a system. Senge (1990)
calls this phenomenon ’’ system thinking’’ an d
considers this approach as one of the most
crucial among disciplines of learning
organisation and team learning. The essence
of systems thinking, according to Senge
(1990), lies in ’’seeing relationships rather
than linear cause-effect chains’’ and ’’seeing
process of change rather than snapshots’’.
TQM or kaizen con cepts describe this
approach as ’’ process-orientation’’ with
similar conclusion (Oakland, 1993; Imai,
1986). Other quality improvement authors
(Howe et al., 1993; Deming, 1986; Ishikawa,
1985; Bamber et al., 1999) emphasise the
importance of understanding the process
from a customer point of view. Kur (1996)
observed several HPTs and argues that HPTs
are able to ’’maintain alignment and
interaction with other entitie s, su ch as other
teams, managers, suppliers, customers,
society, government’’.
Group culture
HPTs demand strong group culture, which is
based on empowerment, shared vision,
creativity, participation, learning ability, trust,
and share d consensus . Other authors
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Imai, 1986;
Peters and Waterman, 1982; S tott and
Walker, 1995) argue that an environment of
tolerance toward failures and mistakes and a
certain amount of creative chaos can improve
team performance. Similarly, Senge (1990)
views a mistake as ’’ an event, the full benefit
of which has not yet been turned to
advantage’’ and argues that ’’failure is an
evidence o f the gap between vision and
current reality’’. This gap, according to Sen ge
(1990), is the evidence of creative tension and
is one o f the attributes of learning teams.
Similarly, Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) or
Imai (1996) give practical examples from
Japanese companies, which use creative
tension for improving team performance. An
Figure 2 Factors affecting successful implementation of HPTs
Table I Factors affecting successful implementation of HPTs
1 Organisational impact
2 Defined focus
3 Alignment and interaction with external entities
4 Measures of performance
System factors
5 Knowledge and skills
6 Need of the individual
7 Group culture
Human factors
128
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

interesting contribution about team culture
comes from Kets De Vries (1999), who
researched Pigmy society and based on this
investigation suggests seven principles of
effective teamwork:
(1) Members respect and trust each other.
(2) Members protect and support each other.
(3) Members engage in open dialogue and
commun ication .
(4) Members share a strong common goal .
(5) Members have strong shared values and
beliefs.
(6) Members subordinate their own
objectives to those of the team.
(7) Members subscribe to ’’distributed’’
leadership.
According to Kets De Vries (1999), many
practices of Pigmy society ’’ are a model of
effective behaviour’’(!)
Another aspect of HPT culture is alignment
of its members. As stated by Senge et al.
(1994), ’’ building alignment is about
enhancing a team’ s capacity to think and act
in new synergistic ways, with full coordination
and sen se of unity’’. Nevertheless, it is not
suggested that culture of HPTs is con flict-
free. On the contrar y, Senge (1990) argues
that ’’ gr eat teams are not characterised by an
absence of conflict’’ but they are able to take
advantage from them. Stott and Walker
(1995) suggest that competitions and
conflicts be used constructively in HPTs.
Hence, the organisation itself has to create the
supportive environment for development of
HPTs and has to ensure the internalisation of
shared values and beliefs by team members
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Imai, 1986;
Kets De Vries, 1999).
Knowledge and skills
Lack of tr ainin g and critical skill gaps have
been mentioned in the section concerning the
barriers to teamwork. To overcome these
problems an d to accomplish their tasks, the
team members must receive trainin g and
personal development in areas such as
(Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Robbins and
Finley, 1996; Scholtes et al., 1996):
interpersonal and joint skills: de aling with
conflict, dynamics of teamwork, how to
conduct meetings, effective deci sion
making, communication skills, effective
record keeping;
analytical and statistical skills: problem-
solving methods, improvement
techniques, seven basic quality control
tools;
improvemen t techniques, creativity
approach, systems thinking; and
technical skills: re lated to a particular job.
Needs of the individual
As well as team ne eds being aligned with
those of the organisation, the needs of the
team members have to be aligned with th e
team (Adair, 1986). Senge (1990) argues that
alignment is a necessary condition for
empowering the individual and results in the
empowerme nt of the whole team. Robbins
and Finl ey (1996) observed several teams
with the con clus ion that ’’people will only
agree to team if it meets their own needs
first’’ . The sooner we know one another’s
personal needs and hop es, the better for the
team. Katzenbach and Smith (1993) argue
that ’’biases toward individualism exist but
need not get in the way of team
performance ’’.
