Discussion: View Thread

Geoffrey Butt suggests that theatrical casts present a better model for teams than does the athletic model.

<The theatrical casts presents a range of metaphors for business. As
<managers, we are the directors of the play, while staff are the
<players. The cast is chosen, only after auditions, to suit the play,
<be it drama, tradegy, comedy or farce. As HR professionals, we

Ron

> Geoffrey Butt suggests that theatrical casts present a better model for
> teams than does the athletic model.

Er, well, in fact I didn't! I responded to Sandy Millar's enquiry about
other exemplars to use in guiding group discussions about the functioning of
teams.

I agree with you that the shortfalls and mismatches which a group discussion
throws up provides the nourishment which deepens understanding for everyone
involved. As someone wrote a little while ago: I come away from every
gristly debate having learnt something new.

It was Sandy who provided the expansion:
>
> <The theatrical casts presents a range of metaphors for business. As
> <managers, we are the directors of the play, while staff are the
> <players. The cast is chosen, only after auditions, to suit the play,
> ...... (snipped)

Ron; you then wrote:

> The director-manager analysis doesn't necessarily hold. The relationship
> is dependent on the highly-variable nature of the show, the cast and the
> director. In some cases, the director is a tyrant reproducing his or her
> singular vision. In other cases, the director facilitates a
> highly-collaborative event. In other cases, a single actor may in fact
> lead the process, with the director becoming a functionary taking care
> of smaller details.

Hmmm, that looks just like the business world to me! The question is: when
is role x or y or z productive for the business as a whole - and how does
everyone who works for the business choose wisely, and recognize others'
choices?

I went on to develop the point that teams are vital in changing/improving
complex systems while hierarchies are good at maintaining standards ('no
change').

The theatre has recently provided an interesting example if you want a topic
for discussion. Forgive me if I have the wrong people but didn't an
impressario (Cameron Mackintosh?) sack the whole cast of a New York
production (Les Miserables?) because standards weren't being maintained?
I read that the cast were incensed because they had - reading into it what I
expected to see! - worked so well as a team to build up and launch ('change')
a high quality offering.

However, through time the team was less effective at maintaining standards
('no change') and the hierarchical relationship was invoked to judge "this
far, and no further".

Those L-netters with a background in production industries will see the
parallel. There is rarely a problem in getting high quality team working
when you're struggling to get a new facility on line. There is a high peak
of energy and supportive collaboration as output builds up.

Its then that the real challenge starts for line leaders everywhere (I have
never used the word 'manager' on MG-ED-DV). It is to build the wider
repertoire of skills which keep that teaming process focused on continuous
improvement, while at the same time:
(a) sustaining essential assured standards of performance
(b) providing stimulating 'empowering' environments for individuals.

This is the challenge [amongst others :)] for organisations which aspire to
learn and to gain the benefits of self-directed work teams.

Best regards

Geoff Butt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Butt at GTBT Network "Working with leaders in Learning Organisations
geoff@butt.demon.co.uk and those who support self-directing work teams"

-=> On 02/19/97 01:23, Ron Mcdonald wrote Frank Bell <=-

RM> Butt suggests that theatrical casts present a better model for teams t
RM> han does the athletic model.

RM> Having worked in the theatre world and the business world, I can
RM> become as unco mfortable with these assumptions as others are with the
RM> sports analogies.


I'm sticking my oar in here:

I submit that the sports model is so popular for several reasons
(This is not say that I am recommending it or that I favor it over
other models, though I will unhesitating use it with the right
audience--and don't ask me what the right audience is, for I will not
respond [grin]):

1. All persons in our society (male and female) have had some
contact with sports. Whether they like or dislike sports, they are
aware of them, know the names of at least some of the teams, and can
therefore relate to them in some way or other. Many of us in the US
may not have heard of the Miami Heat, but only a few have not heard
of the NY Yankees.

Hence, it is a convenient analogy.

2. Sports provide an excellent metaphor for team work when we
look at a single team. There are many examples of groups of
outstanding individuals who never gained a championship because they
were never able to work together, as there are examples of not quite
so outstanding individuals (let's be real--you don't win at the
national level if you're average) who won, and won big (beating the
aforesaid outstanding individuals), because they were able to play
together.

Hence, it makes the point of the value of synergy vs. the value of
self-aggrandizement.

(The example that springs to my mind is the Washington Bullets of the
late 1970's. Individually, each one was very good, but not a one of
them was a Wilt Chamberlain or Michael Jordan. Together they won the
NBA championship because they played as a team, working for the best
position that would benefit the team as a whole, rather than working
individually for the best position that would benefit the person who
had the ball.)

3. When the game is over, it's over, and you come back to play
another day. You've done your best, you've won or lost the quest,
you go take your rest, and try again tomorrow.

Hence, it shows the value of not giving up.

