How to Build Better Teams and Organizations
Stronger relationships. Better decisions. Lasting impact.
Better economic performance, and performance that stakeholders and shareholders value in the long term. This page shows how relational quality creates it, and how to build better teams and organizations, in a world that does not always work this way yet.
It is written for anybody with a management function, from team leads to the C-suite.
The framework
Executives already control the levers that shape how groups behave. When those levers support the four design mechanisms rather than undermine them, a particular set of outcomes follows, led by economic performance.
Direction. Vision and mission, tone at the top, strategy and plans.
Structure and flow. Organizational structure, information and decision flows, information systems.
Rules of the game. Target setting, operational policies and procedures.
Measurement and reward. Performance measures, performance evaluation, reward systems.
People and place. Hiring and training, socialization, workplace.
All four need to be in place.
Financial and economic performance.
Productivity. Creativity and innovation.
Resilience and agility. Compliance.
Sustainability: environmental, social and governance.
Health and wellbeing. Societal impact.
Practical approaches
This works at any scale: two people working together, a team, a department, a whole organization. It is about the relationships within whatever unit you look at, and with its external stakeholders.
Competition is not excluded. There can be positive competition, like a sports match: two teams compete hard, and at the same time they are part of one game, with decency before and after. Competition between teams is fine when everybody still sees the bigger picture. This is the move from a culture of I to a culture of we.
1. Shared purpose and identity
Do we have a clear purpose together? Do we feel a shared identity around what we want to achieve? Is our purpose aligned with sustainability, so that what we pursue does not undermine the conditions we all depend on?
2. Group self-regulation
Do people feel that what they contribute to the team is broadly in proportion to how they benefit? Are team members involved in decisions that matter to them, or at least informed transparently? Do people know what others are doing? Is prosocial behavior for the team noticed and praised? Can people speak up when things go wrong or when somebody acts against the team, and are there constructive ways among team members to resolve it? Is there a proportionate response to opportunism, up to exclusion as a last resort? Is conflict resolved quickly and fairly, by the team members themselves?
3. Group self-governance
Does the team actually have the authority to act on these principles, or do policies and higher instances undermine it?
4. Multi-level alignment
Do we apply these principles not only within the team but also in our relations with other teams and external stakeholders? Is our purpose aligned with the bigger picture, including planetary demands?
All four mechanisms need to be in place. Traditional systems often undermine them, even when we think they don't. That is why we need a diagnostic.
Implications for practice
1. It starts with oneself.
Whatever your role, embracing the paradigm begins with the personal conviction that change is necessary and that everybody is a bringer of change.
2. The tone at the top decides.
Those at the top of the hierarchy display what the performance culture actually values. Becoming a prosocial organization changes everyday decisions, from vision and strategy to how performance is measured and evaluated.
3. The principles are common sense. Implementing them together is the challenge.
Each principle is confirmed by management research and practice. Prosociality comes from holistic implementation, adapted to context; there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
4. Prosocial is not softer. It is tougher on opportunism.
To create an environment where people feel safe to act prosocially, opportunistic behavior must be confronted, not tolerated. In the long run, the majority supports this.
5. Sustainability is not a burden. It is the strategy.
Prosociality, which integrates sustainability, is a solution for long-term value creation and high economic performance. Competition in the prosocial market economy is competition for prosociality.
Distilled from section 4.3 of Pfister et al. (2024), open access.
Read the paperQuestions? Reach out
The diagnostic is designed to be usable on your own. The questions it opens up are usually worth a conversation. If you are working through them in your own organization, get in touch.
Jan Pfister, Principal Investigator
Turku School of Economics, University of Turku
The prosocial market economy is an evolving initiative. Sign up to receive updates on publications, events, applied work and ways to collaborate by email. One email a month, no more.