Building Productive Teams

Most people are taught how to be high performers. But too few are taught how to perform in a team. And that’s a problem, because in most roles, you’re not an individual contributor. You’re part of a larger entity, working with others to build something. Yet, I see founders spend hours refining their product or systems,  But don't devote time to team development. At HomeServe, I approached team performance with purpose,  And it was one of the best decisions I made. Here are 7 tools I’ve used (and still use) to build high-performing teams,  Based on real lessons from building a £4.1bn business: 1️⃣ Start With Why (Simon Sinek) ↳ Before you focus on what or how...get clear on why. WHAT – The product you sell or the service you provide HOW – What makes you different WHY – Your deeper purpose or belief Every great team needs a reason to get out of bed in the morning. 2️⃣ The 70-20-10 Rule (McCall, Lombardo & Eichinger) ↳ How people actually learn on the job: 70% from challenging experiences 20% from coaching and mentoring 10% from formal training Most teams over-invest in training, and under-invest in real development. I'm amazed at how few founders or CEOs have a coach or mentor. 3️⃣ The Trust Triangle (Frances Frei, Harvard) ↳ Trust isn’t built with perks. It’s earned in three ways: Authenticity – Are you real? Logic – Do your decisions make sense? Empathy – Do you care? Without trust, you can’t build speed or loyalty. 4️⃣ The 5 Stages of Team Development (Tuckman Model) 1. Forming – Team gets together 2. Storming – Conflicts surface 3. Norming – Ground rules form 4. Performing – Results roll in 5. Adjourning – Project ends or evolves Don't panic during ‘storming’. It’s necessary friction. 5️⃣ The Johari Window (Luft & Ingham) ↳ Self-awareness is a team sport. Open – You know, they know Hidden – You know, they don’t Blind Spot – They know, you don’t Unknown – No one knows (yet) This helps surface feedback, build confidence, and avoid surprises. 6️⃣ The Energy/Impact Matrix (Inspired by McKinsey) ↳ Map every team member’s impact vs. energy. Use it to: Make smart hiring/firing decisions Spot burnout early Retain high performers High-performing teams don’t tolerate drift. 7️⃣ The RAPID Decision-Making Model (Bain & Company) ↳ High-performing teams make fast, clear decisions. Recommend – Suggest the course of action Agree – Those who must sign off Perform – Executes the decision Input – Provides relevant facts or opinions Decide – Final decision-maker This clears up delays, dropped balls, and blame. Building a great team is about building an environment where talent can actually thrive. I go deeper into team-building in my new book. Order it today: https://lnkd.in/eRYDKXdT ♻️ Repost if you believe team performance should be built, not assumed. And for more on how I scaled teams to build a £4.1bn business, Follow me Richard Harpin.

The New York Times profiled a start-up with 28 employees serving nearly 50 million users. That company is us. The traditional startup playbook: raise massive funding, hire hundreds of employees, and worry about profitability "later." But there's another way. Everyone at Gamma could fit in a small restaurant. We're not just surviving—we've been profitable for 15+ consecutive months, with revenue growing month over month, and lifetime negative net burn (we have more money in the bank than we've raised). This isn't an accident. We've deliberately designed our organization to maximize impact per person. Instead of creating specialist silos, we hire versatile generalists who can solve problems across domains. Rather than building management hierarchies, we find player-coaches who both lead and execute. Our team leverages AI tools throughout our workflow - Claude for data analysis, Cursor for coding efficiency, NotebookLM for customer research synthesis. These aren't just productivity hacks; they're force multipliers. Examples: — When our growth PM needed better analytics, he didn't file a ticket with a data team—he built a self-serve system that anyone can use without SQL knowledge. — When our marketing lead needed to understand our customers better, she fed thousands of interactions into an LLM and created actionable personas that now guide our entire strategy. — When our design team needs to test a hypothesis, we create a rapid prototype and show it to our power users. What we're seeing isn't just about "doing more with less." It's about fundamentally changing what's possible per person. The most valuable employees aren't specialists who excel in narrow domains - they're resourceful problem-solvers who continuously expand their capabilities. This approach creates remarkable resilience. Since everyone understands multiple functions, we don't have single points of failure when someone leaves or moves to another project. If you're building today, the question isn't how quickly you can scale headcount … it's how much impact you can create with the smallest possible team. The future belongs to tiny teams of extraordinary people.

