Teams That Work

Why do some teams thrive while others flounder—even with talented people? In The Seven Drivers of Team Effectiveness by Scott Tannenbaum and Eduardo Salas, decades of psychological and organizational research converge into one central insight: success depends less on who’s on the team and more on how the team works as a system. The authors distill this into seven interlocking drivers—Capability, Cooperation, Coordination, Communication, Cognition, Coaching, and Conditions—that determine whether a team sustains high performance, resilience, and vitality over time.

Teams as dynamic systems

You can think of your team as a living system where each driver influences and reinforces the others. Capabilities supply the raw material: skills, knowledge, and personal traits that members bring. Coordination transforms those capabilities into action through monitoring, backup, and adaptation. Communication enables clarity, minimizes friction, and ensures critical information surfaces when needed. Cognitions represent shared mental models that make coordination almost intuitive. Cooperation—the beliefs that bind the team together such as trust and psychological safety—often emerges as a byproduct of those behaviors. Coaching provides direction and learning. And Conditions—the organizational environment, rewards, and leadership culture—either amplify or undermine every other driver.

Defining effective teams

For Tannenbaum and Salas, a truly effective team isn’t defined by a one-off outcome. It displays sustained performance, resilience, and vitality. Sustained performance means meeting objectives repeatedly under varying conditions; resilience means recovering and adapting after setbacks; and vitality means maintaining engagement and motivation so members stay energized. In practice, this means balancing results with learning and morale. (Compare with Patrick Lencioni’s definition of team health in The Five Dysfunctions of a Team—similar principles of trust and open dialogue appear across both works.)

Diagnosing teams using seven drivers

When something goes wrong, the authors propose using these seven drivers as a diagnostic map. For instance, if people don’t speak up, examine psychological safety and coaching. If tasks slip or errors multiply, look at coordination or conditions like resource stress. This diagnostic approach replaces vague “we need better teamwork” advice with targeted action. The goal isn’t perfection across all drivers but achieving enough strength and alignment for the context you’re in.

Context and variability

The authors clarify that teams differ dramatically along key five continua—interdependence (reliance), membership stability, task predictability, proximity, and similarity. These factors shape which drivers matter most. High-reliance teams (like an NFL offense or surgical crew) depend heavily on coordination and communication; dynamic, dispersed teams require robust cognition and psychological safety. You must assess where your team sits to apply the right interventions. In other words, context dictates which levers to pull.

Evidence and stories in action

Throughout the book, real examples bring the science to life—from Mookie Betts’s impossible baseball catch (illustrating all seven drivers at once) to Google’s Project Aristotle (revealing psychological safety as the top predictor of success). Navy research shows 20–40% performance boosts from regular team debriefs. Meta-analyses on collective efficacy, star performers, and shared mental models reinforce that teamwork flows from structured habits and beliefs, not charisma alone. (For context, similar results appear in Amy Edmondson’s Teaming and J. Richard Hackman’s Leading Teams.)

The book’s flow and promise

Across chapters, the book moves from internal capacities (capability, cooperation) to interactional processes (coordination, communication, cognition) and then to systemic influencers (coaching and conditions). Practical tools—including diagnostic checklists and structured debrief scripts—translate academic research into everyday actions. The promise is simple yet ambitious: any team can improve by diagnosing weaknesses, strengthening drivers, and aligning conditions around teamwork rather than individual heroics.

Core insight

Team effectiveness is systemic. You don’t fix teamwork by saying “communicate more.” You fix it by addressing the right underlying drivers—skills, behaviors, beliefs, leadership, and environment—so the whole system works cohesively.

The subsequent key ideas unpack each of these drivers and principles in depth: how capabilities, cognition, communication, coordination, coaching, and conditions interact to transform groups into resilient, high-performing teams.

Your team’s capabilities are its starting ingredients—the mix of task expertise, interpersonal skill, and personal attributes that make people effective collaborators. Tannenbaum and Salas divide capability into two practical categories: task-related capabilities (technical knowledge) and teamwork-related capabilities (transferrable skills that support collaboration). Both are essential, but the second often makes the difference between average and excellent performance.

Task-related capabilities

A team without technical skill can’t execute, but high skill alone is no guarantee of success. The “too-much-talent” research by Roderick Swaab shows that in interdependent settings (soccer or basketball), teams filled with elite performers underperform once a threshold is reached because coordination breaks down. Independent tasks like baseball don’t show this effect. The lesson: build capability profiles suited to your level of reliance. If members must coordinate constantly, balance talent with teamwork competence.

Transportable teamwork skills

These are skills that travel across contexts: clear communication, giving and receiving feedback, managing conflict constructively, empathy, and shared leadership behaviors. The authors emphasize teamwork savvy—understanding how teams function—as a teachable meta-skill that predicts success. Through training and experience, people can learn to anticipate teammates’ needs and integrate seamlessly. (In organizations like NASA or the Navy, teamwork training is as rigorous as technical training.)

