Building high-performing teams to drive change

The importance of high-performing teams in digital transformation

High-performing teams are essential to digital transformation success. These teams not only achieve their targets but also bring significant returns on investment through improved productivity and reduced turnover. According to research, high-performing teams are 21% more productive and experience 59% lower turnover rates (Gallup). This level of performance boosts innovation and resilience, as teams are more engaged and aligned with organisational goals. 

We’ve seen many examples of where a development team is given the autonomy to make decisions and reported significant improvements in morale and productivity, enabling them to tackle long-standing challenges more effectively. Building high-performing teams is therefore about empowering individuals to focus on valuable, impactful work rather than repetitive maintenance tasks caused by unresolved tech debt.

In this section, we explore the essential traits of high-performing teams and the steps organisations can take to cultivate them. Leveraging insights from our most experienced consultants, we’ll provide practical guidance on building a collaborative, resilient team culture, enhancing productivity, and driving sustainable change. These strategies aim to help teams not just meet, but exceed, digital transformation goals through alignment, autonomy, and shared purpose

Recognising the characteristics of low-performing teams

Understanding what holds teams back is essential before fostering high performance. Low-performing teams often face several challenges, each with unique impacts on morale, productivity, and outcomes.

• Lack of trust and communication: When teams lack trust, individuals hesitate to share challenges or ask for help, resulting in hidden issues that fester. We’ve observed that teams avoiding hard conversations often experience delays and struggle to meet goals, as problems go unaddressed.
• Absence of clarity and context: A lack of understanding of the project’s purpose or value can erode motivation. Without clear context, team members may feel disconnected, impacting their ability to focus and engage fully.
• Unrealistic expectations and poor leadership: High expectations without corresponding support or resources create frustration. In one instance, a team faced continuous failure, not due to lack of skill, but because their targets were unachievable. This cycle of missed expectations led to high turnover and lower morale.

Recognising these characteristics helps organisations set the stage for transformative changes that build high-performing teams, replacing these blockers with structured support, empowerment, and alignment.

Defining high-performing teams

High-performing teams are built on a foundation of autonomy, trust, and shared purpose. These teams not only meet targets but thrive through a balance of technical excellence and cultural alignment.

• Continuous improvement and testing mindset: High-performing teams emphasise robust development practices, such as unit and automated testing, to ensure stability. Teams that prioritise testing can release features faster and with fewer errors. For example, at one enterprise client, the team managed over 50 releases across multiple applications within a three-month period by adopting small, frequent releases supported by automated testing and feature toggles. This approach minimised disruptions and allowed for faster customer-facing updates, ensuring stability even in high-frequency deployment.
• Sustained momentum and minimising interruptions: These teams maintain productivity by avoiding constant disruptions. When unnecessary meetings and shifting priorities are minimised, the team can stay focused, achieving high output without burnout. Maintaining momentum allows teams to progress without frequent context switching, which can slow down projects.
• Empowered autonomy and ownership: When teams are empowered to make decisions, they’re more motivated and invested in the outcomes. For example, a large tech organisation adopted Google’s 80/20 rule, allowing developers to spend 20% of their time on self-directed improvement or addressing issues from retrospectives. This approach not only helped developers resolve ongoing operational issues but also fostered a culture of ownership and continuous improvement, enhancing motivation and engagement. Or in one of our large financial services clients, the creation of a Developer Enablement team helped centralise common technical challenges and pain points across multiple teams. This empowered developers to address issues collectively, boosting clarity and alignment across projects.
• Trust and communication as foundations: Open communication enables team members to discuss issues and align on solutions collectively. High-performing teams value feedback, using regular retrospective sessions to identify and address issues promptly. This transparency fosters trust, enabling teams to work together effectively and overcome challenges more efficiently. 

Team performance vs. individual productivity

The debate over measuring team versus individual productivity is intensifying, especially as organisations search for effective ways to enhance performance in an environment where organisations are under pressure to do more with less, and the performance of their teams is directly tied to overall success. 

Tools like generative AI coding assistants have also sparked discussions about individual productivity, with leaders wanting to understand and quantify just how much more can be delivered with the same team.

While some, like Mckinsey, have advocated that individual productivity benchmarks can track developer contributions down to measurable outputs, this approach often misses the broader dynamics of effective teamwork and can lead to unintended consequences.

This focus on individual metrics, combined with the ongoing debate around performance versus productivity, shows the growing need to rethink how success is measured within teams.

At DiUS, we know high-performing teams focus on collective problem-solving—when issues arise, the team works together to resolve them rather than leaving individuals to tackle problems alone​. This collective performance ensures that knowledge sharing, collaboration, and trust remain central to how teams function. Measuring individual output in isolation can lead to unhealthy competition and undermine team cohesion​.

