S UMMARY OF RESULTS

My empirical findings indicate that cooperation and the actual focus on working as ‘one team’

and not individuals are in fact imperatives to become high performers. In terms of team leadership, the successful leader would “pull the team together forward” and make him/herself available for the team, for the team to perform at its highest. Indications were given that providing guidance, acting as a coach, simply, facilitating for the team and asking questions, making sure the team is on the right track, was an absolute necessity to become high performing.

Also indicated as means to providing guidance, and facilitating for the team, the leader needs to create a common vision and common goals, as implied by having clear roles, responsibilities and assignments, as these were fundamentals for the team to become high performing.

Nonetheless, clear indications were also given that a high performing team itself, once (as examples) the goals, roles and assignments have been created, need to feel ownership of its tasks to become high performers. Matching the skills (i.e. the roles, responsibilities and assignments) among team members to the level that the team members were actually delivering and performing on the high end, required openness and trust within the team and towards the leader. Correspondingly, with different backgrounds, different and complementary skills, and different values within the team, complexity was added. Thus, to create openness and trust (which was one of the main drivers to create high performing teams), it was indicated that, acknowledging the persons within the team for who they are and where they come from (background and experience) were found unconditionally key. In addition, indications were given that, as a high performing team, the team and its leader have an effective communication which means they understand each other and the tasks that are to be performed rather quickly, and if not, they have and know how to use, the available means and methods to clear misunderstandings, conflicts or disagreements. The leaders indicated that having these methods available, for a high performing team, required a defined structure, a defined prioritization and coordination within the team. There was also a strong signal of that following up on team members assignments had additional effects on a high performing team than just progress reporting, as this contributed to avoiding conflicts, disagreements and misunderstanding surfacing within the team.

5.2.1 Perception of essential skills of a high performing team

I intended to find out what impacts a team to become high performers and if there are identical or similar characteristics lying beneath these high performing teams. In my study, voiced by the informants, working as ‘one team’ and not having focus on individuals was significant in becoming a high performing team. Some of the informants described situations where they have had a strong focus on getting to know each other and worked hard on getting a well-functioning team dynamic in place. Supposedly this would create a sense of belonging to the team and contribute in producing that “one-team” feeling. Indicated was also openness and being able to both ask questions and speak one’s mind as important factors for people to perform at their best. The leaders indicated that openness within the team and towards the leader creates an open atmosphere and trust within the team. On the other hand, this does not on its own contribute to that ‘one team’ acknowledgement. Leaders said that in addition to getting the team dynamics in place and creating good relationships within the team, the focus of the team must be to create an ownership to the work that they will perform together and setting their goals collectively.

Many of my informants have made extensive explanations of work situations where part of the success in their teams lay in having diverse backgrounds and different experience levels. They described teams with different nationalities, overlapping roles and complementary skills and experiences that led to positive results. This can be linked to Hultin, Zhang and Hu (2017), Wheelan (2010, Larson and LaFasto (1989; 2001), and Katzenbach and Smith (1993) as they all argue that distinct skills need to be attended to and valued, and high-performance teams are generally composed out of complementary skills. Complementary skills and experiences gives the benefits of team members stimulating each other on overcoming hindrances. This could be connected to Larson and LaFasto and their Effective Team framework (2001) where the authors state that effective teams must have members who possess the necessary technical skills and knowledge and who have personal characteristics required to achieve excellence while working well with others. Wheelan describes with her IMGD that successful team leaders are attentive to skills (Wheelan, 2003) and it was from my informants indicated that high performing teams have to have all, and not only some, of the necessary skills for that particular team to achieve their goal (Katzenbach and Smith, 1992). The leaders implied that high performing team members are team members who wants to and can go that ‘extra mile’. But is it really true that it is all about the team and its team members? In the Team Basics model, Katzenbach and Smith (1992) argue that it requires the leader's unbroken attention to strengthen the mix and level of skills, build commitment and confidence, relationship building with unknowns, and remove

hindrances to become a high performing team. It was also indicated that managing the team tasks as ‘one team’ and not individuals, discussing, asking questions, using each other’s differences and experiences to solve the task, was advantageous for a team to become or stay high performing. All of the leaders implied that clear responsibilities and clear assignments are vital for a team to become high performing. On the other hand, it was also indicated that high performing teams are self-driven and that setting those responsibilities and assignments would many times be a ‘team task’ to handle and not one of the leader. Indicated was that structure would impact whether a team would become high performers or not, the leaders mentioned that well-functioning methods and processes for how the team should operate must be present.