Attributes and composition

Stable traits influence capability too. Cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and adaptability tend to correlate with effective team behavior, while toxic traits—Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—undermine trust and spread negativity. John Mathieu’s TREO research suggests intentionally composing teams based on complementary strengths improves performance. Avoid trying to “team away” massive skill deficits; instead, hire for balance and train for both technical and teamwork capacity.

Practical takeaway

Hire and train for dual capability—task expertise and teamwork transportable skills. Assess not just resumes but behaviors: communication style, feedback openness, and collective orientation predict whether someone will elevate or erode your team’s effectiveness.

When capability is strong across both joint work and interpersonal dimensions, cooperation and coordination naturally follow. Weakness in either—technical or teamwork—introduces strain across every other driver.

While capability defines what your team can do, cooperation defines what it believes together. These collective beliefs—trust, psychological safety, collective efficacy, and cohesion—either fuel or poison teamwork. The authors show that cooperation isn’t a static personality trait; it arises from how leaders, members, and conditions interact over time.

Trust

Trust forms through perceptions of ability, benevolence, and integrity. Teams high in trust perform better, especially when skills are dissimilar or roles interdependent. You build trust through reliability, humility, and accountability—keeping promises and owning mistakes. Without trust, monitoring behaviors feel intrusive rather than helpful.

Psychological safety

Amy Edmondson’s concept of psychological safety sits at the heart of effective cooperation. Teams where people can speak up without fear avoid catastrophic errors. Google’s Project Aristotle identified safety as the top predictor of team success. Leaders must model vulnerability—admitting errors, thanking dissenters, and protecting those who raise uncomfortable truths.

Collective efficacy and cohesion

Collective efficacy—the shared belief that “we can do this”—predicts effort and resilience. Build it by celebrating small wins and linking new challenges to past successes. Cohesion strengthens teamwork when rooted in shared goals, but beware “fault lines” where subgroups divide by location or identity. Task-focused cohesion (commitment to work) predicts performance better than social cohesion (liking each other).

Early-warning insight

Declines in trust, safety, or efficacy often signal problems in other drivers—communication lapses, poor coaching, or negative conditions. Monitor cooperation beliefs as early warning indicators.

When leaders nurture cooperative beliefs deliberately, teams sustain energy even under pressure. In practice, psychological safety and trust act as the invisible infrastructure through which all other teamwork behaviors flow.

Coordination translates beliefs and skills into action. It’s how teammates synchronize efforts, notice gaps, and adjust in real time. The authors reduce effective coordination to four repeatable behaviors: monitoring, backup, adaptation, and emotional management. When these behaviors are strong, teams perform reliably; when they falter, even high-skill groups fail under stress.

Monitoring and shared awareness

Effective teams maintain situation awareness—an accurate, collective picture of what’s happening and what’s next. Endsley’s three-stage model (perception, comprehension, projection) helps you ask: What’s going on? What does it mean? What will happen next? In aviation and medicine, shared SA prevents disaster. If your team can’t answer these questions together, you have a coordination gap.

Backup and support

Backup occurs when members notice a need, expect help is appropriate, and step in with capacity to assist. It requires clarity around roles and norms so help is welcomed rather than resented. Cross-training and recognition for supportive behaviors encourage this dynamic. (Nordstrom’s sales team success story highlights seamless backup; ignoring it, as the tailor in New York did, can kill momentum.)

Adaptation and reflection

Teams face both real-time surprises and longer-term learning opportunities. Structured debriefs—brief, blame-free reflections—boost future adaptation and can improve performance by up to 40% (Scott & Cerasoli’s meta-analysis). Adaptation is not luck but habit: event-driven flexibility paired with routine reflection-driven learning.

Managing emotions and conflicts

Conflict isn’t inherently bad. When it centers on tasks and occurs under psychological safety, it can spark innovation. But interpersonal or process-focused conflict reliably harms performance. Leaders must surface disagreements early, protect civility, and model constructive debate to keep emotional tone healthy.

Coordination checkpoint

Ask your team three questions: Do we share the same view of what’s happening? Do we know who needs help and when? Do we regularly reflect together after events? If not, coordination is probably your limiting factor.

Strong coordination behaviors transform capability and cooperation into visible teamwork. Regular debriefs, structured monitoring, and emotional management keep your team adaptive and resilient through complexity.

Communication and cognition form the backbone of collective intelligence. The authors insist quality beats quantity: too much talk dilutes meaning. Effective teams exchange unique information, verify understanding through closed-loop communication, and maintain shared mental models that allow fast alignment without constant debate.

