I live too close to the State of Oregon to be asking such questions or making such claims. In fact, tonight, when class resumes at an Oregon college where I teach, I may be tarred and feathered by Ducks fans. Even those who are die-hard Beaver fans may join in on the festivities since – at first glance – this heading is disparaging.
However, stay with me for a moment. Put away the knives, ropes, guns, clubs or other instruments of destruction you would like to use on me.
Let’s take this from a purely ‘theoretical’ approach.
By the way, congratulations to the Oregon Duck football team for winning the Rose Bowl. It is certainly a notable achievement by the coaches and players who, after a 95-year hiatus, bring the trophy back to Oregon. It was quite a game . . . quite an achievement against a formidable Wisconsin team.
Teams . . . this term has been around for years. Particularly used to describe groups of athletes working together to accomplish a common goal – a win – the term has migrated into the workplace. It is in this environment confusion takes place.
But first, back to the Oregon Ducks.
Did the Duck’s football team work together to accomplish this win? Yes. Is the football team really a team by the definition we use in a business setting? Maybe this is questionable . . . a good discussion question for theorists.
The definition of a ‘real’ team, given by Katzenbach and Smith, is: a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.
Let’s break this down. Certainly, the football team is not a small group . . . it is made up of over 100 players, coaches, and support personnel. You can, however, argue, while on the field, there are only eleven players at a time. This certainly meets the first criterion for being a ‘real’ team.
That’s stretching it a little, but let’s press on.
The definition requires members to have complementary skills. This is certainly met. If all players were quarterbacks, or linemen, or receivers . . . you get the drift. Yes, this requirement is met quite handily.
The team is certainly committed to a common purpose AND to a common performance goal AND to a common approach. AND, I would guess, they hold themselves mutually accountable.
So, what is the problem? How can I claim the Oregon Duck football team is not a REAL team?
Let’s take a look at some requirements. For a group of individuals to be an ‘effective’ group, they must meet the following:
- An understandable charter (agreement) . . . why does the group exist? What are they going to accomplish?
- Good communication . . . there are no barriers amongst members in ensuring information is shared.
- Defined member roles . . . every one knows what they are suppose to do.
- Time-efficient process . . . there are time constraints imposed – there is not a liassez faire approach taken.
- Reasonable accountability . . . there are expectations for each member and each is held to them by themselves and others.
Certainly the Oregon Ducks football team meets the criteria for being an effective working group. And they proved themselves very effective in the Rose Bowl. How about a real team? This is where the conflict occurs, right?
To be a real team, a group must meet ALL the following:
- Compelling performance purposes exceeds the sum of the individual goals.
- Members work jointly (cooperatively) to integrate complementary talents and skills.
- The work products / outcomes are mostly collective efforts.
- The adaptable working approach is shaped and enforced by the members . . . not by one individual.
- There is mutual plus individual accountability.
At first review, it would appear the football team meets all the requirements to be a REAL team. Yes?
Let’s press on before we answer the question . . .
Katzenbach and Smith also list five criteria met by a group that is considered a single-leader led work unit. They are:
- Each individual’s goals add up to the group’ purpose (reason for existence – performance outcome).
- Members work independently on individual tasks that match their skills and abilities.
- The work products – or outcomes – are mostly individual. They are not a result of collaboration amongst the members.
- The rigorous working approach is driven by the leader.
- There is strong individual accountability – the individual to himself and the individual to the leader.
WHO IS THE LEADER? Is there one individual who determines the plays, determines who ‘plays’ certain positions, determines who enters or leaves the game, determines who calls plays on the field, sets the rigorous working approach?
I’ll let you answer the question.
Maybe this discussion isn’t even relevant to sports. It will be a lively discussion tonight!
This discussion, however, IS certainly relevant to work environments, whether the situation is with a religious or other non-profit group, a private business, a corporate setting, or a multi-national conglomerate.
The implementation of a ‘real team’ approach and/or a ‘single-leader’ work unit discipline may determine the sustainability of the organization with which you are associated, especially in this fast-moving, ever-changing, uncertain world.
Remember, a single-leader work unit can act and produce much quicker than a real team. However, the output of a real team far exceeds that of a single-leader work unit. Sustainability in the 21st century will be achieved only by the appropriate implementation of both.