If a team doesn’t achieve its financial goals, can it still be considered a “high-performing team”?
Some with positional authority would say no. (And changes are made, if you know what I mean.)
But what if:
The team is exemplary in accomplishing goals in all the areas required to succeed, such as spending, productivity and employee engagement targets?
The economic conditions, customers or other variables beyond the team’s control, changed after targets were set and created once-unimagined barriers to success?
Some bosses say they want high-performing teams, but what they really mean is they insist on perpetually-high-achieving teams.
Without being aligned on definitions, organizations are shoved into subjective decision making that leaves everyone susceptible to changes that harm long-term outcomes.
Are you a part of a high-performing team?