I think of performance along four dimensions: inputs, throughputs, outputs and outcomes. When I apply your question to this approach I come to the following insights: * inputs/what is brought to the table - competencies, diversity, mental/emotional health, role design, and the like * throughputs/doing the work - organizational structure and related performance processes, team functioning, meeting effectiveness, ability to get and process stuff as we need it, etc. *outputs/results - meeting team goals in a timely, efficient and effective manner * outcomes - what difference did the teams efforts and accomplishments make anyway (is the world/organization/customer better off how and now?). For me a high performing team will always show up in superior ways in the last two performance dimensions. The interesting insight for me is these last two dimensions are usually very observable, especially in the customer benefiting aspect. So determining success of high performance may not be as opaque as we sometimes believe. Another thought is how a superior team performs during the input and throughput dimensions. A superior team will do a better job of marshalling what it needs to be successful. It will show more insight in this area and be better at negotiating its needs to the sponsoring/investing stakeholders. A superior team will make better use of its inputs along the way, More effective and fewer meetings, fewer recycling of work because outputs and outcomes misunderstandings. This touches on the whole issue of waste and redoing work. From an OD perspective this would also include consideration of how people are working together
Posted on: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 11:01:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015