The Fallacy of Teamwork

"In a normal business discussion you are not supposed to allow your emotions to come in. They come in anyway - you merely disguise them as logic."

"The traditional view is that emotions muck up thinking. The good thinker is supposed to be cool and detached and not influenced by emotion."

"We are brought up to apologize for emotions and feelings because they are not the stuff of logical thinking."

These ideas are all found in Edward DeBono's book, "Six Thinking Hats." The comments are all found in the section on the Red Hat, the hat representing emotion. While each of the hats represents an influence or process that goes into thinking and decision making, the Red Hat has the most obvious link to the Fallacy of Teamwork.

As is the case with thinking, teamwork is filled with complexity, which makes it difficult to do well. In my experience, underlying emotion and feelings - anger, jealousy, pride, fear, happiness, retribution, etc. - are always present in team interactions, but are either not acknowledged, or treated as a barrier to success.

The first quote above refers to a "normal business discussion." The second refers to "the traditional view." The third mentions that we are "brought up to apologize for emotions." On business teams, the three are stacked on each other.

Because we have been raised to believe that emotions and feelings are a sign of weakness, they have no place in successful teamwork. That's the traditional (perhaps male-driven) view and it constitutes what is accepted as normal business behavior.

This manifests itself in several ways, but in two that are most readily identified. First, when emotions freely enter into team activities, they are often interpreted as threats, challenges, disbelief or worse. Second, though emotions are always present, it is common practice to suppress them, for the reasons mentioned above.

This traditional, apologetic attitude toward emotion (and often toward its cousin, intuition) is accepted as normal in business discussions and teamwork. And it is detrimental to both. A case could be made that such suppression of emotion is at the root of the Fallacy of Teamwork.

(As an aside, Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, commented on the upcoming confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Of President Obama's nomination, he said, "With [Obama's] view, that a judge should use his or her personal feelings about a particular group or issues to decide a case, it stands in start contrast to the impartiality that we expect in the American courtroom%u2026Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political or religious views to impact the outcome? Or do I want a judge that objectively applies the law to the faces and fairly rules on the merits?"

Sessions is asking for the impossible. We are all shaped by our social, political and religious views - and more - and they impact every decision we make as humans. Sessions would seem to believe that the perfect judge is one without personal feelings about groups and issues. That person would not be human, let alone qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Further, he suggests that the conditions are mutually exclusive, that a judge will either allow "his or her social, political or religious views to impact the outcome," or the judge will "rule fairly on the merits." I guess Sessions wouldn't have voted in favor of Thurgood Marshall. )

Let's leave the black robe and get back to the Red Hat. And let's get a little deeper, with DeBono's help, on the two main examples of the denial of emotion - normal and traditional - contributes to poor teamwork.

When emotions come to the fore, it usually inflicts a degree of discomfort on the group. It's unexpected, which catches team members off guard. They have not been brought up to accept emotion as a legitimate part of thinking, so it is immediately challenged. It's also often misinterpreted.

"I think that's a dumb idea" is an emotional reaction. The response seen most often is personal. The individual who brought up the idea feels challenged and personally threatened. He interprets the comment as "he thinks I'm dumb." Depending on how vigorously the offended party reacts, the tone of the entire meeting is changed. It's as if there's suddenly an odor that nobody can ignore.

On the other hand, the person offering the emotional "dumb idea" comment could be articulating emotion of his own. "It's not my idea, so I don't like it." "You've killed my ideas in the past, so now it's my turn to kill one of yours." "You're not highly thought of, so I can't be seen as taking your side." All of this underlying stuff is real and it's part of thinking, reacting and making decisions. But when it is not acknowledged as a valid part of those processes - as in the normal, traditional way of business discussion or teamwork - it is dismissed as weakness and hysteria.

Let's look at the denial of emotion in the same team setting in the other main manifestation. If an individual suggests an idea, the first reaction of a team member may be emotional. It may be "It's a dumb idea," or it may be "I love it." But because we've learned to suppress the emotion, nothing is said. Instead, we look for ways to disguise the emotional response - often present, always valid - in a context of logic, the more "accepted" way of thinking.

With that, I'd like to add the rest of the paragraph that started with the third quote above.

"We are brought up to apologize for emotions and feelings because they are not the stuff of logical thinking. That is why we tend to treat them as an extension of logic. If we dislike someone, there must be a good reason for this. If we like a project, this must be based on logic."

So what happens in the example above? Team members look for ways that appear to be thoughtful, objective, and reasonable to support the emotion felt for the idea. As DeBono points out, this is especially dangerous as prejudices that come with a bodyguard of logic appear to be more legitimate than those naked with emotion.

This is artificial thinking and artificial reasoning used to overcome the negative connotations of emotion. In practice, those elements can be particularly destructive. In Six Hats thinking, there is a place for logic and objectivity. But in business teamwork, they are often accepted at the expense of emotion, not with equal validity.

Teams can't function properly if members' emotions are hidden completely, like the man behind the curtain, unseen but pulling the levers. At the same time, the team is no better served if the emotions are disguised as logic and reason.

Genuine teams acknowledge emotion for exactly what it is: a valid reaction and element of intelligent human thinking. It is no more or less important than logic, data, creativity, caution or any other of the elements represented by various Thinking Hats. Unfortunately, those teams are not normal or traditional, in business settings or elsewhere.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Each of Edward DeBono's "Six Thinking Hats" is named by color. Each is emblematic of a a specific function in discussion, decision-making and, as we shall see, teamwork.

Here they are:

The White Hat -- Represents objectivity and neutrality. "The white hat is concerned with objective facts and figures."

The Red Hat -- Represents emotion. "Red suggests anger (seeing red), rage and emotions."

The Black Hat -- Represents somber and serious thinking. "The black hat is cautious and careful. It points out weaknesses in an idea."

The Yellow Hat -- Represents positive thinking. "The yellow hat is optimistic and covers hope and positive thinking." Like the color suggests, this is the hat of sunny thinking.

The Green Hat -- Represents creative thinking. "Green is grass, vegetation, and abundant, fertile growth."

The Blue Hat -- Represents organized thinking. "The blue hat is concerned with control, the organization of the thinking process." Like a blue sky, the blue hat is above the others.

In the next installment, we'll take a close look at the red hat and how it addresses one of the biggest obstacles to genuine teamwork.

The red hat is the hat of emotion. De Bono writes, "We are brought up to apologize for emotions and feelings because they are not the stuff of logical thinking. That is why we tend to treat them as an extension of logic. If we dislike someone, there must be a good reason for this."

In many team settings, emotion is often withheld, depending on the role of the person in the meeting. Or it is fully alive and presented as "reason and objectivity," often without the individual realizing that emotion is the catalyst. It gets mixed in with data, creativity, caution and many other factors in normal team meeting sessions and therefore cannot be evaluated for what De Bono believes it is -- one of the essential elements of decision making.

But when meeting participants specifically "wear" the red hat, they are free to be unapologetically emotional. That perspective and feeling is separated from data, creativity, caution, etc., validated and factored in as a distinct element of the decision making process.

Thanks for reading. More to come on the red hat.

A while back, I had coffee with Jim Gilmore, co-author (with Joseph Pine) of "The Experience Economy" and "Authenticity." I asked Jim for some reading suggestions to help me expand my thinking about the Fallacy of Teamwork, team dynamics, leadership, etc. He suggested several books including "Six Thinking Hats" by Edward DeBono. DeBono is a Rhodes scholar and seminal figure in the discipline of creative thinking, particularly of what he introduced as "lateral thinking."

"Six Thinking Hats" identifies and illustrates of six elements of decision-making, breaking each down as its own way to think about problems, challenges, and opportunities. Each of the "hats" signifies a specific approach to thinking about a problem. As DeBono points out, many or all of the approaches are present in any discussion, but are all mixed together. "Six Thinking Hats" helps the reader construct an effective decision-making process by identifying each element and giving it equal weight.

The hats are forward-looking, providing a direction in which to think. They are not backward-looking, providing an explanation for what happened. The biggest challenge for many people who will attempt to adopt "six hats" thinking is that it is not based on argument. "Hat" thinking does not support a particular conclusion or recommendation; it defines the tools needed to move forward. Users of the system claim that "hat" thinking drastically reduces decision-making time and delivers simplicity and clarity to the process.

Okay. Enough preamble. First, I'll outline the function of each "hat" and then I'll discuss how one in particular represents the root of the Fallacy of Teamwork.

Below was the posting prior to Game 7 of the Cletics vs. Orlando Magic series. You can read about how the fallacy of teamwork crept in to TNT's pre-game analysis.

The evidence showed that, as expected, the bench was not the deciding factor and that the stars' play determined the outcome.

Boston's Paul Pierce -- the Most Valuable Player of last year's NBA Finals -- did not play like a star. He made only 4 of 13 field goal attempts and 7 of 10 free throws. He went almost an entire half of basketball (from early 2nd quarter to early 4th quarter) without a field goal.

So, as suggested here and based on evidence, deciding Game 7s are impacted by the play of the stars much more than that of the bench. Sure, Kenny Smith and Reggie Miller will say that Orlando's reserves outscored Boston's, 25-12. That wasn't the deciding factor. Paul Pierce's sub-par play doomed Boston.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

I have not read "I Hate People" yet, but it has gotten my attention, primarily through two sources: Bob Sutton's blog and the Wall Street Journal's review.

The Journal cited the authors' belief that teamwork suffocates creativity and has its own limitations. Littman and Hershon also dive into the concept of "social loafing" as described by French agricultural engineer Maximilien Ringelmann.

Readers of this site will immediately see the connection outlined in the two sections of the "fallacy of creativity." As for me, I can't wait to read the authors' perspective on the topic.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Prior to tonight's NBA playoff Game 7 between the Boston Celtics and the Orlando Magic, two commentators who should know better fell for the fallacy of teamwork.

On TNT's pre-game show, former NBA champ Kenny Smith was asked what player was going to be the "key" to the game. He didn't name one. Instead, he said "the bench" -- the reserves -- would be most important.

That was followed early in the game by a comment by game analyst Reggie Miller, who said the same thing. "You know what you're going to get from your stars," said the former NBA All-Star. The deciding factor, he said, was going to be the "play of the reserves."

This is nonsense! This is Game 7, the deciding game of the series. This is precisely the time when the stars have to play like stars. This is when the game's greats validate their reputations, to say nothing of their salaries. As we've written here before, the role players must be counted on to contribute to the best of their abilities. But key to the game? Winning and losing? That's going to rest on the shoulders of the best players. The coaches know it and the players know it. Too bad the analysts don't know it, because the viewers think they know what they're talking about.