Teamwork represents an in terde pendent
balance between the needs of the individual
and the needs of the organisation (Kets De
Vries, 1999). According to Zigon (1997),
individuals want to be recognised for their
individual contributions too and most team
members complain that individual
performance assessments and pay systems do
not reward them for team results they have
produced , a point agreed with by Bal and
Gundry (1999). Zairi (1994) advocates
measureme nt of people productivity and its
linkage to reward and recognition systems.
To manage this balance and make teams
more effective, analysis of individual personal
differences and prefere nce s is suggested
(Church, 1998; Higgs , 1996). Sharp et al.
(2000) worked with several teams using
MBTI (Myers Briggs type indicator) for
determinin g personal differe nces and argue
that the understanding of personal differe nce s
has led to the overall improvement of a team
performance .
Measures of performance
All improvement activities must be
accompanied by appropriate measures, i.e.
measureme nt, which is linked with objectives
defined by customer. Measures of
performance (MoP) are a trigger to
improvemen t and the reason why many
improvemen t programs fail, is the lack of
measureme nt. Many quality improvement
129
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

experts such as Howe et al. (1993), Deming
(1986), Ishikawa (1985), Oakland (1993),
Bamber et al. (1999), and Zairi (1994)
support this fact.
Many organisations have moved to a team-
based approach without changing MoP,
which reflect this change (Meyer, 1998). A
team approach is process-oriented and, thus,
’’measure s through the voice of process’’ are
essential for teamwork (Zairi, 1994). Zair i
(1994) furthermore strongly advocates
performance measurement based on people
productivity, i.e. ’’ the value added
contribution s of individuals in the fulfilment
of their indivi dual tasks or in their
participation in teams’’ . Similarly, Ingham
et al. (1997) suggest that e ffective teamwork
can be measured by individual and team
performance .
To fulfil those presumptions, performance
system measurement should include (Zigon,
1997):
a statement of the results the team will be
working to achieve with measures and
performan ce standard for each result;
statements of each ind ividu al’s results,
with measures and performance
standards for each result;
a clear picture of the prio rities and
relative importance of the team and
individual results; an d
a plan how to collect and summarise
performan ce data, so the team and
individuals will know how they are
performin g compared to the performance
standards.
Meyer (1998) suggests four guiding principles
to maximise the effectiveness of teams:
(1) the overarching purpose of a
measurem ent system should be to help a
team, rather than top managers, gauge its
progress;
(2) a truly empowered team must play the
lead role in designing its own
measurem ent system;
(3) because a team is responsible for a value-
delivery process that cuts across several
functions, it must create measures to
track that pr oces s; and
(4) a team should adopt only a handful of
measures.
Church (1998) states that ’’success or failure
may not always be measured at the team level
[and that] the best indicators of the success of
teams in organisations may be the
organisation al level of analysis’’. Yet, the
priority is that MoP has to tell team members
what they must do to improve their
performance rather than trace the
performance of all business (Meyer, 1998).
Case study research
This research has been aimed at providin g a
critical understanding of factors affecting
successful implemen tation of high
performance teams (HPTs) which has led to
the development of the conceptual model of
the factors affecting successful
implementatio n of HPTs (Figure 2). The
model has consequ en tly been tested, in part,
using a single case study organisation as the
focus of observations and direct assessment of
the factors represented in the model. This
approach has been advocated by Yin (1989),
an acknowledged expert on case study
research strategy.
The case study organisation, Lynx
Engineerin g UK Limited (Lynx), base d in the
North o f England, UK is predominantly a
first tier supplier to major defence
contractors, such as Royal Ordnance and
British Aeros pace Systems and employs 52
people at its Nelson site. Lynx c ould be
considere d as a traditional functional
structure organisation o peratin g with
traditional quality control values as described
by Muhleman et al. (1996). Recent changes in
the UK aerospace and defence industry
(Broughton et al., 1997) has led to the n eed
for Lynx to look at alternative marke ts such as
formula one racing car component
manufacture (Bamber, 2001). This change
has meant con sid erable modification in
operating and manufacturing practice 
mainly from long batch runs to one-off
componen ts requirin g rapid turnround from
receipt of order to delivery of product (i.e. see
’’from mass production to agile
manufacture ’’; in Kidd, 1994). The m anagin g
director of Lynx has created a management
team with the respons ibility to develop the
company toward effectively managing the
operations and controlling the changes
necessary to address the require me nts of the
new and old customers.
