This study examines if high- and low-performing project teams differ with respect to how they are mobilized and launched and the effects of their mobilization and launch activities and outputs on subsequent team progress and performance. Comparisons of three high- and three low-performing teams drawn from five major corporations showed that the high performers mobilized relatively quickly, used comprehensive rather than limited mobilization strategies, and conducted participatory rather than programmed launch meetings. This combination of activities produced a constellation of salutary outputs: more time for the teams to do their work, team members with essential task-related competencies and sufficient time to contribute to their projects, and complete rather than partial performance strategies. In turn, the three salutary outputs formed a constellation of key inner resources that propelled the high-performing teams on a virtuous path of reinforcing activities and outputs that, despite difficulties, ultimately led to success, whereas the absence of one or more of these resources led the low-performing teams down a vacuous path of accumulating confusion and inactivity from which they never recovered.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 159 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.