Team performance rarely moves upward in a neat straight line, although team success is often viewed that way.<\/p>\n
Team performance rarely moves upward in a neat straight line.<\/p>\n
Yet many organizations act as if it does. A plan is made, goals are added, KPIs are placed on top, and then we expect a team to keep improving in a logical and measurable way.<\/p>\n
But on the shop floor, it works differently.<\/p>\n
Sometimes there is energy. People pick things up, help each other, and solve problems before they grow bigger. You notice pace. There is focus. The team is moving.<\/p>\n
And sometimes that drops.<\/p>\n
Not always visibly. Not dramatically. But you can feel it. People wait more. Small irritations linger. A meeting feels heavier than it needs to. The work continues, but the sharpness is gone.<\/p>\n
That is what I mean by the performance pendulum.<\/p>\n
A team constantly moves between energy and fatigue, focus and distraction, trust and control, pace and delay. Not because people do not want to perform, but because teams are made up of people. And people respond to pressure, lack of clarity, success, tension, change, and leadership.<\/p>\n
A pendulum does not move without reason. There is energy behind it. Direction. Friction.<\/p>\n
Teams are no different.<\/p>\n
Sometimes the energy comes from a clear assignment. Sometimes from a leader who brings calm. Sometimes from a team that trusts each other. But the movement can also get stuck because of old patterns, unclear choices, fatigue, or frustration that is never really spoken about.<\/p>\n
For me, there are three forces in that pendulum.<\/p>\n
Momentum.<\/strong> The energy a team builds when people know what they are contributing to. When successes are visible. When effort leads somewhere.<\/p>\n Friction.<\/strong> Everything that slows things down. Unclear priorities. Too much ad hoc work. Miscommunication. A leader who pulls too much toward themselves. Or a team that has been through so many changes that it thinks: here we go again.<\/p>\n Balance.<\/strong> Not that everything is calm or easy. But that performance can be sustained. Not briefly peaking by pushing harder, but finding a rhythm in which people can keep delivering without running empty.<\/p>\n What I often see is that leaders want to stop the pendulum. No fluctuations. No setbacks. No hassle.<\/p>\n But that is not how teams work.<\/p>\n The better question is not: how do I remove all movement?<\/p>\n The better question is: where is the movement coming from?<\/p>\n Where is the energy? Where is the resistance? Where is the team losing balance? And what does that ask of you as a leader?<\/p>\n Not pulling harder.<\/p>\n Looking better.<\/p>\n In production environments, focus is fragile. There is always something. A machine stops. An order needs to go out earlier. Someone is off sick. A customer calls. The planning changes while everyone had just thought it was clear.<\/p>\n Then \u201cjust push through\u201d is often the first response.<\/p>\n And sometimes that is needed.<\/p>\n But when pushing through becomes the default, a team slowly runs empty. People become shorter with each other. Less sharp. More small mistakes creep in. Not because they do not know their craft, but because they have been under tension for too long.<\/p>\n I see this happen often. Teams work harder, but not better. They respond to whatever shouts the loudest: the breakdown, the urgent request, the email from above. Meanwhile, the real questions remain untouched.<\/p>\n What needs to come first now? Focus does not start with a new model. Focus starts with choices. Spoken out loud. Not only inside the manager\u2019s head.<\/p>\n This takes priority this week. That is exactly what creates calm.<\/p>\n Short reflection moments help with this. No big evaluation circus. Just a moment to stop.<\/p>\n Where did we get stuck? Without those moments, the noise grows. Assumptions get bigger. Irritations too.<\/p>\n The same applies to delegation. Many leaders want people to take responsibility. Until things become tense. Then they take it back anyway. Because it is faster. Because they think they can do it better. Because they are afraid it will go wrong.<\/p>\n Understandable.<\/p>\n But that mainly teaches a team that ownership is temporary.<\/p>\n Ownership only grows when people are allowed to truly carry something. With clear boundaries and feedback, but without the leader taking the wheel again at the first sign of doubt.