Look at it this way. When Celtics coach Doc Rivers was preparing for tonight's game, do you think he spent more time figuring out how to defend Dwight Howard and Rashard Lewis, or Mikeal Pietrus and Courtney Lee? Did Magic coach Stan Van Gundy lose sleep worring about Ray Allen and Paul Pierce, or Brian Scalabrine and Eddie House?

I'll bet my own Winston Wolf roll that either coach would be MUCH happier to take their chances with the other team's reserves than have to worry about showing down the big guns. This isn't to say that one of the team's substitutes won't have a big game and wind up being a big factor in the result. But that won't likely happen in a vacuum. For a reserve to get a lot of playing time and make a big contribution, something would have to be amiss with one of the stars. A reserve can be one of the keys to the game...if one of the stars doesn't perform like a star.

Now let's see what happens...

Thanks for reading. More to come.

In the April issue of Inc. Magazine, Stanford management professor (and a favorite of this space) Bob Sutton was interviewed on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the publication of The Peter Principle. By suggesting that "competent leadership" -- as opposed to guru-like, non-working leadership -- is a noble and reasonable aspiration, he references organizational theorist and expert James G. March by saying:

"Jim March argues that simple copetence -- having people who are willing and able to do their jobs -- is what really makes organizations run."

Elsewhere, Sutton quotes from March's "How We Talk and How We Act: Administrative Theory and Administrative Life":

"Much of what distinguishes a good bureaucracy from a bad one is how it accomplishes the trivia of day-to-day relations with clients and day-to-day problems in maintaining and operating its technology. Accomplishing these trivia may involve considerable planning, complex coordination, and central direction, but is more commonly linked to the effectiveness of large numbers of people doing minor things competently."

The "effectiveness of large numbers of people doing minor things competently" added with the word "together" sounds like a great definition of genuine teamwork. But in the greater context of simple competence, it also seems to be an argument for knowing your role and playing it fully, to the best of your ability.

Who among those in business could claim that striving for success at handling the day to day "minor" things is detrimental? And yet, that's often the way leaders seem to act. As pointed out in other entries here, businesses seem to have a never-ending desire to want to make effective team members into something they're not, something they may not want to be, or something for which may negatively affect the group overall, under the guise of "developing the team."

Refer back to the segment here called "The Fallacy of Advancement: Corporate Ladder-ship." In March's view (and likely Sutton's), the bank in the example runs much more efficiently with a terrific window teller who takes pride in the job and does what may be considered "minor things" competently. She's the John Paxson of the bank, playing her role to the best of her ability, making a defined contribution to the bank team.

But in business, it is often not good enough. There's the desire to take those who provide the connective tissue for an organization and turn them into vital organs. Connective tissue is vital as well. It allows the heart and lungs to operate at their best. Same with a team.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

...and there will be more to come in the next few days. Thank you for your patience.

In the meantime, please enjoy this link to a column by ESPN the Magazine's Bill Simmons about Alex Rodriguez and his impact (or lack thereof) on teamwork.

Teamwork is less important in baseball than any other major team sport. See what you think.

Thanks for reading. More to come. I promise.

Whether you have been in business for 20 years or 20 weeks, you likely have encountered the "team-building offsite." The premise of this project is to have individuals partake in exercises that can only be successfully completed through teamwork. The goal of these events is for the participants to have eye-opening interactions that will remind them how important teamwork is to success.

In truth, the only goal that anyone cares about is getting to the end of the team building offsite without saying or doing anything embarrassing, up to and including actions that lead to dismissal. Does anyone want to do anything other than just get these things over?!? Some believe these deals - a corporate "Lord of the Flies," with catering - are a necessary evil. Oh, they're evil, all right, but totally unnecessary.

What a waste of time. Where do I start? Well, allow me to back up a moment. I got the idea for this piece from the great American Airlines commercial in which one of the participants spends most of his time trying to make an escape from this purgatory...with catering. On Dec. 28, The New York Times addressed the topic in Kelley Holland's "Under New Management" column. The piece, titled "How to Build Teamwork After and Awful Season," addresses team-building exercises as a theory.

In the column, Jeffrey Backal, chief executive of Team Builders Plus, is quoted supporting the concept; it's his business, after all. "The activity is a metaphor, and when you talk about the activity you start bringing that back into the workplace. You're going to have a more cohesive unit, and people are going to get along better and communicate more effectively."

As they say in those weight-loss ads, "Your results may vary."

If you were GOING to have a more cohesive unit and people were GOING to get along better and communicate more effectively (note the lack of qualifiers in his quote), wouldn't you just have the paintball off-site and be done with it?

Of course, no activities will guarantee anything close to cohesion and communication. Why not? Because the behaviors at the team-building exercise very rarely reflect the reality of team demands in the workplace. Neither do they reflect the real human dynamics that come in to play day after day on the job. Minor, short-lived improvements in morale and performance, the column says, are more likely.

Why is that? And why are leaders duped into believing that a wilderness outing can force fundamental change in its employees? I can't answer the second question, but I'll take a stab at the first.

Any teamwork improvements attributable to off-site activities are bound to be temporary because of several factors. First, the desire to get away from the office is a charade. The belief that employees won't be distracted by office visits, ringing phones or email simply doesn't hold water. They may even end up worrying more about what's happening...becoming more distracted...because they are not within easy reach of communication. There will be as much time spent sneaking a look at a BlackBerry as there is participation in the exercises. (You know how the facilitator will occasionally say, "should we take a 10 minute break?" Has anyone ever resisted, unless you're in the last hour of the event? That's because everyone's dying to check email and voice mail. People will be out the door before the leader hits the "k" sound in "break.")

Second, almost everyone's desire is the same, and it has nothing to do with building morale. It's to get through it! Employees participate because it's expected of them. But I have yet to hear about an annual performance review that incorporates engagement in these team-building projects as a "grade-able" expectation.

Third, the exercises themselves usually have little meaning and application outside the exercise. Okay, I've seen the metaphor in using the two-by-fours to build a bridge across an imaginary river of lava, but if I needed a session of playing with blocks to understand the concept of teamwork, I shouldn't have been hired in the first place.

Thankfully, there's real irony in the team-building offsite. This is perhaps one instance where elements of genuine teamwork are in fact in place. The participants' individual goals probably lineup with the goals of his or her off-site team: to get through this with minimal social damage. Check the "participation" box. Remain an employee in good standing.

The goals of both the entire project and the individual exercises are very well defined. The exercises - whether they last one hour or one afternoon - are designed for a distinct outcome (building the lava bridge, for example). But once that is attained, the grander goals are merely lip-serviced. They're gone by the time you're in your car on the way home, checking your voice mail.

A better team building off site would be for people to come in, have a few drinks and then tell their real teammates - the ones that actually have to do business with, not the mixed group with Pam from accounting and the guy who was hired by marketing last week, who probably won't be here in 18 months - what's important to them...why they work...what their motivation is...what they really want to do....how they interpret the company's goals and how they match up with their own.

If they can sit down and share this, there will be a level of communication that will be enhanced and that can actually provide some useful insight into why people act the way they do. Second, they'll start to form - not actually form, but start to form - a level of understanding and appreciation that will make sense in a work setting.

And it'll be a whole lot more enjoyable than falling backwards an hoping your co-workers will catch you.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Steven D. Levitt, co-author of the must-read "Freakonomics," wrote this on the same-titled blog (with a little editing to keep the suspense):

"...they are unnatural settings with a very high degree of scrutiny, which may distort how people respond. Second, it seems likely that people will tend to say what they think others expect them to say, or what the people organizing...might want them to say. Third, I suspect that one or two vocal participants can sway the responses of the others who are present. Fourth, in general I am more interested in what people do than what they say."

Levitt was referring not to teamwork, but to focus groups. But as you read the description, it appears that many of the same human interaction dynamics come into play.

And marketers and business leaders often come away with the same impression of the focus group results as they do with "teamwork" results. They'll rave about the great insight, the valuable perspective or the course of action that will result. Yet the environment in which these insights and perspectives are shared is severely skewed by the realities of human interaction in this setting.

I may have more on this later. Thanks for reading. More to come.

"None of us is as smart as all of us."

This is how Janet Rae-Dupree led her most recent "Unboxed" column in the Sunday New York Times (Dec. 7, 2008). She cited the quote as a Japanese proverb. Previously, I have seen it credited to McDonald's founder Ray Kroc and -- in a speech by a senior executive in front of thousands of customers and employees -- to Jack Welch.

The theory remains the same, though; no individual is as smart as a team. Rae-Dupree's column submits that innovation/invention is not a possibility when pursued individually. Whether it be "group genius" or "collective creativity," teamwork provides the fertile soil for innovation to take root.

However, the column suggests that brainstorming is not a disciplined enough process to bring about such creativity. She quotes Drew Boyd on the topic and identifies Boyd as a "businessman in Cincinnati who blogs and speaks often about innovation."

(And how does he differ from yours truly?)

At any rate, Boyd contends that the process of group collaboration is what leads to innovation in theory...but not by means of a "brainstorming" method. Paraphrased, Rae-Dupree suggests that Boyd contends the problem with brainstorming is the belief that volume leads to value.

I'd have to agree. I don't want the stack of hay. I want the needle. We don't get any closer to finding the needle by adding more hay. The needle is the value. People won't pay a premium for hay because it's a commodity.

But brainstorming is like adding more hay. As the column continues, the "hay" itself isn't the only problem. It's how the hay gets on the stack. As we have discussed, there's a fallacy of contribution. In this case, people bring extra hay because that's what they believe is expected of them. No surprise.

Then the column adds the disclaimer that really got my attention. It reads:

"Researchers have shown repeatedly that individuals working alone generate more ideas than groups acting in concert. Among the problems are these: Throwing in an idea for public consideration generates fear of failure, and workers looking to advance their own interests often keep their best ideas to themselves until a more opportune time."

While author Phil Rosenzweig would caution us about his own fallacy -- the fallacy of "research" -- this is just what we've been writing about. The self interests and concerns -- all real and human -- of the team contributors are primary, ahead of the concerns and goals of the team.

And, as Samuel Culbert says in "Beyond Bullsh*t," all communication is for the purpose of advancing personal interest.

The teamwork and collaboration that this column describes as successful occurs in rare circumstances. In those cases, the team contributors are either a) in synch with the team goals or b) oblivious to team goals, leaving it to a team leader to put the pieces together.

We've seen examples of genuine teamwork in the second instance when team members are disconnected by geography. Teams that connect via the internet, WebEx or another means of digital collaboration seem to be subjected less to the fallacies of teamwork. Perhaps it's simply because they are not in the same room. Perhaps it's because their creative stimulation and work context is different from those of other team members. For example, the operations expert in Chicago has no idea what the mood is like at the main office in Indianapolis, just as the IT expert in San Francisco doesn't really care about the ROI goal of the marketing chief in New York.

