… Meanwhile back at the ranch …
SO I wrote 1600 words or so in a rambling post that started out with the intent of answering the “what make a team” question. THAT post desperately needs an edit, and maybe I’ll post it later this week …
Shorter version
“Team” is another of those “interesting” words. Merriam-Webster tells me the word has ‘agricultural roots’ – tracing back to an “Old English” word for a “group of draft animals” as well as “offspring, lineage.”
SO the original meaning of “team” implied a group that was united by a common goal/task.
Obviously go back 1,000 years and most folks lived/worked on farms. So the family unit was a “team” engaged in running the farm just to survive – this is commonly called “subsistence farming.”
Even more obvious – a group of draft animals would be able to perform better if they were “equally yoked” – which I assume referred to using the same general size/strength animals as well as how they were connected together for the task at hand.
“Together”
Anyway – the team concept is about “working together.” So it is that unity of purpose that makes a “team” – NOT just being in the same place at the same time, NOT just wearing the same uniform, NOT working for the same company.
If you just have a bunch of people gathered together in the same place at the same time – that is much more likely a “crowd” not a “team.”
Go to a football game and two “teams” might play each other while a “crowd” watches. I suppose a ‘team’ with an enthusiastic fan base might end up with a particularly passionate group of “fans” that form a de facto “team.”
That level of fan engagement is (probably) what EVERY sports team (college, pro, whatever) would like to have – you know, those are the people that buy every piece of merchandise that the team releases, and if they can’t get tickets are watching the game at the local “establishment” with a group.
… but I digress …
The problem becomes that you can have “strong” and “weak” teams.
Completely off the top of my head/made up:
Strong team: common purpose, everyone respects each other, all team members know how their purpose fits into the overall mission as well as appreciate the contributions of other team members, THE MISSION is well defined. “insert motivational slogan here” 🙂 (pick your favorite cliche: “together each achieves more” or how about
“Coming together is a beginning, staying together is progress, and working together is success.”
Henry Ford
Weak teams:
not sure there is a “mission”, other team members are “tolerated” because they have no choice, minimal effort given – everyone’s goal appears to be to do as little work as possible, if they have a “mission statement” it is something like this
Sport ball
The “organizational behavior” point of view is that all of the above becomes part of “team culture.”
The problem with “culture” is that it kind of has to grow on its own or it isn’t REALLY “team” culture.
If you imagine a houseplant – the owner of the plant can put the soil in the pot, put the plant in the soil, and water the plant, provide sunshine – but the “growing” part is out of the owner’s hands.
Same idea with “team culture” – a coach/manager provides the “environment” in which the culture will grow. Then the players/employees will grow/not grow the culture.
How do you “provide the environment” to ensure a strong-positive culture – well, that is called “leadership” and is beyond the scope of this post 😉
Interpersonal relationships
All of the above applies to “two person teams” as well.
“Strong relationships” are also “strong teams.” Sure there can be “friendly competition” – but each person understands their contribution, it is “cooperative” (as in “make each other better”) not “competitive” (as in “must win all the time at any cost”)
I’m fond of saying “If EVERYTHING is a contest of wills” then you are (probably) in a “toxic relationship” – which I wouldn’t describe as ANY type of “team” (this song comes to mind – notice they had ONE thing in common)