<\/p>\n There are a few patterns I often see when teams lose balance.<\/p>\n The first is multitasking<\/strong>.<\/p>\n It is still too often seen as something positive. As if you are doing well when you are doing five things at once. In reality, it usually means that nobody is truly giving their full attention to anything anymore.<\/p>\n Everyone is busy. But busy is not the same as effective.<\/p>\n In fact, busyness can also become a way to avoid choosing.<\/p>\n The second pitfall is micromanagement<\/strong>.<\/p>\n I understand where it comes from. Especially when pressure is high. You want grip. You want to know what is happening. You want to prevent things from going wrong.<\/p>\n But grip can also suffocate.<\/p>\n When a leader is on top of everything, people mainly learn one thing: wait until he or she says something. Ownership does not disappear because people are lazy. It disappears because there is no real space to take it.<\/p>\n Then something strange happens.<\/p>\n The leader feels the team is not taking enough responsibility. The team feels there is no real space anyway. And both sides keep the pattern alive.<\/p>\n The third pitfall is lack of clarity<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Not the big kind of lack of clarity. Not that nobody knows what the company makes or where the customer is. I mean the small daily lack of clarity.<\/p>\n What comes first? These kinds of questions are often not made explicit. Everyone thinks they more or less know how it works. Until things become tense. Then suddenly it turns out that one person thought production was leading, another thought planning made the decision, and someone else thought: I will wait until my manager says something.<\/p>\n That is how movement gets lost.<\/p>\n Not because people do not want to. But because everyone starts finding their own route through foggy terrain.<\/p>\n The fourth pitfall is too few real check-ins<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Not a round where everyone says it is busy and then carries on. But a real moment to stop.<\/p>\n What is getting stuck? Without those kinds of moments, assumptions get space. And assumptions often feel completely logical to the person who has them.<\/p>\n Before you know it, one person thinks: they are not picking it up. Meanwhile, people are not talking with each other, but mainly about each other.<\/p>\n You do not always see that in the numbers straight away. First you see it in the atmosphere. In short replies. In fatigue. In people asking fewer questions and filling in more themselves.<\/p>\n That is often where the real delay begins.<\/p>\n Mindset is one of those words that quickly becomes too polished. Growth mindset. Fixed mindset. Reframing. Staying positive. Before you know it, it sounds like something from a training where people nod politely and then continue exactly as before.<\/p>\n But in teams, mindset is definitely visible.<\/p>\n Not as theory. Just in behavior.<\/p>\n You notice it when a team leans back a little at every new plan. Not openly obstructive. Not always angry. Sometimes very calm.<\/p>\n A silence at the table. Or a sentence like:<\/p>\n \u201cHere we go again. In three months, we won\u2019t hear anything about this anymore.\u201d<\/p>\n That is not just resistance.<\/p>\n That is often experience.<\/p>\n People have learned that plans come and go. That something new is rolled out again, with nice words attached, but that daily reality changes very little. They are expected to adapt, while the layer above seems to remain untouched.<\/p>\n As a leader, you should not be too quick to say that people are negative.<\/p>\n Sometimes they are not negative.<\/p>\n Sometimes they are tired of promises.<\/p>\n At the same time, experience can also get stuck.<\/p>\n Then \u201cthis is how we do things here\u201d is no longer an explanation, but a stop sign.<\/p>\n \u201cThat does not work here.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe are not an office organization.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cWe have already tried that once.\u201d<\/p>\n Sometimes there is truth in that. Of course not everything designed behind a desk works on the shop floor. People often know that very well. And that is exactly why you need to take their experience seriously.<\/p>\n But experience should not become a reason to stop exploring.<\/p>\n So the question is not: how do I get them on board?