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.