Genuine creativity, innovation, invention and teamwork happen in rare circumstances. And in some of those circumstances, one of us may be better than all of us.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

The business section of the Sunday, Nov. 16 issue of The New York Times featured a big piece on the corporate fate of Sallie Krawcheck. Krawcheck, the former chief financial officer of Citigroup and most recently its head of wealth management, was stripped of her duties in September.

As is the case with many shuffles like this, the reason for her departure is probably complex and not completely known. Yes, the bank is suffering in the current economic meltdown. Yes, the stock is below $10 per share. Yes, there has been tens of billions of dollars of damage related to the credit crisis. Yet, from all reports, it would seem to be fair to say that she and Citigroup's new CEO Vikram Pandit did not see eye-to-eye.

But the Times story, as reported by Geraldine Fabrikant, caught these eyes for a half-paragraph on the jump page. Fabrikant wrote:

"Ms. Krawcheck believes her exit from Citigroup is the result of pressures she faced from Mr. Pandit to be a team player and to follow his lead on the best way to deploy talent at the bank..."

For the sake of this module, let's assume that the reporting is accurate (there's no reason to believe it is not). In this context, it would seem that Krawcheck would have preferred NOT to be a team player and NOT follow Pandit's lead on the best way to deploy fellow executives, or other "team players."

But as we have shown through previous examples here, not following Pandit's lead may have been the best possible, most productive way of being a true team player. From this description -- and from what we know about genuine teams -- it is apparent that Pandit (or Krawcheck, or both) had it backwards. Pandit did NOT want Krawcheck to be a team player. He wanted her to get in line, follow orders ("his lead") and simply say "yes sir, good idea sir."

That's not how a real team works. Pandit did not believe in teamwork, he believed in the FALLACY of teamwork. He believed in the go-along-to-get-along, the don't-make-waves, the don't-rock-the-boat, the I'm-in-charge-so-just-follow-me.

If Pandit were a financial or leadership superstar, he might have been more likely to have relied on Krawcheck to exercise her special skills -- to player her role -- to the best of her ability.

If Pandit really wanted Krawcheck out, he may have been better off telling her that her particular skills and strengths -- while valuable in their own rights -- were not what Citigroup needed at that time in order for the entire enterprise to succeed. That would have been real leadership, and that would have given Citigroup a better chance of having a genuine team.

At the same time, there seems to be a reasonable chance that Krawcheck believed her influence, freedom and power to be eroding. Her self interests were obviously threatened. And the threat was the get-in-line, do-as-I-say approach from leadership, which she interpreted as its desire for her to be a team player.

This is yet another example of "team player" being used as a pejorative. But when teamwork is false, is there any other logical conclusion? I haven't seen any of Citigroup's internal memos or public statements following Krawcheck's departure and replacement. But why do I have the feeling that somewhere, the company's leadership is trying to sell the stronger "team" it has in place?

Thanks for reading. More to come.

The Wall Street Journal's special human resources section (October 20, 2008) carried an outstanding piece by Samuel A. Culbert. "Get Rid of the Performance Review" was the headline that grabbed most readers, I would imagine, but the subhead read, "It destroys morale, kills teamwork and hurts the bottom line. And that's just for starters."

As my friend Jules would say, "I'm sorry. Did I break your concentration?"

If you have read this far, you've probably guessed correctly that Culbert exposes the sham of the traditional corporate performance review, the annual business evaluation two-step. Rather than accomplishing anything valuable between the two parties (manager and subordinate), the "rules," expectations, dynamic...the whole ethos of the event...is based on a model that actually is detrimental to both parties and their employer.

While Culbert surgically outlines the failings of the system, he could have added another key element. In every case I have experienced, the performance review is based on the premise that subordinates want to -- and must -- "move up the ladder." Sure, there are some review elements that address things that could be done to improve perfomance for the present jobs, but the overall context is always "advancement."

What if you are the best-in-class bank teller from my previous "Corporate Ladder-ship" module?

But people -- even those who have no desire to "advance" -- accept the performance review without question, as they do "teamwork." Culbert's thesis matches that of the Fallacy of Teamwork in this way: real human behavior gets in the way of what businesses assume will be the outcome. And the outcome is accepted based on that expectation and not reality.

In only the second graf, Culbert writes, "Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork." Amen.

Culbert writes that the expected outcome of the performance review that subordinates will be enlightened about "what they should be doing better or differently."

If you are the manager preparing for the review, there's an expectation that you will find something, anything, that the subordinate can improve on. Culbert goes into the reasons why that's the case.

But what if the subordinate shouldn't be doing anything better or differently? What if they are subject matter experts, love what they are doing and have no desire for the politics, demands and BS (like, uh, performance reviews) of a different job. What if they are subject "masters" in a program like Key Bank used to have?

It goes back to "corporate ladder-ship." Instead of evaluating the positives that a subordinate may bring -- great skills, passion, commitment to excellence, customer focus, etc. -- on their own merit, they are all judged against a backdrop of moving up in the organization. That's not fair.

But as is the case with teamwork, a subordinate is unlikely to bring it up. A subordinate will never admit to not wanting to advance her career, because she believes that would be interpreted as a lack of passion, lack of commitment, etc. And it's simply not true.

This is the same human behavior that prevents someone from disagreeing with the leader in a team setting. Just as a subordinate does not want to be perceived as having no commitment and no ambition, nobody wants to be thought of as being selfish and "not a team player." As Seth Godin writes in his new book, "Tribes," people don't really fear failure; they fear criticism. But the managers have all been trained to interpret these signals in the same way.

As Culbert writes, the manager has been wired to interpret such behavior in only one way, as a fault of "defensiveness and resistance to critique." A real leader would respond by engaging the subordinate, looking at the evaluation from a different point of view. And if that manager was lucky enough to have a similarly enlightened boss, he'd probably hear, "great work. I love your judgment." It ain't happening.

In one of Culbert's sub-sections, titled "One Size Does Not Fit All," he uses an example of an employee who is reluctant to challenge ideas or people. "Maybe, for instance, there's a guy who doesn't voice his viewpoint when he disagrees with something said," Culbert writes. "Does that mean he should be graded down for being a conflict-avoider...?"

Yet, conflict avoidance and the reluctance to voice a viewpoint are DESIRED behaviors in what passes for most corporate "teamwork." (We've touched on this throughout this site.)

Further, Culbert has a sub-section called "Disruption to Teamwork." I won't recount it all here, but the author starts by asserting (correctly) that managers go on and on about the "importance of team play at every level of the organization..." I've seen that the behaviors that constitute the fallacy of the performance review are similar -- some even identical -- to those that create a fallacy of teamwork.

Best example: Culbert writes that the review isn't about "'How are we going to work together as a team?' It's, 'How are you performing for me?'" That's exactly what weak team leaders do. Can they trust the young guy from marketing to make him look good, even though he's got his own fresh ideas he wants to try? Is the woman from supply chain going to stick her neck out for me? Will the engineers come through for me even though my project's not a priority?

But if the marketing kid and the supply chain gal and the engineers want to behave like they believe good team players are supposed to behave, they'll go along to get along. They'll "spin the facts and viewpoints in directions they believe the boss will find pleasing."

Just as Culbert says they'll do in their performance reviews.

Thanks for reading. Please read the piece in the Journal. More to come.

There has already been quite a bit of journalism and commentary around AIG's stunning "sales retreat" -- the company's lavish resort getaway, hosted before the dust had settled on its financial crumble.

Personally, I love Jason Seiden's blog entry on the topic; reading it made me think about the whole affair in a different context.

To quickly recap for those of you just joining, AIG spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hosting a retreat at a posh resort for sales executives...just days after the foundation of AIG took huge hit in the ongoing financial crisis.

I've heard the rationale for going ahead with the decision to hold the event. As Jason wrote, the sales people probably earned (and maybe deserved) the break. But to use a popular business euphemism, by hosting members of its own leadership, AIG created "negative optics." In human terms, "this looked bad."

No argument there. If you surveyed 1,000 people individually, people from all walks of life, they'd almost certainly say this was a bad decision. It looked bad, didn't pass the smell test, had poor timing, you name it. So how did it happen?

I submit that it happened because of many of the dynamics associated with the Fallacy of Teamwork.

If we assume that AIG has smart people on its staff, surely someone must have had reservations about going forward. But the sense of what's right often gets clouded in a team (group) setting.

First, the power and position of authority that comes with leadership often heavily influences a group. It's not as if the team members agree; it's just that the position of authority makes them less confident in EXPRESSING that opinion. "He's the leader, clearly he knows what's going on. He must be smarter than me so he must have some other reason for doing this that I can't see."

Second, team members often don't want to be perceived as dissenters. They don't want leadership to say "she's not a team player." So they don't raise questions or concerns even when they are clearly obvious.

A team is damaged when its members are more concerned about maintaining the status quo, not raising red flags, not questioning decisions than doing the right thing. I have no doubt that this was the case with the AIG getaway. Don't you think that SOMEBODY knew that this was the wrong thing to do at this moment? But it was more important to be a sheep and keep the flock together than it was to stand out and say, "Wait. This isn't right."

As Seth Godin writes in his new book "Tribes," people aren't afraid of failure, they're afraid of criticism. Do you think that there's the chance that someone at AIG may have thought: "This isn't the right time to do this. But I'm not going to raise it with the boss. I don't want to be the fly in the ointment. I don't want to get yelled at. And I don't want all those people who had been looking forward to the trip to come back and blame me for robbing them of a good time. They'll hold it against me forever."

When just being on the team means more than the work the team does and the decisions it makes, you have fertile ground for more AIG-type moments.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Recently, we saw several points of connection between the fallacy of teamwork and obstacles to employee engagement. Well, there must be something in the digital air because another connection revealed itself today.

Browsing many of my usual sources of inspiration and information, I landed upon a ChangeThis manifesto written by Michael Heller. Heller is Vice Dean for Research and Lawrence A. Wein Professor of Real Estate Law at Columbia Law School. (Note - Having not read his book, "The Gridlock Economy," I will assume that the manifesto of the same title summarizes the book's main points. The comments below are based on the manifesto.)

Heller's premise is that significant elements of the economy - elements that could make a significant positive difference in the lives of many people - die because of gridlock. Advancements in drugs, infrastructure and technology, for example, get anchored in corporate in-boxes because the number of moving parts needed to bring these advancements to reality never get moving in the same direction.

In his attention-grabbing example, Heller refers to a drug company whose scientists had found "a lifesaving cure" but couldn't bring it to consumers because to do so, the company needed access to dozens of patents. Patent owners balked, apparently wanted to protect their own interests, leaving the project "on the shelf, even though it might have saved millions of lives and earned billions of dollars."

