Discussion: View Thread

Dear list,

I would like to comment about George Furgusons concern about teams
becoming a buzz word of the 90's, soon to be forgotten and add a
note to Nancy's thread about sports teams.

George,

I share your concerns about some of the Auto Industries systems
and tools that came into vogue only to be thrown out of the
company a few months or years later. We have coined that 'the
flavor of the month'.

The thing that amazes me is that these tools that they bring into
their companies gained attention because they DID WORK. The
Japanese have had marvelous success with most of the tools and
systems that you named. What American corporations do that is
insane is that they bring these tools and systems into their
environment as a 'save-all' and do not realize, to my
astonishment, that even these tools need to be managed and
supported.

Quality Circles for example..work well if they are not seen as an
added activity that the company does outside of their normal
business. It has to be the way the business is conducted.

I am responsible for implementing Empowerment at this facility.
One of the first things that I require is that Senior management
do not see Empowerment as an added activity that can be managed
like a task. It must be assimilated into the Culture and Led and
it must become HOW we do our everyday business...not a what we do
when we have time.

Companies that assimilate the tool and system into their culture
are successful. Check the Malcolm Baldrige award winners and
Business weeks Best Plants award and tell me how many of them DO
NOT USE TEAMWORK.

Then check the runner-ups and ask the same question.

******************************
Nancy,

I share your ideas about using Sports to illustrate Team work..but
only to a degree. Sports show you how important each team member
is in the process, but where most sports greatly Lack and should
not be used as an example of team work, IMHO, is how they
communicate with each other, how they resolve conflict and in how
they design their processes, not always through consensus and data
collection.

Sports teams are teams, but they lack a lot in regard to using
them as a role model for Empowerment Teams in manufacturing.

Thanks all,
Rick COrcoran

Rick,

Agreed on your hesitation in using sports teams. I wasn't advocating this
approach but merely saying that many top execs continually resort to team
analogies when promoting teamwork. It takes a whole lot more than that.

Nancy

Your ruminations, Fred, about "team players" got me thinking, also. I can
certainly see the value in the list below, and your addtion of shared
rewards. I especially concur with your addtion if we use the term "reward"
in the most general sense, not necessarily monetary.

There is something about looking at a list like this that bothers me,
though; especially the first three items of "commonality."

What bothers me, is the idea that good teams are created by measurable and
listable items. I don't think so -- even though, as I said, I value the
items on that list.

The best teams, I think, are made up of reasonably confident and capable
people who are ready to jump in and mix it up together (as "team players").
Almost by definition, with people like that, there will be a lot that is
*not* held in common between them. What will make the most difference is
their attitude and intent to make the team work, not a priori common
aspects.

So, what is it that leads diverse people to have this attitude and intent?
I think it has more to do with process than logical structure. The thing
about process is, once you have some comprehension about it you can carry
it with you everywhere you participate. Commonality, however, you cannot.
And you certainly can't legislate it for others, either.


>Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 07:45:27 EST
>From: fred nickols <fnickols@ETS.ORG>
>Subject: Teams: A Missing Element
>
>Kicab Castaneda-Mendez <kicab@AEJES.COM> writes:
>
>>Our experience in business and play matches Katzenback and Smith's (_The
>>Wisdom of Teams_) that certain elements must be in place for a group of
>>people to work together well. They define the group as a team when these
>>elements exist. We can talk about teams, but few people measurably define
>>team. Katzenbach and Smith do. Those elements are:

>>1. common purpose
>>2. common goal(s)
>>3. common approach
>>4. mutual accountability
>>5. complementary skills
>>6. manageable size.
>
>>Perhaps all examples we have heard of good and bad teams may be tested
>>against these elements.
>
>Funny, but on my way to work this morning, the term "team player" kept
>running through my mind, as in the sense of "He (or she) is (or isn't) a
>'team player'." ...
>
>... I would add a seventh factor to the list: sharing of rewards. ...

Don Austin, Ph.D.
_____________________________________
Department of Organizational Behavior
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH 44106 (216) 932-8421
_____________________________________
Creating Appreciative Dialogue.

Researching how small groups
create valued organization.

A posting forwarded from Don Austin:

Your ruminations, Fred, about "team players" got me thinking, also. I
can
certainly see the value in the list below, and your addtion of shared
rewards. I especially concur with your addtion if we use the term
"reward"
in the most general sense, not necessarily monetary.

There is something about looking at a list like this that bothers me,
though; especially the first three items of "commonality."

What bothers me, is the idea that good teams are created by measurable
and
listable items. I don't think so -- even though, as I said, I value the

items on that list.

The best teams, I think, are made up of reasonably confident and capable

people who are ready to jump in and mix it up together (as "team
players").
Almost by definition, with people like that, there will be a lot that is

*not* held in common between them. What will make the most difference
is
their attitude and intent to make the team work, not a priori common
aspects.