Scaling from 50 to 100 employees almost killed our company. Until we discovered a simple org structure that unlocked $100M+ in annual revenue. In my 10+ years of experience as a founder, one of the biggest challenges I faced in scaling was bridging the organizational gap between startup and enterprise. We hit that wall at around 100~ employees. What worked beautifully with a small team suddenly became our biggest obstacle to growth. The problem was our functional org structure: Engineers reporting to engineering, product to product, business to business. This created a complex dependency web: • Planning took weeks • No clear ownership  • Business threw Jira tickets over the fence and prayed for them to get completed • Engineers didn’t understand priorities and worked on problems that didn’t align with customer needs That was when I studied Amazon's Single-Threaded Owner (STO) model, in which dedicated GMs run independent business units with their own cross-functional teams and manage P&L It looked great for Amazon's scale but felt impossible for growing companies like ours. These 2 critical barriers made it impractical for our scale: 1. Engineering Squad Requirements: True STO demands complete engineering teams (including managers) reporting to a single owner. At our size, we couldn't justify full engineering squads for each business unit. To make it work, we would have to quadruple our engineering headcount. 2. P&L Owner Complexity: STO leaders need unicorn-level skills: deep business acumen and P&L management experience. Not only are these leaders rare and expensive, but requiring all these skills in one person would have limited our talent pool and slowed our ability to launch new initiatives. What we needed was a model that captured STO's focus and accountability but worked for our size and growth needs. That's when we created Mission-Aligned Teams (MATs), a hybrid model that changed our execution (for good) Key principles: • Each team owns a specific mission (e.g., improving customer service, optimizing payment flow) • Teams are cross-functional and self-sufficient,  • Leaders can be anyone (engineer, PM, marketer) who's good at execution • People still report functionally for career development • Leaders focus on execution, not people management The results exceeded our highest expectations: New MAT leads launched new products, each generating $5-10M in revenue within a year with under 10 person teams. Planning became streamlined. Ownership became clear. But it's NOT for everyone (like STO wasn’t for us) If you're under 50 people, the overhead probably isn't worth it. If you're Amazon-scale, pure STO might be better. MAT works best in the messy middle: when you're too big for everyone to be in one room but too small for a full enterprise structure. image courtesy of Manu Cornet ------ If you liked this, follow me Henry Shi as I share insights from my journey of building and scaling a  $1B/year business.

AI won’t kill the Scrum Master role. But it will expose the ones who were just glorified Jira babysitters. You know the type: • Runs the Daily. • Shares the Burndown. • Asks, “Any blockers?” like a broken record. AI can summarize standups, track metrics, and even write user stories The bar has moved. Permanently. What high-performing SMs are doing in 2025 to stay relevant? --------------------------------------------------------------------- 🔹 1. Sprint Planning is a Strategy Room — not a calendar block → Use AI to surface delivery risks based on historical velocity → Guide trade-offs: “Here’s the scope we can commit to with 85% confidence” → Train teams on capacity forecasting using actual throughput 🔹 2. Backlog Refinement = Opportunity to Level Up Your PO → Use ChatGPT to draft acceptance criteria, or flag logical gaps → Run backlog refinement like a product-thinking workshop → Push for clarity, not just ticket grooming 🔹 3. Retrospectives Should Feel Like a Coaching Session, Not a Routine → Go beyond “what went well” → Use AI to analyze sprint data or retro notes for patterns → Start with: “What’s draining our energy right now?” 🎯 Agile isn’t about ceremonies. It’s about conversations that lead to outcomes. Your edge as a Scrum Master isn’t your ability to remove blockers — It’s your ability to elevate the thinking of the team. In a world where tools are getting smarter… Make sure your impact isn’t just seen — but felt. 👇 What’s one AI-powered move you’re using today as an SM?

Your leadership team is underperforming. (And cracking the whip harder won't fix it.) Here's what nobody tells you about accountability: The harder you push, the less they deliver. I've watched CEOs destroy their executive teams this way: 🔥 Public callouts in meetings 🔥 Micromanaging every decision   🔥 Threats disguised as "motivation" 🔥 Fear-based deadline pressure Result: Your best leaders become corporate zombies. They show up. They comply. They stop caring. The expensive truth: Fear creates compliance. Clarity creates commitment. And you need commitment to win. Real story from last month: → CEO constantly berated his team for missing targets → 3 VPs quit in 6 months → Company lost $2M in transition costs alone Different CEO, different approach: → Created radical clarity around expectations → Listened without judgment → Built safety to admit mistakes early → Revenue up 40% in 12 months The difference? One used accountability as a weapon. The other used it as a framework for excellence. The 4 frameworks that create compassionate accountability: 1. RACI Matrix - Ends the "whose job is this?" chaos (Everyone knows their lane AND their value) 2. OKRs - Aligns hearts and minds (Shared goals create shared ownership) 3. EOS Accountability Chart - One person, one seat (Clear ownership without overlapping egos) 4. OGSM - Strategy meets reality (No more "I thought you meant..." conversations) But here's the key: These aren't hammers to hit people with. They're maps to help people win. The paradox of leadership: High standards + High support = High performance High standards + Low support = High turnover Your leadership team doesn't need more pressure. They need more clarity. Because when accountability comes from compassion, not control: → Problems get solved, not hidden → Leaders take ownership, not cover → Teams push forward, not back Stop managing through fear. Start leading through frameworks. Your leadership team is capable of greatness. But only if you create the conditions for it. Save this. Share it with your team. Because the best leaders don't create followers. They create owners. And ownership starts with clarity. P.S. Want a PDF of my Accountability Cheat Sheet? Get it free: https://lnkd.in/dpWsuT4b ♻️ Repost to help a CEO in your network. Follow Eric Partaker for more leadership insights. — 📢 Want to lead like a world-class CEO? Join my FREE TRAINING: "How to Work with Your Board to Accelerate Your Company’s Growth" Thu Jul 10th, 12 noon Eastern / 5pm UK time https://lnkd.in/dCJ-nCxM 📌 The CEO Accelerator starts July 23rd. 20+ Founders & CEOs have already enrolled. Learn more and apply: https://lnkd.in/dgRr89bM