Moreover, the act of measurement itself shapes behaviour. For example, if you track lines of code, developers may focus on writing more code, even if it’s unnecessary, simply to boost their metrics. This leads to poor development practices. Therefore, it’s crucial to focus on team outcomes and ensure that metrics align with organisational goals. Encouraging the right behaviour through thoughtful metrics ensures teams don’t lose sight of delivering meaningful value, rather than just chasing numbers​.

It’s important to emphasise that individual performance still matters. While team metrics are critical, individual performance remains relevant. High-performing teams rely on each member pulling their weight, and poor individual performance can erode overall team effectiveness. It’s essential to balance the focus on team-based metrics with an awareness of individual contributions, to ensure that high-performing team members aren’t unfairly burdened by those underperforming. By fostering a culture that values both individual accountability and collective success, organisations can drive higher performance without sacrificing team cohesion.

Sidenote: The Pragmatic Engineer’s response to McKinsey’s developer productivity benchmarking (in Part 1 and Part 2) is worth a read. It introduces the Effort, Output, Outcome, Impact Framework, which distinguishes between effort (e.g., pull requests), output (e.g., completed features), outcome (e.g., improved onboarding), and impact (e.g., increased revenue or reduced churn). This framework helps clarify where different metrics fit and which ones truly reflect team value.

In summary, the optimal approach involves a blend of team and individual metrics that capture both collective achievements and individual accountability. This ensures that each team member contributes to and enhances the group’s success, fostering a collaborative, resilient, and high-performing culture.

Metrics for high-performing teams

High-performing teams rely on a balanced set of metrics that capture both technical output and team well-being, aligning with organisational goals without driving unsustainable behaviour. Metrics help teams gauge progress, but they should be carefully chosen to ensure they reinforce collaboration and sustainable performance rather than pushing individuals toward isolated or unhealthy productivity.

• DORA metrics: Widely used in the engineering space, DORA metrics—deployment frequency, lead time for changes, time to restore service, and change failure rate—are valuable for tracking productivity, particularly in relation to DevOps practices. However, it’s important to remember that DORA wasn’t originally designed to measure team productivity but to assess DevOps adoption. While DORA helps gauge system stability and delivery speed, it’s only part of the picture. A truly high-performing team consistently meets its goals and shows alignment toward shared objectives, which DORA alone cannot fully capture.
• SPACE framework: The SPACE framework evaluates team performance across five dimensions: Satisfaction, Performance, Activity, Collaboration, and Efficiency. Unlike traditional productivity metrics, SPACE captures both output and the quality of developers’ work life, balancing technical performance with well-being. This holistic approach is especially helpful for identifying what makes a team high-performing, ensuring that productivity doesn’t come at the expense of developer satisfaction or team cohesion.
• Velocity and burndown charts: These traditional metrics track progress by measuring the amount of work a team completes in a sprint (velocity) and visually representing remaining work versus time (burndown charts). While useful for planning and adjusting pacing, relying solely on velocity can overlook crucial behind-the-scenes work. High-performing teams use these metrics cautiously, ensuring they reflect both visible and invisible contributions to the team’s objectives.
• Team health scores: Regular surveys or health checks provide insight into team morale, stress levels, and engagement. These qualitative measures help identify potential issues early, offering a balance to quantitative metrics. In one organisation, for instance, low health scores prompted leadership to adjust workloads and resources, boosting morale and preventing burnout. Health scores serve as an early warning system, helping prevent performance dips due to unchecked stress or disengagement.
• Cycle time and flow efficiency: These metrics help identify bottlenecks and improve work processes. Cycle time measures the duration from work initiation to completion, while flow efficiency tracks the ratio of active work time to waiting time. Both metrics are essential for maintaining momentum, helping teams recognise delays and streamline their workflows for improved efficiency and delivery speed.
• Production incidents and defect rates: Monitoring production incidents and recovery times provides insight into system reliability and team responsiveness. Tracking defect rates and how quickly issues are resolved helps assess a team’s technical skill and ability to maintain stability while delivering frequent changes. A team that can resolve incidents quickly shows both strong coordination and a robust technical foundation.
• Retrospective action follow-through: Retrospectives are valuable only if the actions agreed upon are implemented. High-performing teams don’t just discuss improvements; they act on them. Tracking follow-through on retrospective actions is a critical part of continuous improvement, ensuring teams learn and evolve from past experiences. Reviewing action items in subsequent retros reinforces a culture of accountability and growth, addressing recurring issues and fostering a proactive, solutions-oriented mindset.

By combining these metrics, teams gain a fuller picture of both their technical efficiency and team dynamics. This balanced approach to measurement helps maintain sustainable performance, aligning with the broader goals of digital transformation and organisational resilience.

