When teams are failing, the poor performance upsets their members and they vent their f on each other. When performance is good, no one cares about the friction. Members will even say their success was due to the cooperative style of the team, even when independent observers report that the team was quarreling most of the time. Some famous teams were known for their internal hostility : Abe Lincoln's "Team of Rivals", the Manhattan Project (really? evidence woman!), and the Mercury astronauts were "famously at one anothers' throats."
Constant harmony is actually cause for alarm (that's why Samsung gets screwed by AAPL every year - think Korean culture vs Steve Jobs' rodding). Conflict-free operation means no one is bringing anything to the table that might engender controversy. The team isn't focused on purpose - but rather on protecting relationships. In this case, the whole is less than the sum of the parts.
Hackman of Harvard : Research on 70+ US and EU orchestras - the better the orchestra sounded, the more likely there was rivalry and discord behind the scenes!
Teams are always seen as the panacea, and never as the problem.
Successful teams are always as small as possible to get the job done.
In a small team, people feel responsible for the project and have a sense of what everyone else is doing.
This becomes hard as the team size grows.
In great teams, teammates anticipate the others moods and needs. They don't need to be told what needs to be done.
Teams that struggle have meetings, lots of meetings. And in those meetings, they talk a lot.
Successful teams communicate in short, clear sentences and communication is reciprocal. Requests are made and then, there's a confirmation that a request has been received, understood and will be acted upon.
On struggling teams, communication is dominated by fewer people, making longer soliloquiys.
On great teams, teammates trust that each team member will do his best.
On struggling teams, team members worry about freeloaders, mates not working hard enough, or stealing credit for others' work - which leads them to work less harder themselves - think back to what Jobs said about keeping only A-players on your team..
What science has to offer - the important work in the building of the team happens before any teamwork happens at all..
Teams are always seen as the panacea, and never as the problem.
Successful teams are always as small as possible to get the job done.
In a small team, people feel responsible for the project and have a sense of what everyone else is doing.
This becomes hard as the team size grows.
In great teams, teammates anticipate the others moods and needs. They don't need to be told what needs to be done.
Teams that struggle have meetings, lots of meetings. And in those meetings, they talk a lot.
Successful teams communicate in short, clear sentences and communication is reciprocal. Requests are made and then, there's a confirmation that a request has been received, understood and will be acted upon.
On struggling teams, communication is dominated by fewer people, making longer soliloquiys.
On great teams, teammates trust that each team member will do his best.
On struggling teams, team members worry about freeloaders, mates not working hard enough, or stealing credit for others' work - which leads them to work less harder themselves - think back to what Jobs said about keeping only A-players on your team..
What science has to offer - the important work in the building of the team happens before any teamwork happens at all..
No comments:
Post a Comment