Forget What You Learned in Grade School: Five Teamwork Myths

BNET TalkbackShare your ideas and expertise on this topic

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

•  
  1

  thatnewgirl

  08/09/07 | Report as spam

  Too many cooks in the broth

  I agree that over-emphasis on teamwork can be counter-productive especially when it comes to big projects that are assigned to "team." Since no one person feels directly responsible for seeing such a project through, people often assume some one else will do it and it never gets done. Sometimes collective responsibility means no responsibility at all.

•  
  2

  georget730504

  08/09/07 | Report as spam

  Reflections

  "Food for thought"

•  
  3

  meganm@...

  08/09/07 | Report as spam

  "Me" in Team

  There is no "I" in team but there is an "M" and an "E". The team members are going to become unfocused and lose their drive if they are bored, misinformed, or confused about the direction of the team.

•  
  4

  david@...

  08/09/07 | Report as spam

  Cattle or lions?

  Teams can be noisy cattle with bits in their mouths; better to be families of quiet lions. Puppeteers can become leaders by dropping their strings; to inspire peace, energy and initiative.

•  
  5

  timmyb83

  08/09/07 | Report as spam

  College 2.0, overcompensating?

  Having just graduated with a degree in computer science, I learned a different set of 5 myths, they are:
  
  1) Teams are always bad
  2) Reaching consensus is always a waste of time
  3) "I" is the only team you can count on
  4) If your team has a general code of behavior, that means you wasted time reaching a consensus on something -- half the people don't agree anyway
  5) Two people is the maximum team size, otherwise, some subgroup (2+) can collectively blame another team member, resulting in zero collective responsibility
  
  That might be a bit exaggerated... but the implicit message was that a team is a good way to get a lot of things done but a cumbersome way of getting a single big thing done.

•  
  6

  ghbranigan

  08/10/07 | Report as spam

  What is a Team?

  All teams have members with different responsibilities, ranging from quarterback, to water boy, to flanker. Got it?

•  
  7

  mcontois@...

  08/10/07 | Report as spam

  Generalizations are Hard

  As always, common sense needs to be employed. Put the problem first then figure out how to best start solving it. If a team is deemed necessary then figure out who should be on the team and what expertise they will bring to help solve the problem. You cannot expect to throw a group of individuals on a project and say there you go. You will be lucky if anything productive comes out of it. Establish a set of guidelines for the team. There should be a definitive leader who is responsible for making sure that objectives are met. That's another early step, what is the purpose of the team? Every team member should know the ultimate objectives and what is expected of each person. If a person on the team is not meeting the needs of the project then that person should be dealt with appropriately. A team is a conduit to the results. It is not the only way to get things done. A major problem I see in business that upper management thinks they know it all and that is a huge mistake. There will always be something they don't know and it's best to consult others in the organization because they might see something they missed or they might get confirmation that they are on the right track. Ego has no place in business.

•  
  8

  naoise.gaffney@...

  08/10/07 | Report as spam

  Teamwork and Consensus

  As an NCO in the Royal Swedish Coastal Artillery during the 90's I learned a few valuable lessons regarding teamwork, especially with regard to consensus:
  - Reaching consensus takes time but as it involves all team members we're more likely to reach a brilliant conclusion by drawing on everybody's experience and expertise (just like the SAS "Chinese Parliament").
  - Involving all team members and collectively reaching a decision is good as we're all more likely to make an effort to see "it" through to its fruition (motivation).
  - It's the leaders (Boss/NCO's) primary job to act as a facilitator and moderator to ensure time and effort is well-spent.
  - In a crisis situation or at the end of a lively debate, it's the leader (Boss/NCO) that makes the final decision.
  
  Slainte!
  
  Naoise "Gaff" Gaffney

•  
  9

  tomlazelle@...

  08/10/07 | Report as spam

  WTF

  Is this article a joke.... Without team there is no company. If you are such a pathetic leader that you cannot organize your team then the company should can you and find a more suitable leader. Teams that do not want to cooperate should also be canned, plain and simple. Although this may seem harsh, indeed the purpose for all companys is to make money. The team that cannot produce will find themselves out of a job.

