How to understand the Teaming Success Model
Teaming is 'teamwork on the fly'. It is the ability of a group of individuals to work together effectively towards a shared goal. Teaming as a concept was initially introduced by Edmondson (2012), and recognizes that what we call "teams" emerge from a process called "teaming" (and not the other way around). This processual perspective also recognizes that teaming can happen in any configuration of individuals working toward a shared goal. Teaming is a dynamic capability of organizations that is strategically important in highly uncertain settings or quickly emerging changes. But teaming demands work. Every new team, and every change to an existing team, requires members to rebuild mental models, routines, workflow expectations, social cohesion and psychological safety. This model (Verwijs & Russo, in writing) attempts to support teams and organizations in building this skill.
✅ Validated and stable. The measurement model for this model has passed three iterations of validation to improve psychometric scales, discriminant and convergent validity and explained variance. Current statistical fit is good (N=228, CHI2=1840.139, DF=649, CFI=.935, TLI=.921, RMSEA=.050, SRMR=.046). 81% of variance in team effectiveness is explained by the factors in this model. A publication is being prepared for peer-review in an academic journal (cycle time typically 2-3 years). The model may still be improved incrementally, but is mostly stable.
We consider a team effective when it has satisfied stakeholders (customers, users, internal stakeholders, etc) and when team morale is high. This definition doesn't cover everything (like ROI), but it works across many different teams. It is also common in team research.
In the model visualization, team effectiveness is represented with the blue sphere. Its score is calculated from the measures of team morale, stakeholder happiness, and team value. The first two are measured from the perspective of team members, and the last is measured from the perspective of stakeholders. This means that we include the evaluation of both team members and stakeholders.
Teaming is the dynamic activity of collaborating with shifting membership. It was first conceptualised by Edmondson (2012) as a fundamental departure from traditional team theory. Where earlier research treated team as stable, designed entities, teaming treats collaboration as a dynamic process that happens in any situation where individuals collaborate toward a shared goal. In environments characterised by uncertainty and rapidly changing demands, the capacity for effective teaming has become a primary driver of organisational performance and learning.
Teaming is composed of several sub-factors:
Group cohesion is a key variable of effective work teams (Hackman, 1987, Carless & De Paola, 2000). Group cohesion is often conceptualized as consisting of social cohesion, task cohesion and individual attraction to the group (Carless & De Paola, 2000). Task cohesion is present when team members acknowledge that the work they do is highly related. Of the three elements of group cohesion, task cohesion is most closely linked to team performance (Mullen & Copper, 1994; Zaccaro, 1991), team spirit, social support and workload sharing (Carless & De Paola, 2000). There is some indication that social cohesion actually shapes task cohesion (Zaccaro & Lowe, 1988).
Group cohesion is a key variable of effective work teams (Hackman, 1987, Carless & De Paola, 2000). Group cohesion is often conceptualized as consisting of social cohesion, task cohesion and individual attraction to the group (Carless & De Paola, 2000). Social cohesion is important in teamwork because it acknowledges the social realities of people working together in the workplace. Being a part of a team can fulfill important social needs, such as being recognized by others and being part of something greater. There is some indication that social cohesion actually shapes task cohesion (Zaccaro & Lowe, 1988).
Schein (1992) conceptualized psychological safety as a climate where people can focus on shared goals over self-protection. More recently, Edmondson (1999) defined it as "the shared belief that it is safe to take interpersonal risk". Examples of this are asking for help. But also to disagree with others or to admit that you don't know something. Psychological safety has been demonstrated to influence learning behavior, decision quality and performance (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). This has also been found in Agile teams, specifically (Dreesen et. al., 2021, Duhigg, 2016). Moe, Dingsoyr & Dyba (2010) conclude that without sufficient trust at the group level, "team members will expend time and energy protecting, checking, and inspecting each other as opposed to collaborating to provide value-added ideas". The ability to give and receive peer feedback is one of the core components of effective teamwork in Agile teams (Strode, Dingsoyr & Lindsjorn, 2022).
