Essays
Recent engagements gave us the opportunity to further conceptualize and test a holistic approach to team performance.
During one of our scoping discussions, we were told:Something does not gel. We have tried so many things – staff empowerment, strategic retreats, continuous delivery monitoring. And yet: our performance levels are not where they are supposed to be.
This intrigued us, because it expressed a recurring observation from nearly two decades of work on performance issues: targeted and technically sound interventions often fail to generate the intended step change.
At the same time, we have seen teams change almost overnight – with the arrival of new management, after a significant context change, or following the launch of a new programme. This contrast suggests that performance is not merely the additive result of technical improvements, but the outcome of deeper systemic shifts.
Take the example of an international development actor in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2003: For many years, the team managed a modest, traditional programme with an annual delivery of approximately USD 12 million and operated largely below internal and external radars. Following the conclusion of the Sun City Peace Agreements and the gradual launch of a large-scale institutional reform programme, the team’s profile changed dramatically. Delivery increased to over USD 200 million by 2005. The office became a magnet for talent and ambition, and a sense of shared momentum emerged almost overnight.
What triggers such massive performance changes? And is there a way to conceptualize this dynamic and apply it to other teams?
The traditional approach: Improving the business model
The traditional approach to team performance typically rests on a familiar logic: strong capacities (people), adequate funding, a clear organizational structure, efficient business processes, and a guiding strategy.
Accordingly, significant effort has been invested in improving organizational business models. The first step often consists of identifying capacity gaps or required shifts in skills and profiles, translating these into critical positions, and eventually filling them with the right people.
Financial modeling in the public sector, particularly in international development cooperation, has gained importance as the donor landscape has evolved, funding modalities have changed, and budget constraints for international development actors have intensified.
We have spent much of our professional lives designing organizational structures that provide clarity regarding roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines. Over time, we learned that highly centralized, command-and-control structures can stifle initiative and performance, while more organic, adaptable, and flatter models often outperform traditional hierarchical designs. Read more
When it comes to organizational strategy, public sector institutions, and particularly United Nations organizations, have well-established processes for developing cooperation frameworks, country strategies, and programme theories of change.
Yet we often find that even when all these elements are in place and well aligned, performance still falls short of expectations.
Culture matters – more than you think
A frequently cited observation, often attributed to Peter Drucker, captures this tension succinctly:Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
Organizational culture – values, norms, cognitive biases, and behaviors – ultimately determines whether any strategy succeeds or fails, by shaping everyday decision-making, risk-taking, and informal power dynamics. Culture also determines whether an organizational business model actually functions as intended.
We have over the years confirmed the assumption that high-performing organizational cultures rest on a dynamic equilibrium among four core orientations: results, collaboration, adaptability, and accountability. Organizations never achieve a perfect balance. However, understanding which orientations dominate in practice provides a powerful entry point for recalibrating performance. Leadership plays a critical role in defining, incentivizing, and modeling organizational culture, and we have repeatedly observed rapid cultural shifts triggered by changes in leadership style.
A further foundational element of a constructive organizational culture is the creation of a safe space at work – one underpinned by respect, community, protection, and mutual support. Respect ensures that colleagues are valued for their contributions and treated with dignity. Community fosters a sense of belonging and shared purpose. Protection relates to staff safety, psychological wellbeing, and accountability for misconduct. Mutual support emphasizes empathy, encouragement, and collaboration across teams. These elements are not “soft” add-ons; they are preconditions for learning, accountability, and sustained performance.
Since introducing organizational culture assessments and safe-space practices five years ago, our work has gained depth and meaning. It no longer addresses only the mechanics of business models, but also contributes to shifts in organizational DNA.
And yet, we have encountered teams with solid business models, balanced organizational cultures, and well-functioning safe spaces that still failed to perform at the levels required by their mandate.
Aligning individual and team purpose
The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.As often quoted (and attributed to Mark Twain)
We would argue that aligning one’s individual purpose with the purpose of the team may be among the most powerful drivers of sustained performance. When people understand why their work matters and how it contributes to a shared mission, energy, ownership, and commitment tend to rise significantly.
Put simply, individuals perform at their best when they are motivated by more than tasks and outputs. Teams perform at their best when they are guided by a shared purpose that each member can meaningfully relate to and that create mutual support.
We have found that this process of organizational soul-searching can be facilitated. The most effective leaders we have worked with possess the ability to articulate a compelling shared purpose and to help each team member find their role – and their individual sense of purpose – within it.
We have also witnessed colleagues who had been written off as underperformers undergo remarkable performance turnarounds once their role, motivation, and purpose were realigned with team objectives.
The alignment of individual and team purpose is therefore the third critical element of organizational performance. Together with business model and culture, it completes the performance system. Like culture, this alignment is never static: contexts change, teams evolve, and individuals grow. Sustaining it requires continuous attention and intentional leadership.
The holy grail of team performance
Where we stand today, we believe – and have experienced – that this systemic, holistic approach offers a practical and robust way to address the often-elusive challenge of organizational performance. We operationalize this through an organizational performance pyramid composed of three interdependent layers: the business model, organizational culture, and shared purpose.
Like any living organism, these elements evolve over time and require continuous care and recalibration. Senior management and team leaders play a critical role in this process, but lasting change only occurs when every individual actively contributes.