High-quality communication

Closed-loop communication—where messages are confirmed and reflected back—reduces error rates and increases speed. Sharing unique information prevents blind spots. Examples range from Chef Joël Robuchon’s quiet kitchen to US Airways Flight 1549: calm, succinct exchanges guided the miracle landing. Effective communication also includes boundary spanning: deciding who interfaces externally and maintaining consistency across messages.

Shared cognition and mental models

Shared mental models are collective maps of goals, roles, priorities, and contingencies. DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus’s meta-analysis shows teams with strong shared cognitions exhibit better motivation and adaptability. The authors detail eight core elements—from purpose (“Where to?”) to contingencies (“What if?”)—and show how cross-training and debriefs create shared understanding. The LA Rams’ all-position meetings illustrate how aligning mental maps boosts automatic coordination.

Building and updating mental models

Teams form shared cognitions through direction-setting (chartering), preparing (role clarity and scenario practice), updating (debriefs and huddles), and assimilating newcomers effectively. Without these habits, teams misread cues and operate at cross-purposes.

Essential lesson

Shared cognitions let teams coordinate without words. They don’t require everyone to know everything—just enough alignment and awareness of who knows what to act seamlessly together.

When your team invests in these practices—closed-loop exchanges, boundary clarity, and cognitive alignment—communication becomes a precision instrument enabling coordination, cooperation, and trust simultaneously.

Even the most skilled team can be undone by its conditions. The authors show that organizational context—policies, practices, incentives, and culture—creates powerful situational cues that either reward teamwork or sabotage it. Complementing this, leadership fulfills seven critical functions that sustain team performance and integrity over time.

Conditions and situational strength

Strong contexts send clear signals; weak contexts leave behavior up to individual interpretation. Hiring without teamwork criteria, promoting “jerks” for results, or rewarding only individual sales all model the wrong behaviors. Conditions shape what people perceive as acceptable. Teams thrive when hiring, onboarding, performance systems, and rewards visibly support collaboration. Senior leaders model culture through everyday interactions—visible collaboration or incivility can ripple across thousands.

Seven leadership functions

Leadership isn’t command—it’s fulfilling functions: clarity and alignment, accountability, resource management, emotional climate, psychological safety, empowerment, and learning. These functions can be shared among members. Styles that enable them include transformational (inspiring purpose), servant (removing barriers), shared (distributed responsibility), and civil (respectful tone). Mixing styles ensures all seven functions stay covered.

Diagnosing and designing conditions

The authors provide tools to review hiring, onboarding, promotions, rewards, and resource allocation. Adjust what you can; change what sends conflicting signals. Locally, manage time and autonomy so teams can monitor and coordinate effectively. Globally, align messages and incentives so teamwork isn’t just preached—it’s rewarded.

Leadership checkpoint

Ask: Are all seven leadership functions being fulfilled, and do organizational conditions reinforce them? Where gaps appear, teamwork falters no matter how talented the individuals.

Culture and leadership together set the conditions that either enable the other six drivers or slowly erode them. The most powerful leadership act is designing an environment where teamwork feels both possible and expected.

The book closes with actionable tools and routines to turn insight into continuous improvement. Whether you’re a leader or team member, translating these seven drivers into practice requires structured habits. The authors offer five practical tools—competency lists, debrief outlines, diagnostics, and idea matrices—and concrete daily actions for every role.

Tools for diagnosis and learning

Use Tool D (Quick Diagnostic) to pinpoint which drivers need attention, and Tool C (Conditions diagnostic) to see whether the environment supports teamwork. Tool B (Debrief guide) turns reflection into results—structured, short conversations focused on collective improvement, not blame. Teams that debrief regularly outperform others by 20% or more. Tool A sharpens hiring and training with a taxonomy of teamwork skills and attributes, while Tool E links common team problems to practical interventions.

Actions for leaders and members

Leaders should hire for teamwork orientation, protect collaborative members from burnout, celebrate wins to build efficacy, create safety through humility, prepare backup systems, debrief regularly, and advocate for supportive conditions. Members should maintain awareness, ask to help, fulfill commitments, communicate clearly, and give feedback gracefully. Both roles must guard against toxicity and represent the team’s purpose externally.

Sustaining improvement

Improvement isn’t an event—it’s a cycle. Diagnosing, debating, fixing, and debriefing build organizational memory. The authors recommend embedding debriefs as rituals and using diagnostics quarterly to track growth. Familiarity also matters: moderate professional familiarity improves coordination, but excessive comfort breeds complacency. Rotate roles and invite dissent periodically to keep learning alive.

Sustainable insight

Teams improve most when learning is routine and system-wide—diagnose regularly, debrief often, and reinforce teamwork through hiring, rewards, and leadership behaviors that send consistent signals.

By merging rigorous science with pragmatic tools, Tannenbaum and Salas show that sustainable teamwork is both measurable and manageable. Over time, these structured habits make effective collaboration the default mode, not the exception.