The Science of High-Performing Teams

But the data tells a more interesting story

When Google set out to understand why some teams outperform others, they were in a better position than most to figure it out.
Few organizations in the world have access to that amount of data. Or that level of analytical capability. Or that many high performing teams to study. If anyone could have reduced team effectiveness to a formula, it should have been them.

They studied hundreds of teams across functions and geographies. Intelligence, personality types, seniority, structure, leadership style.
They expected to find a clear pattern.
They did not.

But they did not stop there.
They reframed the question. They looked beyond who was on the team and examined how the team interacted.
And as they dug deeper, something began to emerge.

The strongest teams were not defined by who was in the room.
They were defined by how people behaved in the room.

What high performing teams actually do

In the highest performing teams, everyone spoke. Not equally in time, but equally in opportunity.

People listened.
They did not interrupt.
They did not dismiss ideas too quickly.
They noticed when someone withdrew.

There was room to say:
I am not sure.
I think we may be wrong.
Can you explain that again.

There was space to disagree without defensiveness.

Only later did researchers give this pattern a name.
They called it psychological safety.
In simple terms, it means feeling safe to speak up without fear of embarrassment.
It sounds obvious, but it’s not common.

Why that matters

When people feel safe to contribute, learning accelerates.

Mistakes surface earlier.
Risks are identified sooner.
Decision quality improves.

The cost of being wrong decreases because problems are exposed while they are still manageable.

Patrick Lencioni reached a similar conclusion when he described trust as the foundation of effective teams. Not reliability alone, but the willingness to be vulnerable.

To admit uncertainty.
To ask for help.
To say, your idea is better than mine.

That is not weakness.
It is maturity.
And it is where performance begins.

The drift toward caution

In structured and process driven environments, something subtle can happen over time.

We focus on compliance.
We focus on minimizing risk.
We focus on avoiding mistakes.

All necessary.
But gradually, teams become careful.
They wait.
They escalate.
They hesitate.

Performance remains acceptable.
Innovation slows.
Psychological safety counters that drift. It allows healthy friction and early problem detection rather than late stage crisis management.

Leadership is the lever

Managers account for most variation in team engagement and performance.
That aligns with my own experience.
Psychological safety does not appear by accident. It is shaped by leadership behavior.

How we respond to challenge.
How we react to failure.
How much space we take in meetings.
Whether we truly invite dissent.

Those moments feel small.
They are not.
They compound.

In markets where technology is widely accessible and products look increasingly similar, execution becomes the differentiator.
Execution depends on teams.
Teams depend on trust.
And trust depends on leadership.

High performing teams are not built on control.
They are built on safety.
And safety is something leaders create.

Ægir Thorisson
Chief People Officer, Advania