This content may be of interest to you
Resources
Building a team isn’t about increasing the number of training sessions or setting more ambitious goals. Many managers believe that a team becomes high-performing simply by raising the bar. In reality, a high-performing team is built when collective maturity, skills, and a shared vision all advance together.
This is precisely where team strategy comes into play. A team strategy is not limited to a general direction or an annual roadmap. It addresses a more fundamental question: How will the team progress over time to achieve a shared goal in a sustainable way, without burning out or falling apart?
The starting point isn’t “What should my team do?”, but “Where does my team stand today?”. A team that is still learning to work together isn’t managed the same way as a team that is already self-sufficient in project management. A team under stress doesn’t react the same way as a stable team. A team that is performing well today may become vulnerable tomorrow if it doesn’t anticipate upcoming changes.
A solid team strategy rests on three interconnected pillars: understanding group dynamics, anticipating long-term skill needs, and defining individual career paths aligned with the shared vision. Without this coherence, decisions remain tactical, implementation becomes fragile, and energy is wasted.
A common mistake is launching an ambitious plan without assessing the team’s actual capacity to handle it. A team under pressure does not respond the same way as a stable team. A team that is still learning to work together cannot shoulder the same burden of transformation as a self-managed team.
The starting point isn’t “What should my team do?” but “Where does my team stand today?” This assessment is even more critical in a hybrid environment, where signs of misalignment are less obvious.
Tuckman's model breaks this assessment down into four stages. Each stage has its own warning signs, tensions, and levers. Recognizing these allows you to take the right action at the right time.
Key takeaway: A cohesive team strategy starts with this reading. It helps you tailor the level of expectations, the management approach, and the pace of change to what the team can realistically handle.
A diagnosis is useless if it doesn’t change the way a team is managed. Each stage requires a different approach, and this is often where managers go wrong: they manage a team in the Forming stage as if it were already in the Norming stage, or they stifle a team in the Performing stage with controls that are no longer justified.
At Forming, the team needs structure. Set short-term, clear goals, define who does what and who makes which decisions, and hold frequent check-ins (even 15 minutes is enough). Team-building activities can help foster mutual understanding, provided they have a clear purpose and aren’t just for fun.
During the Storming phase, the priority is to protect the shared goal. Tensions are normal at this stage. What weakens the team isn’t disagreement; it’s the lack of resolution. Make decisions quickly, make the decision-making criteria clear, and establish transparent communication. Ignoring tensions in the name of cohesion creates instability that will linger.
In Norming, the focus shifts to execution. Formalize processes, establish metrics that are visible to everyone, and start letting go of control. It is at this stage that the team’s strategy truly becomes operational: roles are clear, routines are in place, and the team can move forward without constant approval.
In the "Performing" phase, your role changes once again. The team no longer needs day-to-day guidance; it needs to be challenged. Maintain high standards, open up new opportunities, and prepare for the next step. A high-performing team without a clear direction eventually stagnates, and the top performers are the first to leave.
Key takeaway: Without adjusting the team’s approach, the team strategy remains just a document. With an adjusted approach, it becomes a dynamic process.
But the maturity assessment isn’t just about adjusting your approach. It also helps you gauge the pace of transformation. A team in the Storming stage cannot handle the same volume of change as a team in the Norming stage. Attempting to simultaneously launch a reorganization, a new process, and a new evaluation system in a team that is still under strain only amplifies friction rather than resolving it. Conversely, making no changes in a Performing team creates strategic boredom that lowers engagement.
Developing the right leadership style doesn’t happen overnight. It relies on specific skills: the ability to make decisions, clarify priorities, and provide constructive feedback. We break these down in our article on the 5 essential leadership skills.
An effective team strategy isn't just about optimizing the present. It anticipates what the team will need in the future to remain effective. The short term provides reassurance. The medium term provides security.
Many teams become vulnerable not because they lack the necessary skills today, but because they haven’t prepared for major changes in their environment. Developing a team strategy means being willing to look ahead 12 to 24 months, even when day-to-day tasks take up all your time.
The natural instinct when faced with uncertainty is to fall back on what we can control. Identifying fundamental shifts allows us to move beyond this defensive stance and make decisions proactively.
