5 Common Mistakes When Building a High-Performing Team and How to Avoid Them

Building a high-performing team takes patience, perseverance, and a thoughtful process. When a team is underperforming, I often hear leaders focusing on the individual, "Who do I hold accountable?" While looking at individual performance may be the fastest route to action, it is often not the most effective. High-performing teams are a function of a collection of complementary individual strengths supported by a strong process and the right degree of management. A bad process can break a high-performing team every time. Here are the 5 most common mistakes I've observed leaders make while trying to improve performance and some tips for avoiding them (hint: it often starts with you):

Not setting clear expectations for what "good" looks like

No matter how talented an employee is, without knowing what "good" looks like, they can't achieve it. Not having a definition of "good" can take many forms. A definition can be completely absent or this can also happen when expectations are fluid or continuously changing. This leaves employees in a position where they have to "guess and check" to figure out how to succeed. This can lead to frustration and can cause significant damage to employee engagement, ultimately leading to higher rates of employee attrition (a big limiter if you're trying to build a team). When employees are struggling to meet expectations, rather than starting with accountability, leaders should start by asking, "Have I clearly and consistently set expectations for what good looks like?" If the answer to this question is no, leaders should consider:

1. Defining in detail the results they are looking for. This means being able to describe it like a movie director or script would for the actors in a film. Try writing out the actions and behaviors an employee would engage in to get the desired results.
2. Sharing the information candidly and openly with employees. Without sharing the definition of good, leaders are effectively withholding the rules of the game until after it's played. This can take the form of broad team-level communications, as well as individual discussions. Either way, sharing this information levels the playing field across the team and ensures everyone is operating from the same playbook.

Not providing the process, technology, and resources required for success

When you don't understand the conditions your employees are operating under, this can be an easy mistake to make. Leaders who may have earlier career experiences similar to those of their current employees may have particular difficulty with this. It's easy to assume you know when you think you've been there. This is a big mistake because there are often nuances in the work environment or processes that can be easy to miss when you're not the one actually doing the work. To avoid this mistake, leaders need to "go to the floor" and watch how employees are getting the work done. This can help them see first hand the barriers that may be limiting performance. Because these barriers can be nuanced, without direct observation, they can be difficult to identify (even for the people encountering them). Leaders can be a fresh set of eyes by comparing what they see to what they expected to see to identify performance gaps or opportunities. While observing, they can ask themselves things like:

1. Is the process easy to follow or does it create errors and back-and-forth along the way?
2. What are the situational factors that contribute to getting the work done correctly (or incorrectly)?
3. Can employees focus on getting the work done or do they encounter a lot of interruptions? (Hint: email and chat can be biggies here)
4. Do they have the right software or equipment to get the job done with the desired speed and efficiency?
5. Are there enough people for the volume of work that needs to get done?

Regardless of any other challenges, I almost always find there are things that can be improved in this area. Once leaders have evaluated the process and work environment for problems, challenges can typically be broken down into smaller, easier to implement, incremental changes to enhance performance.

Incentivizing the wrong behaviors or outcomes

This one can be insidious because incentives are often mistaken to mean financial compensation. In the world of incentives, financial compensation only gets you so far. When leaders incentivize the wrong behaviors, it typically means there is some type of intangible benefit for doing the wrong thing vs. the right thing in the day-to-day. For example, if doing the right thing means more or harder work and doing something else (i.e., the wrong thing) is easier, employees are likely to take the easy route. This is just part of human nature; we're pre-programmed to take the path of least resistance. A leader's job is to make sure the right behaviors are incentivized to get the right result and the wrong behaviors are disincentivized. So if skipping over a quality step means that an employee gets to go home on time and performing the quality step means they leave late, it's the leader's job to figure out how to make the quality step easier to do, so the employee can benefit from going home on time. A leader can take a look at what happens when an employee does something right in contrast to what happens when an employee does something wrong (again, direct observation here is key) to determine if they are falling into the incentive trap.

Providing unclear, inconsistent, or infrequent feedback

Unfortunately, human beings are geared toward immediate gratification (hence one of the reasons financial compensation may not always motivate the right behaviors - it's a delayed reward). When direct, immediate feedback isn't happening, employees may be more likely to chart their own "performance" course, making it difficult to get back on track when they are struggling to meet expectations. The most effective feedback happens close in time to the behavior or result. If this is the case, leaders should have managers establish regular 1-1s and/or feedback requirements (e.g., each employee has their work reviewed by a manager and receives feedback at least once per week) to increase the frequency of feedback. In doing so, make sure the feedback is also clear and direct while demonstrating compassion for the employee (check out Kim Scott's book, Radical Candor, for more on this; I particularly enjoyed the audio version).

Leaders may also find that employees are getting conflicting feedback from different sources. This is a particular challenge when the different sources are at the management level. This can pull employees in different directions, leading to confusion or learned helplessness (e.g., "I don't know what to do to win, therefore I do nothing"). If your employees are getting conflicting feedback, try establishing a system where feedback flows through an employee's manager (rather than directly to the employee). This allows the manager to see where an employee may be struggling and effectively provide the necessary feedback to enhance performance. Not only does this help identify areas of inconsistency, but the most powerful feedback is often that of one's direct manager (they are, after all, ultimately responsible for evaluating performance).

Hiring, training, and/or coaching on the wrong skills, aptitudes, and behaviors

In the world of business, it is far too easy for managers and leaders to hire or focus praise on people they like, rather than those with the highest potential. This can be a mistake for both the company and the employee. Well-liked candidates or employees may be put in positions that they are not ready for or lack the necessary skills to perform. These individuals may get by on their personality and performance gaps may go unaddressed. This can adversely affect the team dynamic when one team member is given the "star treatment." On the other hand, employees or candidates who may have high levels of competency in critical areas may be passed over. Developing an awareness of potential blind spots related to personality profiles, along with a deep understanding of the skills, aptitudes, and behaviors necessary for team success is a good way to avoid this pitfall. Leaders should consider using talent assessment tests and/or developing operational metrics to avoid their personal biases and provide more objectivity when evaluating an employee or job candidate's skills, aptitudes, and behaviors. By objectively understanding a team or individual's gaps or opportunities, leaders can seek to address those gaps through training and development and/or hiring for additional skills.

The Bottom Line

Ensuring a high-performance culture relies on having an understanding of the systemic factors that can make or break an employee or team. So before you say, "Who do I hold accountable?" consider that it might be the process, or management structure, not the people. Prioritize enabling employees and teams for success first, before looking toward accountability.