•  
  10

  GroundhogDaySurvivor

  08/10/07 | Report as spam

  WTF, Indeed

  No one is saying that teams are bad. But I now work for a boss who thinks teamwork means "Drop everything and come sit in my office while I say the same things over and over for 90 minutes." He doesn't understand that constant meetings can prevent a team from getting the actual work done.
  
  Being part of a team doesn't mean you have to spend every minute of the day together. Sometimes you have to spend time apart, accomplishing your individual tasks, so that the overall task assigned to the team can be accomplished.
  
  I could get one hell of a lot more work done if I could telecommute. But I work for people who think we all need to be under the same roof, and we all need to have every information exchange in person. What I can't get my superiors to understand is that I can multi-task better and get more work done in a shorter amount of time when I don't have to deal with the typical office interruptions, such as 15 people coming by my office every Friday to ask me what my plans are for the weekend, and the same 15 people coming by my office every Monday to ask me what I did over the weekend.

•  
  11

  josephmartins

  12/07/07 | Report as spam

  well...

  While I agree that the interruptions in an office can kill productivity, I'm skeptical that telecommuting would make the average employee more productive.
  
  I believe many people, perhaps a majority of people, are simply incapable of effectively managing their own time. Office distractions would be replaced with distractions at home. Further, some claim they would "save" on commute time as if they would apply this time toward additional work. For many people, that is simply untrue. Less commuting means more personal time - and there's nothing wrong with that.
  
  Sadly, the bad apples ruin it for everyone. Many employers don't want to deal with permitting some employees to telecommute, while denying others the same opportunity. Instead, right or wrong, the employers just say no.
  
  On the other hand, with proper management, an office environment can be very productive. [btw, fifteen people interrupting your work each Monday and Friday can stop anytime you want. That's not your bosses problem.]
  
  For me, telecommuting is more about lost time (the commute) and wasted resources (gas, tolls, vehicle wear and tear, etc..). Both have an impact on our own personal bottom lines, and the environment. If your current employer says no to telecommuting, consider looking for employment with a shop that embraces it.
  
  Or, you might consider doing what I [and millions of other Americans] have done - start your own business. Six years now. I could never go back to a cubicle farm.

•  
  12

  keull@...

  11/14/07 | Report as spam

  dont be silly

  the article isnt a joke, you are, the article mentions the realities of the workplace, you don't.
  
  if all companies are about is making money this article addresses just that, the fact that results are not dependant on you having a head stuck in the sand mentality and be unable to address the issues related to a task, one size doesnt fit all, if one person will perform the task more efficiently than 10 use the one person, if the task really needs a team, then have a team, if then the team needs some tweaking to make it work, say have some people perform tasks in a more independant way than others, than so be it.
  
  This article is saying something that should be taken as common sense, but you sir, just prove the need to blogs such as this that have to spell it out for people like you what is wrong with SOME team management techniques, the lack of vision.
  kicking a guy out because he can perform better on his own is to lose a possibly greater asset than a group of monkeys who cant do any task at all but seemingly work great as a team for no visibly results.
  
  I myself hate primadonnas, but the reality is, if you want results, you have to manage your resources individually, its not easy to make a working team, and forcing a cube into a round hole is not the way forward.

•  
  13

  jennifer.waldeck@...

  08/10/07 | Report as spam

  Joke

  Yes, a joke is right. The author provides no rationale for his points -- it's just a rant by someone who must not earn high marks for "working and playing well with others."

•  
  14

  sambasi

  08/10/07 | Report as spam

  Why Teamwork sometime fails?

  Team Leader:-Weak / Poor leadership skills / Bureaucratic
  Goal:- Ambiguous
  Team members:- Directionless/Lack of complimentary skills /LargeTeam / lack of motivation
  Team Work Poor Communication / Poor Knowledge management

•  
  15

  Raymond Danner

  09/10/07 | Report as spam

  Hmmm...this description sounds like ... MICROSOFT!

