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 Starbuck's 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.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Red Hat and 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…Do 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.
“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…Do 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.
Fallacy of Teamwork and Six Thinking Hats
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.
Each of Edward DeBono's "Six Thinking Hats" is named by color. Each is emblematic of 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.
"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.
Each of Edward DeBono's "Six Thinking Hats" is named by color. Each is emblematic of 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.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Celtics star fades: How Game 7 turned out...
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.
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.
The Fallacy of Teamwork for Magic vs. Celtics Game 7
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...
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...
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Teamwork is the "ultimate competitive advantage," right? Baloney.
The material posted here originally appeard on a Squidoo lens of the same title. All copy has been moved to this site.
My premise is that what many organizations -- businesses, bands, sports teams, anywhere people have to work together -- praise, embrace and promote as "teamwork" is nothing of the sort. Teamwork, in theory, is a wonderful concept. When exercised correctly, it is a genuine competitive advantage. But in reality, as practiced by many organizations, what passes for teamwork is extremely flawed, poorly executed and actually detrimental to success.
The material posted herein originally appeared on a Squidoo lens of the same title. All has copy has been moved to this site.
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 occasionally 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 over 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.
My premise is that what many organizations -- businesses, bands, sports teams, anywhere people have to work together -- praise, embrace and promote as "teamwork" is nothing of the sort. Teamwork, in theory, is a wonderful concept. When exercised correctly, it is a genuine competitive advantage. But in reality, as practiced by many organizations, what passes for teamwork is extremely flawed, poorly executed and actually detrimental to success.
The material posted herein originally appeared on a Squidoo lens of the same title. All has copy has been moved to this site.
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 occasionally 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 over 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)