So, what is it that leads diverse people to have this attitude and
intent?
I think it has more to do with process than logical structure. The
thing
about process is, once you have some comprehension about it you can
carry
it with you everywhere you participate. Commonality, however, you
cannot.
And you certainly can't legislate it for others, either.

fred nickols <fnickols@ETS.ORG>
>Subject: Teams: A Missing Element
>
>Kicab Castaneda-Mendez <kicab@AEJES.COM> writes:
>
>>Our experience in business and play matches Katzenback and Smith's
(_The
>>Wisdom of Teams_) that certain elements must be in place for a group
of
>>people to work together well. They define the group as a team when
these
>>elements exist. We can talk about teams, but few people measurably
define
>>team. Katzenbach and Smith do. Those elements are:

>>1. common purpose
>>2. common goal(s)
>>3. common approach
>>4. mutual accountability
>>5. complementary skills
>>6. manageable size.
>
>>Perhaps all examples we have heard of good and bad teams may be tested

>>against these elements.
>
>Funny, but on my way to work this morning, the term "team player" kept
>running through my mind, as in the sense of "He (or she) is (or isn't)
a
>'team player'." ...
>
>... I would add a seventh factor to the list: sharing of rewards. ...

Don Austin, Ph.D.
_____________________________________
Department of Organizational Behavior
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH 44106 (216) 932-8421
_____________________________________
Creating Appreciative Dialogue.

Researching how small groups
create valued organization.

--Boundary (ID St0iseAi6XMIPPYCmwMUuQ)

To all interested in teams: (This is a longish post)

We must remember that characteristics of teams are just that:
"characteristics of teams." We sometimes try to get teams to develop
certain characteristics because we see them in successful teams BUT just
because a group will display certain characteristics does not mean it is a
team. Teams may display certain characteristics but just having them does
not make a team. So I am cautious when I try to measure whether i have a
team or not by measuring its value on several characteristics.

Fred Nickol wrote:

"I think it has more to do with process than logical structure. The
thing about process is, once you have some comprehension about it you can
carry it with you everywhere you participate."

It was the process thought that started me thinking. In my strategic
management MBA class I use groups of students to analyze and present written
and oral solutions to cases. I do call them teams. In addition, I coach
our MBA case competition "team" that competes in the Concordia University
International MBA Case Competition held in Montreal, QUE during the first or
second week of January each year. This is the 17th or 18th year. We have
been able in the last twelve years to win 4 time (next closest are two teams
at 2); place second twice; and, place third three times - a record of nine
third places or better in twelve years. The next closest is 4. We are a
small business school (1000 UGs and with a small MBA program (50 FT, 150PT
stuents). We generally have 6-8 MBAs try out for this team pick 4 plus an
alternate. The competition has teams spend three hours readind, analyzing
and preparing a 25 minute oral presentation to present to a panel of
business leaders from the Montreal business community. They present and
then have a 15 minute question period. The competiton has 25 to 30 teams
and teams do 5 cases over three days to reach the semifinals There are
three semifinals and the winners of these compete in the finals. Teams come
from all over the world including Canada, New Zealand, Germany, United
States, Sweden, Mexico, etc.

The group of students selected for this competition are prepared in the
process of becoming a team to compete in this competition. By the time they
reach Montreal, they are well prepared and are a team on the fullest sense
of the word. A completely different team than those groups of students in
my class that I call "teams." The latter are really a group of students.
the former is a team. The students notice the difference. They always
comment on the differences between working on the Concordia team and working
on a team in a class, especially as they near the time to go to Montreal and
particularly after they return from Montreal where they do five case if they
do not win their division, six cases if they win their division but do not
win their semifinal and sevn cases if they reach the final.

I was a student on the 86 team and have coached 5 of the last 11 years
since. My fellow coach retired prior to the 97 competition after being
involved 10 years straight.

Does it make a difference? Students who have been on the teams are
constantly tell us that they use more of what they learned as a member of
the Concordia team than just about anything else. All five members from
last year's team now have jobs or have moved into new jobs if they were part
time. All attribute their success in obtaining their jobs and doing well in
their jobs to what they learned through the Concordia experience.

Does this mean that we should disband "teams" in class - no but we should
realize that we are dealing with a group not a team. Is this fair to all
students? Probably not but all are given the chance to try out for the team
and it is not possible to give all students the extracurricular help that it
takes to create the team experience that the Concordia team enjoys. This
leads to the suggestion that we should formalize the process and make the
selection process part of a course so that more students can enjoy the
process - but most students who compete say no. In fact it is my impression
that we would not be as successful nor would the students who particpate
learn as much.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Glenn