Three questions are all it takes to frame this projection:
Example: A sales team accustomed to short sales cycles must now manage complex bidding processes involving multiple decision-makers. Without developing skills in cross-functional coordination and strategic communication, results will gradually decline. A manager who anticipates this shift six months in advance can organize a mentoring program with the key account team. One who waits to see the numbers drop is managing a crisis instead of steering a transition.
You don’t need to map out every possible change. Identifying one or two major transformations is enough to give your team strategy a clear direction.
Once the direction has been set, you need to assess the gap between what the team actually knows and what it will need.
Three specific questions to help frame this assessment:
Example: An IT team delivers its projects on time, but every budget approval request to the executive committee is rejected. No one knows how to present a structured business case. The project is rejected twice. In the short term, technical expertise is sufficient. In the medium term, the team loses strategic credibility and sees its budgets systematically reduced.
A common pitfall is trying to improve everything at once. This dilutes the collective effort and yields no visible results. It is more effective to select two key competencies that will have a transformative impact over the next 18 months. Strengthening the ability to collaborate across departments, for example, will often have a greater impact than refining expertise that is already solid.
This prioritization process transforms the team's strategy into a decision-making framework, not a list of initiatives.
Not all skills are developed in-house. A clear-eyed team strategy requires making clear trade-offs:
Example: A product team wants to bring cybersecurity in-house by hiring a senior-level candidate. The requested salary exceeds internal standards by 35%, creating an imbalance with current experts. To fund this hire, the innovation budget would need to be reduced and two operational hires postponed. After analysis, the manager decides to work with a specialized firm on ad hoc audits to assess the actual need. A decision is made, and balance is maintained.
These decisions are not trivial. They shape the corporate culture and demonstrate that team strategy is based on deliberate choices, not on wishful thinking.
The team strategy is put into practice through individual decisions. Each team member must understand their role within the shared vision and know how they contribute to the common goal.
Not all skills are developed in-house. A clear-eyed team strategy requires making clear trade-offs:
Example: A product team wants to bring cybersecurity in-house by hiring a senior-level candidate. The requested salary exceeds internal standards by 35%, creating an imbalance with current experts. To fund this hire, the innovation budget would need to be reduced and two operational hires postponed. After analysis, the manager decides to work with a specialized firm on ad hoc audits to assess the actual need. A decision is made, and balance is maintained.
These decisions are not trivial. They shape the corporate culture and demonstrate that team strategy is based on deliberate choices, not on wishful thinking.
Each team typically consists of four different types of people. Recognizing them allows you to tailor your development plan and avoid blind spots:
These four profiles are not set in stone. A key expert can become a strategic leader, while a high-potential employee may fall behind if their development is not supported. What matters is regular monitoring.
Example: In a finance team, a single expert is the only one who knows how to use a complex reporting tool. He prefers to work independently to get things done faster. The result: every time he’s away, projects fall behind schedule. The entire team depends on a single person. If nothing is done, this vulnerability worsens with every new project. The manager includes a knowledge transfer objective in their plan: documentation of the tool, internal training sessions, and pairing on critical projects. Within four months, the dependency is reduced, and the expert feels valued in a new role.
An effective plan consists of five elements, no more:
Example: An employee is aiming for a coordinating role. Rather than promising them a position, the manager entrusts them with full responsibility for a cross-functional project involving three departments. A monthly review is scheduled to assess priority management, communication with stakeholders, and adherence to deadlines. After three months, progress is evident: better foresight, more structured decision-making, and positive feedback from other teams. The employee advances based on results, not promises.
Individual follow-up is not a monitoring tool. It is an alignment mechanism. It allows us to adjust our actions when circumstances change and to maintain a clear link between each person’s progress and the collective direction.
A team strategy is more than just an annual plan. It is a dynamic framework that brings together three dimensions: collective maturity, future competencies, and individual development paths. In practical terms, this means embracing the tensions of the “Storming” phase rather than ignoring them, prioritizing two key competencies rather than trying to strengthen everything, and providing each team member with a clear development path rather than a vague promise. A high-performing team doesn’t just deliver results. It moves forward together, in a shared direction, with clear ground rules.