The protection of individual interests, based on personal (selfish?) motivation at the expense of a greater good is an essential element of both The Fallacy of Teamwork and The Gridlock Economy.

They key to breaking the gridlock is smooth assembly, similar to breaking through to genuine teamwork, in which all team players understand their role within the context of the team. It also depends on the willingness of team members to allow their interests to become secondary, to let the "star" succeed. In Heller's case, the "star" could be the aforementioned drug, or a housing development or computer software.

Heller goes on to refer to the "tragedy of the commons," a principle in which a single source is shared by many and wastefully overused. A parallel principle generated by the author is the "tragedy of the anticommons," in which sources are privatized. On a large scale, private owners may block each other from interuse, leading to a wastefulness of a different kind.

Such is present in the fallacy of teamwork. According to Heller, "private owners...benefit directly from conserving the resources they control." Think about a team dynamic in the workplace. An entire regional retail operation may benefit from distribution from a single wholesaler. But individual retailers believe they have more to gain in their own stores by preserving or protecting the supply systems they have created. Maybe they get a better deal on a specific product line. Perhaps they are near the top of the line for product delivery. If their only motivation is to protect that private interest, they have no inclination to practice genuine teamwork. Hence, the creation of a gridlocked micro-economy.

As Heller concludes, "if cooperation fails, nobody can use the resource," which in this case would be the single wholesaler.

This occurs on a smaller everyday scale. "I'm not going to share my great internet marketing idea with the sales group because it's MY idea," or whatever the motivation. Many of the elements expressed in Gridlock Economy match up perfectly with The Fallacy of Teamwork.

Finally, the author suggests that repairing the gridlock condition will be a key challenge in the immediate future. "Some solutions are entrepreneurial," he adds. My guess is that entrepreneurs splinter off from traditional corporate enterprise because they are frustrated by the slowness, dullness, mediocrity and inactivity created by big business gridlock. They don't want to deal with the nonsense of fake teamwork and so go their own ways.

Thanks for reading. More to come. And special thanks to Jason Seiden for bringing Heller's terrific piece to my attention.

Recent reading, current professional initiatives and input from outside sources have triggered the revelation that much of the elements that lead to the Fallacy of Teamwork are discovered in the process of measuring employee engagement.

(An aside: it just dawned on me that "input comes from the outside" and "output comes from the inside." Not quite "drive on a parkway but park on a driveway" but you see the connection.)

Let's start by defining employee engagement. A contributor suggests that engaged employees are "doing something they are passionate about" leading to the benefit of everyone in the group. Further, mid-level managers (or team leaders) are responsible for helping direct-report employees (team members) understand how their contributions are vitally important to the successful execution of company strategy.

Often, poor communication from mid-level managers is the first stumbling block to engagement. If a team member has no clear vision of what kind of greater goal can be achieved - or even aimed for - then his or her own motivation will be the priority. If a team member can't see a direction (or strategy or goal), there is no chance that said direction will be pursued. There can be no teamwork.

This happens more than you may think because mid-level managers may be in the same boat. Maybe THEY don't see a larger goal, strategy or direction. So they're going to be pursuing individual goals and following individual motivations. Engagement among the rank and file - that is, genuine teamwork - cannot be possible if the managers themselves are not engaged.

The Fallacy of Teamwork shows up in many businesses when it is assumed that the mid-level managers are on board, in step...fully engaged. The aforementioned contributor suggests that the managers are not incompetent; they're just in the wrong seat on the bus. I'd contend that they may, in fact, be in the right seat, but it doesn't matter because nobody knows where the bus is going.

Let's work on the definition a little more. Employee engagement is often defined as the level of commitment an employee has to an employer, a manager or the employer's strategy. Engagement is the level to which their personal motivations are aligned with those of his or her company. The greater the level of engagement, the higher the contribution and amount of discretionary effort from the employee.

The elements and motivations that lead to the greatest engagement are the same ones that lead to genuine teamwork. There has been a lot of research and scholarship that correlates high employment engagement with better company performance. (Towers-Perrin and BlessingWhite are two firms that have provided the evidence to this end.)

At the same time, the elements that obstruct employee engagement are the ones that prevent genuine teamwork.

If you were to randomly sample North American companies and ask their leaders to guess at a percentage of their employees who are fully engaged, how would they answer? Would they guess 75 percent? 60 percent? Would they guess half?

I would assume that none would be bold enough to guess less than 1 in 3 are fully engaged. Yet, according to BlessingWhite's 2008 overview of the state of employee engagement in North America, only 29% of employees are "fully engaged" and 19% are actually disengaged.

Here's a scary thought. If you apply those statistics to a company that has 20 mid-level managers - the ones who are relied upon to be leaders - only six of them are fully engaged and four of them are disengaged. You think there's any chance of getting genuine teamwork from the direct reports of those four disengaged managers?

And yet those randomly sampled North American business leaders would almost certainly tell you a version of one or more of the following:

-- "Our strength is our people."
-- "We have great teamwork."
-- "We don't care who gets the credit."
-- "Our people give us a competitive advantage."
-- "None of us is as good as all of us."

Nonsense. They are ignoring the fallacy of teamwork.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Michael Kanazawa, corporate transformation and strategy execution expert, has written a terrific manifesto on ChangeThis called People Don't Hate Change, They Hate How You're Trying to Change Them.

In addition to reading the work for its insightful commentary about corporate culture change efforts, I also grazed for Fallacy of Teamwork examples. It seemed like a fertile fallacy feeding ground. And I was not disappointed.

In a subhead called There's No Such Thing as Buy-in, Kanazawa illuminates the premise that cultural change comes from the roots, from the bottom up, rather than top-down, where "buy-in" is deemed critical to success. But bottom-up takes too long and is too threatening to typical leaders. It means letting go of the command and control method of leadership to allow the people actually in the game to set the strategy and tactics.

The success of change from the roots would depend on the authenticity of teamwork, where personal goals and motivations align with that of the business. But what often gets in the way of roots-up cultural change (the only kind that has staying power) is -- you guessed it -- teamwork. Or, as we have called it here, what passes for teamwork.

To quote Kanazawa, "When people are invited in to help solve tough business problems and have a big impact on the results, they become inspired, motivated and engaged."

That would be true if those people invited in to solve the problems:

-- believe they will be taken seriously

-- believe they will get credit for their contributions

-- are shown support and encouragement

-- are allowed to make mistakes along the way

-- are confident that leadership will enact their solutions and support them with resources required to sustain the efforts.

And even after that, the solutions will probably not go completely smoothly. There will be fits and starts, leaps ahead and stumbles backwards. Leadership has to allow its team to find the common ground on which it can genuinely engage.

As an aside, this is a dynamic that seems to work very well when the team members are global, spread out geographically and connected digitally. Perhaps there is something to being physically apart that decreases the human dynamics that obstruct real teamwork.

In Kanazawa's next subhead, Leadership -- It's Not About You -- he writes about "unleashing the power in an organization for transformation or strategic change" by writing, "When you, as a leader, are looking to generate a significant shift in how people work, think and act, it is one of the biggest challenges of leadership you face."

Unleash, shmunleash. Hey, just getting a group of people to act like a real team is a big enough challenge. If a leader is spending valuable time and effort "looking to generate a significant shift" in behavior, that's command and control. That's top down. That's not exactly growing cultural change from the roots. You've got to let the roots take hold and that means leaving them alone.

I'll close by paraphrasing one of the great leadership books, the Tao Te Ching. Leading is like grilling a small fish. You spoil it with too much poking.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

You can find Kanazawa's full manifesto here.

"Authenticity," by James Gilmore and Joseph Pine, has offered another way of looking at the fallacy of teamwork in business -- through their lens of authenticity. In this compelling read, the authors spend time exposing inauthenticity in the workplace, referring to the dynamic as "acting" at work.

There are some especially appropriate passages I'd like to cite here. Affirming -- as has been done here -- that we all act differently depending on the context, the group we are with and how we would like to be perceived, Gilmore and Pine write:

"These portrayals of self simply reflect the choices we make, consciously or unconsciously, about what parts of ourselves to reveal at those moments with those individuals."

We can all relate to that in many social circumstances. Conversation with fellow adults at a cookout differs from that around a Thanksgiving table. Locker room talk, literal or figurative, is certainly not appropriate with youngsters within earshot. Meeting your date's parents for the first time is a moment that puts you on your best behavior, far from the cookout or the locker room.

The same is true in business. Often, the makeup of the people on a business team or the business setting they are in will dictate what a team member will reveal in those moments when the team is together. Members could be passive, going along with the direction laid out by a strong, opinionated leader. They could be aggressive, if their credibility, knowledge or value to the group is being questioned. They could be supportive of a fellow team member if he or she is being treated unfairly.

Some of us may have been in business team settings when we even are asked to play a specific role. A certain behavior (or, in Gilmore's and Pine's words, "what parts of ourselves to reveal") may be requested. A team leader may suggest, "He's going to present options that are very conservative. I'd like you to really challenge the ideas. Shoot holes in them." Sound familiar? Think back to the previous lens about the group interview.

This is an example of "acting at work" as the authors call it; it is not genuine teamwork. If the role requested above is not an individual's normal behavior, it is not authentic (not true to self and maybe not even being what you say you are). Gilmore and Pine address this as follows:

"Most companies, however, do not direct workers to act. Interactions may still come off well, as the workers are what they say they are -- receptionists, retail clerks, call center representatives, and so forth. But because so often they're not given the proper tools -- a theme to fulfill, roles to characterize, time to rehearse, a stage on which to perform -- they have no corporate self to which to be true, and therefore will readily be perceived as phony."

That's the fallacy of teamwork writ large. And while businesses often do not clarify roles, leaving no sense of direction toward successful teamwork, they STILL accept the work of a group as "teamwork."

This is acceptance of something that is clearly inauthentic. I'll have more on this in the days ahead.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

In the midst of reading Jim Gilmore and Joseph Pine's book "Authenticity," I came across a reference to another book, "Who Says Elephants Can't Dance?" by Louis V. Gerstner, Jr., the former CEO of IBM.

(Two asides, please. First, I'm not sure what kind of literary vortex I'm being stepping into by quoting a book, quoting a book. Hopefully it's nothing that ends up with me facing an international tribunal in The Hague. That never seems to end well. Second, I haven't read Gerstner's book. Yet.)

Herewith, Gilmore and Pine's work:

"Writing about his time at IBM, Gerstner referred to the durability of the company's values, but also how the errant interpretation of the Basic Beliefs had become disconnected from the marketplace reality. He felt that the pursuit of excellence had turned into an 'obsession with perfection,' resulting 'in a stultifying culture and a spider's web of checks, approvals, and validation that slowed decision making to a crawl...'"