Task Goal Theory (Locke & Latham, 1990) argues that people are motivated by goals that are both challenging and attainable given their skillset. As such, the degree to which people feel committed to the goals of their team is a critical factor in teamwork research (Klein et. al., 2001). In its simplest form, goal commitment is defined as "one's determination to reach a goal" (Locke & Latham, 1990). The level of commitment that individual members feel depends on many factors, including skills, self-limiting beliefs, and the nature of the work.
One of the defining characteristics of a team is that members self-identify as members of that team (Abrams & Hogg, 2011, Turner, 1987). This is called "social identification", and it contributes strongly to how cohesive a team is (Lembke & Wilson, 1998). In research, social identification contributes strongly to job satisfaction, productivity (Van Dick et al, 2010), reduces turnover, and increases individual commitment (Wilkins et. al., 2015).
Conflict is an inherent part of working with others. What we measure in this tool is 'Relational conflict'. It often emerges in response to unmet social needs. Some needs can be very tangible, such as a desired salary raise or getting something that is owned by someone else. It may also be about getting someone to see your point of view. But most conflicts are about unmet social needs; the need to be seen and respected by others, to be accepted, to be heard and listened to and to feel valued. The extent to which they manifest is deeply personal and influenced by our culture, personality, and history. These conflicts are often hard to see and often experienced acutely by one party but not at all by the other party.
Although conflict is a natural part of working with others, research by DeDreu & Weingart (2003) shows that even moderate conflict in teams decreases their productivity. This means that teams have to learn how to navigate conflict effectively and prevent upward escalation. Pruitt & Rubin (1986) developed the Dual Concern model for conflict. Based on empirical evidence, they argue that the most effective strategy is to bring even modest conflicts into the light and to openly talk about it. The parties should then collaboratively seek solutions that address the needs of those involved.
Note that conflict would be more correctly modelled as an intermediate process between cross-functionality and teaming. That is, in our research, low cross-functionality corresponds with more conflict and lower teaming. For simplicity, we collapsed this into team conflict as a sub-factor of teaming.
In our research (Verwijs & Russo, in writing), we find that cross-functionality is a closely related, but distinct dynamic capability of teams. Teams that excel at cross-functionality are also better at teaming. Cross-functional teams are defined as consisting of members with different functional backgrounds (Keller, 2001). The presence of different skills in teams creates opportunities for organizational ambidexterity. However, this is only the case when teams learn how to effectively combine their skills to complete shared tasks. Otherwise, a high degree of skill specialization in teams only results in a division of work and fracturing of collaboration. Cross-functionality in teams has been linked to shorter development time (Eisenhardt & Tabrizi, 1995) and increased quality and improved performance (Keller, 2001). For agile teams, Moe et. al. (2010) and Verwijs & Russo (2022) found that team effectiveness is inhibited when teams lack such cross-functionality.
Cross-functionality is composed of several sub-factors:
Cross-functionality does not mean that every member has the skills to perform any kind of task. This is highly unlikely and unfeasible for complex work, where the required skills take years to train and develop. The essence of cross-functionality lies in the ability of teams to leverage diverse skill sets of team members to complete shared tasks. In any case, it is important that teams collectively possess the skills needed to do their work.
Even when a team collectively has all the skills needed to do the work, that doesn't automatically make them cross-functional. Teams need to develop shared mental models about who has which skills, and more importantly, how to bring those skills together effectively to complete work. DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus (2010) refer to this as 'compilation' and link it to team effectiveness. We call it 'pooling' in this model.