Building a team isn’t about increasing the number of training sessions or setting more ambitious goals. Many managers believe that a team becomes high-performing simply by raising the bar. In reality, a high-performing team is built when collective maturity, skills, and a shared vision all advance together.
This is precisely where team strategy comes into play. A team strategy is not limited to a general direction or an annual roadmap. It addresses a more fundamental question: How will the team progress over time to achieve a shared goal in a sustainable way, without burning out or falling apart?
The starting point isn’t “What should my team do?”, but “Where does my team stand today?”. A team that is still learning to work together isn’t managed the same way as a team that is already self-sufficient in project management. A team under stress doesn’t react the same way as a stable team. A team that is performing well today may become vulnerable tomorrow if it doesn’t anticipate upcoming changes.
A solid team strategy rests on three interconnected pillars: understanding group dynamics, anticipating long-term skill needs, and defining individual career paths aligned with the shared vision. Without this coherence, decisions remain tactical, implementation becomes fragile, and energy is wasted.
A common mistake is launching an ambitious plan without assessing the team’s actual capacity to handle it. A team under pressure does not respond the same way as a stable team. A team that is still learning to work together cannot shoulder the same burden of transformation as a self-managed team.
The starting point isn’t “What should my team do?” but “Where does my team stand today?” This assessment is even more critical in a hybrid environment, where signs of misalignment are less obvious.
Tuckman's model breaks this assessment down into four stages. Each stage has its own warning signs, tensions, and levers. Recognizing these allows you to take the right action at the right time.
Key takeaway: A cohesive team strategy starts with this reading. It helps you tailor the level of expectations, the management approach, and the pace of change to what the team can realistically handle.
A diagnosis is useless if it doesn’t change the way a team is managed. Each stage requires a different approach, and this is often where managers go wrong: they manage a team in the Forming stage as if it were already in the Norming stage, or they stifle a team in the Performing stage with controls that are no longer justified.
At Forming, the team needs structure. Set short-term, clear goals, define who does what and who makes which decisions, and hold frequent check-ins (even 15 minutes is enough). Team-building activities can help foster mutual understanding, provided they have a clear purpose and aren’t just for fun.
During the Storming phase, the priority is to protect the shared goal. Tensions are normal at this stage. What weakens the team isn’t disagreement; it’s the lack of resolution. Make decisions quickly, make the decision-making criteria clear, and establish transparent communication. Ignoring tensions in the name of cohesion creates instability that will linger.
In Norming, the focus shifts to execution. Formalize processes, establish metrics that are visible to everyone, and start letting go of control. It is at this stage that the team’s strategy truly becomes operational: roles are clear, routines are in place, and the team can move forward without constant approval.
In the "Performing" phase, your role changes once again. The team no longer needs day-to-day guidance; it needs to be challenged. Maintain high standards, open up new opportunities, and prepare for the next step. A high-performing team without a clear direction eventually stagnates, and the top performers are the first to leave.
Key takeaway: Without adjusting the team’s approach, the team strategy remains just a document. With an adjusted approach, it becomes a dynamic process.
But the maturity assessment isn’t just about adjusting your approach. It also helps you gauge the pace of transformation. A team in the Storming stage cannot handle the same volume of change as a team in the Norming stage. Attempting to simultaneously launch a reorganization, a new process, and a new evaluation system in a team that is still under strain only amplifies friction rather than resolving it. Conversely, making no changes in a Performing team creates strategic boredom that lowers engagement.
Developing the right leadership style doesn’t happen overnight. It relies on specific skills: the ability to make decisions, clarify priorities, and provide constructive feedback. We break these down in our article on the 5 essential leadership skills.
An effective team strategy isn't just about optimizing the present. It anticipates what the team will need in the future to remain effective. The short term provides reassurance. The medium term provides security.
Many teams become vulnerable not because they lack the necessary skills today, but because they haven’t prepared for major changes in their environment. Developing a team strategy means being willing to look ahead 12 to 24 months, even when day-to-day tasks take up all your time.
The natural instinct when faced with uncertainty is to fall back on what we can control. Identifying fundamental shifts allows us to move beyond this defensive stance and make decisions proactively.
