A high performing team - we want to work with one, lead one, and be in one. Everyone wants to be on the winning team! But is a winning team automatically a high performing team? Or in the reverse - if the team does not win, is there something wrong with the team performance? Let's explore that a bit further.
Winning
Winning is important - a high performance team that never wins... well, it merits to look at the performance metrics set for that team! However, winning is not the only thing that indicates high performance, nor does a winning team naturally have to be a high performing team. Winning is an outcome in time, today's champions may lose tomorrow. Part of winning is being the better team, but luck, terrain (situation), and knowledge play important parts in the determination between victory and defeat. We say, "May the best team win!", but that is by no means guaranteed. We should also acknowledge the difference between short and long term. Winning a match is good, winning the tournament better, and remaining in the top for decades is the pinnacle of success. Losing a match or two does not necessarily mean losing the spot in the top - it happens. Yet we tend to measure performance on short term events - and this affects morale. Let's look through the ages to the largest and most effective team of all time.
Effective Discipline
High performing teams are disciplined. They remain a team no matter the odds, no matter the result. The best example to illustrate what a high performing team can accomplish is the Roman Army. The Romans built an empire that lasted for over 1000 years. The Roman Army was a machine, respected and feared. That does not mean they could not be defeated in battle. History shows that a number of great generals, like Hannibal Barca, Mithridates the Great, and Boudicca of the Iceni, could give the Romans a good run for their money - but in the end had to succumb to the will of Rome. "Culture eats strategy for breakfast" (- Peter Drucker) - this certainly is the case for the Romans. The culture amongst the legions made them nearly invincible - cause and discipline are the key drivers.
Cause
For the Roman Legionary, the cause for Rome was broken up in multiple levels of reward. Personal reward, as in money, citizenship, career (with potential to move social class), and personal honour. For the group (team, century, cohort, etc) the fight was for honour amongst peers. Gaius Marius found a symbol to link the legions honour to: The "Eagle" - a staff that was carried in the legion, with a sign showing the legion's name and number, and a Roman Eagle on the top. Losing a battle was nothing but an incentive to win the next - losing the Eagle would be a source of humiliation and total loss of morale and honour - the legion protected the Eagle at all costs. A powerful cause (Emperor Augustus' biggest frustration in life was the loss of the Eagles in the massacre of the Teutoburger Wald - illustrating the symbolic importance of the Eagles). But above all that - the most important reason for keeping the line against great peril - protect the soldier next to you.
Roman Discipline
The Roman Discipline is legendary - Legions could march for a day (in full Armor and carrying their necessary tools with them - another innovation by Gaius Marius known as Marius' Mules), and upon arriving at a suitable campsite they would erect a legion's camp complete with palisades, trenches, ramparts, and latrines. They would do this, even if they were on the move again the next day (breaking down the camp again). This discipline was a source of trust - a legionary could trust his companion to protect him, and his companion could trust him. This was the purpose of the discipline - surviving the battle, means you can fight to win the war. Punishment for breaking discipline was harsh - but also not as frequent as you imagine. Falling asleep during the night watch was dealt with swiftly and severely - but it was not the punishment itself that instilled fear - it was the shame of putting your legion at risk. The reverse was true as well - great pride was appropriate in saving one legionary in battle. The highest military honour to be bestowed on any legionary was the "Grass Crown" - only given to very few soldiers (of any rank), who saved an entire legion from defeat and certain death.
Simplicity
Strategy and tactics would either be disastrously daft (fed by incompetence or arrogance - i.e. General Gallus in Judea) or exceptionally brilliant (Julius Caesar's campaign in Gaul) - the job of the legionary was quite simple: 1). protect the legionary next to me, 2). hold the line, 3). stay alive, 4). advance and 5). disable enemy combatants. In the heat of the battle, the legionaries did not have to concern themselves with other objectives than these 5 (and they are on order of importance). Everyone knew their place, and their role. This is how the Roman Legions were a formidable foe against forces ten times their numbers.
Leadership
Rome has had some of the greatest generals in human history - Scipio, Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Vespasian, to name a few, did have a few common traits - they instilled a sense of purpose higher than themselves, they were extremely committed to the legions and individual legionaries, they welcomed critique, learned from their mistake, and most of all, were willing to break with tradition in order to innovate. They were not great leaders because they won all battles, but because they knew how to bounce back from defeat. They did not see themselves (at least at the height of their military achievements) as elevated above the legions, but as part of the team. This instilled a committed following of the legions to their leaders - they would go through hell and back if their general would only ask.
Back to the present
There are a lot of lessons we can take from Rome - and when it comes to execution through discipline and trust, the Roman Legions offer us a lot to consider. Whether leading a program, a small team, or an entire division in a company - the following principles hold true for high performing teams:
· Team performance is not measured on success or failure, but on the ability to wear out obstacles on the way to achieving the higher objective
· Diverse teams are unified by a single purpose, a purpose that is bigger than any member of the team
· Great leaders create great teams, great teams follow great leaders
· Innovation is key - learning from failure is the way to success
· High performing teams operate on total trust - trust in their team mates, trust in their leaders, and the leaders trust and protect the team
· There is no lasting achievement without focus and discipline - both are difficult to maintain in trying times, as well as in times of success (back to the first point - high performance team is not measured on individual successes and failures)
· The operations in the team are kept simple to execute.
Looking at short term, the underdog of today, may become the dominant player tomorrow - we see this in the tech industry very often - established organisations being flanked by disruptive applications of new technology - take Research in Motion, Palm, etc. For all intents and purposes, gone after a period of dominance. Apple tethered on the brink of bankruptcy and are now a tech behemoth - Microsoft was considered unstoppable 15 years ago - and only 5 years ago labelled as "irrelevant" - when now it is again a rising star. On a smaller scale - a sales team missing a quarter is not good, but is the team able to recover? Do they have the discipline, focus, and purpose to do so? Perception is a snapshot of a particular result - reality of high performing teams needs to be evaluated, adjusted, and fine-tuned over a longer period of time.
A high-performance team may not be liked by all - but it certainly will be respected. What elements can you work on today to make your team a high-performance team?
Originally posted: 16 October 2017