Focus climate is a construct that combines the actual experience of sustained work focus within teams with the degree to which those around the team actively support and protect that focus. It draws on several interconnected streams of organisational and team science. At its core, it represents a specific instantiation of what Schneider, Ehrhart & Macey (2013) term a "focused climate" — a shared set of perceptions within a work unit about what is valued, supported, and expected in relation to a particular outcome. Team climate research consistently demonstrates that when team members share a coherent perception of the conditions surrounding their work, that shared meaning shapes behaviour and performance in powerful and predictable ways. Focus climate, in this framing, captures the extent to which the team collectively experiences and perceives their environment as one that makes concentrated, uninterrupted work not only possible but actively prioritised.
The topic of work focus is closely related to 'flow' (Csikszentmihalyi, 2005). Flow is often described as the ability of members to feel (positively) absorbed by their work. Flow has been associated with high-performing teams (Van den Hout, Davis & Weggeman, 2016). However, the modern workplace does not always make it easy for members to focus on their work, with disruptions from emails, Slack messages, impromptu meetings and video calls. Unfortunately, even a short disruption can break focus on a complex task and requires at least an uninterrupted 23 minutes to get back into it (Mark, Gudith & Klocke, 2008).
This theoretical grounding for the demand-side of focus climate sits firmly within Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory, comprehensively reviewed by Bakker & Demerouti (2017). JD-R theory proposes that working conditions fall into two categories: job demands, which deplete energy and attention, and job resources, which restore energy, buffer against demands, and enable sustained engagement. Interruptions, competing priorities, and fragmented attention are classic demand-side stressors that erode the team's capacity to direct sustained effort toward meaningful work. The presence of structural and social resources — clarity of priorities, protective leadership, manageable workloads, and an environment that signals focused work is valued — directly counteracts these demands and enables the motivational process through which teams remain engaged and productive. Critically, JD-R theory holds that resources become most salient and most powerful precisely when demands are highest — making focus-protective behaviours by leaders and organisations especially consequential in complex, high-demand teaming and cross-functional contexts.
The supply-side of focus climate is reflected through the active support provided by those around the team. It corresponds directly to the boundary management and resource provision functions identified by Morgeson, DeRue & Karam (2010) as core functional leadership responsibilities. Leaders who manage team boundaries, deflect unnecessary demands, and ensure that the team has the informational and attentional resources it needs to execute are not merely being considerate — they are fulfilling a structural leadership function that directly enables team performance. This is reinforced by Kurtessis et al.'s (2017) meta-analytic evidence on perceived organisational support, which demonstrates that when teams perceive that the organisation and its representatives are actively invested in creating favourable working conditions, performance, engagement, and commitment all improve substantially through a social exchange process in which care is reciprocated with effort.
Taken together, focus climate captures a meaningful and measurable property of the team's working environment: the degree to which the team actually experiences focused work, and the degree to which the people and systems around the team make that focus possible. In teaming and cross-functional contexts — where dynamic composition, diverse expertise, and fluid task demands already place high cognitive loads on teams — a strong focus climate provides the stable attentional foundation without which effective coordination, skill compilation, and reflexive adaptation cannot occur. Conversely, a weak focus climate, characterised by persistent interruption, competing priorities, and insufficient support from those around the team, quietly undermines every other dimension of teaming and cross-functionality, regardless of how well those dimensions are otherwise cultivated.
Although teaming happens whenever individuals collaborate toward a shared goal, the quality of that teaming depends on proper support. Teaming is a complex dynamic activity that requires cross-functionality, focus and the skills to continuously rebuild mental models, social cohesion, routines and workflow expectations when composition changes. A risk is that 'teaming' is seen as a convenient shortcut to not have to invest in stable teams. However, high-quality teaming in fluid settings requires even more robust support structures (Bushe & Chu, 2011). Indeed, current research overwhelmingly suggests to create stable teams when possible if effectiveness is the primary criterion (Summers, Humphrey & Ferris, 2012, Bushe & Chu, 2011; Cannon-Bowers, Salas & Converse, 1990; Grand et. al. 2016, Mathieu et al, 2000, Kearny, Gebert & Voelpel, 2009; De Church & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010, Beal et. al., 2003, Evans & Dion, 2012, Beckhy & Okhuysen, 2011). However, this is not always possible or feasible. In that case, a well-developed teaming capability is a strategic advantage.
