High Performance Teaming

High Performance Teaming:
Interdependence Drives Collaboration
By Dave Hanna
Partner, The HPO Global Alliance
As we all know, in business, sports, communities, and
families, there are teams and then there are teams.
What is it that truly holds a team together and
positions it to be a high performer? Is it:
• Individual competencies?
• Team culture?
• Challenging goals?
• Harmonious relationships?
• Strong leadership?
• Team structure?
• Good coaching?
These are all important contributors to team
effectiveness, but they can be cancelled out if
something else is missing. That something –
interdependence – is the invisible glue that engages
all of the above factors and holds teams together.
To fully understand what interdependence means,
we must first contrast it with two related terms:
independence and dependence. Independence
describes situations where “I can get what I need by
myself.” Dependence describes situations where “I
am controlled by someone or something else.”
Interdependence describes situatons where “we
need each other to get what we need.” The “we need”
element in this definition connects the notion of a
common goal with interdependence. Our common
goal requires us to collaborate and work together.
© 2016 The HPO Global Alliance. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or using any information storage or retrieval
system, for any purpose without the express written permission of The HPO Global Alliance.
The HPO Global Alliance ©2016
1

The purpose of this paper is to more closely examine
the dynamics of interdependence and review some
design mechanisms that have been used successfully
to reinforce the effectiveness of interdependent
teamwork.
A Team in Name Only
I have often come across situationswhere I was
introduced to a “team” in an organization. Some
of these teams had50 members. Some were a
collection of individuals in the same department
who came together periodically only to share
information. Many teams were struggling to improve
their teamwork and reach very challenging business
targets because some of their roles were duplicative
or did not add value to the targets. In my opinion,
none of these was actually a team.
Some people don’t like teams. For independent
people who actually get needed results working
alone, spending time with a team of people only
is no compelling common team goal. There is no
binding glue.
Of such teams, W. Edwards Deming used to say,
“Can you imagine anything more destructive than to tell
people to do their best? People whose goals conflict with
each other and who are headed in different directions?
If you tell them to do their best, they will all charge off in
different directions even faster.”
Then Deming would add the punch line, “It might be
better to say nothing.”
As Deming points out, defining some team goals
that every member deeply cares about and is
fully committed to fulfill is the foundation of
interdependence. But other factors have to kick in
to bind team members together.
There are different levels of interdependence: task,
support, function, and leadership. Let’s examine
carefully each of these levels.
Task interdependence
We need each other’s efforts to produce our immediate
required output.
This is the primary interdependency of a team, to
work together to deliver the output and fulfill the
goal. Clearly defining the tasks and team member
roles for performing them is essential to get the
work done.
Harvard professor J. Richard Hackman’s research
identified five primary conditions that increase
team effectiveness. Three of them relate to this task
slows them down and dilutes the expertise they
personally bring to the business. Their resentment is
real if team members are not truly interdependent;
if they have been organized under the simple
assumption that any form of teamwork is better.
Unless the teamwork is actually designed to add
value to individual contributions, a team may exist
in name only.
The above diagram illustrates “a team in name only.”
It is made up of independent individuals who have
various and conflicting needs and goals. This team
is literally coming apart at the seams because there

interdependence:
1. A compelling purpose: one that is clear,
challenging, consequential, and focused on
ends rather than means.
2. A real team: clear boundaries that define
a whole task (tangible products or services),
task interdependence, and moderate stability.
3. An enabling work structure (tasks, roles,
and norms of conduct).
These three conditions are brought to life by the
organization design elements of common purpose,
boundaries, tasks, structure, roles, and norms
of conduct. In other words, you can design task
interdependence into an organizational unit.
Here’s an example of these design features in action:
The “Alpha” team worked in a production operation
for a Fortune 500 company. It had five members who
operated one production line. The team members
took great pride in their product as it provided
important health care for family members. “I make
product X,” team members would eagerly tell their
neighbors.
Each person was responsible for one of the production
tasks that had to be in sync with all the others. If one
area came to a stop, the entire process stopped. Once
each team member mastered his/her responsibilities,
the production process had very few stoppages.
The raw materials were tested thoroughly to ensure
their compatibility with the production process.
Equipment was maintained on a strict schedule to
minimize wear and tear and breakdowns. Quality was
monitored frequently during each shift. Accounting
systems monitored performance vs. budget and
cost savings totals. Team members were trained
periodically on technical skills, teamwork practices,
and new equipment operation.
Most of these support tasks were done by the team
members themselves in addition to their operating
responsibilities. Their task interdependence was
very high and spanned the entire breadth of what
was needed to deliver a high quality product to the
customer. Small wonder that Alpha team’s product
was number one in the market.
Support interdependence
We need each other’s support from time to time to
produce our immediate required output.
No work process ever runs 100% error free all the
time. Team members occasionally need help from
others to keep things running smoothly. So team
members must be willing and able to help each other
when the occasions arise. This is #4 in Hackman’s
conditions for effective teams.
4. A supportive social system that provides
resources and assistance when needed.
In the words of Brian Andreas:
“You may not remember the time you let me go
first.
Or the time you dropped back to tell me it wasn’t
that far to go.
Or the time you waited at the crossroads for me
to catch up.
You may not remember any of those, but I do and
this is what I have to say to you:
Today, no matter what it takes, we ride home
together.”
This same dynamic from the foregoing verses occurs
at work when team members help each other
out of annoying, embarrassing, or even dangerous
situations. Or when experienced team members
help newcomers join up smoothly and effectively.
Such support changes relationships and shapes
reciprocal collaboration among individuals.
Though such a supportive culture is driven largely
by team norms of mutual support, it also can be
strengthened by some design features. For instance,
periodic rotation among task roles gives each team
member the competence to help out in other roles
and the experience to understand their complexities.
The HPO Global Alliance ©2016
3

