Building the “Optimal” Team: 4 Types of Teams based on “Results” & “Relationships”

You are either leading a team or a member of one (your department, a project team, or a management team).? In today’s world of cross-functional and cross-border collaboration, companies live and die on the effectiveness of the teams that execute business strategies and action plans.

The "Optimal Team Model" I will introduce in this article will be helpful in diagnosing your team’s current state so you can help build better teams.?

Just like there are four types of leaders, there can be four types of teams. ?

Remember the Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid?? In the 1960s, Robert R. Blake and Jane S. Mouton developed a model describing managerial styles.? Managers can show low or high levels of task orientation and low or high levels of people orientation.? Hence, managers can have any of the following styles:?

• HIGH in BOTH people orientation (relationships) and task orientation (results)
• High in people orientation (relationships) but low in task orientation (results)
• Low in people orientation (relationships) but high in task orientation (results)
• LOW in BOTH people orientation (relationships) and task orientation (results)

Could this Blake & Mouton grid apply not just to individual managers but to describe team dynamics? ?

Having facilitated over 400+ team building workshops in the last 22 years, my answer is ‘yes’. ? I have adapted Blake & Mouton’s Managerial Grid concept to help teams assess and address their team functioning.? I first drew this "Optimal Team Model" on a flip chart while facilitating a workshop with a senior leadership team in 2023.

Just like all managers, all teams can be described and assessed based on these 2 dimensions:

• RESULTS or Task-orientation: ? Is the team delivering expected results and meeting, even exceeding, set goals?? Or, at best, do team members frequently display behaviors associated with completing tasks or accomplishing objectives such as detailed planning, scheduling, monitoring progress, reviewing performance, and correcting deviations?
• RELATIONSHIPS or People-orientation:? Do team members enjoy good working relations with and enjoy working with most, if not everyone, in the team?? Do members show genuine care, concern, and support for each other? ? Is everyone cooperative and collaborative?

Any team can then be classified into these 4 types which I labeled appropriately (the adjectives 'high' and 'low' refer to levels or scores if the teams will be assessed based on the two above-mentioned dimensions):

1. HIGH in both RESULTS and RELATIONSHIPS - the “Optimal” Team
2. HIGH in RESULTS but LOW in RELATIONSHIPS - the “Functional” Team
3. LOW in RESULTS but HIGH in RELATIONSHIPS - the “Relational” Team
4. LOW in both RESULTS and RELATIONSHIPS - the “Dysfunctional” Team

Reflecting on the hundreds of team building and team effectiveness sessions I have facilitated, I have met all these 4 types of teams.? Here’s how I will describe them:

1. “OPTIMAL Team” (HIGH in both RESULTS and RELATIONSHIPS):? This is your IDEAL team, a winning, high-performing team where members enjoy achieving results and supporting and working with fellow teammates.? It is possible that having good relationships enables the accomplishment of goals.? When you have team members who genuinely trust, openly communicate, coach, and support each other, meeting and exceeding goals is easier.? A second scenario is that, since the team is winning, the high morale rubs off on the members. They see each other as contributors to team success; hence, they relate to each other positively.?
2. “FUNCTIONAL Team” (HIGH in RESULTS but LOW in RELATIONSHIPS):? This team looks good on the outside but may have problems (or brewing potential problems) on the inside.? Scorecards show they meet or excel in their metrics.? They are able to function and get by.? But get their team members in a safe environment to talk about the team, and they will spill the beans.? Their problems may involve a lack of trust, an inability to engage in healthy dialogue and conflict, or poor ownership.? Serious interventions are urgently needed, or the team members may physically or psychologically ‘quit’ the team (e.g., quiet quitting). ? Whatever successes this team has is short-lived or not sustainable.? It could sustain green SLAs or KPIs for a month, a quarter, or a year until the cracks show.? Sometimes, this team is not in a dysfunctional stage… yet.? A high-performing team needed to welcome a significant number of new colleagues.? Maybe most or some members are new, don’t know each other yet, and have yet to form bonds.? If the getting-to-know process is not facilitated well or fast-tracked, the members’ first encounters can lead to mistrust and destructive conflict.? When we let new team members work together without proper introductions, icebreaker situations, or expectation-setting exercises, we may set them up to fail, to dislike each other, especially when their first encounters highlight differences in ideas, opinions, and working styles.? ?
3. “RELATIONAL Team” (LOW in RESULTS but HIGH in RELATIONSHIPS).? This type of team can be further divided into two. The first is a team where members have strong bonds and may work collaboratively but struggle to perform because of tough, uncontrollable realities in their industry or organization.? Their struggles may come from product, pricing, or process issues.? Their failure to perform may also be because of factors internal to the organization, such as organizational structure, management style from the top, or allocation of resources.? This team’s strong relations may help them endure the struggles but may wane if the challenges are too big, heavy, and prolonged.? The second scenario is a team where members just enjoy each other’s company, without much concern if jobs are done.? Blake & Mouton called managers with high relationship focus and low results orientations “country club leaders”.? Similarly, a team that enjoys good working relations without the drive to achieve goals is just a ‘clique,’ a country club’. ? Members stay for the social aspect of having friends and companions but not for the purpose of getting things done.
4. “DYSFUNCTIONAL Team” (LOW in both RESULTS AND RELATIONSHIPS).? This team is challenged to perform.? Most likely, it is because of poor relations or lack of teamwork among members.? It is difficult to get anything going if members don’t see eye to eye.? Since there is little or no accomplishment, lack of trust, accountability, blaming, and finger-pointing will likely happen.? The more relations get strained, the more they get stuck in the rut of poor performance.

A team’s journey is fluid and never fixed.

The good (and bad) news is that teams can move from one quadrant to another.? Changes outside or within the team will disrupt the current state and affect either ability to deliver or to keep the together.? Imagine the impact of the following :

1. Changes in industry or business regulations (limiting or boosting performance)
2. Change in the team’s mandate/ mission (changing the team’s reason for being)
3. Entry of a new team leader (with a new leadership style)
4. Entry of new team members (bringing more diversity to the group)
5. Change of roles within the team (requiring new skills or new systems)
6. Change of working relationships within the team (new reporting lines)

With the entry of new team members or a change in team leader, Optimal or high-performing teams can slide to Functional teams.? Dysfunctional teams can become Relational teams before reaching a high-performing state.? As team leaders (or team members), we need to anticipate what external and internal changes may disrupt our teams and implement timely and sound interventions (including team assessments, team building sessions, team coaching, or 1-on-1 conversations, etc.) to avoid getting to the path of dysfunction.

Just like any 2x2 matrix, this model focuses on extreme categories of ‘high’ and ‘low’.? We can view this model as a 3x3 matrix with a ‘medium’ or ‘middle’ value.? If we want to be more discriminating in our assessment, we can also rate our teams using a Likert Scale of 1-5 in both ‘results’ and ‘relationships’; we will end up with a 5x5 matrix which is more useful if teams are starting from the extremes and want to celebrate quick wins.? ? ??

In my next article (to be released before the end of February 2024), I will give real-life examples of these 4 types of teams based on the volume of work I’ve done with hundreds of clients. ? Then, in the third article on this topic, I will share interventions I’ve done with my clients to help them move around the matrix to the ideal goal: becoming an Optimal Team.