In this post I want to outline something that I end up pontificating on a lot and explaining to new leaders. The difference between what an efficient team looks like, what an effective team looks like, and the spectrum / tradeoffs between the two. Finally I also talk about what high performing teams actually look like.

Teams optimized for efficiency

Efficient teams are characterized by being able to operate with the most minimal resources necessary to deliver. They are lean and scrappy, with every resource fully utilized. They look great on the bottom line. They are one incident, pivot or complexity discovery away from disaster. The problem is they have no slack to absorb the unexpected and in our industry, there's always something unexpected.

Teams optimized for effectiveness

Effective teams are characterized by their ability to consistently deliver, on or under time, pivot at a moment's notice, and deliver something that hadn't even been conceptualized a short time ago. They can anticipate a need from a mile away, handle unexpected incidents, and still deliver their projects on time. They can do this because they have resources to spare. There's slack in their capacity which allows them to absorb the unexpected complications that will inevitably arise. They are also more expensive on paper.

The slider between effective and efficient

Costs, both hidden and visible, are the tradeoffs. The cost difference between the two can almost be thought of as an insurance policy. By running a team more efficiently, you're lessening your costs, but also lessening their capacity to absorb the unexpected. This will result in higher incidence of missed deadlines, unexpected outages, and of course, fatigue and burnout on the team. In contrast, a team staffed with greater amounts of unallocated capacity is going to look more expensive on the bottom line, but will be able to be more consistent in deliverables and less prone to disruption. You'll have a healthier, happier team, and that results in better, higher quality, outcomes.

What does a true, high performing team, look like?

So far I've talked about resourcing as a dial you set. But there's a separate question that resourcing alone doesn't answer: what does the team look like when it's actually working?

I've had the pleasure of working with many teams and a whole bunch of leaders of all calibers during my career. I'll tell a story, give an analogy, and then some further thoughts.

A story from my past, a tale of two teams

At one company I previously worked at, there were two teams for one mobile app. One was for the iOS version, the other for the Android version. One team was almost a dozen people between developers and QA. They occupied an entire room, were constantly in frantic motion, lots of visible running around late nights and weekends, trying to get things closed out by the last minute. The other team was significantly smaller, only two developers and a QA. They shared a room with another team, mine. In the morning they would put their heads together, talk for about 15 minutes, then get to work. At noon they went to lunch. If they needed to discuss something during the day, they'd stop working, turn their chairs towards each other for a few minutes, then quietly turn back to their monitors and get back to work. They'd usually leave promptly, right at 5, or earlier. One team was motion, smoke and fire constantly, the other was just smooth and quiet.

The drivers

Any fans of top gear? There are two episodes from 2012 that have always stood out to me as a good contrast. will.i.am and Matt LeBlanc. Both of them took a drive in the "Star in a Reasonably Priced Car" segment for episodes in series 18. This segment is where a celebrity would be given a few attempts to drive a track in a "reasonably priced car" and their best time was recorded. will.i.am was exciting. He made a bunch of mistakes but by his final lap he seemed to have it dialed in. Tires were squealing around the corners, hard engine revving etc... Really kept you on the edge of your seat. LeBlanc on the other hand, well Hammond straight up described it as "...boring..." LeBlanc's final lap on the track was almost boring to watch, almost just looked like a dude heading to the store to grab some milk.

Who's actually high performance

So in each of the previous cases, which one was the actual high performer? The one that was exciting to look at with lots of motion, smoke, noise, and excitement? Hammond said it best in his full quote about LeBlanc's best run. "The more boring it looks, the faster it often is." That's it. The best teams I've worked with have been straight up boring. They are quiet, unassuming professionals that just get shit done without a lot of noise and fuss. Things are organized, quiet, and move smoothly. Disruptions are handled as part of the standard process and there just isn't a lot of disruptive noises, emergency meetings, fire drills, or the other things that make for exciting TV.