As the diagram illustrates, mutual support is enabled
when team members have experience in each
other’s tasks. Here’s a good example of this support
interdependence by a leader in the hotel industry:
All managers at the “Omega” Hotel started their
employment at the front desk because of its close
connection with every other department in the hotel.
Registration, concierge, housekeeping, maintenance,
restaurants, room service, business center, parking,
banquets & catering, and conferences all had to
be integrated with the front desk so the guests
experienced a seamless delivery of hotel services.
After successful completion of this first assignment,
managers were then transferred to one of these
other departments for full-time responsibility.
This system easily imbued every Omega manager with
a clear view of the big picture – how his/her function
needed to team up with any other group in the hotel.
In unusual or emergency situations, these managers
could even fill in for a short-period of time in another
department – with no noticeable drop in service to
the hotel guests. The Omega Hotel continues to be
among the world leaders in guest satisfaction.
Functional Interdependence
Our functional outputs must be aligned with others to
deliver the ultimate required output.
Your teamwork and its output are only pieces of
a larger process, illustrated here by three teams.
Interdependent tasks and needs for support extend
beyond your own immediate team. The alignment
of the multiple functions that make up the larger
process is critical for delivering a high quality product
to the end user. In other words, whole systems
alignment, more so than individual team brilliance,
delivers the greatest overall value.
There are many organization design tools that can
foster this functional interdependence. For example,
the functional process needs a clearly defined goal
just as each individual team does. This functional
goal, however, is different than the mere collection
of sub-team goals. The functional process goal
should specify the desired outputs when the subteams
work together. This might be reflected in cycle
times, quality standards, or continuous improvement
targets in addition to the final output for the end
user.
Multifunctional strategy teams, business teams,
or project teams can integrate and align different
functions’ priorities and work processes to optimize
the whole and not just the parts. Networks and
learning communities can generate big ideas and
move them through the organization much faster than
traditional processes. Boundary-spanning specialist
roles in IT, product technologies, organization design,
legal, finance, and similar functions can re-apply new
developments quickly and easily.
Here is what one team was able to accomplish
because of its superb functional interdependence:
Infiniti was a new smartphone that was trying to break
into a very crowded marketplace. Other brands were
already well established; customers had their “favorite”
phone and would be a hard sell to consider a new
alternative.
Company management formed a multifunctional team
made up of representatives from all the functions that
contributed to the phone. The team also included
market representatives from the major markets
around the globe. This team was given the mission to
expand the Infiniti worldwide.
The team considered marketing campaigns,
technology options, costs, and sales environments in
the different markets. Team members interacted with
all local markets to find out what the opportunities
and problems might be in each. The output of these
many discussions was a reference book that clearly
outlined what a winning strategy could be in each
market. When this book was reviewed in each
country, several of them volunteered to take on the
new phone.
The HPO Global Alliance ©2016
4