As Duarte grew, I’d hear feedback that decisions were made too slowly, which confused me. In reality, we didn’t have a system to recognize when the team was asking for a decision. We thought they were just informing us, so decisions would languish. We weren’t ignoring them, failing to act, or even making incorrect decisions... We just didn’t realize a decision needed to be made in the first place. It dawned on the exec team that the lack of clarity during the conversation is what slows teams down. Leaders and teams can share the same language for decision-making. Much of it is about shaping recommendations that actually lead to the right type of action and making the urgency clear. Here’s the shift that changed everything… We started mapping every decision against two factors: urgency and risk. Low risk, low urgency: Decide without me. Your team runs with it. Low risk, high urgency: Inform on progress. They update you, but keep driving. High risk, low urgency: Propose for approval. They bring a recommendation, and you decide together. High risk, high urgency: Escalate immediately. You're in it together, right now. Once my team understood which quadrant a decision lived in, they knew exactly how to approach me. And I knew exactly what my role was. The framework gave us a shared language. People can’t act on ideas if they don’t understand how decisions are made. Leaders should define how recommendations move from idea to approval to action. That transparency keeps progress from stalling. Remember: One of the biggest threats to your company isn't a lack of good ideas. It's a lack of clarity. #Leadership #ExecutiveLeadership #OrganizationalCulture #DecisionMaking

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝟵𝟬-𝟭𝟬 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗖𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 New York Football Giants head coach, John Harbaugh, describes an interesting approach to giving players feedback on their strengths and weaknesses. Rather than focusing heavily on what athletes need to improve, he advocates spending far more time communicating the things they already do exceptionally well, roughly 90%, and much less time on the 10% that needs development. This approach speaks to a fundamental psychological need, which is the need to feel competent. Athletes, like all people, have a need to feel capable and effective in meeting the demands placed upon them. When we recognise and reinforce what someone is doing well, we can help build their sense of competence, confidence, and motivation. This aligns closely with Self-Determination Theory, which highlights the importance of fulfilling basic psychological needs in supporting well-being, self-motivation and positive social development (Ryan & Deci, 2000). 𝗖𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗙𝘂𝗹𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗡𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 1️⃣Amorose (2007), Mageau and Vallerand (2003), and Reeve (2009) reported that coaches could relinquish control and give more control to the athletes. That is, where possible, allow them to have input into the structure of training, match preparations, or travel arrangements. 2️⃣ Provide leadership and initiative opportunities. 3️⃣ Matosic et al. (2016) reported that coaches should encourage athletes to set self-improvement goals. 4️⃣ Challenge the skills and abilities of athletes by creating drills that are difficult, but attainable with maximum effort (Amorose, 2007). 5️⃣ Design meaningful, interesting, and skill-building drills, in addition to explaining the rationale for a specific drill to their athletes (Berntsen & Kristiansen, 2019) 6️⃣ Provide choice within limits 7️⃣ Offer constructive feedback that relates to aspects of behaviour that an athlete can control (Berntsen & Kristiansen, 2019). 8️⃣ Develop the coach-athlete relationship 9️⃣ Promote positive relationships with athletes in the same team 🔟 Listen to athletes and acknowledge the feelings of athletes 1️⃣1️⃣ Involve parents, especially among younger athletes. Perhaps the lesson for coaches, leaders and educators is simple, if we want people to improve, we shouldn't only tell them what they need to fix. We should make sure they know what they're already doing well and regularly remind them of this. (🎥: Coach and Coordinator Network)

Most companies think good managers motivate. But the best ones do something more powerful: They place talent. A new study analyzing 200,000 employees and 30,000 managers across 100 countries found this: Great managers don’t just inspire performance; they reallocate people into roles where they thrive. The result? 13% higher wages over time Stronger internal mobility Long-term boosts to productivity, even after employees leave their team And it’s not just for top performers. Even low performers benefited from exposure to high-flyer managers. What makes these managers different? They spend more time 1:1 with their team They uncover hidden skills They guide people into roles that fit It’s not about managing output. It’s about managing potential. Smart orgs don’t leave talent placement to chance or to HR alone. They turn their best managers into career architects.

