Over the years we have accumulated a vast data base of teams. Of course we are curious to see what we can learn by looking at the results. This lesson provides a sampling of that investigation.
This is a rich source of information that can be used in many different ways. We invite you to use the data in marketing materials and presentations. If you quote from this research please remember to give attribution:
“Data from the Team Diagnostic™ assessment data base © 2015 Team Coaching International used with permission.”
Note: the data analysis below is based on:
Measurement data from teams where we have the results from the initial assessment and results from the follow-up assessment after a period of coaching. In the descriptions below this is called “comparison data”.
Data from 200 random teams representing approximately 2,000 team members. Team sizes, industry segment, team type and geography all vary. All teams in this sample were English speaking. This data is referred to below as the “meta-data” sample.
Comparison Data
- 30% of teams in comparison data (“before” and “after”) reach High Productivity/High Positivity after coaching
- On average, there is a:
- 19% increase in Positivity factors
- 18% increase in Productivity factors
- The highest increases we’ve seen are:
- 107% increase in Positivity
- 90% increase in Productivity
Meta-data
- In the meta-data sample less than 10% of teams rated themselves as High-High on their baseline assessment[1]
- Average score of the 200 teams for Productivity: 5.3
- Average score for Positivity: 5.0
- Productivity Team Performance Indicator™ that scored the highest: Alignment (6.0)
- Positivity Team Performance Indicator™ that scored the highest: Respect (5.6)
Measurement Data
High-High Teams from the comparison database compared to meta-data:
- 53% increase in Positivity
- 31% increase in Productivity
| Top 5 increases | Meta Data | High-High | % |
| 1. Accountability | 4.4 | 7.3 | 67% |
| 2. Communication | 4.3 | 7.0 | 63% |
| 3. Optimism | 4.7 | 7.3 | 56% |
| 4. Trust | 4.7 | 7.2 | 53% |
| 5. Const Interaction | 4.7 | 6.9 | 48% |
| Other Increases | Meta Data | High-High | % |
| 6. Team Leadership | 5.1 | 7.3 | 44% |
| 7. Proactive | 5.3 | 7.3 | 39% |
| 8. Values Diversity | 5.3 | 7.2 | 36% |
| 9. Respect | 5.6 | 7.6 | 36% |
| 10. Camaraderie | 5.6 | 7.5 | 35% |
| 11. Resources | 5.2 | 7.0 | 34% |
| 12. Goals & Strategy | 5.4 | 7.2 | 34% |
| 13. Alignment | 6.0 | 7.5 | 25% |
| 14. Decision Making | 5.5 | 6.8 | 23% |
| Communication | Decision Making | ||
| Minimum | 4.3 | 6.8 | |
| Alignment | Respect | ||
| Maximum | 6.0 | 7.6 | |
| Range | 1.7 | 0.8 | 53% |
Meta-data teams have a wider variation across all scores: more peaks and valleys.
High-High teams are more well-rounded: range of scores is 53% less than meta-data teams.
| QUAD SCORES | Productivity | Positivity | |||
| Low | High | Low | High | ||
| Meta-data | 3.0 | 7.3 | 3.0 | 7.3 | |
| High-High | 5.4 | 8.4 | 5.6 | 8.5 | |
Baseline Improvement Comments
What are the top challenges of the team?
- We need more open and honest communication.
- Need more clear communication and listening to/supporting each other
- Need better communication of expectations
- Miscommunication
- Conflict – we don’t know how to feel comfortable voicing and working through it.
- Feelings built up that go unexpressed
- Silos and camps “taking sides”. Throwing teammates under the bus.
- Determining the structure and who is responsible for what tasks.
- Understanding roles on team
- Lack of clear roles, timely feedback and support, and open communication.
- Lack of accountability
Comments from High-High Teams
How has the team changed since beginning the team coaching process?
- The team went from confusion regarding roles, responsibilities, and how best to communicate, to a team that:
- Has members that are accountable to each other and the process
- Has a structure of how to address new projects and how to meet deadlines
- Has the ability to discuss concerns openly without fear of criticism
- Has fun while in the throws of a great deal of pressure
- We listen to each other and try to draw the best knowledge from each other.
- The team has assigned timelines to work towards which is helping meet deadlines.
- The team is more cohesive and more structured (in a good way). We have developed a vision for the team and a process to manage controversial decisions.
- We have: clarification of roles, new team agreements, common language, and increased willingness to be vulnerable with one another.
- We keep the door of communication open without avoiding any tough conversation because we now have common language to use.
- We have developed and are continuing to use team agreements and a common language to help us be transparent and communicate more effectively.
- We have a higher degree of comfort and ability to be empathetic with each other.
- We understand that conflict resolution can pave the way for productive change, which benefits the team’s ability to achieve its goals.
- The Team Diagnostic™ has helped identify specific needs (that may or may not have been known) and we now have the tools to work through them individually and collectively.
- The Team Diagnostic™ helped us look at the team’s goals as a whole (the big picture) instead of focusing on our individual silos. We now have a clear sense and understanding of all our needs, wants, and goals and apply it to the team, not just the individual.
- We set the following parameters for High-High qualification:Average Productivity and Positivity score of 6.5 or higher. Lowest scoring Productivity and Positivity items not less than 4.5.