Teaming is composed of several sub-factors:
Teams need high autonomy in complex environments, like product development. In such environments, the people that perform the work have a more accurate and up-to-date understanding of what is happening and what is needed than managers that are more distant from that work (Trist, 1951). High autonomy is an important contributor to successful teams (Donmez & Gudela, 2013; Tripp & Armstrong, 2018). Self-managing teams have been associated with a range of positive effects (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), such as increased productivity, job satisfaction, and higher commitment. Junker et. al. (2021) also found that Agile teams take more ownership of their improvements when they experience high autonomy. Melo et. al. (2013) also identified the ability to self-manage work as a critical success factor for teams.
Teams do not always receive enough organizational support in this area. Moe et. al. (2019) see this as particularly challenging in large-scale environments where the desire to increase team autonomy often competes with a desire to align teams and coordinate decision-making. This is why management support is important. Effective management support has been identified as a critical factor for effective agile teams in many studies (Verwijs & Russo, 2022, Van Waardenburg & Van Vliet, 2013, de Souza Bemerjo et. al., 2014, Young & Jordan, 2008). Russo (2021) investigated success factors for Agile transformations and found that commitment from top management is critical. Unfortunately, many organizations still apply traditional management practices to self-managing Agile teams (Boehm & Turner, 2005), such as skill specialization and statistical process control, that effectively treat team members as interchangeable parts.
Studies suggest that changes in team composition have at least a temporary effect on overall team performance (Summers, Humphrey & Ferris, 2012). As teams reconstitute, they have to rebuild their collaboration. Several pathways explain why this happens. First, teams have to rebuild a shared understanding of their roles, collaboration and tasks, or "team cognition" (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010). Second, routines have to be re-established (Hansson, Haerem & Pentland, 2021). Third, socio-cognitive resources have to rebuild through updated work agreements, workflow expectations and social cohesion (Bechky & Ockhuysen, 2011).
However, it is likely that teams can reconstitute more quickly if they develop routines to do so or receive support to do so properly. Research on what kind of interventions are helpful here are ongoing, but it is likely that shared training, task elaboration and explicate formulation of workflow expectations are helpful here (Bushe & Chu, 2011).
The self-managing nature of teams requires a very different approach from management. Rather than telling teams what to do and how they do it, the focus shifts from "leading others to lead themselves". Manz & Sims (1987) studied how external leaders can most effectively support self-managing teams. They found that the external leaders are most effective when they encourage teams to a) set their own goals, b) be self-critical, c) to observe and evaluate themselves and d) try and rehearse different strategies.
Effective management support has been identified as a critical factor for effective agile teams in many studies (Verwijs & Russo, 2022, Van Waardenburg & Van Vliet, 2013, de Souza Bemerjo et. al., 2014, Young & Jordan, 2008). Russo (2021) investigated success factors for agile transformations and found that commitment from top management is critical. Unfortunately, many organizations still apply traditional management practices to self-managing agile teams (Boehm & Turner, 2005), such as skill specialization and statistical process control, that effectively treat team members as interchangeable parts.
Our model covers the areas that we found to be most relevant to the effectiveness of most teams. This is a great starting point to diagnose and improve teams. However, every model is inherently a simplification of a complex reality. Models are also a generalization. So don't limit your diagnosis to just our model. Your team may be influenced strongly by factors that we didn't include in our model. So interpret the results and identify improvements together. And let us know at info@scrumteamsurvey.org what you think is missing.
We calculate the score for each factor through psychometric scales. Each factor is measured by one or more questions that are designed to measure the same factor, but from a slightly different angle. This reduces bias due to different interpretations and provides more statistical variance to work with. We carefully developed the scales and their questions through the approach outlined in this peer reviewed study.
Learn more about how we calculate the results here.