Integrated teams, functioning in a culture of accountability, are the performance driver of choice in today’s high performing organizations. Research has demonstrated the superiority of group decision making over that of even the most single, talented individual. There is one obvious exception to this rule: when a team is conflicted or dispirited, decision making takes a dramatic turn for the worse. Most often this conflict occurs at a time of crisis when the imperatives of communication, cooperation, and integrated teamwork are most necessary in deriving the optimal outcome.
The key to peak performance is maintaining mission focus – fulfilling the purpose for why the organization exists. Without the dynamic combination of highly effective relationships, deep and broad continuing education, a culture of accountability, innovative and purposeful application of technology and the commitment to performance excellence, your organization is destined to equilibrium of performance mediocrity.
As we collectively conform individual behaviours to an interdependent culture of accountability we will drive performance to the highest levels. Organizations entrenched in a status quo, top/down driven hierarchy and its inherent lack of highly developed interpersonal relationships can no longer compete with organizations operating in collaborative cultures of multi-directional communication pathways, decentralized command and control operational structures, and integrated multifunctional teams.
The need for creating this culture shift is self-evident. We have spent countless hours and dollars on other methods, programs, and systems to improve safety, quality, and service, with marginal improvements. The talent, personality, behaviour/social style, position of authority, and single track expertise of one individual are no longer sufficient to drive high levels of performance. The technical burden and knowledge requirements of today’s workplace environment exceed the capacity of any one highly intelligent, driven, individual, to succeed and achieve alone. Bringing people together in a cohesive, cooperative and collaborative culture is the only way to performance excellence in today’s world.
CORPORATE HARMONY is grateful to Dr. Michael E. Frisina for his contributions to this entry.
When you think about behaviour competency to drive performance, consider the following key behaviour skills, and then ask yourself if you are guilty of making the assumption that your people are aware of and competent in these abilities:
There is lots of researcher indicating that social cohesion (the result of highly effective relationships) accounts for roughly one quarter of a team’s performance. Think about this in terms of productivity. Consider a department with target revenue of $100 million dollars. If there is dysfunctional behaviour and ineffective relationships they lose $28 million. With high functioning relationships they garner $128 million. This creates a variability factor of $56 million. 
This is the most challenging aspect of the coaching and counseling process: To adequately acknowledge the need to change behaviour, a person must be compelled to search for, examine and question those unconscious assumptions they have buried deep in the recesses of their mind. He/she must challenge the prevailing patterns that have been acquired and formed over time and life experiences, and replace them with more positive, effective and productive patterns. This is truly why so much coaching and counseling is ineffective in bringing about internal and lasting change to employees with behaviour problems. 
A fundamental principle, what one might call a natural law, is that people choose to act and behave based on what they believe to be true about how they see the world around them. Neuroscience research substantiates this claim. The human brain functions in a pattern recognition system. Patterning is phenomenally strong and we create a “confirmation bias” to accept outside inferences and influences that match the patterns we have created for how we choose to see the world in which we live. 
Virtually all the advice on getting people to engage in their work and increase their productivity is predicated on a false assumption, namely that any form of outside influence will result in lasting internal change, stimulating pride, purpose, motivation and a positive attitude. Unlike animals, human beings have the power to choose inappropriate behaviour and substandard performance, and often will willfully do so, even in the face of overwhelming negative consequences. Consequently, the current model for how to manage employees is ineffective. We need to focus our leadership energy into the high- and mid-level performers rather than investing ourselves in those who are choosing substandard attitudes and behaviours. 
The human capacity for choice can be both a blessing and a curse. The capacity to choose is often times overlooked when it comes to understanding performance in the work place. In times of a labor shortage, managers tend to disregard individual accountability, especially with an employee who is extremely proficient in a technical sense but whose attitude and behaviour is toxic. Managers try to cure these employees by applying a host of techniques related to communication, behaviour-based expectations, training and retraining, rewards and recognitions. E. Lawrence Kersten calls all this activity the “motivational-educational-industrial or the ME-I” complex, where managers are “encouraged” that the ills of problem employees are curable. (See “Soul Assassins,” Fast Company, May 2005, page 85.) 
TQM, Total Quality Management, is a philosophy first and process improvement second, however most people equate the ‘Deming Cycle’ of Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) to process improvement initiatives such as SixSigma and LEAN.
December 20, 2021 will mark the twenty-eighth anniversary of the passing of Dr. W. Edwards Deming. As we all know, Dr. Deming is touted as the key innovator in driving top management toward improvements in design, product quality, testing, and sales through application of statistical methods.
As often mentioned, change – whether personal or organizational – is not easy. Even when presented with clear reasons and validated in research, for behaviour change it is still a distant goal for many leaders. It is not a decision to which leaders make the commitment to right away either.