I love how everyone is so convinced that everything requires having a team for it to work properly! As though the TEAM (in name only) will set into place the sacred "code" of conduct that will force people to do what the team leader says, or play their particular position, or make the necessary sacrifices, to ensure a successful "happening." I mean, this type of thinking's almost as bad as the phenomenon we all who have worked in any mid-sized to large organization have come to know and dread: the idea of ad hoc committees. I see committees as almost a derivative of the Team concept, although I'm not quite sure right now which came first (did the "team" concept, perhaps, precede the "committee" in evolution? I'm not quite sure -- I'll have to ck my history of organizations and management textbook...). The common tie, however, is an unspoken expectation that if we have a team, then we somehow magically will also have the magical conduit by which the organization can accomplish what it was originally formed for: an indescribably powerful "cause," powered by people, that accomplished whatever it was intended to do, to the level of performance that they intended it to be done -- at the very least.
Now I don't profess that this is the technical definition of an organization. Nor is it the official measure by which an organization must assess it's effectiveness (surely, especially in the case of the non-profit organization, there are points at which fiscal prosperity might in fact create a "problem" for the organization that vows near "poverty" in order to be able to do things for the overall good of humanity -- even if it does really take a good bit of money to accomplish anything!). I mean, who am I to tell an organization what it's purpose is, right? That's what they have a mission and vision statement for, right?!
Right! So I'll hurry back to my point: Today I have become at peace with the notion that an artificial entity, called a TEAM, is no substitution for a spirit of COOPERATION. Cooperation does not need a team leader, although there are cheer leaders who often move in and out of the role, as circumstances dictate -- encouraging others to continue doing the work, if it's a good thing (or not!). These are the real power brokers, I think we would all agree (since we're being honest here, on my blog).
But they are not always the official "TEAM LEADERS." Sometimes we have "team leaders" who stink at providing direction, and a sense of vision, and providing people with the resources they need to accomplish their tasks. But that's not to say that they haven't tried their utmost in their appointed "role" to do so. Sometimes we are put in situations where we are asked to transform people who DO NOT WANT TO BE TRANSFORMED and worse still who DON'T WANT TO BE TRANSFORMED BY YOU, IN PARTICULAR. It is a honest-to-goodness reality and fact that every manager must, one day, come to grips with. You will not always be able to "lead" everyone who is assigned to you, and the reason is simple: Because, as with any relationship, it takes a mutual interest in having this relationship, and for it to really work, it must be for the shared and common goals. In order for one to actively Lead, there must be someone that is actively Following.
In the organization setting, teams come and go, along with committees (standing and ad hoc). The Holy Grail of having a good organization, however, is something that cannot be forced upon a person or even really "taught." Cooperation comes out of invested time and energies spent: 1) getting to know yourself and your motivations for being where you are (organization-wise); 2) a true knowledge of your role and contribution to the organization (sometimes beyond just what is assigned to you); 3) a cognizance of the people and processes within your surroundings; and finally, 4) a willingness to make the shared and common goals more important than what any one of us individually may want at a given time, under given circumstances.
So I no longer call myself a "team player" - and not because I may not be the team leader on a given project, but because I recognize that sometimes team players, although they may do what they are asked to do, may do so in such a way that you wish they had never been asked to do so. Sabotage is a nasty little thing that ultimately hurts the organization and, in the case of philanthropic entities, the very people the organization is supposed to be helping. It makes people do their job, but not in a very nice way. Sometimes they may do it too late for it to be of any use to anyone. It may be done in such a way as to create more work for the team leader (if they don't like who they are submitting it to): to give it back for them to "do it the way you want it to be done." Or, my personal favorite: They may simply withhold information that you don't know to ask for. From the other perspective, how many "team leaders" -- appointed or by accession -- have used their position to try to force others to do their work for them (using the guilt trip, no less), for their own self-serving reasons? I think we've all been victims of that kind of manipulation at some time or other...However, you slice it, it certainly is not COOPERATION, even though they, technically, may have done what their job description may have (very generally) outlined. And, ultimately, people like this in organizations usually suck the very life out of otherwise good organizations. Personally, I'll take participating in a work environment that places greater value on things like integrity and "cooperation" over a "team playing" one, any day...
No comments:
Post a Comment