High-Performance Team Survey (HPTS)

Abstract

The High-Performance-Team-Survey (HPTS) is a psychological instrument designed to comprehensively capture the major success factors associated with High-Performing Teams. Its theoretical foundation is derived from Google’s seminal internal research study, Project Aristotle, combined with extensive findings from international team research. The HPTS operationalizes five core psychological dimensions critical for effective teamwork.

The survey is available in three versions—long (27 items), medium (16 items), and short (5 items)—all demonstrating strong psychometric properties. Empirical validation shows substantial correlations across all versions with key team outcomes, providing robust evidence for its construct validity and criterion validity. The HPTS is utilized primarily for team diagnostics and organizational development within various business sectors.

Keywords

Teamwork, High-Performance-Team, Psychological Safety, High Performance Standards, Clarity, Meaningfulness of Work, Organizational Impact, Team Diagnostics, Organizational Psychology

Authors

Dr. Josef A. Fischer, Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann, Dr. Tom Siebenaler

Purpose

The primary purpose of the HPTS is to facilitate detailed team diagnostics by identifying central success factors crucial for high-performing teams. It is designed for simultaneous administration to all members of a team to capture collective perceptions accurately. The instrument is typically deployed via written or online-based surveys (CSAQ/Internet survey).

Beyond individual team diagnosis, the HPTS is highly suitable for large-scale employee surveys, allowing organizations to simultaneously assess and compare multiple teams or entire departments. Furthermore, the scale serves as a valuable needs analysis and planning tool for subsequent team development interventions. The availability of three distinct versions (long, medium, and short) ensures flexibility depending on the survey objectives and time constraints.

The HPTS is particularly recommended for repeated measurements over time, enabling the monitoring of progress, the identification of changes in the success factors, and the targeted evaluation of organizational change processes, such as strategy implementation, restructuring, or cultural transformation activities. The scale is applicable to any type of work group or team, regardless of organization or industry, provided the group operates within an organizational context.

Construct

The HPTS measures five distinct, yet interrelated, psychological dimensions identified as key success factors for effective team performance, based on both academic theory and the findings of Google’s Project Aristotle. These dimensions function as formative indicators of overall high team performance.

The five core dimensions measured by the HPTS are defined as follows:

• Psychological Safety: This describes the shared belief among team members that the team is a safe environment for interpersonal risk-taking, where no one will be punished or humiliated for speaking up with constructive criticism, problems, or mistakes (Edmondson, 1999).
• Dependability & High Performance Standards (Leistungsorientierung): This involves the collective assumption of responsibility for achieving ambitious performance goals (Anderson & West, 1994), alongside shared attention to work progress and the contribution of each team member.
• Structure & Clarity of Roles, Plans, and Goals (Klarheit): This dimension arises from clearly defined criteria that enable a shared understanding of objectives, processes, and roles (Rizzo et al., 1970). High clarity sharpens the team’s collective focus and work alignment.
• Meaningfulness of Work (Bedeutsamkeit der Arbeit): This characterizes the collective perception within the team that the task itself is inherently important and relevant (Hackman, 1987).
• Impact on the Organization (Einfluss auf die Organisation): This describes the positive effect that the team’s results have on the organization as a whole (Hackman, 1987). Teams with high impact contribute significantly to the overall success of the organization.

Validity

The HPTS demonstrates evidence of both convergent construct validity and criterion validity across all three survey versions (long, medium, and short).

Construct Validity (Convergent): Construct validity was assessed by examining correlations between the HPTS scales and related team constructs: Shared Vision and Strategic Alignment. As expected, substantial positive correlations were found. For instance, the total HPTS score correlated strongly with Shared Vision (r = .70 in the long version) and Strategic Alignment (r = .58 in the long version). All five subscales showed statistically significant positive correlations (p < .01) with these external constructs, supporting the theoretical relevance of the HPTS dimensions.

Criterion Validity: Criterion validity was established by correlating the HPTS scales with two measures of team effectiveness: Team Performance and Team Innovation. The results indicated substantial positive correlations across all versions. The total HPTS score correlated with Team Performance (r = .60 in the long version) and Team Innovation (r = .56 in the long version). These findings confirm that the HPTS effectively measures factors that predict key team outcomes.

Reliability

The reliability of the HPTS was assessed using two indicators of internal consistency: Cronbach’s Alpha (α) and McDonald’s Omega (ω).

For the Long Version (27 items), the internal consistency of all five subscales was rated as very good: Psychological Safety (α = .90 / ω = .90), Performance Orientation (α = .89 / ω = .89), Clarity (α = .90 / ω = .91), Meaningfulness (α = .92 / ω = .92), and Impact (α = .92 / ω = .92).

The Medium Version (16 items) also showed good to very good internal consistency: Psychological Safety (α = .84 / ω = .84), Performance Orientation (α = .80 / ω = .82), Clarity (α = .85 / ω = .85), Meaningfulness (α = .85 / ω = .85), and Impact (α = .88 / ω = .89). The overall internal consistency for the Short Version (5 items) was also rated as good (α = .81 / ω = .81).

