Dimensions and measures of team effectiveness
Team effectiveness can be organized as a three-level hierarchical structure[6] [7]. At the top lie the global dimensions of team effectiveness. These include several specific dimensions, each assessed with well-developed measures.
The global dimensions give you a big picture of the core aspects that tend to be important for the effectiveness of most teams[2] [8]. The specific dimensions give you a range of manifestations that allow you to delineate and further define each global dimension of team effectiveness. The measures of team effectiveness are the methods used to evaluate how effective your team is on each dimension (global or specific).
The specific dimensions and measures you use to delineate and assess team effectiveness largely depend on aspects like the type of work your teams does[9]. For example, in your team the key aspect of interest for team performance (global dimension) might be productivity (specific dimension), as assessed by the number of closed sales (measure).
Global dimensions of team effectiveness
There are numerous models of team effectiveness, each one highlighting a different set of global dimensions. For instance, Sundstrom’s team effectiveness model focuses on performance (degree of fit between the team’s output and recipients’ expectations) and viability (members’ satisfaction with and willingness to keep working in the team)[7] [10].
Mathieu’s model of team effectiveness also consists of two global dimensions: performance (including productivity, quality, and efficiency), and influences on team members (including team states like cohesion and psychological safety, as well as individual outcomes such as turnover and absenteeism)[3] [6].
Other models consider three global dimensions of team effectiveness. Hackman’s model of team effectiveness focuses on performance (including expected standards of quantity, quality, and service), viability (the extent to which team members are willing to work together in the future, and how much is the team improving as a result of the collaborative work), and team members’ growth and well-being (how much team members are growing, learning and achieving their goals while working in the team)[2].
Similarly, Cohen and Bailey’s model suggests that team effectiveness is defined by three global dimensions: performance (including the quality, quantity, and innovativeness of team’s outputs), members’ attitudes (including how satisfied and committed team members are); and members’ behaviors (for example, levels of absenteeism and turnover)[9].
Although each model highlights different global dimensions of team effectiveness, all models have something in common. In all cases, team effectiveness is not a synonym of team performance (the latter is only a component, facet, or dimension of the first). Team performance is of critical importance to virtually all teams[1], but if your team wants to sustain long term effectiveness it will have to consider other global dimensions.
The rhombus model of team effectiveness
In our years training and researching teams, we have found that team effectiveness tends to be more sustainable over time when teams attend to four global dimensions:
- Performance (including efficiency, productivity, quality, and innovation);
- Viable teamwork (including teamwork quality, process improvement through learning, ability to continue working together as a team, and ability to deal with difficulties);
- Team’s influence on members (including team members’ well-being, growth, and development, and the influence teamwork has on team members’ behaviors and attitudes);
- Reputation (including outsiders’ impressions of the team).
According to the rhombus model of team effectiveness, effective teams perform as expected (performance), prosper over time (viability), support members’ growth and learning (influence on members), and are credible to others outside the team (reputation).
These four dimensions tend to be a source of sustainable competitive advantage for two main reasons. First, they address the effectiveness expectations of most teams’ constituencies. For instance, performance is particularly important for team supervisors and top management, reputation for clients and other teams in the company, viable teamwork for the team as a whole, and team’s influence on members for each individual team member. Sacrificing one of these dimensions will likely frustrate the expectations of people who are important for your team.
Second, research has shown that these four dimensions sustain one another over time. For instance, teams with viable teamwork in place tend to perform better, and high performing teams tend to see themselves as viable[8] [11] [12]. Likewise, teams with burned out members tend to see decreases in performance[13], and sub-optimal performance can lead to additional teamwork demands that further reduce team members’ well-being[14]. The relative importance of each dimension may change due to circ*mstances, but teams who are able to consistently sustain their effectiveness never fully ignore one of these dimensions.