Ongoing ethnographic research spreading
over two years, with the help of UK Research
Council fund ing provided the authors of this
paper the opportunity to monitor and
130
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

evaluate the team activities against the model
in Figur e 2, during these early stages (three
months) of organisational transformation.
Mr Chris Bamber of the University of Salford
participated in the team activities and helped
the team develop while Mr Pavel Castka
observed and compared the findings with the
factors represented in the model.
Additionally, expert interviews as described
by Firlej and Hellens (1991) in their book on
knowledge elicitation techniques we re held by
Dr John Sharp, Director of the High
Performance Organisational Research Group
at Salford, UK.
The team at Lynx included the managing
director, the works manager, two production
planning engineers, marketing manager,
production manag er, quality control manager
and one of the authors (Bamber). The
individual names of per sonn el from Lynx
have deliberately not been used in this paper
as the team is still continuing to develop, but
agreement to use the case as an example has
been obtained from Mr Les Nuttall, the
managing director. Only the key findings of
the research in relation to the model are
presented below, for brevity, while a more
detailed review of the findings is available
from the authors.
Findings at Lynx Engineering UK
Limited
The need for the organisation to chang e was
evident at Lynx, with reducing profit margins
and ever-in cre asing demands from customers
to deliver smaller but quicker batches.
However the need for the individuals to
change was not as transparent, and it was
evident from the researc h activities that team
working was not the usual custom and
practice within the organisation. Th e newly
formed management team includes three
relative newcomers (with the company less
than nine months, excluding Bamber) to
Lynx who had very little or no prec onc eived
ideas of working within the company and also
identified many opportunities for
improvemen t and change. Ideas generated by
individuals in the team and then implemented
by the team had greater success when the
whole of the team had ’’ bought into’’ the idea.
However it was observed that ideas were not
implemented necessarily succ essfu lly when
objections where voiced by individuals; and
even less successful when the needs of any
single membe r of the team were not elici ted
but later revealed as evident.
The creation and development of the team
at Lynx has no t been without problems,
however the recognition that teams can
develop through the stages of forming-
storming-n orm ing -performing by the
members of the team helped them move
toward higher levels of performance.
Additionall y, it has been evident throughout
the study of team working at Lynx that there
is a considerable amount of confusion in the
early stages of team development and as
described by Senge (1990) this if viewed
positively provides the ’’ creative tension’’ that
enables team learning. However as the Lynx
team developed it was noted that perform ance
of the team improved when focusing on tasks
with realistic goals that involved many of the
team members. Consequently, the
researchers (authors) consider that group
culture developed positive traits when success
was evident against these clearly define d and
focused task s; however, without clearly
defined focus team activities, the performance
was not as su cces sful and consequently team
developmen t was much slower and activities
less effective.
In connection with defined focus of
activities or tasks is the concept of measures of
performance and hence a measure of team
success. The Lynx team had struggled with
the concept of measuring team performance
and throu gh out the study no clear measure s
of team performance emerge d other than the
successful completion of defined tasks, as
mentioned above. Alongside this observation
it was eviden t that Lynx did not measure
performance in terms of measures aligned to
customer requirements, although financial
measures where evident. The researchers
(authors) observed that when individual
members of the team considered that team
activities did not improve the quality, cost or
delivery of the product or service offered to
the customer then commitment to team
activities deteriorated. Similarly if team
members could not see a connection with
team activities and other activities g oing on in
the organisation then resistance to proceeding
was seen. Consequ ently when the team
activities had a good ’’fit’’ with other
organisation al activities then performance was
enhanced and resis tance to change reduced.
Knowledg e and skills is represented in the
model (Figure 2) as a factor affecting
131
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

Figure 3
Implementation plan for development of HPTs
132
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

successful implemen tation of HPTs and it
was quickly noticed that although the
technical skills of the team were very similar,
all being skilled engineers, managerial,
personal and social skills di ffered immensely.
Additionally, an understanding of systems
thinking was not evident among the Lynx
team members. Training and development
was not particularly seen as an imp ortan t
issue in the early steps of team development
but is now being embraced by Lynx as an
essential practice for team effectiveness.