Overcoming challenges with legacy systems and technical debt

As explored in Part 2 of this guide, technical debt and legacy systems are significant obstacles that can lead to a culture of constant “firefighting” rather than proactive improvement. Strategic, ongoing approaches to managing technical debt are essential, and high-performing teams play a central role in effectively addressing these challenges.

• Empowering teams to address technical debt: Allowing developers to dedicate specific time to reducing technical debt builds both morale and system resilience. For instance, a company that permitted developers to spend every second Friday on critical technical issues saw notable performance improvements and a stronger, more robust codebase. This initiative fostered a culture of continuous improvement, enabling developers to proactively address longstanding issues rather than simply react to immediate needs.
• Clear prioritisation and time allocation: As highlighted in Part 2, prioritising and allocating specific time each sprint to address technical debt ensures that it doesn’t accumulate unchecked. Steadily reducing debt enables teams to work more efficiently, avoid frequent system disruptions, and create a more manageable codebase over time.
• Supportive leadership and stakeholder engagement: For legacy systems, successful technical debt reduction often depends on stakeholder understanding and support. At a banking client, a session demonstrated the business impact of automation versus structural tech debt, highlighting the tangible benefits of reducing debt in terms stakeholders could relate to. This engagement helped the team prioritise digital transformation efforts, aligning technical debt reduction with the organisation’s long-term goals.

These strategies create a proactive culture where teams are empowered to manage technical challenges with a structured, sustainable approach. When teams have the tools, support, and autonomy to address technical debt effectively, they contribute to both system health and morale, setting a foundation for lasting digital transformation.

The role of organisational culture

While team culture is essential, it must align with the broader organisational culture to sustain high performance. At DiUS, we’ve seen that organisations committed to collaborative values and clear communication enable teams to perform at their best.

• Alignment and sponsorship: High-performing teams require support from leadership. In one instance, a company empowered its engineering team by treating them as partners, fostering collaboration and shared accountability. This organisational alignment with team goals created a sense of ownership that translated into higher engagement and productivity.
• Avoiding task-based management: Teams excel when they’re seen as partners rather than task executors. In one case, a highly skilled team struggled due to top-down management that dictated tasks without room for feedback or flexibility. When given autonomy, however, this team thrived, innovating beyond their initial scope and driving greater value for the organisation.
• Continuous learning and feedback loops: Regular feedback, retrospectives, and health checks ensure that teams feel heard and aligned with organisational objectives. Teams supported by an open feedback culture are more adaptable and motivated to contribute to the company’s broader mission, driving long-term success.

High-performing teams health check

Empowering teams with autonomy and ownership does more than enhance individual performance—it drives down costs associated with tech debt and cloud spending. High-performing teams are better positioned to support strategic business goals, reducing tech debt over time while maintaining productivity within budget.

Use the following questions to assess and strengthen your approach to fostering teams that are collaborative, resilient, and capable of sustaining high performance:

• Is there a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility? Do team members work together to solve problems, reducing individual stress and investing in collective success? Are trust and morale enhanced through collaborative problem-solving?
• Is there a focus on continuous improvement and a testing mindset? Are practices like automated testing and feature toggles in place to support reliable, rapid releases? Does the team view each deployment as a learning opportunity to improve stability?
• Are you maintaining momentum and minimising interruptions? Is the team’s focus protected by reducing unnecessary meetings and limiting priority shifts? Does this help sustain productivity, alignment, and prevent burnout?
• Are team health checks balanced with quantitative metrics? Alongside productivity metrics like DORA, velocity, and cycle time, are regular health checks or surveys conducted to monitor morale and prevent burnout?
• Are teams empowered with autonomy and ownership? Do team members have the freedom to make decisions and allocate time to address technical debt? Does this autonomy foster morale, accountability, and a sense of continuous improvement?
• Are team-based metrics prioritised over individual productivity? Is there an emphasis on collective outcomes, with metrics like flow efficiency and cycle time reflecting joint efforts rather than individual outputs? Does this prevent unhealthy competition within the team?
• Is technical debt and legacy system management proactive? Is specific time allocated each sprint to address technical debt, improving system stability and team satisfaction while reducing the need for constant firefighting?
• Is trust built through open communication and feedback loops? Are frequent feedback sessions, such as retrospectives, encouraged to help teams address issues transparently and make real-time adjustments that reinforce trust?
• Is there a culture of partnership and support at the organisational level? Does leadership value input, collaboration, and shared accountability? Are team and organisational goals aligned, fostering a sense of ownership and ensuring achievements align with business objectives?

In the final section of this guide, we’ll explore cloud cost optimisation, offering practical insights into managing cloud expenses effectively while maintaining the flexibility and scalability needed for digital transformation.