Only a team that knows where it stands can adjust course.
A sports team looks at the scoreboard and knows whether it is ahead or behind. It adjusts its game accordingly. Many work teams have no such board. They work hard and still do not know whether they are getting closer to their goal.
The team principle in detail
Four steps through the principle: understand, check, connect, apply. Open any topic to read more.
The explanation“Scoreboard” means two things. First, the result: Where do we stand, measured against the goal?
- “Scoreboard” means two things.
- First, the result: Where do we stand, measured against the goal?
- Second, the process: What have we done, and how?
- If you know both, you can make targeted corrections.
- If you don’t, you correct by gut feeling or not at all.
The number alone achieves little. The score makes a difference only when the team reviews it together: What was planned, what happened, what do we change?
Read closelyWhat the principle says – and what it doesn’t
Knowing where you stand is the precondition for targeted course correction. Whether the course is actually corrected depends on how the feedback is given.
- It does not say
- More measurement is better. Metrics can also steer toward the wrong thing, and with work that is hard to measure, choosing the metric is itself the problem.
- Strictly speaking
- Feedback does not work on its own. It can do harm, especially when it shifts attention away from the task and onto the person.
- The “only” is a deliberate overstatement. What has been shown is that feedback and joint debriefs help on average – not that nothing works without them.
The signs3 signs that the principle is at work · 3 that it is missing
- Everyone can say where the team stands relative to its goal.
- After important stages, the team debriefs together.
- Each debrief leads to a visible change.
- Problems surface only shortly before the deadline.
- People judge the state of play differently, or gloss over it.
- Figures are reported but not discussed.
The research6 sources: 5 meta-analyses, 1 primary study · 1996–2021 · with research limitations
- low
- moderate
- high
High – for the claim that feedback on where you stand and joint debriefs clearly improve performance on average; the “only” in the core statement is not supported.
- 2015Michaéla C. Schippers, Michael A. West & Jeremy F. Dawson
98 UK primary care teams: teams that reflect together on their goals and ways of working are more innovative – especially under a heavy workload.
- The research mainly supports the joint debrief, not the mere display of figures.
- The evidence is strongest for work with observable performance, such as training, the military, medicine and manufacturing.
- That metrics can steer toward the wrong thing is supported here only by critiques from practice, not by a rigorous meta-analysis.
Read more: what the research shows
Research studies the principle under several labels: performance feedback, debriefs (in the military, after-action reviews) and team reflexivity – a team’s joint reflection on its goals and ways of working. In a large meta-analysis, Avraham N. Kluger and Angelo DeNisi found that feedback improves performance on average – but more than a third of the interventions made it worse. Scott I. Tannenbaum and Christopher P. Cerasoli, as well as Nathanael L. Keiser and Winfred Arthur Jr., found clear improvements from debriefs, stronger when they are based on objective records. Robert D. Pritchard and colleagues report large productivity gains in field studies of a measurement and feedback system. Michaéla C. Schippers, Michael A. West and Jeremy F. Dawson found that reflective teams are more innovative, especially under a heavy workload.
The originJohn C. Maxwell · “The Law of the Scoreboard”
- 2001OriginJohn C. Maxwell
The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork
- The Law of the ScoreboardA team can adjust its course only if it knows where it stands
- todaySharpened
Sharpened here is the point that what matters is the joint debrief and the way feedback is given, not the display alone.
The related team principles13 Safety · 10 Communication · 02 Direction · 16 Effort
The principle needs “Safety”, because otherwise the state of play gets glossed over, and “Communication”.
It complements “Direction” and supports “Effort”, because visible contributions reduce free-riding.
It stands in tension with “Confidence”: an honest score can dampen confidence.
The action steps5 steps: Clarify the goal first.
- Clarify the goal first. Without a goal there is no scoreboard.
- Keep a written record of where you stand, visible to everyone.
- Debrief together after every important stage – briefly, regularly and with a conclusion for next time.
- Base the debrief on records rather than on memory and impressions.
- Aim feedback at the task, not the person. And check regularly whether your metric still measures the right thing.
The questions for your team3 questions for your team conversation: What tells us today whether we are getting closer to our goal?
- What tells us today whether we are getting closer to our goal?
- What have we actually done differently since our last debrief?
- Which of our metrics could look good even while our work is missing the goal?
Take time for one question at your next team meeting. Talk about it openly and note down what you take away from it.
The picture to rememberIn the fog, the throws scatter widely around the target. As soon as a display appears, they move step by step toward the center.
- In the fog, the throws scatter widely around the target.
- As soon as a display appears, they move step by step toward the center.
What the Team Principle of the Scoreboard looks like in practice
From the Umpire’s Verdict to the Team’s Own Review
For a long time, a US Army umpire announced after an exercise how the battle had turned out – and whoever had lost disputed the result. From 1982 on, the MILES laser system recorded hits objectively, and in the After Action Review observers facilitate instead of passing judgment: the unit draws its own conclusions.
Why 0.7 Is a Good Result
In the 1970s, Andrew Grove introduced a goal-setting system at Intel that John Doerr presented at Google in 1999 under the name OKR: an objective and a few measurable key results on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0. For ambitious goals, 0.7 counts as a normal result.
From One Gold to Eight
In 1996, British Cycling was in crisis. At the 2000 Olympics in Sydney it won one gold medal; in Beijing in 2008, eight. The federation became famous for measuring everything and getting one percent better everywhere – later, investigations named what was missing from that scoreboard.
