>According to my view, teams are several people working together
>collectively within a defined and structured unit.
Your definition of teams seems to be quite inclusive of any working unit.
My definition is different. A team, in my definition, is a relatively
small group of people say 2 to 25 with a shared meaningful purpose,
concrete goals, shared methods of working, interdependent corporate work,
opportunities for personal growth, shared responsibility for the whole
task and whose members are accountable to each other for their work.
While I have worked in many groups, task forces, departments, problem
solving units, etc., in 35 years of work I have only worked in two teams.
One was a group of 5 people (the make-up changed a couple of times but
four of us stayed the same). We spent a year leading consultations in 8
locations around the world. The second was myself and another person who
taught 10 one week training program in Poland ove the course of 18 months.
>Teams can in no way be considered a panacea or assumed to always be a
>positive construct
I agree
>- a change in structure is not much use without a change in attitude-
I suspect this is a bit of chicken and egg. I have noticed changes in
attitude with changes in structure.
>and I have seen many people take their functional mindset
>with them into a team structure- with resulting reductions in overall
>company performance.
>The ease with which team members can find shared goals and values should
>not be underestimated.
Do you mean the difficulty?
>This variety in opinions is a good thing- but
>costly in terms of compromise and time and energy and negotiation to sort
>out. As pointed out in my other email, this negotiation process may be
>benefitial but it is also costly- too costly when a speedy response is
>paramount.
The development of shared goals and values does take time and, I believe,
the development period of a team (my definition) is a period of lower
productivity because of the negotiation process. This has to be weighed
against the potential of higher performance that a team offers.
>For teams to work well, some commentators suggest that team members need
>to be dependent on their colleagues, collective performance entails too
>much opportunity for free riding on other people's efforts.
I think this is why a team requires mechanisms for members to be
accountable for productivity to each other and not one to one to a manager
or team leader.
>For me, dependence on other people is neither a good thing, nor a necessary
>thing.
I can't understand what this means. I am dependent on all kinds of
people, most of whom I do not even know, for example the people who
contribute to this list and the people who run it. It is true I can
choose not to participate in the list but as soon as I do choose I am
dependent.
>Eugene was right to say that teamworking is necessary but teams are not.
>The activity is necessary but should not be carried out within the
>structure.
I am unclear what you mean by structure. Language has structure but it is
dynamic.
I have to admit I am a little afraid of the individualism that you are
arguing for. I believe that extreme forms of individualism are
destructive just like extreme forms of collectivism are destructive.
With care
Jon C. Jenkins
Imaginal Training
Groningen, The Netherlands
www.noord.bart.nl/~imaginal
E-mail: imaginal@pop.pi.net (Jon C. Jenkins)
--jon <jon_jenkins_imaginal_training@pi.net>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>