Everything starts with a first conversation — either in person or remotely. In most cases, a remote meeting via Zoom or similar platform is more than enough. We typically arrange in-person meetings only for highly complex or sensitive situations. The call usually lasts 40–60 minutes. You begin by sharing your perspective, and we ask clarifying questions. The goal of this conversation is simple: to understand whether the issue is truly a problem — and whether there are people in your team who are willing and able to solve it.
Within about a week after the initial meeting, we prepare a tailored program or project plan (for longer-term engagements).
The plan includes a clear objective, implementation guidelines, financial offer, timeline, and other key details. It’s important to note: strict adherence to the plan is not the top priority — achieving the goal is. In other words, it’s not about following the process; it’s about delivering results. The program is treated as a living system. New insights often emerge during the process, and we adapt accordingly — always with the end goal in focus.
If necessary, a formal cooperation agreement or other legal documents are signed. In most cases, however, the documentation consists simply of the program outline and an electronic invoice.
About 95% of all programs begin with a situation analysis. Why? Because once all participants are present, the actual situation often turns out to be somewhat different from what was described during the initial meeting. That’s exactly why the goal takes priority — not the process. The main purpose of the situation analysis is to gather facts, assumptions, limitations, and insights. These become the foundation for developing actionable options in the next step.
Based on the insights gathered during the situation analysis, we develop 2–3 different action paths. Often, participants are eager to jump straight into solution mode — but in practice, a thorough analysis frequently reveals a very different set of needs. That’s why we place strong emphasis on ensuring that each proposed option is truly grounded in the findings from Step 1.
Once multiple action options have been developed, they are analyzed and compared — often using measurable criteria or basic quantitative tools. The goal is simple: to identify and approve the most effective path forward from the available options. This selected option becomes the agreed direction for the next phase of work.
This is the final step — though its foundations are laid already in the closing phase of the program. Together, we walk through the concrete steps: what needs to be done, by when, based on which criteria and indicators, and who is responsible for what. After the program, depending on the situation, we often continue in a support or oversight role — to make sure the plan doesn’t stay in the meeting room, but is actually put into practice.
Building a team capable of achieving high-level performance in a short period is straightforward if the organization has professional individuals with the right attitude, and the team only needs to work closely for a limited time. In reality, organizations must work with the people they have, and collaboration is not a short-term effort but a continuous one. Why HPT? Here are just a few academically proven facts:
This time, it’s not about a company’s staff or a traditional team setup. What takes the spotlight is over six years of research, analysis, and real-world experimentation — all designed to reveal, step by step, how high-performance teams and leaders actually operate. A book on the subject is currently in the works. But while it’s still being written, teams already have the opportunity to learn and apply the full algorithm in their daily work — and to test their skills in an exclusive program held only a few times a year for a very limited number of participants: The HPT Game.
I simply enjoy solving challenges related to leadership, teams, and the human factor — but only in organizations that truly want to solve them. There are usually two main goals: either to pull a team out of a low point (we all fall into one now and then), or to help them reach a new level. For years, I’ve been fascinated by high-performing teams — the kind that go far beyond the average. These teams acknowledge problems and deal with them — they don’t ignore or adapt to dysfunction. Eventually, they begin seeking new horizons. More than six years ago, I began systematically analyzing studies on the high-performance team (HPT) phenomenon. I tested insights through small-scale experiments within my own programs, using real teams in real conditions. And in recent years, global events — as harsh as they’ve been — provided further clarity and perspective. Bit by bit, I gathered small pieces to build a much larger mosaic. This experience now allows me to deeply analyze situations and identify the key barriers standing between Point A and Point B. You can find feedback on my work here.