Teamwork - Creating Teams That Work with Douglas CastleDear Readers:
People are often resistant to the notion of teams because they tend to look at them as if they were committees. It would do us some good to understand the distinctions which characterize the two.- are groups which are generally organized for the purposes of discussing, debating or evaluating an issue;
- are groups which permit a great deal of open, ideological discussion about broad possibilities;
- are groups in which the participants are each engaged in trying to pursuade the others about something, often amidst a great deal of heated argument, speechmaking, stalling, bullying and, on rare occasion, an actual duel fought with pistols [it has just been brought to my attention that this is now illegal in some states, but hurling epithets is not only permitted, but is considered fashionable];
- are groups in which the members tend to pull against each other, instead of pulling for each other -- the participants are each acting as self-advocates, and as independent entities;
- are groups which engage in a very cumbersome, fatiguing process in order to produce an idea, or several suggestions -- the only time that the participants act harmoniously is when they decide to call the matter at issue to a vote.
Most notably, the end-product of the committee process is, at best, a decision, and not an action. Very often organizational boards i.e., of directors, trustees, governors, advisors, ministers) are committees instead of teams. When time, money and lives are not at issue, committees make for fun sport, with lively debate, an exchange of ideas, and some decisions. A committee resembles a circle, with all forces pointed toward the center, while a team resembles an arrow, pointed in a specific direction and targeting a location or objective outside of the group itself.
TEAMS
- are groups of people who are assembled to achieve an identified objective, solve a particular problem, or to create a tangible product through their combined and cooperative efforts;
- are groups wherein each individual plays a contributory and complementary part in a calculated process, along a defined path, and with a shared vision of what, specifically is to be achieved -- each individual has a specific responsibility and accountability to the group, not unlike each cell in one living organism. Individual objectives are either in accord with the team's objectives, or they are subordinated to the team's objectives while the team is accomplishing its work;
- are groups of people organized around a leader or a facilitator, and unlike a committee, where the titular chairperson might be merely a moderator with a working knowledge of Roberts' Rules of Order, this leader or facilitator is ultimately responsible to coordinate the efforts of each of the members to attain the specified objective;
- are generally action-oriented, and once launched, have very little time for extensive debate, argument or "theorizing";
- are groups of people who are dependent upon each other to achieve an objective that is greater than any one individual team member could achieve individually.
In a recent conversation with Mark Sturgell, CBC, the president of Performance Development Network (http://www.pdncoach.com ), we discussed the "default setting" to which most members in poorly-organized or poorly-run teams tend to revert: "This d---ed team isn't working because of interpersonal issues."
Mark, who is an expert at "fixing" malfunctioning teams sees this as a misdiagnosis. If a team isn't functioning, the problems are not generally of an interpersonal nature, but of a structural, business nature. Mark cites numerous examples where, on private interview, 1) teammates did not even agree on the team's mission, or did not understand the nature of the mission at all; 2) teammates did not have clearly-defined responsibilities, or an understanding of their role in terms of its relevance to the whole team effort; and 3) teammates were not communicating with one another as effectively or as frequently as necessary.
Knowing the difference between a team and a committee, and conducting your activities or leading the group's activities accordingly, is a key analytical skill that every entrepreneur and networker must cultivate. There are two completely different behavioral codes -- and they must never be confused. Too many improperly-constructed or poorly-managed teams degrade into committees, and too many committees turn into personal free-for-alls.
Teams can be enormously productive entities, provided that they are viewed and operated as businesses instead of as sporting events.
-- Douglas Castle, THE CASTLE CONSULTANCY
THE INTERNATIONALIST PAGE; BRAINTENANCE; THE IEP FORUM; THE GLOBAL FUTURIST; ___________________________________________________________
Posted to THE NATIONAL NETWORKER. To subscribe for your free newsletter, go to http://www.thenationalnetworker.com/. For the complete National Networker Relationship Capital Toolkit and a free, continuous RSS feed (available either by traditional RSS or by direct email), go to: http://thenationalnetworkerweblog.blogspot.com/. You are also invited to click our buttons:
Forward/Share This Article With Colleagues And Social Media:
1 comment:
I learned something here. Thanks.
Post a Comment