Most teams do not lose momentum because they are lazy. They lose momentum because they stop learning.
They get busy. They get careful. They get good enough.
The meetings keep happening. The dashboards stay full. The updates sound polished. But underneath the surface, curiosity starts to thin out, risk-taking drops, hard conversations get postponed, and the team slowly shifts from improving to maintaining.
That is a dangerous place to be.
In this latest episode of Impactful Teamwork, I unpack what it really takes to build a team that does not just perform once, but keeps getting better. The spark for this conversation came from Ron Friedman’s Harvard Business Review article, How to Build a Superteam That Keeps Getting Better, which draws on survey data from more than 6,000 knowledge workers across industries. In that research, “superteams” stood out because they were rated highly for effectiveness and comparative performance, and they shared three common strengths: they managed time, energy and attention more efficiently, they actively made one another better, and they kept building skills and improving over time.
That last point matters more than ever.
Because in today’s business world, strong teams are not enough. You need teams that can adapt, learn, and evolve without everything relying on one exhausted leader at the top.
Why continuous improvement matters now
The old leadership model told us that if we hired smart people, gave them targets, and checked performance often enough, results would follow.
Sometimes they did. But that approach is wearing thin.
Today’s teams are operating in a world of accelerated change, rising complexity, shifting customer expectations and constant noise. In that kind of environment, the real competitive advantage is not just talent. It is a team’s ability to learn faster than the pressure around it.
That is why this subject fits so naturally with my own work on the Unbridled Teamship Roadmap, where the aim is to move teams from silo mentality, minimal effort and resistance towards seamless unity, purposeful alignment and radical reinvention. That happens by strengthening Game-Changing Trust, Impactful Contribution and Unbridled Adaptability.
In other words, high performance is not just about output. It is about whether the team can keep growing.
Superteams experiment more
One of Friedman’s clearest findings is that superteams experiment more often. In fact, his research found that superteams reported experimenting nearly 50% more often than average teams. He also found that leaders of superteams were three times more likely to reward intelligent risk-taking, even when outcomes fell short, and that superteams were 30% more open to trying new things and 39% more comfortable taking risks than average teams.
That is a huge clue. The best teams are not waiting for certainty before they move. They are learning in motion.
This is where many leadership teams get stuck. They say they want innovation, but what they actually reward is caution. They say they want ownership, but they keep pulling decisions back uphill. They say they want initiative, but people learn very quickly that visible failure is not safe. Then they wonder why progress slows down.
If you want a team that keeps getting better, experimentation cannot be a special event. It has to become part of the team’s rhythm. Small tests. Fast learning. Honest review. Less drama, more discovery. That is also why I so often talk about rewarding the try. A team that is scared to try something new and untested, is a team that will eventually stall.
Curiosity is a leadership discipline
Another powerful theme from the article is curiosity.
Friedman found that leaders of superteams were 33% more likely to admit they lacked important information, 56% more likely to ask thoughtful questions, and 53% more likely to show genuine interest in learning from employees. He also references Google’s landmark study on 180 teams, which found that psychological safety was the strongest predictor of team performance.
That matters because curiosity is not a soft leadership trait. It is strategic.
Curiosity makes it possible for truth to enter the room. It gives teams permission to question assumptions, name uncertainty and learn from people who do not sit at the top of the hierarchy.
The old leadership model says, “I need to know.” The better model says, “I need to notice.” What am I missing? What is changing? Who else sees this differently? What do we not yet understand?
In nature, herds survive because they remain alert and responsive. Horses are constantly sensing their environment, reading signals, and adjusting together. They do not thrive by pretending everything is fine. They thrive by staying aware. That same quality is needed in human teams.
Stop using meetings as performance theatre
One of my favourite ideas from Friedman’s piece is the question many leaders avoid asking:
What are you stuck on?
His research found that superteam leaders were 43% more likely than average team leaders to steer discussion towards problems that need solving. He also points to Scrum’s three core stand-up questions: What did I work on yesterday? What will I work on today? And what is blocking my progress?
This is where so many teams leak energy. They use meetings to report progress, not reveal friction.
Everyone sounds capable. Everyone sounds busy. Everyone sounds on top of it. Meanwhile, the real blockers stay hidden.
But you cannot solve what no one is allowed to name.
If your leadership team wants to improve, meetings need to become places where obstacles can be surfaced early, not buried under polished updates. Teams need permission to say, “This is stuck.” “This is unclear.” “This is not working.” “I need help.”
That is not weakness. That is maturity.
Good leaders stay connected to the work
Friedman also challenges the idea that leaders should always stay out of the weeds. He argues that the best leaders remain close enough to the work to model standards, spot roadblocks and identify where the next improvement may come from. He makes an important distinction between healthy involvement and micromanagement. Strong leaders build capacity by working shoulder to shoulder with their teams, while micromanagers hover and take over. He also cites research showing that managers who work alongside their teams feel more energised and effective, while those who manage from a distance report higher stress and exhaustion.
This is an important tension. Leaders do need to let go. But they also need to stay connected. Detachment can create drift just as easily as control can create dependency.
The question is not whether you are involved. The question is whether your involvement builds capability or weakens it.
Feedback should fuel growth, not fear
Another standout finding from the article is around feedback. On superteams, more than 90% of workers say their leader delivers feedback that motivates improvement without sounding critical. Friedman also cites a review of more than 600 studies showing that feedback makes performance worse in more than a third of cases when it is delivered badly. The article highlights the importance of treating mistakes as useful data and notes that Adobe’s shift from annual reviews to shorter, informal check-ins saved 80,000 work hours and reduced voluntary turnover by 34%.
That should make every leader stop and think. Because badly delivered feedback does not create growth. It creates defensiveness. People start protecting themselves rather than stretching themselves.
The best teams make feedback feel like support. They use it to sharpen, not shame. They create an environment where learning can stay alive, especially when things have not gone to plan.
The real work of building a better team
If you want a superpowered team, one that keeps getting better, the work is not about adding more pressure. It is about creating better conditions.
Conditions where:
- experimentation is normal
- curiosity is visible
- blockers can be named
- leaders stay connected
- feedback helps people grow
- meaning stays alive
This is also deeply aligned with what I believe about teamship. Great teams are not built by command and control. They are built through trust, alignment, contribution and adaptability. They move like healthy living systems, not rigid machines.
And that is the heart of this podcast episode. If your team looks capable on the outside but progress still feels heavier than it should, this conversation will help you see why.
Ready to learn more?
In this week’s episode of Impactful Teamwork, I go deeper into these seven shifts and share practical ways to help your team become more honest, energised and adaptive. Because the future will not belong to the teams that look the most polished. It will belong to the teams that keep getting better.
And if you want to discover where your own team may be strongest, and where it may be slowing itself down, take the Turbo-Charge Your Team quiz. My framework is designed to help leaders identify what needs to shift so their teams can build stronger trust, more meaningful contribution and greater adaptability over time.
If this has stirred something in you, go and listen to the podcast.
Show Notes
00:00 Teamwork Advantage
01:24 Super Team Research
02:27 Teamship Mindset
03:55 Experiment Often
06:49 Lead With Curiosity
08:58 Name The Blockers
11:13 Lead Close To Work
13:40 Feedback That Fuels
17:37 Support Growth Beyond Roles
20:50 Purpose Over Metrics
23:01 Seven Step Recap
24:17 Design A Superpowered Team
