Fix the conditions,
not the people.
Your team isn’t underperforming. It’s under-designed.
Nobody hands you a manual when they hand you a team. The design is what you inherited. The blame is what you’ll get.
Most of what looks like a people problem is not. The silent meeting, the stalled decision, the rework that didn’t have to happen — they’re team-design problems wearing people-problem clothes. There are five conditions a team needs to function. They have names. Nobody gave them to me. I’m guessing nobody gave them to you either.
Take the team that’s working hard.
Sonos was sure the Ace headphones were ready, and about the part they were looking at, they were right — the engineering was a genuine feat, the kind of thing TIME would name one of the year’s best inventions. To make it work, they rewrote the platform sitting underneath fifty million speakers already in people’s homes. Then they shipped. Within days, speakers were vanishing from the app, alarms stopped firing, volume went haywire; one installer was suddenly scheduling fifty-six house calls to fix systems he’d personally vouched for. Within months the company had lost $1.2 billion and its CEO, CMO, and CPO. They hadn’t forgotten how to engineer. They engineered the wrong thing, beautifully.
They ran, quite perfectly, in the wrong direction.
This is the failure that hides the longest, because nothing looks broken. Everyone is precise — instruments working, engines running, crew executing. No one is accurate. Precision is executing well; accuracy is doing the right work. You can have all of the first and none of the second, and the dashboards stay green right up until the arrival.
At Sonos the target had quietly slipped from any song, any room, no wires to ship two new products a year — two degrees off at takeoff, never corrected, which is how you land 350 miles from where you meant to. Nobody ever said the words we’re abandoning the promise. They just stopped checking against it.
Your version is smaller, but it’s the same geometry. Most managers read it as a strategy problem, or a communication problem, or a we-need-stronger-PMs problem. None is the diagnosis. Without a shared definition to return to, every decision becomes a negotiation with no common reference point — and the thing everyone actually wanted gets buried. This is Common Goal: not a slogan on a wall, but a written, agreed, testable picture of what you’re building, checked before the arrival, not after.
That’s one condition.
There are four more.
And all five fit inside a single sentence — the definition of a team itself.
A team is a bounded, stable group of people, interdependent on achieving a common goal.
Five conditions, one sentence. Here they are, one at a time.
The whole framework
Five conditions. Miss one and it stops being a team.
- 01 Bounded Who’s on the team — and who isn’t.
- 02 Stable Together long enough to get good at the work.
- 03 Interdependent The work can’t be done alone.
- 04 Achieving Pointed at a result, not just motion.
- 05 Common Goal A WHY that unifies every decision, and a WHAT in service of it.
Cover story · February 2025
Back to Basics: Building High-Performance Teams for Complex Projects
Published in CONNECT, the quarterly magazine of the International Centre for Complex Project Management.
Get the issuePublished by
Subscribe
Team design, one Sunday at a time.
Read it Sunday morning. Use it Monday afternoon.
✓ Sunday’s essay is on its way. If it doesn’t land, check your promotions folder once.
Read by managers in engineering, healthcare operations, consulting, and at one ski mountain in the Berkshires running on a forever-goal since 1996.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe any time.
ESSAY · COMMON GOAL
A custodian told the President he was putting a man on the moon. Kennedy coined the OG moonshot in five questions and thirty-five days.
It was past midnight at Cape Canaveral when President Kennedy, walking a corridor with his entourage, stopped to ask a janitor why he was working so late. The man looked up from his mop: "I'm not mopping floors. I'm putting a man on the moon." He was one of 400,000 people who could have said the same thing.
What looks like a communication problem is almost always a sequencing problem. Lower the stakes from Apollo to your own team: most managers announce the goal, then try to sell it — the next offsite sharpens the mission statement, the rebrand refreshes the deck, the all-hands repeats the vision louder, and the team still carries five slightly different versions of it. Kennedy inverted the order. He asked five questions and spent thirty-five days consulting his team before he declared anything, and the Why he built outlived him — it was still running the room a year and a day later, after he was gone.
This is the thirty-five days reconstructed from the actual memos — the five questions, von Braun's "the fewer the better," the speech at Rice — and the three-step play you can run on a team of five this week, before your Why becomes one more poster on the wall.
READ THE FULL ESSAY →The Lighthouse Leadership Podcast
The Power of Purpose: Connecting Personal and Shared “Why”
Purpose shows up in the grandest and simplest of moments — whether facing the end of life with a loved one or answering the question, “So, what do you do?” A deeply personal story of loss, identity, and how leaders harness a shared “why” to unite teams.
Listen to the episodeRecent essays
Browse all 62 essays- July 16, 2026 Bounded Team Structure Beats Talent: Why Great People Still Fail PILLAR · BOUNDED Team Structure Beats Talent: Why Great People Still Fail Team structure, not talent, is what breaks good teams. The four questions every boundary… 27 min
- July 5, 2026 Management What Google Learned by Firing all it’s Managers Google's famous experiment revealed two things every great manager must do. See what they found -- and how it redefines what leadership actually looks like. 10 min
- June 21, 2026 Interdependence Challenger Disaster Leadership Lessons for Managers Who Fear Dissent The Challenger disaster leadership lessons aren't about the O-ring. They're about a room that overruled the engineer who was right — and how dissent dies. 10 min
The Sunday essay
You scrolled this far. The door is still open.
One essay. Field-tested. Nothing padded. If the next few don’t change how you see your team, unsubscribe.
✓ Check your inbox — Sunday’s essay is on its way.