Wheelan argues in her IMGD that in the third stage of this process roles, organization, and procedures are defined. The members are interested in being efficient and productive. This was also indicated by the leaders that a high performing team is interested in being efficient, “they want to, and they can”, as one of the leaders said. On the other hand, it is not true that all teams are fit for neither a detailed nor a vast structure or processes. There is a variance from team to team and team member to team member. The organizational culture and mindset also plays a significant part in this.

5.2.2 Perception of what creates a sense of belonging within a team

I intended to find out what creates a sense of belonging within a team, group or team cohesion and how sanctuary within the team is achieved. As previously defined, cohesion is described as members’ attraction to the team and desire to remain in the team (Delarue, Van Hootegem, Procter and Burridge, 2008). It was indicated by most of the leaders that acknowledging the persons in the team for who they are was important to create a sense of belonging within the team. Not only from leader to team member but within the team. Group cohesion demonstrates intimacy and support for other team members. To form high performing teams, team compliance need to be high (Katzenbach and Smith, 2003). All the informants indicated that it was significant to see people both personally but also professionally, also indicated to have an open dialog and discussing the private settings outside of work. As this is assumed creating a feeling of “togetherness”. Showing interest in the team members’ work and for the team member to receive feedback from the leader and other team members were factors indicated as important to create team cohesion by the informants. The leaders indicated many times that getting that important role, having a clear assignment, roles and responsibilities, feeling relevant, and important, and being given attention are critical factors for creating a sense of inclusion in the team for each member. On the other hand, how can you give all the team

members important roles, and assignments? Is everything the team does equally important and how should the team or the leader measure importance? These are questions that cannot be answered within this assignment. Many of the leaders responded that communication, information and transparency in sharing are making team members feel as part of the team and a sense of belonging to the team. The leaders made it very clear that it is critical that the leader is available for the team member and also implied was that exclusion (even when not on purpose) and avoidance (even when not on purpose) by the leader or any of the team members makes it more difficult to build on to the team cohesiveness. I argue that organizations where there is clear minority or majority cultures, groups might suffer in terms of creating team cohesion and reap the full benefits of really high performing teams. Several leaders indicated that a slayer of team cohesiveness is lack of trust. According to Katzenbach and Smith (2003) and their Team Basics model, successful deliveries from people within the team cannot happen without the team effort backing this up. Connecting this to all of the informants, who indicated that trust is the most important part of creating group cohesiveness or sense of belonging. It also seemed as knowing each other well, having things in common with others in the team and the feeling of being safe in the team were imperatives to feel a sense of belonging. Larson and LaFasto (2001) describes in their Effective Team framework that high performing teams thrive in an environment of trust and this environment is characterized by honesty, openness, consistent and predictable behavior and respect. It was also indicated from the leaders that trust allows team members to stay focused on their tasks, and it improves quality of the team work.

The leaders showed a strong focus on creating trust and that trust is achieved also by discussing achievements, targets and goals together. Indicated was that solving tasks and removing obstacles together as one team, created trust and the feeling of belonging and cohesion. It was not that clear from the informants that this first stage was characterized by significant member dependency on the chosen leader, as mentioned by Wheelan in the first phase of the IMGD (Wheelan, 2010). On the other hand, it was indicated from the informants that concerns about inclusion issues was strong in this process (Wheelan, 2010). Though I would then make the assumption that the team members rely on other powerful group members to provide direction.

Several of my informants were clear on the fact that they would (in order to help in creating a sense of belonging) set up and allow for the right ‘forums’ to collaborate in, and act as a guide or mentor, all to facilitate team cohesion. Larson and LaFasto (1989) also argues for a team to achieve team cohesion the team need to develop a sense of unity and identification with each other and the tasks by involving and collaborating with all team members in all aspects of the process. My findings indicate that many of the informants meant that making use of each other’s

competencies within the team is creating a sense of belonging and team cohesion. Other possible explanations on creating team cohesiveness were indicated as, letting everyone take responsibility, and following up on team development, both to enable collaboration but also to avoid conflicts. Larson and LaFasto (2001) claims in their Effective Team framework that in order to create a high performing team, working climate need to be collaborative and they mention that involving team members in problem solving and decision making and making them compensate for one another, taking risks, and listen to each other contributes to creating a strong identity and a sense of belonging within the team.

