The document discusses the differences between work groups, pseudo-teams, potential teams, real teams, and high-performance teams. It provides criteria to evaluate what type of group you have and how to transition from one type to a higher performing type through developing complementary skills among members, establishing a clear purpose, goals, and working approach, and creating a sense of mutual accountability. The document emphasizes that high performing teams require members who are committed to each other's personal growth and success to significantly outperform expectations.

1. Teams Vs Groups
Wm. ( Chip) Valutis, PhD

2. Working Group
• No significant incremental performance need or
opportunity that requires it to become a team
• Interact primarily to share information, best practices and/or
perspectives
• Make decisions to help each
individual perform within his or her
area of responsibility
• No realistic or desired common
purpose, goals or joint efforts that call
for a team

3. Pseudo-team
• Could be a significant, incremental performance need
or opportunity, but it has not focused on collective
performance and is not really trying to achieve it
• No interest in shaping a common purpose or set of
performance goals, even though it may call itself a team

4. Pseudo-team (cont’d)
• Weakest of all groups in terms of performance impact.
• Tend to contribute less that any other type because
their interaction detract from each member’s
individual performance without delivering any joint
benefit
• The sum of the whole is less than
the potential of the individual parts

5. Potential Teams
• There is a significant incremental
performance need and it is really
trying to improve its performance
impact
• Need more clarity about purpose,
goals or work products, and more
discipline in forming a common
working approach
• Not yet established collective
accountability
• Very common—teams make sense so
many are attempted.
• The journey between potential team
and real team is quite steep

6. Real Team
Small number of people with complementary skills
who are equally committed to a common purpose,
goals and working approach for which they hold
themselves mutually accountable

7. High-Performance
Team
• Meets all the conditions of real teams, AND has
members who are deeply committed to one another’s
personal growth and success. This commitment usually
transcends the team
• Significantly out-performs all other like teams and out-
performs all reasonable expectations, given its
membership

8. 1. Small enough in
number
A) Can you convene easily and frequently?
B) Can you communicate with all members easily
and frequently?
C) Are your discussions open and interactive for all
members?
D) Does each member understand the others’ roles
and skills?
E) Do you need more people to achieve your ends?
F) Are sub-teams possible or necessary?

9. 2. Adequate levels of
complementary skills
• Are all three categories of skills either actually or
potentially represented across the membership :
• Functional/Technical?
• Problem-Solving/Decision-Making?
• Intentionally?
B) Does each member have the potential in all three
categories to advance his or her skills to the level required
by the team’s purpose and goals?

10. 2. Adequate levels of
complementary skills
(cont’d)
C) Are any skill areas that are
critical to team performance
missing or under-represented?
D) Are the members willing to
spend the time to help
themselves and others learn
and develop skills?
E) Can you introduce new or
supplemental skills as
needed?

11. 3. Truly meaningful
purpose
A) Does it constitute a broader, deeper
aspiration than just near-term goals?
B) Is it a team purpose as opposed to a
broader organizational purpose or just one
individual’s purpose (e.g., the leader’s)?
C) Do all members understand and
articulate the same way? And do they do
so without relying on ambiguous
abstractions?

12. 3. Truly meaningful
purpose (cont’d)
D) Do members define it vigorously in discussions with
outsiders and frequently refer to it and explore its
implications?
E) Does it contain themes that are particularly meaningful
and memorable?
F) Do members feel it is important, if not exciting?

13. 4. Specific goal or
goals
A) Are they team goals vs. broader organizational goals or
just one individual’s goals (e.g., the leader’s)?
B) Are they clear, simple, and measurable? If not measurable,
can their achievement be determined?
C) Are they realistic as well as ambitious? Do they allow
small wins along the way?

14. 4. Specific goal or goals
(cont’d)
D) Do they call for a concrete set of team work-products?
E) Is their relative importance and priority clear to all
members?
F) Do all members agree with the goals, their relative
importance, and the way in which their achievement will
be measured?
G) Do all members articulate the goals in the same way?

15. 5. Clear working
approach
A) Is the approach concrete, clear,
and really understood and agreed
to by everybody? Will it result in
achievement of the objectives?
B) Will it capitalize on and enhance
the skills of all members? Is it
consistent with other demands
on the members?
C) Does it require all members to
contribute equivalent amounts of
real work?

16. 5. Clear working
approach (cont’d)
D) Does it provide for open interaction, fact-based
problem solving, and results-based evaluation?
E) Do all members articulate the approach in the same
way?
F) Are fresh input and perspectives systematically sought
and added?

17. 6. Sense of mutual
accountability
A) Are you individually and jointly
accountable for the team’s purpose, goals,
approach and work-products?
B) Can you and do you measure progress
against specific goals?
C) Do all members feel responsible for all
measures?
D) Are the members clear on what they are
individually and jointly responsible for?
E) Is there a sense that “only the team can
fail”?

18. Work Group or Team:
Which does “strategy” mandate?
• Competitive advantage grows out of the
entire system of activities. The fit
among activities substantially reduces
cost or increases differentiation.
• It can be misleading to explain success
by specifying individual strengths, core
competencies or critical resources. The
list of strengths cuts across many
functions, and on strength blends into
others.
• The success of a strategy depends on
doing many things well – not just a few –
and integrating among them. If there is
not fit among activities, there is no
distinctive strategy and little sustainability.

19. Objectives of the Team
Development Module
• Raise awareness as to the
challenges and opportunities
that lie ahead
• Build buy-in and
commitment for the team
and its development
• Identify and prioritize
developmental imperatives
for the SST
• Set the stage for the team and
individual development
component of the SST
• Outline the first
developmental initiatives to
pursue

20. VALUTIS CONSULTING IS A FULL SERVICE
MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT FIRM. OUR APPROACH
IS TO INVESTIGATE AND UNDERSTAND
ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES, CUSTOMIZE REALISTIC
SOLUTIONS AND DESIGN PRACTICAL STRATEGIES TO
MOVE CLIENTS TOWARD THEIR SPECIFIC BUSINESS
AND PERSONAL GOALS. OUR MISSION IS TO HELP
OUR CLIENTS UNLOCK THE POTENTIAL OF THEIR
ORGANIZATION AND ITS PEOPLE.PLEASE FEEL TO
CONTACT US WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR TO
SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT TO DISCUSS YOUR
ORGANIZATION’S NEEDS AND HOW WE CAN HELP.
CHIP@VALUTISCONSULTING.COM