I remember reading an article in 1992 in the Wall street Journal by the above title by the well-known author and management expert Peter F. Drucker. He is recognized as the premier and undisputed contributor to the advancement of the science of management in the 20th century. His books and articles are classical, and the antidote to the promise of yesteryear's fads.
He wrote this article at a time when "team building" became a buzzword in American business. He commented that after much hoopla and a significant expense many American firms were disollusioned with the results. Perhaps the major reason for these poor results is the all-but-universal belief among executives and amateur-consultants that there is just one kind of team.
Drucker goes on to describe three types of teams, each different in its structure, in the behavior it demands from its members, in its strengths, its vulnerabilities, its limitations, its requirements, and above all, in what it can do and should be used for.
The first kind is best illustrated by using the analogy of the surgical team that performs an open heart operation. The team members have fixed positions they never leave. The anestesiologist never comes to the aid of the surgical nurse; the nurse does not do the operation, the surgeon does. In this kind of team, players tend to play in sequence.
The second kind is best illustrated by the analogy of the symphony orchestra. Like the hospital unit that rallies around a patient who goes into shock at 3 A.M., the symphony players have fixed positions and a sheet of music to follow. The oboe never comes to the aid of the violas, however badly they might flounder. In this kind of team, players play as a team -- in parallel.
The third kind of team is best illustrated by the analogy of the tennis-double or jazz combo. In this kind of team, players have a primary rather than a fixed position. They are supposed to "cover" for their teammates. Team players adjust to each others' strenghts and weaknesses and to the changing demands of the "game."
The first kind of team is inflexible. It works when the "game" has been played many times, and when the sequence of its actions is thoroughly understood by everyone. That is what made the mass production era so successful. In this design, every position (technical, commercial, financial, etc.) does its job its own way. Performance in this type of team is by function and by individuals. Individual accountability is easier to pin-point.
The second kind of team does have flexibility but it has far more stringent requirements. It needs a "score" or the Mozart symphony everyone in the orchestra puts on his music stand. The specifications are stringent and must be closely adhered to. There are individual stars on this team only when the score calls for a solo. The performance of the team is judged in its totality, and not by the performance of individuals players.
The requirements of the doubles team are even more stringent. The success of the "outsourcing model", for example, is highly dependent on the adherence to the strict requirements of this kind of team. The members have to be trained together and they must work together for some time before they can fully function as a team. There must be one clear goal and considerable flexibility with respect to individual member's work and performance. In this kind of team, only the team "performs"; individual members "contribute". The outsourcing partners cannot blame one another for poor performance. They are joint at the hip, so to speak.
All three kinds are true teams. But they are different in the behavior they require, in what they do best, and in what they cannot do, and there cannot be hybrids. One key team member can play one way.
It is very difficult to change from one kind of team to another.
Gradual change cannot work either. There needs to be a total breakdown from the past; however traumatic it might be. This means that people cannot report to both their old boss and to a project manager, conductor or leader. And their rewards, their compensation, their appraisal, and their promotion must be totally dependent on their performance in their new role on their new teams. Compromises will not work! Inability to align rewards with the kind of chosen team design surely will contribute to poor results. In my view, this is the biggest problem and perhaps the easiest to fix.
Teams, then, are means. As such team design has its own uses, its own characteristics, its own requirements, its own limitations.
Teamwork is neither good nor desirable. It is a non-negotiable requirement. Wherever people work together or play together they do so as a team. Which configuration to use and for what purpose are crucial, difficult, and risky decisions that are tough to unmake later. And, we have yet to learn how to make some of them.
Team building is a technique -- what OD consultants do. Team development is what the manager-leader does, day in and day out. By the way, there is more to team building than to have an off-site party, to give one another feedback, to resolve style differences. Team building includes goal setting, role clarification, norms setting, and overall performance management.
Have fun on the learning curve! Team design and development is not for amateurs.
No comments:
Post a Comment