5.2.3 Perception of what a productive team is

I was looking to investigate what the leaders mean is a team that is high performing and productive. It was indicated that this type of team is a team that has high motivation and high energy among the team members. It was also implied from the informants that a productive team is a team that share sense of purpose, a task focus and dedication as well as a clear ownership to the assignment and feels an excitement to it. It was also expressed that a productive team is a team where there is a clear understanding of the road map and goal and where the team has the ability to quickly understand multifaceted problems and when the team is able to change focus on an ad-hoc basis. Larson and LaFasto (2001) argues in their Effective Team framework that an effective team must have clear understanding of its goals and must consider the goals important. The goals should be personally challenging and elevating in the sense that they are important. Wheelan’s IMGD supports this with saying that high performance teams complete their tasks faster, they produce services and generate higher returns. She says, this is a time of powerful team productivity and effectiveness. On the other hand, the team does not seem to have all the glory nor the fault for being fast, productive or quick in understanding the issues at hand. The leadership plays a vast part in this. Supported by Bradley and Hebert (1997) ineffective leadership will sabotage team productivity. The informants indicated that the team has to have a clear leadership, and preferably a motivational leadership to be productive.

Implied from several of the leaders was that a productive team is respecting differences in people and learning how to see things from different views and how this helps the team to improve performance. The team is discussing, asking questions, and using each other’s differences and experiences to solve their tasks. On one hand, in their research Wheelan (2010);

Katzenbach and Smith (2003); and Larson and LaFasto (2001) have also found that a highly productive team is strongly related to individual differences. On the other hand, too much of individual differences, could be causing unnecessary amounts of conflicts, and vice versa, this

is not an area of black and white. Capabilities and mastering ones’ work was also indicated by several leaders to impact productivity and creating a high performing team. Having the right capabilities to handle the assignment and working with things that are giving the team members energy were mentioned as prerequisites for high performance and productivity. Indicated from some of the leaders was that a productive team needs to have targets and something to be measured by. They meant that this would contribute to develop productivity. It also seemed important for the leaders to have a continuous screening of what the team produce and delivers and setting the standards by guiding the team as this would increase productivity. But is it really true that productivity increases when the leader continuously review work and gives feedback?

On the other hand, this could act as counterproductive for certain team members as they could feel monitored. The leaders implied, all teams and their members are not the same.

5.2.4 Perception of what a supportive leadership is

I wanted to know what a supportive leader is and what a supportive leadership looks like since this is argued to be one of the important parts for creating a high performing team. Leadership is central to the team effectiveness (stated in the Effective Team framework by Larson and LaFasto, 2001). In the early stages described in the IMGD model, Wheelan (2003; 2010) argues that leadership must be governing and clear, as to assigning team members information. She also says that the leader need to allow for and create opportunities for open discussions about values, goals, tasks and leadership so that different opinions may surface. My findings support this as they indicate that several of the leaders meant that a leader that is supportive in his/her leadership is a leader that is motivational, and clear in communicating. It was indicated that being consistent in the leadership governance and giving the team clear mandates was seen as supportive leadership.The informants expressed this as giving clear feedback and advise. As the team passes through the stages of maturity the leaders role becomes more advisory than controlling. Larson and LaFasto (1989; 2001) supports this in that creating a high performing team, the leader need to have a desire and willingness to help others succeed, both on a team level and leadership level. They argue, transformational leadership drives encouragement and recognition to its members. On the other hand, what is seen as encouragement by one team member, might not be by another. This was also indicated from my leaders being seen as supportive leadership by creating opportunities for others to step up and take on more responsibilities. A good team leader creates opportunities for others, and high performing teams cannot be created if the leader seizes all the best opportunities, and assignments (Katzenbach and Smith, 1992). Larson and LaFasto (1989; 2001) builds on to this saying that, a transformational leader drives encouragement and recognition to its members. It was also

suggested from all the informants that building on to a continuous relationship with the team ensuring trust and creating an environment where anyone dares to ask questions or challenge each other was in fact seen as a supportive leadership. Implied by many of the informants was that involvement and interaction towards the team at all levels has to be in place and letting team members know that the leader “have their back” was seen as most supportive. In situations where the team faces challenging situations, having a leader that goes first, and takes the impact, was mentioned many times by the informants as being supportive as a leader. On the other hand, this could be put against the argument that effective leaders should encourage team members to take action by generating enthusiasm and commitment (Larson and LaFasto, 1989;

2001)). Or can it also be supposed that a supportive leadership should unleash talent to take on larger responsibilities as they go along? Larson and LaFasto (1989; 2001) argues that leaders should influence others to move from the status quo towards the goals and the vision that is set up. The informants were all occupied with improving as leaders and increasing their own performance. In order to do this several leaders used yearly global attitude surveys where in depth questions were asked to team members on the leaders’ ability to support the team.

5.2.5 Perception of conflict management within a team

My findings indicate that the most common conflicts within the teams were different priorities, chemistry among team members, relationship related conflicts, and skills and experience-based

My findings indicate that the most common conflicts within the teams were different priorities, chemistry among team members, relationship related conflicts, and skills and experience-based