"Have you seen the chart?
It's a helluva start,
It could be made into a monster
If we all pull together as a team."
- Roger Waters
“We’ve got to pull together as a team!” How many times have you heard that from some boss? In my experience, the ones who talk the most about the “team” know the least about what the word really means.
Most groups referred to as “a team” are really nothing more than a rabble. They may have been assigned a task where full cooperation and collaboration is expected for the benefit of all, but that rarely comes to pass. Why? Because the rewards are doled out on the basis of individual contribution. “Got to get rid of those poor performers, you know. They’re holding the rest of us back.”
This is particularly true in the situation where a sports squad is struggling or a company is failing. There is little faith that the prescribed goals will be reached, and worse than that, no one really believes the goals and assignments are the ones that will turn things around. In this environment, which cries out for excellent team performance, the opposite is fostered. If WE can’t outrun the bear, I only need to run faster than you.
I’ve had the pleasure of being a member and also being the coach of a few real teams, both on the playing field and at work. I assure you that in every one of these cases, not all the members of the team were equally gifted or equally hard working. What these teams had going for them was that for all the members, achieving the goal was more important than individual recognition. Additionally, the stronger performers did not spend time berating the weaker ones. Oh, all right, there are always times when someone says, “Did you see what Fredlund did today?” but such comments are not used to ostracize anyone. The coaches or managers and the stronger members did their best to create a situation where the weaker members could contribute effectively and in ways that everyone could feel good about.
“Play for your teammates,” was the mantra of Omar, my assistant coach for a teen soccer team. What he meant was that a player did not have to show off how good he was by playing “for himself.” He was most valuable to his team when he made it easy for his teammate to take the shot, make the pass, or cover the attacker. And when his teammate would do the same, they both became better. And when all 11 would play for each other? Magic...sheer magic.
 |
| One of the finest players ever played in this league. She moved on to bigger things and led the world in scoring. |
We coached a team of mostly modestly-talented players to a league championship on the basis of playing for each other. To his credit, the one “star” on the team finally realized that putting a lesser player in position to score was at least as good as scoring himself. “I don’t play my 11 best,” said a coach I once knew, “I play my best 11.” Think about it.
In the corporate world, teamwork is often sabotaged on a grand scale by the structure imposed. Divisions and sub-divisions are established within the company with little incentive to collaborate. The accounting systems, ostensibly provided to track and verify performance, actually serve to create boundaries across which little good is allowed to pass.
At the Big Yellow Box, the “silos” of Company Divisions and Business Units created barriers that prevented cross-pollination, hybrid vigor, and playing for your teammates. If a bright young employee happened to be working in Consumer Products, but had an idea for a product or improvement for Professional Products, work on the concept would be discouraged to the point of not even communicating the idea. “What are you working on that for? That’s not a Consumer Product. What do you think you’re being paid for?”
This assertion is not completely true in light of the company suggestions system. However, that system, designed by Mr. George Eastman himself in 1898, which was intended to foster teamwork across boundaries and job titles, was discontinued at least in part over concerns that rewards were being set up.
The original Disc camera was a marvel of manufacturing. The assembly process entailed properly placing the parts into the casing, securing all with a single screw, and then fastening the cover over then entire assembly. The screw made doubly sure that the clip-together parts stayed where they belonged. But it was really redundant, since the cover and snap fasteners did the job well without the need of this manual operation.
 |
| That's Disc, not disk. |
A suggestion was provided through the formal suggestion system that the screw be left out of the assembly. Doesn't sound like much of a saving, but when you multiply the cost of the screw and the cost of the manual operation of inserting the screw by 20 million, it adds up to real money. So the maximum $50,000 award was presented to the assembly line worker who made the suggestion.
What's wrong with that? Nothing. But it was widely rumored that the someone in design engineering, who could not receive an award for the cost saving due to the fact it was part of his job responsibilities, tipped the worker off. The rumor went on to indicate that perhaps some percentage of the award was shared. We'll never know. Should the company care if the effect is right? Evidently, it did care, and the suggestion system was discontinued some time later.
(Note that I cannot verify this screw suggestion story, but even if it is an urban legend, the fact that it was part of the company mythology speaks volumes.)
(Note that I cannot verify this screw suggestion story, but even if it is an urban legend, the fact that it was part of the company mythology speaks volumes.)
Similar to the case of poorly motivating small groups, the incentives for the company units were all wrong. Yes, there were exceptions, but the rule dictated that if something extra, even something very inconsequential, needed to be added to a widget made by Consumer Products so that Professional Products could sell the widget, the addition was extremely unlikely. It was a cost, and even if the sales by Professional Products had the potential to more than cover that cost, it would not happen. Why would this be the case? Because the accounting system would not allow sales credit to Consumer Products for anything sold by Professional Products. No common goal. No playing for your teammates.
Being on a decent team is always rewarding, and most important when your group is in need of a boost. But when a sports squad is full of players vastly superior to the competition, or when a company is making huge margins on its products with little pressure from other corporations, such concerns are deemed unimportant. Great success is a narcotic that delivers feelings of omnipotence and engenders little teamwork unless the coach or boss is exceptional. Like Mr. Eastman.
I think I’ll let Roger Waters finish this post. I can’t think of any more appropriate words.
"And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We call it Riding the Gravy Train."
(Pink Floyd album cover "Wish You Were Here" and "Have a Cigar" graphics reproduced without permission. Considering the amount of support I've given their albums and concerts, they should not complain.)