At 04:52 PM 12/21/97 -0500, you wrote:
>A posting forwarded from Don Austin:
>
>Your ruminations, Fred, about "team players" got me thinking, also. I
>can
>certainly see the value in the list below, and your addtion of shared
>rewards. I especially concur with your addtion if we use the term
>"reward"
>in the most general sense, not necessarily monetary.
>
>There is something about looking at a list like this that bothers me,
>though; especially the first three items of "commonality."
>
>What bothers me, is the idea that good teams are created by measurable
>and
>listable items. I don't think so -- even though, as I said, I value the
>
>items on that list.
>
>The best teams, I think, are made up of reasonably confident and capable
>
>people who are ready to jump in and mix it up together (as "team
>players").
>Almost by definition, with people like that, there will be a lot that is
>
>*not* held in common between them. What will make the most difference
>is
>their attitude and intent to make the team work, not a priori common
>aspects.
>
>So, what is it that leads diverse people to have this attitude and
>intent?
>I think it has more to do with process than logical structure. The
>thing
>about process is, once you have some comprehension about it you can
>carry
>it with you everywhere you participate. Commonality, however, you
>cannot.
>And you certainly can't legislate it for others, either.
>
>fred nickols <fnickols@ETS.ORG>
>>Subject: Teams: A Missing Element
>>
>>Kicab Castaneda-Mendez <kicab@AEJES.COM> writes:
>>
>>>Our experience in business and play matches Katzenback and Smith's
>(_The
>>>Wisdom of Teams_) that certain elements must be in place for a group
>of
>>>people to work together well. They define the group as a team when
>these
>>>elements exist. We can talk about teams, but few people measurably
>define
>>>team. Katzenbach and Smith do. Those elements are:
>
>>>1. common purpose
>>>2. common goal(s)
>>>3. common approach
>>>4. mutual accountability
>>>5. complementary skills
>>>6. manageable size.
>>
>>>Perhaps all examples we have heard of good and bad teams may be tested
>
>>>against these elements.
>>
>>Funny, but on my way to work this morning, the term "team player" kept
>>running through my mind, as in the sense of "He (or she) is (or isn't)
>a
>>'team player'." ...
>>
>>... I would add a seventh factor to the list: sharing of rewards. ...
>
>Don Austin, Ph.D.
>_____________________________________
>Department of Organizational Behavior
>Case Western Reserve University
>Cleveland, OH 44106 (216) 932-8421
>_____________________________________
>Creating Appreciative Dialogue.
>
>Researching how small groups
>create valued organization.
>
>--Boundary (ID St0iseAi6XMIPPYCmwMUuQ)--
>
>

W. Glenn Rowe, Ph.D.
Director, Centre for Management Development
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
709 737 7977
709 737 7999 (Fax)

04:52 PM 12/21/97 -0500, you wrote:
>A posting forwarded from Don Austin:
>What bothers me, is the idea that good teams are created by measurable
>and
>listable items. I don't think so -- even though, as I said, I value the
>
>items on that list.
>
>The best teams, I think, are made up of reasonably confident and capable
>
>people who are ready to jump in and mix it up together (as "team
>players").

You say that it bothers you that teams are made up of measurable items. How
do you know that the people on teams are "reasonably confident and capable"?

As I understood our discussion, we were submitting definitions of teams.
So, I think you will have to define what you mean by team first, and then
show how the definition implies that the people must be reasonably
confident and capable; or, vice, versa, say that what you mean by a team is
a group of people that are reasonable confident and capable.

In either case, the question that follow is:
+Given the definition of team (yours, mine, or someone elses), what
advantages are there in having teams or not having teams?
This is the interesting question for me. In this form, I don;t care whether
we use "team" or some other label. The point is, given this entity, when
can use advantageously.

To study this question we must be able to assess/determine whether a team
exists, otherwise we cannot distinguish between a team and not a team. To
determine whether a team exists requires that the essential characteristics
of a team be measurable (directly or indirectly).

Of course, one could approach the issue in another way. We could take a
dictionary approach to the discussion. This approach (a common one in
discussions about words) is to try to determine what the word means. I say
this is a dictionary approach because we are not interested in gaining some
advantage froma well-defined word, but rather trying to determine how we
use the word. That is exactly what a dictionary does: it shows us how a
word is commonly used (and that is why many words have multiple meanings).
This is not as interesting to me (although, I must admit I do enjoy this
type of discussion at times).

*********************************************************
Kicab Castaneda-Mendez
aejes, LLC
84 Old South Salem Road
Ridgefield, CT 06877-4841
Tel 800-291-2974
Fax 203-894-9020
E-mail kicab@aejes.com
Web Site http://www.aejes.com

Author of:
1. _Value-Based Cost Management for Healthcare: Linking Costs to Quality
Delivery_
2. _The Baldrige Assessor's Workbook: How to Perform the Examiner's Role
for Internal and External Assessment_ (Both books available from Quality
Resource, New York, 800-247-8519: http://www.qualityresources.com)

aejes, LLC offers services in three areas:
- Strategic Planning, using the balanced scorecard
- Improving Performance, using value-based cost
management
- Self-Assessment, using the Baldrige Criteria.

*********************************************************