<\/p>\n The better question is:<\/p>\n What do they know from experience that we need to take with us, and where might we be using experience to avoid looking at something?<\/p>\n That is often where the real work is.<\/p>\n Rest remains a difficult word in many organizations.<\/p>\n As if rest means you have less ambition. Or that you are not strong enough. Especially in production environments, where pushing through is almost a cultural value.<\/p>\n But rest is not weakness.<\/p>\n Rest is maintenance.<\/p>\n You would not let a machine keep running endlessly without checking what is wearing down. You do not wait until everything breaks down and then act surprised that it went wrong.<\/p>\n With people, we often do.<\/p>\n Just keep going a little longer. This week still. This deadline still. This peak still.<\/p>\n Of course there are periods when extra effort is needed. That is part of it. But when peak pressure becomes the normal state, something breaks. Sometimes visibly. Sometimes much more quietly.<\/p>\n People become shorter with each other. More small mistakes creep in. Humor disappears. Meetings feel heavier. And often, people start saying less at exactly the moments when you need their input most.<\/p>\n What I often see then is that leadership pushes even harder. More control. More pressure. More requests for ownership. While the team actually needs to recover first and find direction again.<\/p>\n Rest does not mean lowering the bar. It means wanting people to be able to keep reaching that bar.<\/p>\n Sometimes recovery sits in something small. A meeting that ends on time. A break that is actually a break. A leader who does not send emails late at night as if everyone should always be switched on. Or a team that takes a moment to look back after a heavy period before the next project starts again.<\/p>\n That is not a luxury. It is part of performing well.<\/p>\n Because a team that never recovers may keep delivering for a while. But somewhere, the bill comes due.<\/p>\n For me, the performance pendulum is mainly a way to look more closely at what is happening in a team.<\/p>\n Not immediately adding yet another action plan. Or judging straight away. Or pushing harder.<\/p>\n But first seeing where the movement is coming from.<\/p>\n Sometimes there is plenty of energy in a team, but it is being used in the wrong way. Sometimes there is not too little motivation, but too much noise. Sometimes a team seems difficult, while people are actually tired of lack of clarity, half-finished changes, or the same discussions again and again.<\/p>\n That is often where the gain is.<\/p>\n Not in adding more pressure, but in seeing more sharply what is really going on.<\/p>\n Where is the team running empty? These are not theoretical questions. Certainly not in manufacturing, logistics, or warehouses. There, you quickly see what works and what does not. In the planning. In the collaboration. In the atmosphere on the floor. In how quickly problems are solved, or how often they keep coming back.<\/p>\n Team success does not come from stopping the pendulum.<\/p>\n It comes from learning to recognize when to speed up, when to slow down, and when to honestly dare to look at the question:<\/p>\nMaintaining Focus When Pressure Is High<\/h2>\n
\nWho decides?
\nWhat can wait?
\nAnd what are we solving again and again, without looking at the root cause?<\/p>\n
\nThis is what we consciously will not do.
\nThis requires a decision.
\nThis needs to go to leadership, because the team cannot solve it on its own.<\/p>\n
\nWhat did we solve?
\nWhich agreement do we keep making, but not actually follow?<\/p>\nCommon Pitfalls in Focus and Performance<\/h2>\n
\nWho makes the decision?
\nWhen is something good enough?
\nWhat is someone allowed to solve themselves?
\nWhen does it need to go upward?<\/p>\n
\nWhat is not being said?
\nWhich agreement did we make last week, and are we actually following it now?
\nWhere is there friction between people, departments, or interests?<\/p>\n
\nAnd the other thinks: we never get clear information.<\/p>\nThe Role of Mindset<\/h2>\n
\nA joke at the coffee machine.
\nA look at each other.<\/p>\nRest and Recovery as Part of Performance<\/h2>\n
In Closing<\/h2>\n
\nWhere is there too much talking and too little deciding?
\nWhere is experience being used as a valuable source, and where as a reason not to change anymore?
\nWhere might you, as a leader, still be part of the pattern yourself?<\/p>\n