That's a perfect description of The Fallacy of Teamwork. Getting caught up in the trappings of, in this case, IBM's Basic Beliefs and the appearance of pursuing excellence replaced actual pursuit. As previously discussed here, this is what happens with teamwork. Companies talk about, embrace and reward what they consider "teamwork," while no GENUINE teamwork is taking place.

I'll have more on this I'm sure. Especially after I finish "Authenticity" and read "Elephants."

Thank YOU for reading this. More to come.

It's a mistake that is made over and over again with the same result. When you try to appeal to everybody, you end up appealing to nobody. And this often happens as a result of "teamwork."

I recently saw a pitch from an online marketing service. It was designed to be a one-page summary of what this group had to offer, what its value proposition is, etc. Even though it was put together by a small team, it came across like corporate beach glass...smooth and worn down over time until it had no sharp edges and nothing to make it stand out.

As the one-sheeter explained, the "team" (its own word) has a ton of experience working in the "online advertising space." Yeah? So what?

It specializes in developing integrated and strategic campaigns designed to optimize sales and increase ROI. You're kidding!

And it uses a comprehensive approach to online marketing through integrated planning and strategy blahblahblah.

This piece reads like a "comprehensive integration" of things that sounded good (to someone) but made absolutely no impact. Can't you just hear the session? "Well, we can't say X because we want to appeal to this group. And we don't really want to highlight Y because we're not really strong in that area. Our real strength is Z, but the market for that is pretty limited." So they beach-glassed all the edges, all the things that would have made it stand out from the tens of thousands in online marketing. And they wound up with another smooth, brown pebble, like most of the others.

The fallacy of teamwork here is that often too many people worry about being too many things, which leads to being nothing notable.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Here's what Boston Celtics' star Paul Pierce -- the MVP of the 2008 NBA Finals -- had to say after the Celts won their 17th title, and first in 22 years:

"It means everything. You know, I'm not living under the shadows of the other greats now. I'm able to make my own history with my time here, and like I said, this is something that I wanted to do. If I was going to be [among] the best Celtics to ever play I had to put up a banner, and today we did that."

Incredible!

After the Celtics defeated the Lakers and earned hosannahs from fans and media for the willingness of their three stars -- Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen -- to put individual goals aside for the betterment of the team, what does Pierce talk about? HIMSELF! HIS INDIVIDUAL GOALS! Read that quote again.

"I'm not living under the shadows of the other greats."

"I'm able to make my own history with my time here."

"This is something I wanted to do."

"I had to put up a banner."

(Update: During the Celtics' championship parade, many players -- Garnett, Cassell, Rondo, Allen, Posey, etc. -- wore similar championship T-shirts. Pierce, on the other hand, wore a Nike shirt that read "The Truth," Pierce's nickname. And he held his own Finals MVP trophy aloft during the parade. The evidence seems to indicate that Pierce believes the folderol is all about him.)

Wow. Michael Jordan, arguably the greatest basketball player ever (fans of Bird, Magic, Big O, Wilt, Kareem, Bill Russell...are you still with me?), won SIX titles with the Bulls. I don't recall him saying "I had to put up a banner" or "I'm able to make my own history."

So, you think there may be something to this idea of Fallacy of Teamwork after all?

Now here's the big question: If we assume that Pierce's comments indicate personal motivation that trumped team goals, did it benefit the Celtics? Was Pierce's selfishness advantageous to the team? The results would lead you to say "yes." Would you Celtics fans have preferred that he defer to the others, to put a governor on that individual motivation?

Could it be that the selfish guy actually made the team better? Not what you'd ordinarily associate with good team behavior, huh?

This is what the Fallacy of Teamwork is all about.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Just a quick thought for today...

Does anyone get the sense that -- again, based on real-life evidence -- that obfuscation and distortion is valued?

The recent death of George Carlin, who railed against such ridiculous language, has put this idea back on my front burner. It seems as though results of meetings are often not actual ideas or suggestions, but PowerPoints and jargon, because that's what teams in business have come to expect. It's almost as if people believe that this pseudo-language of business will hide the non-idea and make real ideas even better.

And it's nonsense. But we get it anyway because that's what has been adopted as the acceptable form of communication. And when such distortion is the result of alleged teamwork, it's taken to an even higher form. Everyone weighs in and the presentations get further removed from reality.

"Hey, we've got a great chart on that!" "We can put that into a graph that really makes our point." All that's being done is showing an ability to use PowerPoint software.

The best ideas I've seen are still the things that get drawn up on a napkin, when nobody's "expecting" to perform as a team. The creativity just flows. After all, it's only on a napkin.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Merriam-Webster defines the word "dissent" as an intransitive verb meaning "to withhold assent, to differ in opinion." It defines "dissension" as a noun meaning "disagreement, especially partisan and contentious quarreling."

Part of the fallacy of teamwork is confusing the two. Precisely, dissent is often mistaken as a sign of dissension.

Dissent is healthy. Innovators dissent, especially when it comes to the norm, the tried and true, the old way of thinking. Open-minded people dissent. People who think for themselves dissent.

Yet this behavior, which is crucial to a well-functioning team, is often confused as being precisely anti-team. It's interpreted as being selfish or territorial. There's something about the team setting that makes it unacceptable and perceived as "partisan quarreling," or dissension.

In my observation, the "team" setting connotes a spirit of togetherness, that all members will be pulling on the same end of the rope, so to speak. That may be true regarding the assignment or task the team has set to address. But one of the fallacies of teamwork is that team members too often believe that this single-mindedness should also apply to everyone's...well...minds. This feeling of "being on the same side" carries the unspoken burden of making people feel as though they can't disagree (dissent) without risking being seen as a problem.

But in other business settings, dissent is welcomed. Maybe you've heard it called "push-back." Often, such dissent is expected in interactions with people at work who are not viewed as peers.

Think about a time you or a team you were on had to present a proposal to your boss, or his boss, or a board of directors. I'd be willing to bet that in your preparation, you thought (or someone said), "you'll get some push-back in this area." You know it's coming, so you consider that point of view before you make your presentation. You plan your response. No big deal.

So why is the same dissent treated differently in a team setting? Why is disagreement from a superior interpreted as healthy dissent while disagreement within a team is interpreted as dissension? Is it because how we view the other parties involved and their roles and obligations? Or is it because of how we view ourselves in the same situation?

This just serves as reminder that inquiry, conflict and dissent are most times healthy components of almost any kind of social interaction. Just don't confuse any of those for dissension.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Ever wonder why most scripted television shows these days are either un-funny comedies or predictable dramas? It's because of the "teamwork" of the creative process.

If a television show is actually on the air, it's because television executives have given it the green light, have ordered a certain number of episodes and put the grease in the wheels of production. That's executives, plural, because few ever want to take responsibility themselves.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. I fully expect that what I think is funny or dramatic or well written may not be the same as what you find funny or dramatic. That's true in network TV programming offices as well.

But once the programs go into production, the "creative process," the writing, editing, staging and producing of the shows, kicks in. And that's where you find a real fallacy of teamwork. Executives all of a sudden think they're funny or they know drama. To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, the executives that start fiddling with the scripts should stay out of the way because "they're not in the entertainment business."

I personally know one funny, talented writer who wrote his own material for a TV program, only to have it killed because the writers/producers didn't think it sounded like him. Think about that for a minute.

You probably wouldn't know my friend's name if you heard it, but you may recognize this one: Lewis Black. The popular comedian/actor/writer/social commentator recently spoke about his experience writing his own material for The Daily Show. The material he wrote for himself - for HIMSELF - was often killed because a) it wasn't funny and b) as Black said, the executive producers didn't think it was in his voice. Think about THAT for a minute.

Here's an example of what a simple script for one episode of a typical situation comedy is subjected to. The show probably has an executive producer, show runner, head writer and other "contributors." They each take a crack at an original script, go through a multi-layered editing process, and label each part of the process by color -- there's a blue edit, then a red edit, then a green edit, etc. This creates artistic anarchy. That's how, as Bob Newhart said in another context, "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, lend me your ears" becomes, "Ladies and gentlemen, I've got something I wanna tell ya."

The writer of the original script probably can't recognize her own voice. There are undoubtedly countless lines of dialogue that she can't remember writing, because, essentially, she hadn't. But, boy, that show's got some creative team!

Thanks for reading. More to come.

In LA Lakers head coach Phil Jackson's book "Sacred Hoops," he makes the following comment on teamwork, using his former team, the Chicago Bulls, as the example:

"Most leaders tend to view teamwork as a social engineering problem: take x group, add y motivational technique and get z result. But working with the Bulls I've learned that the most effective way to forge a winning team is to call on the players' need to connect with something larger than themselves. Even for those who don't consider themselves 'spiritual' in a conventional sense, creating a successful team -- whether it's an NBA champion or a record-setting sales force -- is essentially a spiritual act."

I hadn't considered teamwork a spiritual act before reading this. Frankly, I haven't given it much thought since. Perhaps I will.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

The May 16 posting on Seth Godin's website delineates the barriers to successful word of mouth (When word of mouth doesn't happen). As I read it, I saw a lot of similarities to the Fallacy of Teamwork (Fallacy of Word of Mouth?) Let's consider his list:

1. "It's embarrassing to talk about." -- Probably not a big obstacle to teamwork, as the team members presumably have chosen to work at their employer. The topics they talk about are germane to the chosen profession.

2. "There's no easy way to bring it up. This is similar to number 1, but involves opportunity." This one applies to teamwork when the topic that really NEEDS to be discussed is an elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about. You see this when the focus of a team is on tactics rather than strategy. Instead of worrying about how to make a particular service more popular, perhaps the right question is, "Why are we providing this service in the first place?" Real teams start by asking why. Fake teams start by asking how, without knowing the why.

3. "It might not feel cutting edge enough for your crowd." But sometimes the simplest solutions are the easy, obvious ones. As an engineer why it is that when geese fly in a V, one leg of the V is longer than the other. You'll probably get an answer that deals with aerodynamics. Ask a five-year old, and the answer will be "more geese." Not cutting edge, but the right answer.

4. "On a related front, it might feel too popular to profitably sneeze about. Sometimes bloggers hesitate to post on a popular source or topic because they worry they'll seem lazy.

5. "You might like the exclusivity. If you have no trouble getting into a great restaurant or a wonderful club, perhaps you won't tell the masses because you're selfish." Or perhaps you won't share a tremendous, disruptive, game-changing idea because you're afraid the leader will get all the credit.

6. "You might want to keep worlds from colliding." A team member may hear an idea, or even think of one, that might be better suited to another division. Or it may be disruptive to another division. As in thinking to yourself, "Oh, this is a GREAT idea and will make our business better, but it's going to annoy Jimmie, and we'll have to deal with his nonsense."