Because the Infiniti team had a global test market
plan, the true potential of the product was tested in
all countries simultaneously, not country by country
as had been the previous practice. Opportunities
were seized, problems were overcome, and the new
product rolled out successfully in record time. Today
Infiniti is a successful competitor in many markets.
Leadership Interdependence
We need each other’s support in fulfilling our team
leadership responsibilities.
This is an area that most managers overlook when
considering teams and interdependence. The first
three levels of interdependence focus on the work
to be done and the relationships of those who must
team together. In most organizations the teams are
then led by one supervisor or team leader.
Leadership interdependence is about dividing up
different aspects of team leadership and then sharing
them among some team members.
When teams are comprised mostly of competent,
committed team members who seek to contribute
to the continuous success of the business, such teams
are ideal candidates to also become interdependent
in leadership responsibilities. Teams at this level
experience the final condition of Hackman’s effective
team research:
5. Competent coaching is timely to help the
team get over rough spots and take advantage
of opportunities.
When different team members share leadership
responsibilities, they have to count on each other’s
support just as surely as when they execute their
work tasks. For example, if the Technical Leader is
disruptive and not attentive when the Administration
Leader is handling team business, what kind of
support can the Technical Leader expect to have
when it is her/his turn? Interdependent leadership
dynamics build even greater team cohesion than
task interdependence alone.
Additionally, shared team leadership actually can
improve the quality of leadership as this case
example demonstrates:
A Silicon Valley network storage company, “Filz,”
faced a brutal corporate life-or-death challenge. In
six months, a competitor was coming out with a
new server that would make Filz’s current product
obsolete. Although Filz had a new product in the
works, its typical product development rollout took
thirteen months from concept to product.
The company aimed to deliver its new product in five
months, a mighty goal, but one without a clearplan
to succeed. The company was functionallyfragmented
into many different departments. Now these functions
would have to interact seamlessly with much dialog
and many tradeoffs in a very short period of time.
If they failed to do this, several thousand employees
would be out of work.
Filz formed 25 multifunctional teams composed of
hardware and software engineers, sprinkled with a dash
of marketing, operations, and finance representatives.
Each team was charged with building one of the
features as part of the new product architecture.
However, none of the teams had a member with
experience leading such a team.
It was time for a reframe. Instead of considering
the leadership function as something for which one
person would take complete responsibility, the 10
team leadership functions were each discussed and
assigned to whomever could manage one, two, or
even three items. For most teams, three or four
people combined their abilities to fill the requirements
for the list of 10.
These three or four team leaders had to negotiate
the overlapping issues with their related counterparts
on the other 24 teams. Each leader worked hard to
correctly determine which of the other teams they
needed to connect with functionally. Typically, two to
four teams needed to align their output with each
other. Next, the team leaders worked together to
bridge overlaps and differences and work out practical
compromises in the interests of the larger objective.
A new culture was emerging within this network of
small clusters of interdependent team leaders. Things
The HPO Global Alliance ©2016
5

were getting done quickly and effectively. Benchmarks
and timelines were being met. Engineers talked about
how they were solving the technical problems with
each other without the usual delays, unnecessary
group meetings, and second-guessing from managers
above them. Each of the 10 leadership areas actually
received closer attention and better alignment
because of the dispersed leadership structure.
Bottom line: Filz’s 25 teams all came through. They
delivered their new product in three and a half
months! They shattered their own “unrealistic” target
and saved their company as well as their own jobs.
organization design of teamwork. Design your
organizational roles, processes, and systems to align
with natural interdependencies in tasks, support
needs, functional alignments, and leadership to
develop teams that have the capability to respond
appropriately to any set of tasks in any situation.
When you must collaborate to get results, you find a
way to do it. When collaboration gets better results,
you actually want to do it.
Conclusion
There is much discussion today about the need for
teamwork and collaboration. Some are for it; some
are not in favor of it. Some organizations overdo it
by forcing teams and collaboration when the tasks
at hand really don’t require it. Other organizations
suffer because they don’t (and can’t) collaborate
when the tasks do require it. What is not recognized
often enough is the underlying condition that drives
the need for collaboration. This is the condition of
interdependence.
Interdependence isn’t required for every task. Nor
is collaboration always the answer to a problem.Let
independent people do independent tasks. Eliminate
unnecessary functional dependencies in the work
place. But, as the organizational examples provided
here demonstrate, you must be able to collaborate
when interdependence is real.
The Alpha production team was essentially selfsufficient
for producing its product every day. And
that’s exactly what it was designed to do.
All managers in the Omega Hotel understood the
interdependencies in their organization and could
add value by teaming up with other departments.
Their “big picture” perspectives and attitudes were
contagious to all Omega associates. Guests never
heard, “That’s not my job,” from an Omega associate.
The Infiniti smartphone overcame conventional
market wisdom and global challenges by collaborating
to deliver the right product in less time to multiple
markets because their team members created and
deployed a strategy that paid off.
Filz saved itself by distributing traditional leadership
responsibilities to multiple teams and team members,
who each led integration efforts with each other.
Team spirit and goodwill are critical, but so is the
The HPO Global Alliance ©2016
6