  Seriously, have you ever seen anything cohesive come out of Redmond that had no serious bugs and just simply worked?
  
  No, I haven't either. Perhaps it is because Microsoft's teams are too large and their main guy is an egomaniac who thinks he knows everything?
  
  Seriously though, a lot of companies do just as the author said, and waste time and energy on incessant and (ultimately) useless meetings. As someone said in a comment, telecommuting is often more effective because you're not constantly distracted by co-workers and their plans or lack thereof. On the other hand, telecommuting (especially for someone with a family) can backfire and their family provide even more distraction than they faced at work. Seems a Catch-22, doesn't it?
  
  The "WTF" posts miss one key thing: An incompetent project manager can make the best and brightest people look like fools because he or she slows or stops the work with micromanagement. As someone who has seen this happen with more than one job, I can personally attest to the demoralizing effect of incessant meetings with every expectation of the daily quota of work being done regardless of the hour you lost to the meeting, then once the project completes, the manager, who did squat, took credit. Conversely, if the project fails, then the team members, who worked their hearts out, often lose their jobs, while the (incompetent) manager gets a promotion. Is there any clue here as to why the workers don't trust the management?
  
  Sometimes a supervisor stands over the shoulder of a team member, expecting that to get them working harder, when, in fact, that usually interferes in their working effectively! Again, personal experience. When I mentioned the problem to our mutual boss, the guy got a talking-to that did no good. Three weeks later, I resigned, rather than be fired. Again, Catch-22, and one I didn't find a way out of.

•  
  16

  guilhems@...

  08/11/07 | Report as spam

  Five myths - oh so true

  Since I work in a multinational environment, especially with Germans who are so focused on consensus, I have come to the conclusion that any group must have a leader that sets a vision, and ensures coherency based on this vision of the expected outcomes. Reaching even an 80% consensus (Germans often demand that the whole group agrees before moving forward, imo, is a waste of time and a lame excuse for bosses who just do not want to take responsibility for potential failures.
  
  As for the number of teammembers, with the advance of collaborative tools, if the team leader is ready to abandon the notion that knowledge is INTERNAL power, and is willing to share data among his COI (Community of Interest) because, after all, he chose to trust his guys (well, he should have been granted the right to choose his guys, but it's obviously not always the case), then, the number of teammembers is not so much of a problem. But as a general rule, I agree that 10-12 is the maximum amount of resources that can be correctly managed by getting to know each teammember well enough on a personal basis.
  
  To sum it up: a good team is led by a charismatic leader with a vision, who manages both brilliant elements and dedicated, sturdy workers (who do not complain when asked to do cosmetic or repetitive tasks), naturally instill respect as a main value of the team, yet encourages free brainstorming and accepts that his ideas may be challenged. Of course, he also has to take responsibility for the team's failure, share the results of successes, and demonstrate that it's worth fighting for / with hi because he sets indivduals on a good career path (which is not necessarily the same one for every employee - everyone wants to become a manager, but only a few can, and a boss must find ways to satisfy these guys as well).

•  
  17

  kwjenkins

  08/22/07 | Report as spam

  What about the girls?

  I appreciate your response. But are your teams all guys or are there some girls, too? And I'll bet there are some female team leaders, right?
  
  Just ribbin' ya.

•  
  18

  marc.smith@...

  08/13/07 | Report as spam

  Oh dear !

  There is some merit in some of what was said in this article, however as teams are made of people (i.e. every single one is different) then to generalise in this manner is rather foolish.
  There is no hard and fast rule to making a team work - if there was, then we'd have companies full of managers who had 'read the book' and were naturally good team builders / leaders.
  Successful team builders / leaders instinctively know which toold / methods to use with the make-up of the individual members.

•  
  19

  jroundy

  08/13/07 | Report as spam

  Sounds Good

  It sounds good to say that teams are important and we should promote them but the reality is if the organization or more specifically, the leadership, doesn't support teams and show they value them then it really doesn't matter. When was the last time you heard of a team being promoted.