7. "You might feel manipulated." Actually, this could be a concern of a free thinker. You want to make a suggestion that makes a lot of sense, but you're worried that it's too close to what's expected. Too close to the company line. Hey, that happens.

8. "You might worry about your taste." The perfect perfomer for the final night of the big annual meeting may be Lewis Black. But in the political universe of your company, you might as well be suggesting Redd Foxx. Or Michael Vick.

9. "There are probably ten other big reasons," but you can see where this is going.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

In a conversation with a colleague a while ago, I expressed my frustration with a particular team that I was a part of. When our project began we had hopes of coming up with a proposal or two that would be extraordinary. There was the promise of doing this particular task in a way that had never been done. Instead, we ended up, well, ordinary. The sharp edges had been softened, the long reaches had been pulled back and the color we could have delivered had been muted.

"It's called regression toward the mean," my friend said.

I implicitly understood what he meant, but had no real understanding of the technical theory. I still don't profess to be anything more than a dabbler on the topic, but it supports the fallacy of teamwork premise.

While I wouldn't refer to Wikipedia as an ultimate authority, it does offer a clear explanation of "regression to the mean." It explains its as a "fact" that those with extreme test scores "on any measure at one point in time will, for purely statistical reasons, probably have less extreme scores the next time they are tested." It goes on to explain that this occurs regardless of whether the scores are high or low; those posting higher scores the first time will post lower scores the next time, and vice versa. Hence, they regress toward the mean.

There are many caveats and further explanations, but it accurately captures the dynamic of many teams. (Note that the Wikipedia entry also cites a book called "The Triumph of Mediocrity in Business" by Horace Secrist, published in 1933. I have not yet read that book, and am writing this entry without knowledge of its contents. Rest assured, I will read it.)

To keep things simple, let's consider a common team exercise: the "brainstorm." Among genuine teams, there are no boundaries, no "box" to think outside of. But these are usually exceptions. Any group of humans is bound to have at least one person who less confident than the others, more careful than the others, more cautious, etc. Caution shouldn't necessarily have a seat at the brainstorm table. But it invites itself anyway.

In most teams, once that governor is introduced, some of the caution spreads to the rest of the group, even if it has the effect of just making others take the foot off the gas for a moment. Soon, factors that may limit creativity, innovation and more are present, whether acknowledged or not. Hence, the dulling of the edges, or regression toward the mean.

Buy the same token, such a dynamic may lift the creativity of an overly cautious team member. If someone is naturally reserved and careful, he or she may be freed - at least temporarily - to get out of the comfort zone, to think bigger and suggest more radical approaches. In this case, it's actually "progression" toward the mean.

This is the type of team member who's going to drive a little faster and end up thinking they are really speeding. But compared to the rest of the group, they're still lagging. So even though they are progressing INDIVIDUALLY, the overall impact on the GROUP is regression.

Subsequently, the most creative, innovative, groundbreaking ideas do not figure to come from the group because those ideas will come back to the middle. They'll be toned down and muted, having regressed toward the mean.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

All over the country, I've seen it the same
Nobody's winning at this kind of game
We gotta do better, it's time to begin
You know all the answers must come from within, so

Come on and take a free ride...

(Lyrics by Dan Hartman)

An interesting choice of words, especially when juxtaposed with the following from Jeffrey Pfeffer's terrific book "What Were They Thinking":

"Economists talk about the problem of "free-riding" - people coasting on the efforts of others and not contributing as much as they could to the common good."

In modules to come, I'll get into the details of what "free-riding" looks like within the fallacy of teamwork and the impact it has on real teams.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Charles Barkley had a very interesting comment on teamwork last night on TNT's coverage of the NBA. He said, in effect, that an NBA team does what it can for the first three quarters, but at the end, they all expect the star to win the game for them. He used the Lakers and Kobe Bryant as a specific example. While I don't always agree with Barkley, he made a valid point last night, one which supported my premise in the first module.

Teammates (on REAL teams) play their roles to the best of their abilities to help the stars succeed. When they do that, the entire team is lifted. This is possible when the motivations of the individual role players are similar to each other and consistent with the team's objective.

Think about how this applies to business. Let's say a company business unit leader is preparing a presentation to a potential customer. He may put a team together to help the presentation. So maybe there's someone from marketing, someone from supply chain, someone from manufacturing and someone from finance (just to make it simple). The default position for individual motivation is always "what's in it for me?" And if that's true in this instance, the marketing rep will want to be sure that her portion of the presentation is the most impressive, the most detailed, the most...whatever. In her mind, she wants the customer to say "I chose to do business with them because the marketing portion blew me away!"

In Barkley's parlance, she's trying to win the game by herself!

But if her individual motivation was closer to the company's objective - win the business - she would understand that the business leader's presentation is the critical factor. She'd also be able to recognize if in fact marketing is a critical element of the ptich. If all the individual motivations were closely aligned with the objective, the team would naturally allow the leader to be the star. And that's what would give the company the best chance to win the business.

What do you think? Thanks for reading. More to come...

A friend of mine who had an extensive career in corporate HR wrote the other day with several thoughts on the Fallacy of Teamwork. One comment in particular caught my attention. She said that in her experience, "organizations are luckiest when they have, and recognize that they have, people who are happy to play a specific role and do not want to do anything greater than contribute what they can, within their own limits." She was not suggesting that people shouldn't aspire to greatness, but that organizations - teams, ultimately - are best served when they understand that "players" who know their roles, embrace them and endeavor to excel in those roles, can be as valuable in their own ways as the stars.

The Fallacy of Teamwork often shows up in business because corporate leaders are rarely of a mind to accept this. Corporate leaders focus on corporate ladders.

Key Bank used to have an associate development program that was based on "subject mastery." Associates who had skills and interest in a particular role or discipline could choose to have their careers focused in that area only, allowing them to become specialists, or subject masters. If a person wanted to be the best window teller in America, he or she could choose that role and build a perfect career.

Been to a bank lately? They could all use great tellers, wouldn't you say? But what's the reality? In most banks - and most businesses - if someone is a world-class window teller, the bank may identify that person as having outgrown the job.

(As an aside, my guess is that "window teller" is probably an entry level position. But given that these employees have daily face-to-face contact with real customers, shouldn't tellers be more highly thought of? But I digress.)

The bank and the individual (in the bank's opinion) would be better served by getting on some other career track. Perhaps training for an account supervisor's position would be appropriate. So, the individual is encouraged to accept this great opportunity to improve his or her career, his or her standing in the bank and professional prospects.

But Key didn't force that on the teller in question. Rightly, they believed that if a particular teller was so committed, so dedicated to being the world's greatest teller, THAT would benefit the bank, the customers and the employee. And it did. That is, until Key Bank discontinued the program. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of that.

Let's examine the same situation from the teller's point of view. See if this is familiar to what you see and hear in your own business. The teller, we'll call him Jules, loves being a teller. He's adopted Seth Godin's doctrine of the extraordinary ("The Dip") and is determined to become the "world's greatest teller."

But usually, businesses don't accept that. It's not good enough, especially when the business offers Jules a chance to improve is position at the bank. (Again, think about what happens in real life.) Because of his success as a teller, Jules is offered a chance to change career track. "We've got big things in mind for you, Jules. Where do you see yourself in five years? We see you as an account supervisor."

But when Jules gives him an honest answer (as real team players do), that he's happy and fulfilled doing what he's doing, what's the reaction? His superiors are disappointed. All of a sudden, Jules is thought of in a much different way. Now, "he's not committed. He's not dedicated. He's not invested. He's not ambitious. He's got no passion." All of which is THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH!

Jules is committed, dedicated, invested and passionate about his role, about what he does, and about the contribution he makes to the bank on behalf of its customers. As my former HR friend described, the bank should be lucky to have an outstanding associate who is "happy to play a specific role and do not want to do anything greater than contribute what they can."

You see, Jules is not only contributing what he can, but he may be contributing more than anyone else in that role can possibly contribute. But corporations have other ideas. Often, they are concerned with promoting from within because it sends a message to other employees that you, too, can move up the ladder. Companies subject associates to their own goals and objectives, often at odds with those of the associate. In my observation, companies pay little if any regard to honestly considering WHY associates work. Not just work for them; why they work -- at all. In other words - all together now - what's their motivation?

Now certainly there are instances in which corporate objectives should take precedence. But when an associate is striving to be the best in the world at one particular discipline, why mess with it? What company wouldn't want that? But businesses often believe that everyone who agrees to work for them is willing to put a foot on the first rung and start climbing the company ladder. To associates such as Jules, it's not that they don't want to climb the ladder; there's no ladder to begin with.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Here's a great fallacy of teamwork that we've all seen on more than one occasion. In an effort to really build teamwork and "boundrylessness," we've heard companies tell us that they are results-oriented. "The only thing that matters is improving the business. To that end, we value every employee's contribution. If you have an idea to help us grow/sell/communicate better, tell us! Good ideas can come from anywhere."

This is easy, check-the-box lip service. Like Hall of Fame basketball coach Al McGuire used to say, "It's like being in favor of hot lunch for orphans." A dated expression, but you get the point. Who's not in favor of good ideas? In fact, often a company will take that one great product development idea that comes from someone in accounting and hold it up as a shining example of the business' great teamwork.

But what's it like in reality? Let's say Pam from accounting does have a great product development idea. She'll have to face a few hurdles right out of the blocks.

First, depending on the size of the company, Pam may not even know who to call in R&D. Right away, her confidence may be shaken because she will have to present an idea to someone who does this for a living. It'll be hard to give your best pitch when your instinct is "well, I really don't know anything about R&D, and I'm not really clear if this is exactly your job, but I've got an idea about how to make the product more user-friendly."

There's a better-than-even-money chance that this will happen. There are not a lot of extroverts in accounting. Probably more left-brain, linear thinking, data-driven types and right-brain creatives in the Department of Crunching Numbers.

(OH! I just had an idea for a breakfast cereal! "Crunching Numbers!" Little digits that you can crunch on at the breakfast table while you're perusing the Wall Street Journal. Kellogg's on line one, please!)

Again, I digress. If Pam's timid, chances are she'll be easy to brush off. But let's say she's confident. She knows who to call. She can make the pitch. What happens then?

Well, there are several ways the R&D rep can react. Let's look at them from least likely to most likely. The following quotes can be real or only what the R&D rep is thinking:

Not happening - "Pam, this is great. We can't believe we didn't come up with this ourselves. We're going to implement this right away. Well, after we call the CEO to tell him where the idea came from, and after we call your boss to see if we can change your career track."

Highly unlikely - "Pam, this is great. We're going to start the process of seeing if this is feasible, but we're going to push forward and give you the credit."

Somewhat unlikely - "Pam, this is great. We're not sure if this will work or not, but we like the way you think. We'd love to have you come back to us with more ideas like this. In the meantime, I'm going to tell my team about this, and I'd like you present this idea to them."