Rick Rubin went on stage in Helsinki the day after my talk. Someone asked how he resolves creative differences with artists. His answer was simple: change the conversation from "I disagree" to "let's build it." Then he shared a story: An artist played him a song. The transition didn't work. Rubin told him so. The artist said, "We'll just cut that part in half." Rubin thought to himself: What a dumb idea. But he didn't say that. He said, "Let's try it." The artist played it. It worked. Rubin is a legend. He's produced everyone from Johnny Cash to Jay-Z. Instead, he bit his tongue and let the artist prove him wrong. The principle: when you make an idea tangible, it stops being the person's idea. It becomes something you can both look at objectively and improve together. Once you build it, the truth is obvious. Here's what this looks like in practice: Your designer wants to change the entire homepage layout. You think it's too risky. Instead of three meetings debating it, you say: "Let's build a prototype and test it with 50 users this week." Your sales team wants to restructure the pricing page. Instead of blocking it because you're worried about conversions, you say: "Let's run it as an A/B test on 20% of traffic for two weeks." Your engineer wants to rebuild a core feature from scratch. You think it's overengineered. But instead of killing it in the planning phase, you say: "Spike it out in three days and show me if the performance gain is real." You're not saying yes to everything. You're saying, "Let's find out." Rubin also said something that stuck with me: "If there's disagreement, I always side with the artist's vision. Because to them, it's their career. To me, it's just one piece of my portfolio." Most leaders think backing down makes them look weak. Rubin knows that siding with the person who has the most at stake makes better work happen. Your job isn't to be right. It's to create the conditions where the best idea wins. Stop debating. Start building. P.S. This insight is from this week's newsletter where I break down why Yamaha dominates while Steinway got sold to private equity: https://lnkd.in/efSqP_9K P.P.S. Access additional research links, the podcast, and the full archive in the first comment 👇 Thank you to Nordic Business Forum!

🧬 Design System Process Flowcharts. With decision trees and flowcharts for design process, maintenance and contribution guidelines ↓ ✤ Process Flowcharts In Design Systems British Gas: https://lnkd.in/eVkSdPrp (attached image) 👍 Nordhealth: https://lnkd.in/epuiejCz 👍 Aviva: https://lnkd.in/egaTEiEh 👍 Boston Scientific: https://lnkd.in/ezsdzD3t (Miro) 👍 Github: https://lnkd.in/eihFFxzV 👍 Open Collective: https://lnkd.in/eTb7pyDy Blocks: https://lnkd.in/erNAJebS Vanilla: https://lnkd.in/ePVSai_y by Brad Frost 👍 Zalando: https://lnkd.in/eH_mYtzm 👍 The most critical attribute of a well-functioning design system is that it isn’t treated as a “snowflake” project. It shouldn’t be seen as a separate entity, or a side project, or what designers do post-launch. Instead, it should be treated as a product, with its own roadmap, backlog, ownership and resources. As Dan Mall noted, the value of a design system is defined by how early and how frequently it’s used in team’s projects. To maximize its impact, involve teams early. Allow people to leave comments and threads. Make documentation cross-functional, not siloed. Update gradually, instead of publishing all at once. And: design your design system together with your teams. Prepare starter kits to get off the ground faster. Invite designers and engineers to shape where a design system step fits in your process. Once the effort shows value, it might not take long until first contributions start flowing in — just because everyone understands why it’s needed in the first place. ✤ Useful resources: New Component Decision Tree Template (Figma), by Luis Ouriach https://lnkd.in/es5arc3A “The Design System Isn’t Working For Me!”: How To Fix It, by Brad Frost https://lnkd.in/eUDbRAHd Design System Contribution Template (Figma), by Chad Bergman https://lnkd.in/eeHKpQJV How To Launch New Components (Figma), by Rama Krushna Behera Article + Figma: https://lnkd.in/ezPq2hQp Spotify Contribution Process, by Josh Mateo, Brendon Manwaring https://lnkd.in/eygpxwbV Design System Contributions Checklist, by Wart Burggraaf https://lnkd.in/e-6z6YAS How To Keep Your Design Docs Alive, by Slava Shestopalov https://lnkd.in/gfvKgCwj hashtag #ux #DesignSystems