Three questions are all it takes to frame this projection:
Example: A sales team accustomed to short sales cycles must now manage complex bidding processes involving multiple decision-makers. Without developing skills in cross-functional coordination and strategic communication, results will gradually decline. A manager who anticipates this shift six months in advance can organize a mentoring program with the key account team. One who waits to see the numbers drop is managing a crisis instead of steering a transition.
You don’t need to map out every possible change. Identifying one or two major transformations is enough to give your team strategy a clear direction.
Once the direction has been set, you need to assess the gap between what the team actually knows and what it will need.
Three specific questions to help frame this assessment:
Example: An IT team delivers its projects on time, but every budget approval request to the executive committee is rejected. No one knows how to present a structured business case. The project is rejected twice. In the short term, technical expertise is sufficient. In the medium term, the team loses strategic credibility and sees its budgets systematically reduced.
A common pitfall is trying to improve everything at once. This dilutes the collective effort and yields no visible results. It is more effective to select two key competencies that will have a transformative impact over the next 18 months. Strengthening the ability to collaborate across departments, for example, will often have a greater impact than refining expertise that is already solid.
This prioritization process transforms the team's strategy into a decision-making framework, not a list of initiatives.
Not all skills are developed in-house. A clear-eyed team strategy requires making clear trade-offs:
Example: A product team wants to bring cybersecurity in-house by hiring a senior-level candidate. The requested salary exceeds internal standards by 35%, creating an imbalance with current experts. To fund this hire, the innovation budget would need to be reduced and two operational hires postponed. After analysis, the manager decides to work with a specialized firm on ad hoc audits to assess the actual need. A decision is made, and balance is maintained.
These decisions are not trivial. They shape the corporate culture and demonstrate that team strategy is based on deliberate choices, not on wishful thinking.
The team strategy is put into practice through individual decisions. Each team member must understand their role within the shared vision and know how they contribute to the common goal.
Not all skills are developed in-house. A clear-eyed team strategy requires making clear trade-offs:
Example: A product team wants to bring cybersecurity in-house by hiring a senior-level candidate. The requested salary exceeds internal standards by 35%, creating an imbalance with current experts. To fund this hire, the innovation budget would need to be reduced and two operational hires postponed. After analysis, the manager decides to work with a specialized firm on ad hoc audits to assess the actual need. A decision is made, and balance is maintained.
These decisions are not trivial. They shape the corporate culture and demonstrate that team strategy is based on deliberate choices, not on wishful thinking.
Each team typically consists of four different types of people. Recognizing them allows you to tailor your development plan and avoid blind spots:
These four profiles are not set in stone. A key expert can become a strategic leader, while a high-potential employee may fall behind if their development is not supported. What matters is regular monitoring.
Example: In a finance team, a single expert is the only one who knows how to use a complex reporting tool. He prefers to work independently to get things done faster. The result: every time he’s away, projects fall behind schedule. The entire team depends on a single person. If nothing is done, this vulnerability worsens with every new project. The manager includes a knowledge transfer objective in their plan: documentation of the tool, internal training sessions, and pairing on critical projects. Within four months, the dependency is reduced, and the expert feels valued in a new role.
An effective plan consists of five elements, no more:
Example: An employee is aiming for a coordinating role. Rather than promising them a position, the manager entrusts them with full responsibility for a cross-functional project involving three departments. A monthly review is scheduled to assess priority management, communication with stakeholders, and adherence to deadlines. After three months, progress is evident: better foresight, more structured decision-making, and positive feedback from other teams. The employee advances based on results, not promises.
Individual follow-up is not a monitoring tool. It is an alignment mechanism. It allows us to adjust our actions when circumstances change and to maintain a clear link between each person’s progress and the collective direction.
A team strategy is more than just an annual plan. It is a dynamic framework that brings together three dimensions: collective maturity, future competencies, and individual development paths. In practical terms, this means embracing the tensions of the “Storming” phase rather than ignoring them, prioritizing two key competencies rather than trying to strengthen everything, and providing each team member with a clear development path rather than a vague promise. A high-performing team doesn’t just deliver results. It moves forward together, in a shared direction, with clear ground rules.
Discover all our courses and workshops to address the most critical management and leadership challenges.
Quality certification has been awarded for the following category of actions: TRAINING INITIATIVES
Training organisation registered under the number 11755339875. This registration does not imply state approval.
.svg)
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
