|What's distinguishes a team from a group?|
In the cultural sphere of my youth, basketball seemed the quintessential team game. I was a playground hoops rat who grew up tolerating ego-centric ball hogs. I'd wonder, why don't these rubes appreciate the team game?
Self-Organization: Flocks, Schools & Colonies).
Compare the shooting stats of the 1969 Knicks with the 2008 NBA runner-up Lakers -- a striking difference in the distribution of shots per game for the top 6 players of both clubs is evident.
For the Lakers, Kobe Bryant took 3 times the shots per game than 6th man, Trevor Ariza. For the Knicks, Willis Reed, took 1.7 time the shots per game than 6th man, Cazzie Russell. Which club feels like a team? Which feels like a group? My apologies for leading the witness.
The '69 Knicks and the '08 Lakers, by all accounts, were wildly successful in their respective eras. Most people would probably choose to play on a team similar to the Knicks, where everyone was assured roughly the same number of shots. Is selflessness an indicator of team success?
I started this post thinking unselfishness was a defining characteristic of successful teams. I planned to compare a team player’s team, like the 1969 Knicks, with a ball hog team, like Kobe Bryant and the 2008 Lakers, but a funny thing happened:
The premise did not ring true.
Most of us would rather play on an unselfish team, but unselfishness, while an attribute of a attractive team, is not an attribute that defines a successful team.
Teamwork is less concerned with democratic, unselfish distribution of tasks and skills, then with recognizing how best to combine the strengths and weaknesses of the players.
I suspect that successful teams determine - by a sometimes brutal mechanism akin to natural selection – which player should fill which role based on complementary strengths and weaknesses. These roles are not appointed, they emerge. Roles emerge as strengths and weaknesses are evaluated through trial and error. Appointed roles rarely work, but who doesn't know the go-to-guy 3 weeks into a project?
Avoid the trappings of appointing and anointing. Try letting roles emerge.The Greek syn-ergos is the root of the English synergy meaning working together. Synergy describes conditions where entities cooperate advantageously for a final outcome. Synergy is an over-used word that feeds the old saw
The sum of a team's parts is more important than any individual
Teams display emergent behavior which is a collective behavior that is largely unpredicted by the behavior of individuals taken separately. Sometimes simple entities like individual players, form more complex behaviors as a collective. NBA teams assemble players based on roles like shooter, rebounder, defender, etc. They build around core players and skills that fit a style or vision with complementary players and skills.
Teams where players emerge into roles are not necessarily exclusive from the much ballyhooed cross-functional teams. On the best NBA teams, when the shooter gets hurt, other team members fill the void by taking more shots. Because you emerge as the best person to branch of your source code, doesn't mean you are - or should be - the team's exclusive branching dude.
I have heard the phrase self-directed teams used to describe teams that are given autonomy and take responsibility. Teams are self-directed by definition, so self-directed team is as redundant as Free Gift or Frozen Ice. Perhaps "self-direction" is merely another characteristic that distinguishes a team from a group.
Following is a working enumeration of some of the characteristics that might distinguish a team from a group:
- Teams work toward shared goals
- Teams have emergent roles based on the most efficient path to shared goals
- Teams emerge as a single organism when advantageous
- Teams have emergent behavior unpredicted by individuals
- Team members subjugate individual ego for the sake of team efficiency
- Teams are self-directed