Efficient teams

Effective teams are not just about clear goals and psychological security. At least as important is how different work styles and preferences fit. The team compass, widely used in Norwegian organizations — describes four basic phases people are attracted to in their work: idea, planning, action and evaluation.

When the team becomes too skewed; for example, many who love to act quickly but few who thrive on planning, blind spots and inefficiencies can occur. When the balance is in place, on the other hand, something magical happens: the team manages to create, structure, implement and learn from their experiences.

New Research: From Differences to Flow

Recent international studies confirm the value of combining different thought and work styles in teams. The research highlights three key success factors:

• Cognitive diversity increases learning and flexibility.
Teams made up of people with different perspectives and decision-making styles learn faster and adapt better to changes, especially when the leader actively facilitates these differences (Morgeson et al., 2022).

• Teams need rhythm between reflection and action.
The most effective teams naturally alternate between phases of exploration (idea and experimentation) and exploitation (planning, execution, and learning). This cyclic dynamics corresponds to the phases of the Team Compass (Savelsbergh, van der Heijden & Poell, 2023).

• Psychological safety is the very foundation.
Amy Edmondson's research (2019) shows that reassurance allows room to question, err, and challenge assumptions — especially in the evaluation phase where teams otherwise easily jump ahead without learning.

• Virtual teams need to manage transitions more clearly.
Digital collaborations often jump too quickly from idea to action without enough consensus. Using the “phase language” of the Team Compass helps managers ensure a common processing rhythm (Gibson & Cohen, 2023).

Examples from Norwegian reality

• Health care during the pandemic: The most robust teams had both idea people, planners, action-oriented and evaluative members. This whole made it possible to adjust the rate quickly while maintaining quality.

• Construction projects: Projects dominated by the action-oriented tend to delay and cost overruns. Those who had planners and evaluators close by caught up with discrepancies early.

• Innovation work in the municipal sector: Several municipalities have experienced that good ideas die without planning and structure. Teams with deliberate coverage of all four phases have greater execution power.

How can leaders use the Team Compass strategically?

1. Map out your team's work style.
Use a simple compass test or dialog round to see where people naturally belong.
2. Recognize differences as resources.
Appreciate that not everyone contributes equally at all stages — let idealists gain energy in the start-up and detail-oriented get ownership in the planning.
3. Build psychological security.
Encourage to challenge ideas and processes without fear of failure. Security boosts both learning and innovation (Edmondson, 2019).
4. Keep the rhythm in the process.
Make sure that all phases are given time, especially reflection and evaluation as the pace increases. This strengthens the learning culture over time.
5. Rotate roles and create meta-skills.
Let people try new phases to build flexibility and understanding of the whole.
6. Use the compass as a language for development.
When the team is stuck, ask: Are we locked in the idea phase? Have we jumped too quickly into action?

Reflection Questions for Managers

• Which phase of the Team Compass dominates in my team — and which are overlooked?

• How do I use the differences between people as a resource, rather than a source of conflict?

• Has my team defined clear transitions between phases — or do we always rush ahead?

• What can I do to strengthen the rhythm between speed and quality?

References

Edmondson, A.C. (2019). The Fearless Organization.

Wheelan, S.A. (2005). Creating Effective Teams.

Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups.

Belbin, R. M. (2010). Team Roles at Work.

Morgeson, F. P., et al. (2022). Team Composition and Learning in Dynamic Environments.

Savelsbergh, C., van der Heijden, B. I., & Poell, R. F. (2023). Team Learning Cycles.

Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (2023). Virtual Teams Revisited.

Google Re:Work Project Aristotle (2015).

NEW 2021:6. The pandemic as a touchstone.