There are teams and there are teams.

We've all heard about “family” teams and “stranger” teams, functional teams and cross-functional teams, permanent teams and ad hoc teams.

Teams are considered good things to have, which is why so many organizations are constantly attempting to “improve teamwork” without really pausing to wonder what that will achieve in terms of a business outcome. Greater teamwork, methinks, is not always what the client needs, even though the client may want it, like wanting world peace or relief from hunger.

Teams and Committees

First, most organizations don’t have teams at all, but committees. The difference, in my book, is that a true team wins or loses together. Team members share information and resources willingly. I can’t succeed, in a team, if a teammate has failed. If R&D and marketing are truly “teaming up,” then they both get bonuses in the same amount or both do not get bonuses at all as units (though individual rewards may differ).

Committees are far more common. These are people who come together either willingly or having been ordered to do so for the sake of furthering a project, initiative, or business goal. However, they comprise members who are basically looking out for their own units. If sales can succeed no matter what the call center does, then sales will attempt to do so, providing what succor it can for the call center in terms of what’s not immediately needed to further the prospects of sales.

In committees, I can win (big) while you can lose (cataclysmically). We may or may not share resources, and my true allegiance is to my unit. In teams, we share and share alike, make it or break it together, and my allegiance is to my team.

Which scenario do you run into more frequently in organizational life? For the past twenty-five years, my ratio is 90% committee.

Second, committees are not evil things, sort of teams gone bad. They serve legitimate purposes and voice non-congruent and sometimes outright opposing opinions, which is needed in healthy organizations. Procter & Gamble has deliberately cast product managers against each other vying for the same space on the same shelves in the same customers. This may be Darwinian, but I’m sure P&G feels that it’s intelligent design of internal competition.

The Team Characteristics

As consultants, we can’t assume we’re looking at a team, can’t assume that a team is the best outcome, and shouldn’t agree that we’re automatically moving in that direction. “Teamwork” has become a mantra like “customer driven” or “balanced scorecard” or “whole brained," none of which has made an impact on corporate productivity and has subsisted based on the fervor of the people inhabiting the marginal offices of human resources.

True teams should share these characteristics:

* Self-directed in terms of setting goals and allocating reward within the team.
* Rewarded collectively as a team.
* Sharing of resources and information without reservation or condition, including budget.
* Selects its own leadership and governance, including meeting style, format, frequency, etc.
* Can “sunset” itself and, in most cases, should do so.

I’ve seldom seen even “top management teams” work as true teams, which is why I prefer it when the organization calls it, candidly, the “executive committee” or “executive council.” Trust me, the general counsel, vice president of sales, vice president of manufacturing, and CFO are going to collaborate but also contend. And that seems to work pretty well if the people are good and the top leadership is excellent.

When you’re asked about improving teamwork, ask yourself and your client these questions before proceeding:

1. Is the organization’s best interests and strategic direction best served by teams or committees in the area of concern?
2. If teams are required, is the client prepared to correctly empower them, treat them, and communicate with them?
3. If teams are required, what is the correct duration and competition, especially in light of the criteria to be met?
4. If committees are the better alternative, does the client understand the differences and the appropriate dynamics?

Exceptions Just Prove the Rule

A professional athletic “team” is indeed that, jointly rewarded by the championship or punished by the lesser standing, although individual players may be paid in differing manners. However, though everyone is vying to be the starter in a certain position and to shine, no one is undermining the efforts of others to gain support for his or her individual contract (at least, not among emotionally healthy players). It’s true that ownership may reward players differentially, but the manager is on the field with the team (and there have been player/managers) and no one is getting as good a raise for a last place finish as for a first place finish.

There are exceptions to these rules and hybrids, to be sure, as some of you are probably ready to write in and point out, but the exceptions make the rule. Don’t assume that teams are good, or even appropriate for a given client. Don’t engage in expensive “team building” which at best perfects something that isn’t appropriate and, at worst, destroys credibility. (“Team building” is not an event that occurs during a two-day retreat, during which people are “team built.” It’s a long, methodical process.)

Teams aren’t the norm and aren’t always good. And that includes when another consultants says, “Hey, why don’t we team up?”

© Alan Weiss 2007 All rights reserved.

Alan Weiss, Ph.D., has been cited by the New York Post as “one of the most highly respected independent consultants in the country.” His clients have included The Federal Reserve Bank, Hewlett-Packard, Mercedes, JP Morgan Chase and over 200 similar world-class organizations. He has written 26 books which appear in 8 languages. He conducts a global mentoring program. You can reach him via his web site: http://www.summitconsulting.com or his blog: http://www.contrarianconsulting.com.