•  
  20

  kschuh

  08/24/07 | Report as spam

  Teams don't get promoted

  Teams do not get promoted. Individuals get the attention.

•  
  21

  m.anleitner.68

  08/17/07 | Report as spam

  Consensus & Teams

  Consensus is much more valuable than the comments in this article suggests; without consensus, implementation of tasks that require cooperation from several sources will be difficult or even possible.
  
  And "Teams at the Top" is about the special case of executive teams, which, if you have read all of Katzenbach & Smith's work, are quite different from most business teams.
  
  Finally, the source of this comment is a poor definition of consensus. Ask any team to define this, and you'll get 3-4 definitions--and these are almost always mutually exclusive. No wonder people think consensus isn't viable.

•  
  22

  arabic58@...

  10/29/07 | Report as spam

  5 team work Myths?

  Yes, that drible is what some female teacher wants you to learn. I have been on a lot of teams in IT in the past 10 years. That team work crap has always gotten me fired. Even after I brought the donuts to the team meeting for a month straight. My high school track coach explained it to me this way; " If you want a track team to win the high jump, you find one guy that can jump 7'-2". You don't get two guys that jump 3'-7"." He was a hard man. Of course we came with in a hairs breath of winning the state track championship that year. And we Placed 1, 2 and 3 in the shot put that year. All three shot putters went on to play pro football. Won 3 three super bowl rings. One still holds the school boy record for the shot put, 85 feet. Oh yea, an Olympic champion too. Track and Field is not a very good team sport, but thats the way they score it. One of the shot putters ran the anchor leg on the 4x100 relay. The one that played for the Greenbay Packers couldn't dance just like me. I think thats why we were friends.

•  
  23

  generapharm@...

  10/31/07 | Report as spam

  RE: Forget What You Learned in Grade School: Five Teamwork Myths

  As with all ideas you can have too much of a good thing. This article focuses on the state in many companies-there is a problem, issue,job to be done....form a team. There may be someone in the company who can solve the problem immediately..but he is not a team player.

•  
  24

  generapharm@...

  10/31/07 | Report as spam

  Camels

  My first boss in industry had two sayings.." A camel was a horse designed by a committee" and "any team of more than one person is inherently inefficient"..so instead of looking at the theories of teams and team building we need to look at techniques for deciding which problems need teams and which don't...and this is something that seems to be sadly missing from the literature.....any pointers?

•  
  25

  mikebrennan@...

  11/12/07 | Report as spam

  RE: Forget What You Learned in Grade School: Five Teamwork Myths

  Teamwork has become the best way to avoid personal responsibility for business decisions that don't succeed. The days of managers hired or promoted for their ability seems to have passed. Now it is servivability that reigns in the workplace. Be visible when a ecision works and invisible when one doesn't.

•  
  26

  Oleg Ivaniloff

  11/22/07 | Report as spam

  RE: Forget What You Learned in Grade School: Five Teamwork Myths

  When compared to a sort of family, teamwork is neither the best solution nor any harmful entity. In fact, some families live on, some actually drift apart. I've just mentioned that case of comparison for one clear reason: the boss being a good director, is a team member anyway. Otherwise there gonna be (not necessarily, of course, yet) hidden managers, internal contradictions within the company and all that jazz, exploding the business. A nice article. Happy days!

•  
  27

  prizm44m@...

  12/21/07 | Report as spam

  team work mantra is for the birds

  Interesting topic! I have founded small businesses, medium and one or two larger businesses. I didn't go looking for a "team".
  The so called team came together - people interested in a common goal and common gain. In my experience, individuals who are good at what they do, perform and do so over and above - they are innovative and take ownership for their work and participation.
  What do I need in an organization? People who arrive ready to
  dig in and get the job done. Yes, they are individuals and have different personalities and strengths when paired up my job is to help them work through the inevitable differences. Founding stage is where teamwork is most visible and exemplified. Beyond that it is a control tool that managers in larger organizations (who by the way often do not know what real team work looks and feels like) use to cover their hiring mistakes. If you want a star performer, then you take it all and learn how to interact, manage and communicate with that individual.