Talk:High-performance team

Looks like it's written by a management consultant to sell books

Most of the body consists of buzz words and it makes claims without verifiable sources. "show high levels of collaboration and innovation" who shows, what study has proven this? "The team feels a strong sense of accountability for achieving their goals" What team? All high performance teams? What scientific basis does this have? I think this whole page should be deleted as it doesn't have much encyclopedic value. However, I'll give it a chance to be fixed if someone who is more knowledgeable can fix it up? Drphallus (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

New section: Recent perspectives

I have added a new section, Recent perspectives, which summarises several evidence-based and widely cited treatments of high-performance teams (Edmondson 2019; Katzenbach & Smith 1993; Hackman 2002; Scouller 2024; plus a recent CIPD evidence review).

The intention is to:

• Strengthen the article’s coverage of contemporary, research-informed perspectives on high-performance teams.
• Provide clearer attribution to specific scholars and models, with inline citations and full bibliographic details.
• Respond to earlier concerns on this Talk page that the article relied too heavily on buzzwords and unreferenced generalisations, by anchoring claims in identifiable, verifiable sources.

If other editors have suggestions on balance, weighting or additional high-quality sources that should be included in this section, please comment here so we can build consensus and further improve the article. I am also happy to adjust or prune the new section if editors feel it is too detailed or gives undue weight to particular models.

Tens49 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2026 (UTC)