Most of us have at some point been part of a team where everything just works (High performance team), collaboration flows easily and results come almost naturally. Any team, temporary project team, appointed manager or task team must deal with three things
If the task requires a quick solution, it's foolish to hire an analyst as team leader, it's equally foolish to let the Closer be the boss of the Starter, two personality profiles that both perceive themselves as leaders will only end up with exhausting conflicts and low efficiency. And the introverted, restless Closer boss will be inappropriately annoyed by the extroverted and stable Connector.
The right team composition is an absolute prerequisite for success
Professor Meridith Belbin, who has researched the subject, put together 120 different teams to find the most effective. The research showed that the team with all the best and brightest minds on the same team (the Apollo teams) did not perform very well, they came first three times, six times sixth and four times fourth.
Apollo groups performed worse on average than other groups
At the same time, he discovered that teams that realised they were too homogeneous and compensated for the missing roles immediately improved their performance.
Assembling the team is not enough, it is only the prerequisite for a great team. Any team will organise itself, it will create a level of Information flow (knowledge sharing). The team should be productiveBut will everyone have the same goal, or are there hidden agendas and divergent sub-goals? Will everyone in the team feel like one Member or does the team develop "click" formation?
