Yes! We have friends. Now it works. Great! Someone had to unlock me, apparently. All right, thank you. Thank you, Flavio. Nice to be here.
We're happy because we are eager to hear you talk about how teams collaborate best. Go ahead, this is your stage.
All right, thank you so much! Indeed, how do teams collaborate best? There's actually another title on the agenda—there was some kind of mix-up somewhere. But we're agile, right? We don’t mind these small hiccups; we just go with the flow. And in this case, the flow says that we discuss how to collaborate successfully with teams. That's something I would love to discuss with you.
Many people and companies are interested in this topic because sometimes you see the advice that we should just pick the best people. If you look at how to create great performing teams, the common advice is usually, "Just hire the best job candidates." Well, that's a bit silly, to be honest. Very often, that is not the privilege that we have. We cannot be like those in sports who simply buy the best athletes in the world. We have to make do with the great people we already have.
Frankly speaking, performance is often not about the individual; it’s about collaboration with the people we already have on the teams. We have to play the cards we are dealt, and I believe any group of people can be turned into a great performing team. In fact, research confirms this. That’s what I want to focus on for the next 18 minutes—how to turn a group into a team.
Plenty of organizations have looked into this. Google has done extensive research, as have Microsoft, IDEO, and academics like Amy Edmondson and Richard Hackman. I’ve collected their insights, mixed their findings, and I came up with four key dimensions—four paradoxes, you could say.
1. Diversity vs. Team Culture
When I conduct workshops, I often ask people, "What is the single most determining factor for great team performance?" The answer I often hear is "diversity." Diversity is indeed important for team performance—but what kind of diversity?
That’s where the interesting discussion starts. Some people suggest a mix of genders, backgrounds, cultures, or races. Yes, there is a correlation between these factors and performance. But as scientists know, correlation is not causation. What actually causes great performance is cognitive diversity—the diversity in how we think, not how we look.
Cognitive diversity includes factors like levels of lean/agile experience, business-oriented versus technology-oriented perspectives, generalists versus specialists, and generational differences. These different ways of thinking contribute to better problem-solving.
One of the most well-known scientific models for cognitive diversity is the Big Five personality traits, used by psychologists worldwide. For example, extraversion—whether someone is an introvert or extrovert—affects how they approach problems and group dynamics.
For team performance, cognitive diversity is key. For ethical reasons, it's important to have a mix of genders and cultures, but what truly matters is how people think and approach problems.
On the other hand, we don’t want things to be too diverse. In my book Management 3.0, I refer to this as "inclusive diversity," a term from complexity science. There has to be some cohesion within a team—a shared identity.
One way to test this is the "T-shirt test." If people don’t want to wear a T-shirt with their company or team logo, then they likely don’t feel a sense of belonging. Teams also need shared rules—expectations around responsibility, reliability, and how they operate together.
2. Psychological Safety vs. Creative Tension
Psychological safety is the newest buzzword in the world of teams, and it’s incredibly important. It means that team members feel safe taking risks without being punished or feeling harmed for trying something new. It should be okay to run an experiment that fails, as long as it’s a safe-to-fail experiment.
If people don’t speak up, you have a problem. But speaking up is just the first step. Amy Edmondson points out that the real test is how leaders and teammates respond when someone does speak up.
At the same time, we need creative tension. We need disagreement. Monty Python’s "Argument Clinic" sketch is a humorous example of this—sometimes, just arguing for argument’s sake can be valuable. It makes it safe for everyone to voice their opinions.
One practice from Dave Snowden’s Sense-Making Framework is "ritual dissent." When someone proposes an idea, they turn their back to the group while the team challenges it from all perspectives. This ensures the idea is fully explored without the proposer feeling personally attacked.
3. Team Purpose vs. Personal Meaning
A team needs a clear goal. Every dictionary definition of "team" includes a shared purpose. Team members need to know how they make an impact. What is the vision? What is the purpose of the company and the team?
At the same time, individuals need personal meaning in their work. The Japanese concept of Ikigai—a Venn diagram of four circles—helps define one’s purpose. It asks:
- What do you love to do?
- What does the world need?
- What can you be paid for?
- What are you good at?
The intersection of these answers is your Ikigai—your reason for being.
We should also make space for happiness and well-being in work. Simple things, like taking walks or having a meditation room, can contribute to both personal fulfillment and team effectiveness.
4. Supportive Context vs. Self-Organization
Organizations need to provide teams with the necessary structures, transparency, and feedback cycles to support high performance. For example, research suggests the ideal team size is around five people (plus or minus two).
On the other hand, teams also need self-organization. There are many agile frameworks for this, but one useful tool is the Team Canvas—a framework that helps teams define roles, values, and action points.
Conclusion
These four paradoxes—diversity vs. team culture, psychological safety vs. creative tension, team purpose vs. personal meaning, and supportive context vs. self-organization—define high-performing teams. These are not contradictions; they are paradoxes. The best teams balance both sides effectively.
Thank you for listening!