Consequen tly, a team training needs analysis
(TNA) as well as individual TNA is currently
being carried out to identify appropriate
methods and direction for training in order to
continually improve performance.
Recommenda tions for other SMEs
adopting teamwork
The aim of the authors is not only to
understand the critical factor s for high
performance teams (HPTs) development but
to communicate the research findings as well.
Consequen tly, the implementation plan
(Figure 3) has been developed from the
research and is proposed for use by
organisations wishing to deve lop HPT. This
plan is furthermor e aimed at rejuvenating
team performance in UK small- to- medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs).
The implementation plan (Figure 3) is
based on Deming’s plan-do-check- act
(PDCA) cycle. The relevant steps are
considere d as :
assess the current situation (plan) ;
define the barriers and the enablers (do);
create team (organisational, individual)
developmen t plan (check); and
implemen t the development plan (act).
It is r ecommended that organ isation s examine
and assess teamwork in respect to the model
based on factors affecting successful
implementatio n of HPTs (Fig ure 2).
Consequen tly, after the analys is, these data
provide ne cessary information for a definition
of the barriers and the enablers for team
developmen t. It is furthermore recommended
to use the resu lts not only for the
developmen t of the team, but also for the
developmen t of the organisation and the
individual. This approach refle cts the need for
seeing teamwork as a multidimensional
construct and the necessity o f parallel
developmen t of individual, team and
organisation (see earlier section concerning
team development and Figure 1).
Even though the role of the individual and
the organisational dimensions in team
developmen t was not discussed extensively in
the paper, the researchers’ (authors’) advice is
to develop improvement activities i n view of
Equation 1 (performance = f (ability £
motivation £ environment)). This finding is
in concord with the findings of Bamber
(2000) of HPO Research Gro up, the
University of Salford , which confirmed with
the authors that his research, aimed at
determinin g an organisation’s ’’readi nes s to
learn’’, suggests a very similar model
(readiness to learn = f (ability, motivation,
organisation )). However, the scope of this
paper does not allow fu rthe r discussion of this
matter.
Conclusions
Teamwork is becoming increasingly a
prerequisite to face a turbulent environment
in many organisations, yet there are many
obstacles to its successful implementation.
This paper has presented these obstacles
within seven factors affecting successful
implementatio n of high performance teams
(HPTs) as shown in Figure 2. These factors
significantly reflect the main barriers to
developmen t of HPTs and the re searc h has
demonstrate d that successfu l implementation
can be achieved, albeit the process of team
developmen t is recognised as taking
considerabl e effort to maintain. The paper
furthermore proposed the implementation
plan (Figure 3) recommended for UK SMEs
willing to implement or rejuvenate strategies
leading to HPT development.
Reference s
Adair, J. (1986), Effective Teambuilding, Gower,
Aldershot.
Bal, J. and Gundry, J. (1999), ``Virtual teaming in the
automotive supply chain’’, Team Performance
Management, Vol. 5 No. 6, pp. 174-93.
Bamber, C. (2001), ``Agile manufacturing in UK aerospace
small to medium size enterprises’’, PhD thesis
submitted for review, University of Salford, Salford.
Bamber, C., Sharp, J. and Hides, M. (1999), ``Factors
affecting successful implementation of total
productive maintenance: a UK manufacturing case
study perspective’’, Journal of Quality in
Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp.162-81.
133
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134

Bamber, D. (2000), personal communication at the
University of Salford, Salford.
Broughton, T., Calder, N., James-Moore, S.M.R. and
Williams, A. (1997), Risk Reduction Study, Society of
British Aerospace Companies, UK Lean Aerospace
Initiative, annual report.
Church, A. (1998), ``From both sides now: the power of
teamwork ± fact or fiction?’’, Team Performance
Management, Vol.4 No. 2, pp. 42-52.
Colenso, M. (2000), ``How to accelerate team
development and enhance team productivity’’, in
Colenso, M. (Ed.), Kaizen Strategies for Improving
Team Performance, Prentice-Hall, London.
Conti, B. and Kleiner, B. (1997), ``How to increase
teamwork in organizations’’, Training for Quality,
Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 26-9.
Deming, W. (1986), Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Feurer, R., Chaharbaghi, K. and Wargin, J. (1996),
``Developing creative teams for operational
excellence’’, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, Vol.16 No.1, pp. 5-18.
