top of page

What Really Makes Teams Perform

Dr.-Ing. Peter Chvojka, Colaborix GmbH

January 2026


Many leaders still try to improve team performance by training harder, motivating more, or introducing new tools. But decades of research tell a different story: performance rarely changes unless the system teams work within is designed to support it.

Our founder, Peter Stefanyi, recently reviewed academic and applied research on team effectiveness and organizational interventions. Two themes stood out clearly and they challenge how most organizations approach improvement.

 

Why This Matters

 Whether you’re introducing AI, redesigning workflows, or trying to boost collaboration, team performance is often treated as a people problem. If results lag, we train individuals, coach leaders, or roll out new methods.

 

But research summarized in Colaborix’s recent articles shows a consistent pattern:training and tools only work when organizational design enables them. When it doesn’t, even highly capable teams struggle.

 

These insights are especially relevant now, as organizations expect teams to adapt faster, learn continuously, and integrate AI into everyday work often without changing the conditions under which work happens.

 

Key Research Insights Colaborix Uncovered 

1️⃣ Design Enables Training — Not the Other Way Around 

In Hierarchical Dependencies in Organizational Interventions, Colaborix examined studies showing that organizational structure and design determine whether training has any lasting impact.

Across multiple interventions, a clear hierarchy emerged:

  • Structural design (Level 1) acts as the foundational gate, defining roles, decision rights and dependencies.

  • Capability development (Level 2) via training builds skills, but these only translate into performance if the structure supports them.

  • Optimization (Level 3) via coaching and consulting creates compounding results, but only works after the structure and capabilities are stable.

When teams operate in poorly designed systems — unclear accountability, conflicting goals, excessive dependencies — training improvements fade quickly.

 

Core insight:Training is not a lever for fixing broken systems. It amplifies what the system already allows.

 

2️⃣ Teams Perform Best When the System Is Coherent

In The Architecture of Team Performance, Colaborix synthesized research showing that high-performing teams are not defined by talent alone, but by alignment across multiple dimensions.

Effective teams consistently show:

  • Clear purpose and priorities

  • Well-defined roles and responsibilities

  • Decision-making authority close to the work

  • Feedback loops that support learning

When these elements are misaligned, teams compensate with extra effort — meetings, coordination, escalation — which looks like engagement but often masks inefficiency.

 

Key takeaway:Performance is an emergent property of the system, not a personality trait of the team.

 

3️⃣ More Effort Cannot Compensate for Poor Design

One of the most important — and uncomfortable — findings highlighted by Colaborix is that effort does not reliably overcome structural friction.

Research shows that:

  • Teams in poorly designed environments burn out faster

  • High motivation often leads to overwork, not better outcomes

  • Improvements plateau when root causes are structural, not behavioral

This explains why many transformation initiatives show early gains, followed by stagnation. Teams try harder — but the architecture of work remains unchanged.



What This Means for Leaders and Practitioners

For Executives and Sponsors

  • Stop asking teams to “upskill” before clarifying structure

  • Examine decision rights, dependencies, and priorities before funding training

  • Treat organizational design as a strategic performance lever

Leadership question:Are we investing in capability without fixing the conditions that allow it to be used?


For Team Leads and Managers

  • Don’t interpret friction as a motivation problem too quickly

  • Look for recurring coordination issues — they often signal design gaps

  • Advocate upward when constraints block your team’s ability to apply skills

Manager reflection:What forces my team to work around the system instead of with it?


For Change Agents and AI Champions

  • Anchor interventions in real workflows, not abstract competencies

  • Sequence change correctly: design → behavior → skills

  • Use pilots to surface structural blockers, not just use cases

Practical insight:If AI or new ways of working “don’t stick,” the issue may be architectural, not technical.


The Bottom Line

The research is unambiguous: teams don’t fail because they lack effort or intelligence. They struggle when the system they operate in works against them.

 

If organizations want better performance, especially in an era of AI-enabled work, the answer is not more pressure or more training. It’s better design.



Read the full research articles:

Comments

bottom of page