Pretty likely - "Thanks for thinking of us Pam. Since this is our field, and not yours, we've looked at doing things like that and here are the 65,000 reasons we can't. Please go back to your cubicle."

Also pretty likely - "You know, this is really good. And we probably should do this. But we're the R&D experts. We'll look bad if our best idea came from some bean counter. Let's just pretend it never happened. Or come up with something similar that we can say we were working on at the same time."

Another also pretty likely - "This is good, but since this could be a proprietary technology, we must abide by our labyrinthine legal directives covering intellectual property. Oh, and Pam? Don't tell anyone else about this."

Most likely - "Great. And what do you know about R&D? Go back to your cubicle. We're the experts here. We don't tell you how to set up a spreadsheet, don't tell us about product development."

Do any of those sound familiar? Do they feel familiar as something you may have thought? That's why "good ideas can come from anywhere" is like the fallacy of teamwork. It sounds good and everyone is in favor. But the reality is far different.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Author and diarist Anais Nin's quote captures the essence of the biggest hurdle to teamwork, and thereby provides the insight into why most of what passes for teamwork is fallacy.

In their compelling 2006 book "Mavericks at Work," authors William Taylor and Polly LaBarre have a chapter called "Attitude and Aptitude," subheaded, "Why who you are beats what you know."

One of the fallacies of teamwork is the focus on function, title or discipline when assembling what hopes to be a well-rounded team. While diverse experience and knowledge is certainly valuable, it is often negated, or at least dampened, by the personalities and motivations of the individuals.

If a team is assembled to prepare a business pitch, it probably doesn't matter an awful lot if the best representatives from supply chain, manufacturing, marketing and sales are on the team if "who they are" overpowers "what they know."

This issue shows up in previous writing about the dark side of charisma, a topic I'll pass on for the time being.

The "what they know" is likely definable and, at the time the team is assembled, (and for the sake of argument) a fixed asset. But "who they are" is less defined and more susceptible to change. Even if someone is a rock-solid Myers-Briggs ENTJ, they may have had a distinct emotional (or "F" for "feeling") experience earlier in the day that colors everything that's in front of them. Does it impact that person's contribution, or can they simply check the emotion at the door? Of course it has an impact.

Perhaps the described business pitch is critical to the company's success. Perhaps the particular department or business unit is weighing in the balance; winning the account means continued employment but losing the bid means your job will be cut. It's pretty hard to check your own ambition at the door in that instance, isn't it?

Further, Taylor and LaBarre address the talent recruitment and development process at Starbucks by writing, "Senior leadership at Starbucks understands that it can't deliver on its ambitious plans for topline growth unless it delivers an ever-growing cast of rank-and-file employees whose personal ambition is consistent with the company's brand."

This clearly is a company that acknowledges the existence of personal ambition and tries to align it to the company's vision. That's a quality of a great team.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Gary Grates is one of our most well-respected professional communicators. He's currently president and Global Managing Director of Edelman Change and Employee Engagement, a specialty of Edelman Public Relations. In his most-recent blog post (G-Force, www.edelmanchange.typepad.com), Gary asks "When did we stop thinking?" Within, he describes a familiar management condition by writing, "...we are failing to actually listen, learn, share and assimilate information in a manner that results in a thoughtful decision."

The context of the post addresses the unrelenting wave and use of "tools" such as the internet, as a substitute for actual constructive thinking. It seems to me that this is a suitable corollary for The Fallacy of Teamwork. The meetings, discussions, etc. all have the look and trappings of teamwork, but without the actual results.

Grates' lament of "failure to actually listen, learn, share and assimilate information" is not just a reality brought about by tools, but a reality within most business teams. There seems to be a lack of integration of those elements in a team setting. People on the team may speak, but is everyone listening? They may be making suggestions and giving examples, but is anyone learning?

Learning can only happen when one realizes that there is a gap in understanding or knowledge. Sometimes it happens as a result of curiosity. Sometimes it happens as a result of failure. But it can only happen when, to use plain language, someone says to him or herself, "Here's something I don't know much about."

It probably doesn't happen often enough in team settings because, as has been pointed out in this space, people don't want to be perceived as weak, dull, simple or otherwise by their fellow teammates. That natural, human defense mechanism concern gets in the way of admitting a lack of knowledge, which gets in the way of learning.

Some of the most rewarding "team settings" I have been involved in throughout my career have been those when one (confident) member of the group doesn't appear to be the smartest one at the table. He's always asking questions, has a very simple view of the issue at hand and needs to have everything explained. But in those instances, that person has been the most valuable.

Those team members who have no preconceived notions about a project, no experience with the subject matter and no opinions to start with often ask the best questions, if they are confident. You've heard the expression, "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"? Well, this kind of team member comes with a completely empty toolbox, asking "what are we trying to build and why?"

It's especially true in internal communications, but I imagine it is true in virtually any team-based setting: Everything should begin with "why?" It leads to purpose, context and meaning. You just have to be confident enough to ask the question.

Thanks for reading. More to come...

How many times have we in business heard, "get a team together, brainstorm, bounce some ideas around, get other people's thoughts" and so on. The intention of all of this is to steer the group toward creativity. Based on the evidence I have seen, the exact opposite happens.

Fallacy: teamwork breeds creativity. (As a reminder, we're not talking about teamwork on real, authentic teams. We're talking about what passes for teamwork in most settings.)

Think about the evidence in your own workplace. Let's say a group gets assigned to prepare ideas for the introduction of a new service. At the start, creativity seems to flow freely. Some interesting ideas may start to pop up. People feel energized. But there seems to come a point when one idea or one person delivering an idea get snagged and that's when things start to unravel.

It could be "well, we can't do that because it's not our culture/we don't have the money/the boss won't go for it/we tried that once and it didn't work, etc." It could be that someone falls in love with his or her own idea and really starts to push it. That shuts off any receptivity to other ideas. And it starts to annoy other team members. Then a) how does the team react and b) how does the idea generator react?

If the team withdraws and does not engage in any kind of discussion, they are taking themselves out of the game. Real team players don't do that. But we've all experienced it, right?

If the team starts to push back, then something interesting often happens. The discussion becomes less focused on the idea and more on the individuals. Note how the conversation changes: "What YOU'RE forgetting is, x y or z."

And team members - human beings who are being evaluated by their peers in this setting and by their superiors in the delivery of the results- are not normally comfortable enough with themselves to say, "You know what, Jim, that's a great idea. Forget what I said, let's go with your plan." It's the same syndrome you see (as discussion previously) when you route a document, presentation or script for "team-member feedback." Nobody wants to say "Nice job. No changes."

Similarly, few people are confident that the group will focus on the IDEA being discussed and not the people presenting the idea. Have you ever felt "Well, I didn't agree, but I didn't want to say anything that would embarrass him. I didn't want to get into it with him in the meeting." These are the same "team players" who tail-gun later. How often have you heard (dare I say, even said yourself), "Well, I didn't think it was going to work."

Let's look at the same issue from the point of view of the team member who came up with a great, creative solution. When pushback starts to come from the group - whether it's focused on the idea, as it should be, or on the idea generator - it often gets personal. The reaction is seldom "there were some holes in my solution." It's more likely to be, "SHE didn't like my solution." Then it turns into a game of defending turf -- a human dynamic. What gets lost is any kind of creative energy or momentum. The team ends up with a solution that's "agreeable" and not - in the lexicon of Seth Godin in the "The Dip" - extraordinary.

The point is this: in most team settings, creativity often gets stifled by natural human dynamics. In a group - i.e. social - setting, the focus becomes the people rather than the ideas.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

"As long as they pretend to pay us, we'll pretend to work." That's a political joke from those knee-slapping stars of the Iron Curtain Revue, the Russian Communists. But after you've caught your breath and dried your eyes, you see how it's relevant to the fallacy of teamwork.

A reader of this space pointed to "inequitable rewards" often given to members of the team. Those rewards are often not in proportion to contribution and not in proportion to the rewards of a (successful) team leader.

Would the chances of having a REAL team be increased if rewards for success were apportioned as if the members were contributing as individuals? How about the other side of the coin? Would they accept blame in accordance to contribution, or lack of it?

While a successful team leader may receive more of the praise, glory and stock options than the support team members, it is likely that the leader will take the fall if the team fails.

The evidence that I'm aware of indicates that this is a factor that contributes to non-engagement by team members. "I'm getting as far away from this as possible" doesn't refer to physical proximity. It speaks to the lack of accountability in the previous module.

So perhaps the point is that in order to instill accountability within a team, rewards - and blame - have to be distributed according to contribution.

We already have shown an example of where this is in fact the case in GENUINE teams. Michael Jordan was the star of the 1990s Chicago Bulls and was paid to be the star. The top level of his supporting cast - Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant - were paid according to their contribution. The rest, from John Paxson, BJ Armstrong and Steve Kerr down to Stacey King, Jason Caffey and Dickey Simpkins, were all paid accordingly. And coach Phil Jackson knew that for the good of the team, he wasn't going to be putting Dickey Simpkins into a whole lot of games that mattered.

Simpkins wasn't paid like the rest, but he was never expected to contribute as much either. He did exactly what he was supposed to do.

That's a rare example. What happens more often is that team members do not believe they will receive equitable reward for success. As mentioned in the lead, they'll "pretend" to get paid. This leads, as my aforementioned reader suggested, to "role" players either "self-ejecting" - quitting and leaving - or "phoning it in" - quitting in place. Or, back to the Russians, "pretending to work."

The question then becomes: if team members don't actively engage because they don't believe they will be appropriately rewarded, do they actively retreat because they believe they will be disproportionately blamed? That's for a future piece.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

Today I'd like to add a few thoughts about one element that contributes to the fallacy of teamwork: lack of accountability. While in many settings there may be "strength in numbers," there are also plenty of hiding places.

I believe we can agree that these are facts:

1) Teams are composed of individuals.

2) Individual motivation is always primary.

3) An individual's motivation may not be the same as that of the team, the business division or the company.

So it stands to reason that teams will comprise individuals whose motivations differ from those of others within the group. In some cases, the team as a whole may benefit. But our experience reveals that teams often give people a place to hide, particularly in large teams.

Put yourself back in a college classroom. If you were one of four students in a seminar, you were prepared every day, ready to engage and likely an active participant in the seminar...if for no other reason than academic self-preservation (an individual motivator). But if you were in a huge lecture hall with 50 students, you could literally hide. You may not have a reason to be actively engaged in the class's work, discussion, etc.

The same is true in a business setting. Depending on the size of the team, there will be members who are not engaged. They'll do only the minimum amount of required work. For whatever reason, they won't stand up, offer an opinion, add constructive criticism, suggest solutions or courses of action.

