What underlying dynamics are associated with high-performing teams? 

What system works best in the context of the tasks/project at hand?  

Well, the answer to this and similar multi-layered issues are: it depends. Ideally, a high-performance team creates a synergistic impact so that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. (Fun fact of the day: Team is an acronym for: Together, Everyone Achieves More) 

For example, take the sight of a flock of birds flying together. The symmetric positioning, the controlled chaos, the beauty of it all. There is a method to the madness. These birds are pumping the front bird up while he or she leads the way and guides the flock. When that bird gets tired, the next one takes the baton to lead the flock and the rest of the birds cheer him for her on. Dynamically, when birds fly together, each bird provides additional life and reduces air resistance of the birds flying behind. When a bird drops out of formation, they quickly discover that it requires more effort and energy to fly solo. This is a practical example of a highly dynamic team. One which feeds off each other for the greater good of the whole.  

In the workplace setting, it is difficult to discuss team dynamics, as there are several specific factors besides the project and tasks that come into play such as the individuals, the culture, management style, etc.

To look further into team dynamics, let’s take this context into sports. How are the dynamics of a winning team created, and what are some of the pertaining underlying reasons within that sport? Each sport has a different set of rules to play in, therefore the strategies involved change drastically within the team dynamic setting.

I came across an interesting article regarding how to analytically evaluate competitiveness across different sports. I’d welcome readers to check out a pre-print of the manuscipt, forthcoming in Annals of Applied Statistics, if interested in more details.  

The image below from that article laid out all teams in each sport and categorized them by which sport they played (MLB, NBA, NFL, NHL), laying them out in terms of the probability that they would beat an equal caliber opponent at home. Ranked from most likely to beat an equal caliber opponent at home were: 1) NBA 2) NFL 3) NHL 4) MLB.

Initially, one would logically conclude that the crowd has a bigger impact on the home team winning a basketball game compared to a baseball game. Looking further into each sport individually may also give insight as to why some home teams in their sport have a bigger advantage.  

Hockey and Basketball both have similar characteristics in that teams play 5 on 5, 82 games a season, 60 total minutes of regular game time. The main difference is the extra player in hockey: the goalie. With no potential open path to the net in Hockey (or Soccer or Lacrosse for that matter) the game is played like Checkers, where each team depends on each other for opening passing lanes and setting each other up to score on their opponent. Highly dynamic Hockey teams tend to feed off each other for the greater good of the team like the approach birds take when flying together. As each bird knows that they cannot survive without one another in their mission, each Hockey player is relatively more reliant on their teammates to score past the goalie.  

In Basketball (or Football), the player can score easier without anyone protecting the net. Without a goalie now, the strategy changes now to the team usually being heavily reliant on one or two individuals on the offensive end. The game is played more like Chess, where ‘super Queens’ tend to dominate the greatest of all-time debates. With no goalie in the game, big momentum swings can happen at home for these ‘super Queens’ when they get in their element and score at will. 

Baseball is its own animal in terms of team dynamics. It’s closest relative, Cricket, is similar where it requires hand-eye coordination, and there is no time dependency on the game. Baseball team dynamics and strategy changes drastically, as players outcomes are independent to the rest of his/her teammates. Due to this independence, two teams with even records are more equally likely to win when comparing to Hockey and Basketball.

Each player’s stats can be evaluated individually and breakthrough stats such as wins above replacement (WAR) can be used to rank each player’s individual contribution. This cannot be the case in Hockey or Basketball due to time restriction, along with economies to scale factoring in i.e. A team full of superstars in Basketball or Hockey may win more, but the output of each individual may decline for the betterment of the team.

How does all this translate to creating highly dynamic teams in the work force? There are projects, deadlines, stakeholders and dependencies factored in. Ideally, a high performing team would have characteristics like a good Hockey team where they are creating synergies for added value. However, if the end goal is relatively easy to achieve, maybe it’s better to have a ‘super Queen’ style team like Basketball where one or two individuals are relied on heavily. If colleagues within the team have work that is independent of one another, this would be similar to Baseball where they do not have to rely on each other as much.  

As team dynamics play a critical role in any project, it is important to understand the underlying dynamics within its specific setting. How to approach each unique challenge and recognizing effective synergies can be a huge difference for long term success and creating a win-win environment.