The Top Dogs vs The Under-Dogs - Why high-performing teams can be disruptive

Top performers are the poster children for success. They set the bar. And deservedly so. But what happens when the elite team tips the scale? There’s nothing wrong with working hard and leveraging team accomplishments – until workplace culture kicks in and the very qualities that define a dream team in the eyes of an organisation also cause discontent.

?

A double-edged sword

?On one hand, high-performing teams are powerhouses of productivity and innovation. They push the boundaries. They deserve every high-five they get. But on the flip side, their relentless drive can be off-putting – even, in some cases, disrupting team dynamics and overshadowing under-performing individuals.

?“Then the underachievers must work harder!”

?

Fair enough, but…

?Let’s say your 30-year-old civil engineering firm faces the following conundrum...

?Richard, a walking encyclopaedia of old-school tricks and Da Vinci-level improvisation (think duct tape and baling wire), has been with you just over 29 years.

?Enter Sadie, a more recent hire brimming with modern know-how. She’s mentored by Richard but soon builds her own team, blending new and old tactics.

?Eventually, someone’s getting promoted. But who?

?Team S hits all the targets, budgets and clients with laser focus, while Team R holds steady with the three clients they’ve had since the PalmPilot was a big thing.

?Richard has the loyalty and experience but lacks agility and, let’s face it, youth. He knows it, too. But he dedicated his career to becoming head of the department and can’t stand the thought of a much younger hire, someone he taught, becoming his boss.

?Potential outcomes: Promote Sadie and her innovation and risk Richard’s resentment, sabotage or badmouthing. Play it safe with Richard, bearing in mind looming retirement and tech reluctance, and risk losing Sadie altogether. Because she knows she’s the best person for the job, so she’ll take her dynamite somewhere else if you pick Richard.

?

Blame the high performers

?You can write a Harry Potter series about the scenarios that emerge from this dilemma, but the point is to think carefully about your top teams’ impact on your business.

?Here’s why:

?The under-dog factor

It’s perfectly natural for less successful teams to resent high achievers. They see the praise, recognition and often, additional resources allocated to the top dogs, and this can breed jealousy and a desire to see the golden team crash and burn.

?Unstable office politics

Organisations are infested with politics. Managers with less successful teams see high-performing teams threatening their territory or advancement (ahem, Richard) and this can lead to “re-organisations” where under-performing people are inserted into top teams.

?The Peter Principle*

Promotions are often based on past success, not future potential (ahem again, Richard). So the charismatic leader who guided your team to victory is snatched up for a higher position, in which they underperform, and their replacement can’t handle the new role either.

?It’s often best to keep dynamic leaders in thriving positions instead of stirring the pot.

?The “unbeatable team” myth

Even the best teams need the occasional tweak. You can’t keep a team as is, forever, and expect infinite growth. Strategic adjustments are critical to avoid inevitable stagnation.

?

Bearing all this in mind, think about shifting your culture to one that supports high-performing teams constructively rather than disruptively. Celebrate and share the successes but ensure the behaviours that lead to them are clearly understood and encouraged.

?

* Canadian educational scholar and sociologist Dr Laurence J. Peter’s “Peter Principle”: When a recently promoted employee is unable to fulfil the requirements of the new position, this may not be the result of their general incompetence as much as the result of the position requiring different?skills?than those the employee possesses.