(Speaking of "whatever reason," experience also reminds us that team members who DO speak up, who offer opinions, take strong stands, offer constructive criticism and the like are too often mistaken for being self-centered. They're disruptive. They're not...TEAM PLAYERS! This is the confusion between "dissent" and "dissention" which will be discussed in future modules.)

So, perhaps under the guise of being a good "team player," individuals can blend in, offering no real value and providing the minimal amount of input to keep them as part of the group. Since the business has assigned a team to work on a project - and a leader to run the group - the accountability will fall on the team and the leader, and not on the team members as individuals. Teams often create places to hide.

As we have mentioned before, and as Rosenzweig discussed in "The Halo Effect," the value/worth/success of teams is too often (erroneously) judged in retrospect, after the outcome has been determined. Even though it's a flawed evaluation, let's accept it in order to shine a light on this fallacy of teamwork.

If a team delivers a successful project, the leader may take bows while his team is acknowledged for its terrific collaboration. This is likely legitimate praise...for genuine teams. The reality is that a positive outcome is the best deodorant for stinky teamwork. It's possible that the leader did most of the work and carried the group on his back. It's possible that the lazy team members simply rode the coattails of the stronger contributors. But the lazy, non-contributors feel great about themselves! They were part of a great team that delivered a terrific outcome! What possible incentive will they have to deliver more value in the future?

Now, if a team fails or delivers a poor product, well, there's lots of blame to go around. "I couldn't deliver what was asked of me because the other guy didn't provide the data I needed..." Experience tells us that it is very rare for individuals who are part of a team that failed to step up and say, "My fault. I let the team down." That's because if that person is naturally inclined to take personal responsibility, they would have stood out on the team in the first place. Those who hide all hide together. Then, there's no accountability.

What's your experience? Thanks for reading. More to come.

One of the alleged advantages of teamwork is getting input and perspectives from a wide range of people. Different viewpoints and ideas are supposed to help improve the project on which the team is working. I don't believe this is always true. In fact, my instinct is that it's more often untrue and is detrimental.

How many times have we heard a version of "I'll show this to some other people on the team and get their input"? Seems like a good idea, but what does it really accomplish? And by "really" I mean "in actuality, based on evidence."

First of all, the subsequent sharing slows everything down. In many businesses, speed is a genuine asset. This fake democracy of teamwork in which everyone gets to weigh in with an opinion gets in the way of speed. Just think about something as simple as a letter. You've got the "tweakers," the "messengers," the "turf protectors" and others who have their own interests or style. That's all that comes through as a response to the request for input.

Does it make a letter appreciably better - and worth the hours or days delay - to fret over individual words? I'm not saying we should turn our back on correct grammar (those of us, anyway, who still care about such things). But in an effort to get something as simple as a letter perfect, the timing, impact and - as I'll discuss in future modules - creativity get lost.

Second, consider the human element of wishing to fulfill expectations...to live up to perceptions. When a team member receives a document from his or her team leader - by definition, a superior - he or she certainly wants to look good in the leader's eyes. That's a natural human response.

A further natural response is to provide some kind of input, no matter what kind of value it brings. The support player too often believes (or at least senses) that a response of "looks good, no changes" tells the leader "I'm not engaged, I don't really care, and it's not worth the time." After all, a team leader can't tell if someone put a lot of consideration into the request...and came up with "looks good, no changes," or simply scanned it quickly and replied.

So to appear engaged, to appear to care, to appear to be a valuable team member offering input and opinion, the team member will come back with...something. Anything. Maybe the team member sees that the project isn't giving credit to this or that employee. Here's there chance to add them to the project. (Jack Welch calls this "honking someone's horn," a good description, and not much less colorful than the "explicit-lyrics" version.) Now the burden is on the team leader. Is this of value? Is this just checking the participation box?

And what happens? The project gets slowed down, dumbed down and decreases in value. Maybe it gets too wordy. Maybe it strays from its initial intent. This is a great example of the fallacy of teamwork.

Sure, there are examples of outstanding, value-packed input from smart, diverse team members. Those are the conditions of a genuine team. And those are rare.

Thanks for reading. More to come....

In his wonderful book "The Halo Effect," Phil Rosenzweig describes the efforts of a well-known retailer to make significant change to its business in the 1990s. Industry analysts determined that this retailer, among its many changes:

-- Installed point-of-sale terminals in its stores to improve inventory planning;

-- reduced procurement costs by expanding central buying to 75% of its merchandise;

-- modernized inventory management;

-- increased seasonal sales, including a 60% improvement in Halloween and Christmas items;

-- raised inventory accuracy and efficiency;

-- reduced expense as a percentage of sales;

-- implemented a sophisticated client/server technology that led to better merchandise management and savings of $240 million. On top of that, inventory "turns" improved by 32 percent.

Pretty impressive, right? You'd have to say that they must have had great teamwork to accomplish all of that.

The company described above is KMart. Sure, the store made huge strides, but they were competing against WalMart and Target, who accomplished more...and faster.

Looking backward from the end result colors everything, including teamwork. It's possible to do everything right and yet have poor outcomes because in the real world you are usually in a competitive environment. Look at Starbucks today. They wouldn't have any trouble if Peet's and Caribou and others didn't exist...if McDonald's didn't sell coffee...if Dunkin Donuts didn't care about coffee. But they all do.

It reminds me of the old boxing axiom: everybody has a plan until they get hit. In business, we get hit every moment of every day. The competitors have good executives and employees too.

So when you're feeling good about your "teamwork," remember that you're not working in a vacuum.

Thanks for reading. More to come.

In many discussions of team sports, one common definition of the greatness of a star athlete is that "he makes others around him better." The long-held and often-repeated belief is that the best of the best raise the level of the teams around them. Their ability or work habits or competitiveness rubs off on lesser players and raise their individual contributions.

The result is often then defined as a great team...with great teamwork.

I don't believe that this axiom is true. Allow me to illustrate by using Michael Jordan as an example.

Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest basketball player ever (fans of Bird, Magic, Big O, Wilt, Kareem, Bill Russell...you've got a point, but go with me on this). The Chicago Bulls won six NBA titles largely because the team had the best player. But beyond that, they won those championships because Jordan's other teammates knew their roles, played to the best of their abilities within those roles and by doing so created an environment in which Jordan could excel.

John Paxson was able to make a jumpshot in the closing moments of the deciding Game 6 of the 1993 NBA Finals because he was doing exactly what he was supposed to do. He was a role player, and on that critical sequence, he found an open area within his range where he could shoot the ball with a reasonable chance to make it.

Now, if somehow John Paxson had "been better," if he had deeper shooting range, or was able to get by his man with a dribble, that entire scenario would quite possibly have been different. Maybe the Bulls wouldn't have needed a player with the skills of a "better" John Paxson, so he may not even have been on the team. But by being the best he could be within his role and his limitations, Paxson was able to be an important contributor to a genuine team.

You see it in sports and you see it in business. The "team" player or the "role" player starts to get better, wants to become the leader, starts feeling the need to make the big decision or take the last shot. That means he or she starts to get outside their given role, which leads to a breakdown of the team.

Even within the context of a team sport, Michael Jordan succeeded as the star because the role players around him performed to the best of their abilities -- within those roles. And all the Bulls players earned championship rings, bonuses and adulation.

Why the connection to Jackie Gleason? This lens will occassionally peer on some great teams and how they differ from what many companies perceive great teams to be. One of the best teams ever was the cast of classic television program The Honeymooners. But those of you more than 40 years old remember the opening titles to the show. "Jackie Gleason. The Honeymooners. With the stars...Art Carney...Audrey Meadows...and Joyce Randolph." It was The Honeymooners, sure, but Jackie Gleason was the star. Carney, Meadows and Randolph each knew his or her roles...the most significant of which was to be a supporting player to Jackie Gleason's Ralph Kramden.

Imagine if, after one season, Art Carney decided he wanted to be the star. The show likely would have been filled with tension, the dynamic would have changed and, just as likely, Carney would have been replaced. But by knowing their roles -- like the Bulls' Paxson -- Carney et al allowed Jackie Gleason -- like Jordan -- to succeed. And that made the entire team successful.

As we continue through this topic, the focus will be on teamwork within a business context. Thanks for reading. More to come...

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

To SDW58:

"Teams function well when there is mutual agreement as to the goal of the team." I agree completely. That's a critical element of team success. Evidence is ordinarily to the contrary, as there is not always universal agreement on the team's goal. Often, even if there is agreement, the individual motivations on the way to achieving that goal supercede those of the team.

"As long as motivation is channeled to attain the team goal, the team is effective." Again, I agree. And here's an area where I see a lot of mistakes and problems. For example, how many leaders say something to the effect of "You've got to be invested in our mission. You've got to have passion for the product." Then, when teams don't perform as expected, that lack of investment or passion -- however that's judged (flaws in that, too) -- becomes the culprit. What is more useful is to communicate, listen, pay attention and discover what the team members motivation really is and use that to the team's advantage.

If a soda company's head of marketing doesn't drink soda and doesn't care about the product, she can still be an effective marketer for the product. If her motivation is to create a marketing plan and devise an effectively disruptive campaign to build the product's awareness -- no matter what the product is -- that brings value to the team. It is incumbent upon leaders to funnel that motivation toward an end that benefits the company.

If that happens, then it doesn't matter if it was a triumph of the marketers will. The end result was beneficial to all.

MiaD says that teamwork can provide an "us against them" dynamic...leading to "commitment, loyalty, dedication" and more inside the team. If that happens, she asks, does it justify the manager's glorification of the team?

In short, absolutely.

Commitment, loyalty and dedication of the individual pieces (the team members) to a common goal -- ahead of their individual motivations -- is a hallmark of a genuine team. In previous modules, we've written about the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra. Its commitment and dedication are responsible for wonderful interpretations of music. There's no questioning the loyalty of cycling domestiques. And within a traditional business context, a company with truly engaged employees has a greater chance of high performance.

The point that confuses managers, however, is experiencing the success of "us" versus "them" and attributing it to teamwork.

In the 1990s, Timberland made great boots for hiking and outdoor activities. Then, purely by chance, the yellow boot became the footwear of choice for many young urban males of the hip-hop culture. Then it spread to a wider, though still young, demographic. Was great teamwork responsible for that? No. Within the randomness of market roulette, the marble fell on Timberland's number.

From there, the company likely needed teams to take full advantage...teams in marketing, supply chain, manufacturing, etc. But even then, the demand for the specific product was great enough to cover any deficiencies in those processes that may have existed.

Use the flip-side as the proof. Did Timberland's success mean its competitors -- HiTec, Red Wing, Roots, whomever -- had poorer teamwork? Or just a product that wasn't as popular?