Factor Analysis

Scale development involved two main analytical steps: Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA): An EFA using principal axis factoring with Promax oblique rotation was conducted on the 27 items of the long version. This analysis extracted five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 72% of the total variance. Item commonalities ranged from .57 to .83. The analysis confirmed a simple structure for the five dimensions, with no cross-loadings exceeding .30.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM): Confirmatory factor analysis using linear Structural Equation Modeling (Maximum Likelihood estimation) was performed to determine the model fit for the long and medium versions. The hypothesized models featured five covaried latent factors.

• For the Long Version, model fit indices were: χ² = 795.315, df = 314, p < .001, CFI = .93, IFI = .93, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .07. Standardized factor loadings ranged from .65 to .89. These results indicate a good model fit according to conventional criteria (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003).
• For the Medium Version, model fit indices were: χ² = 265.636, df = 94, p < .001, CFI = .94, IFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .08. Standardized factor loadings ranged from .60 to .86. This also indicates a good model fit.

Due to having only one item per dimension, structural equation modeling could not be calculated for the short version. However, based on the strong model fit of the long and medium versions, indexation of the five items in the short version is supported.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological Survey / Team Diagnostic Instrument

Format: Self-report questionnaire (CSAQ – Computerized Self-Administered Questionnaire / Online Survey)

Language Available: German (deutsch)

Population Group: Employees and team members in organizational contexts (applicable to all types of teams/work groups).

Age Group: Adults (working professionals).

Population Details: Validation sample (N=323) consisted of employees from various industries in Germany (data collected 2020). Sample demographics: 49% male, 51% female. Age distribution concentrated between 30-39 years (48%). Positions varied widely, including staff without leadership responsibility (56%) and team leaders (22%).

Test Methodology: 5-point Likert scale ranging from (1) stimme überhaupt nicht zu (strongly disagree) to (5) stimme voll und ganz zu (strongly agree). Scoring involves calculating a non-weighted mean index for the overall High Performance Team Index. For long and medium versions, separate non-weighted indices are calculated for each of the five subscales.

Keywords

Organizational Development, Team Effectiveness, Leadership, Organizational Culture, Performance Measurement, Project Aristotle, Team Diagnostic

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Dr. Josef A. Fischer: [email protected]; Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann: [email protected]; Dr. Tom Siebenaler: [email protected]

Correspondence Address: Dr. Hendrik Hüttermann, Universität St. Gallen, Institut für Führung und Personalmanagement (I.FPM-HSG).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 2020 (Validation data collected in 2020).

Status of Development: Tested and validated (erprobt).

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding specific permissions and fees is not provided in the source manuscript. Users should contact the authors for usage rights.

Reference’s

• Anderson, N., & West, M. (1994). The measurement of climate for innovation and creativity in groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 59–78.
• Bortz, J., & Döring, N. (2009). Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation: Für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler (4. Aufl.). Springer.
• de Jong, P. F., & Elfering, A. (2010). The measurement of task-related team processes. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 198–208.
• Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison of two approaches. Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 177–208.
• Duhigg, C. (2016). What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. New York Times Magazine.
• Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
• Frazier, M. L., Tupper, C., & Gooty, J. (2017). The effects of team psychological safety on team outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(10), 1404–1417.
• Google. (2020). Project Aristotle: What makes a team effective at Google?
• Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice Hall.
• Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.
• Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.
• Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, C. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
• Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.
• Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2013). Work groups and teams in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 647–704). American Psychological Association.
• Kunze, F., Boehm, S. A., & Bruch, H. (2015). Age diversity, age discrimination, and performance consequences—A cross-organizational study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 264–280.
• MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–733.
• Mathieu, J. E., Hollenbeck, J. R., van Knippenberg, D., & Ilgen, D. R. (2017). A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 452–467.
• Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L., & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a look to the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.
• Maynard, M. T., Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., O’Boyle, E. H., & Morrow, J. (2013). The effect of team size and task type on team performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 66(1), 161–210.
• Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The work design questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1321–1339.
• Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163.
• Sawyer, J. E. (1992). The role of team characteristics in team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 53(2), 346–369.
• Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
• Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2011). A meta-analytic review of the consequences of job design. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(6), 1117–1132.
• Stewart, G. L. (2006). A meta-analytic review of the group-level antecedents of innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1085–1101.
• Wageman, R., Hackman, J. R., & Lehman, E. (2005). Team diagnosis: Diagnosis and intervention in teams. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41(4), 438–454.
• Williams, L. J., Vandenberg, R. J., & Edwards, J. R. (2009). Structural equation modeling in organizational research: Recent advances and directions. SAGE Publications.
• Zickar, M. J. (2020). The assessment of work team effectiveness. Oxford University Press.

Items of the High-Performance-Team-Survey (HPTS)

The full HPTS Long Version consists of 27 items. The following table displays the five items comprising the Short Version, which includes one item representing each of the five subscales:

The response format for each item is a five-point scale:

1. stimme überhaupt nicht zu (strongly disagree)
2. stimme eher nicht zu (disagree somewhat)
3. teils/teils (neither agree nor disagree)
4. stimme eher zu (agree somewhat)
5. stimme voll und ganz zu (strongly agree)