High-performing teams don’t fail because of misalignment. They drift because of identity fragmentation.

In complex programmes and transformation work, most teams I’ve worked with were highly capable.

The strategy was sound. The governance was strong. The people were experienced and well-intentioned.

And yet, over time, execution would quietly degrade.

Not through failure — but through drift.

This often happens when teams are made up of individuals with different personal identities, led by leaders with their own leadership identity, inside organisations whose corporate identity may be loosely defined, aspirational, or in flux.

We tend to talk about this problem as one of alignment — goals, incentives, behaviours.

But alignment alone doesn’t hold execution together under sustained pressure.

Where performance actually erodes

In practice, execution starts to wobble when people are required to operate across multiple identities at once — often without clarity about which one matters most in a given moment.

Individuals are asked to be:

• accountable owners and flexible collaborators

• subject-matter experts and general problem-solvers

Leaders are expected to:

• empower autonomy

• enforce standards

• absorb pressure from above

• protect teams below

All while representing a corporate “culture” that may or may not match how decisions are actually made.

In those conditions, people don’t disengage. They self-protect.

Standards soften.

Decision-making slows.

Accountability becomes situational.

Not because people don’t care — but because they’re unclear which version of themselves is required to succeed.

A different way to think about high performance

The most effective teams don’t eliminate difference. They create coherence across difference.

That coherence tends to come from three layers working together:

• Individual identityPeople are clear about their personal operating standards, especially under pressure.

• Leadership identityLeaders are consistent and explicit about the role they are playing, reducing mixed signals.

• Organisational identityThe organisation is clear about what is actually rewarded, tolerated, and prioritised — not just what is stated.

When these layers reinforce each other, execution stabilises.When they conflict, performance erodes quietly.

If delivery is slipping despite capable people and sound strategy, the more useful question is often: "Where are we asking people to perform without a clear identity contract?"

Answering that — honestly — is often where performance is recovered.

Because high performance isn’t about forcing uniformity.

It’s about designing conditions where different identities can execute coherently.