Firlej, M. and Hellens, D. (1991), Knowledge Elicitation:
A Practical Handbook, Prentice-Hall, London.
Foster, N. (2000), ``Setting up the team ± preconditions of
success’’. in Colenso, M., (Ed.), Kaizen Strategies for
Improving Team Performance, Prentice-Hall,
London.
Francis, D. and Young D. (1979), Improving Work Groups.
A Practical Manual for Teambuilding, University
Associates, La Jolla, CA.
Higgs, M. (1996), ``Building an effective team’’, Team
Performance Management, Vol.2 No.4, pp. 33-9.
Howe, R., Gaeddert, D. and Howe, M. (1993), Quality on
Trial, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Imai, M. (1986), Kaizen, the Key to Japan’s Competitive
Success, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ingham, H., Teare, R., Scheuing, E. and Armistead, C.
(1997), ``A system model of teamwork’’, The TQM
Magazine, Vol. 9 No.2, pp.118-27.
Irani, Z. and Sharp, J. (1997), ``Integrating continuous
improvement and innovation into a corporate
culture: a case study’’, Technovation, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 199-206.
Ishikawa, K. (1985), What is Total Quality control? ± the
Japanese Way, Prentice-Hall, London.
Johnson, D. and Johnson, F. (1991), Joining Together:
Group Theory and Group Skills, Prentice-Hall,
London.
Katzenbach, J. and Smith, D. (1993), The Wisdom of
Teams. Creating the High-Performance
Organisation, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Kets De Vries, M. (1999), ``High-performance teams:
lessons from the Pygmies’’, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 66-77.
Kidd, P. (1994), Agile Manufacturing. Forgiving New
Frontiers, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Kur, E. (1996), ``The faces model of high performing team
development’’, Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 32-41.
Mestre, M., Stainer, A. and Stainer, L. (1997), ``Employee
orientation ± the Japanese approach’’, Employee
Relations , Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 443-56.
Meyer, C. (1998), ``How the right measures help teams
excel’’, in Katzenbach, J. (Ed.), The Work of Team,
Harvard Business Review Books, Cambridge, MA,
pp. 51-64.
Muhleman, A., Oakland, J. and Loycker, K. (1996),
Production and Operations Management, 6th ed.,
Pitman, London.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-
Creating Company. How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Oakland, J. (1993), Total Quality Management. The Route
to Improving Performance, 2nd ed., Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford.
Peters, T. (1992), Liberation Management. Necessary
Disorganisation for the Nanosecond Nineties,
Macmillan, Basingstoke.
Peters, T. and Waterman R. (1982), In Search of
Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-run
Companies, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Rickards, T. and Moger, S. (1999), Handbook for Creative
Team Leaders, Gower Publishing, Aldershot.
Robbins, H. and Finley, M. (1996), Why Teams Don’t
Work. What Went Wrong and How to Make it Right,
Orion Publishing Group.
Scholtes, P., Joiner, B. and Streibel, B. (1996), The Team
Handbook, Oriel Incorporated.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice
of The Learning Organization, Random House,
London.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. and Smith, B.
(1994), The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies
and Tools for Building a Learning Organization,
Nicholas Brealey, London.
Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R., Roth, G. and
Smith, B. (1999), The Dance of Change. The
Challenges of Sustaining Momentum in Learning
Organizations, Nicholas Brealey, London.
Sharp, J., Hides, M., Bamber, C. and Castka, P. (2000),
``Continuous organisational learning through the
development of high performance teams’’,
Proceedings of International Conference on Systems
Thinking in Management, Geelong, November.
Stott, K. and Walker, A. (1995), Teams, Teamwork &
Teambuilding, Prentice-Hall, London.
Tuckman, B. and Jensen, M. (1977), ``Stages of small
group development revisited’’, Group and
Organisational Studies, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 419-27.
Yin, R. (1989), Case Study Research. Design and Methods,
Sage, London.
Zairi, M. (1994), Measuring Performance for Business
Results, Chapman & Hall, London.
Zigon, J. (1997), ``Team performance measurement:
a process for creating team performance
standards’’, Compensation and Benefits Review,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 38-47.
134
Factors affecting successful implementation of high performance teams
P. Castka, C.J. Bamber, J.M. Sharp and P. Belohoubek
Team Performance Management: An International Journal
Volume 7
.
Number 7/8
.
2001
.
123±134