(editorial comment) Anyone who has played a sport at whatever level
knows that sportsmanship is a sometimes virtue. We can easily adduce
many examples of thugs and bullies on the field. There are as many
thugs and bullies on the playing fields as there are anywhere else.

But we can just as easily adduce examples of gentlepersons doing
their damndest to excel while admiring and respecting their
competition. IMO, to the extent we concentrate on the thugs and
bullies, we miss the lessons sport can teach us.

In a slightly related matter, I Monday heard a wonderful interview
with Katherine Graham, owner and retired publisher of the Washington
Post. I thought of this thread when she was talking of her early
days as publisher.

She said that she initially lacked the ability to tell people what to
do; that, if there was disagreement amongst the editorial board, she
would find herself going around to the members of the board trying to
convince them to come round to her point of view. (She describe that
behavior as "female baggage," by the way--aim your flames at her, not
at me!).

Then she said that she later realized that, though that behavior
might be great for building consensus, it was not always great for
leadership, that leaders sometimes had to say that this is the way it
is and this is the way it's going to be!


Frank Bell Internet:
Project Leader frank.bell@nonamebbs.com
Amtrak frank.bell@royal.com
National Training and
Conference Center FidoNet:
110 S. French St.--Ste 200 Frank Bell@1:150/160
Wilmington, Del. 19801




... Borger King: Have it our way. Your way is irrelevant.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

I will be more receptive to sports methaphors when organizations start
firing the "coaches" and keeping the "players."

>----------
>From: FRANK BELL[SMTP:frank.bell@nonamebbs.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 1997 10:58 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: The Team:
>
>-=> On 02/19/97 01:23, Ron Mcdonald wrote Frank Bell <=-
>
> RM> Butt suggests that theatrical casts present a better model for teams t
> RM> han does the athletic model.
>
> RM> Having worked in the theatre world and the business world, I can
> RM> become as unco mfortable with these assumptions as others are with the
> RM> sports analogies.
>
>
> I'm sticking my oar in here:
>
> I submit that the sports model is so popular for several reasons
> (This is not say that I am recommending it or that I favor it over
> other models, though I will unhesitating use it with the right
> audience--and don't ask me what the right audience is, for I will not
> respond [grin]):
>
> 1. All persons in our society (male and female) have had some
> contact with sports. Whether they like or dislike sports, they are
> aware of them, know the names of at least some of the teams, and can
> therefore relate to them in some way or other. Many of us in the US
> may not have heard of the Miami Heat, but only a few have not heard
> of the NY Yankees.
>
> Hence, it is a convenient analogy.
>
> 2. Sports provide an excellent metaphor for team work when we
> look at a single team. There are many examples of groups of
> outstanding individuals who never gained a championship because they
> were never able to work together, as there are examples of not quite
> so outstanding individuals (let's be real--you don't win at the
> national level if you're average) who won, and won big (beating the
> aforesaid outstanding individuals), because they were able to play
> together.
>
> Hence, it makes the point of the value of synergy vs. the value of
> self-aggrandizement.
>
> (The example that springs to my mind is the Washington Bullets of the
> late 1970's. Individually, each one was very good, but not a one of
> them was a Wilt Chamberlain or Michael Jordan. Together they won the
> NBA championship because they played as a team, working for the best
> position that would benefit the team as a whole, rather than working
> individually for the best position that would benefit the person who
> had the ball.)
>
> 3. When the game is over, it's over, and you come back to play
> another day. You've done your best, you've won or lost the quest,
> you go take your rest, and try again tomorrow.
>
> Hence, it shows the value of not giving up.
>
> (editorial comment) Anyone who has played a sport at whatever level
> knows that sportsmanship is a sometimes virtue. We can easily adduce
> many examples of thugs and bullies on the field. There are as many
> thugs and bullies on the playing fields as there are anywhere else.
>
> But we can just as easily adduce examples of gentlepersons doing
> their damndest to excel while admiring and respecting their
> competition. IMO, to the extent we concentrate on the thugs and
> bullies, we miss the lessons sport can teach us.
>
> In a slightly related matter, I Monday heard a wonderful interview
> with Katherine Graham, owner and retired publisher of the Washington
> Post. I thought of this thread when she was talking of her early
> days as publisher.
>
> She said that she initially lacked the ability to tell people what to
> do; that, if there was disagreement amongst the editorial board, she
> would find herself going around to the members of the board trying to
> convince them to come round to her point of view. (She describe that
> behavior as "female baggage," by the way--aim your flames at her, not
> at me!).
>
> Then she said that she later realized that, though that behavior
> might be great for building consensus, it was not always great for
> leadership, that leaders sometimes had to say that this is the way it
> is and this is the way it's going to be!
>
>
> Frank Bell Internet:
> Project Leader frank.bell@nonamebbs.com
> Amtrak frank.bell@royal.com
> National Training and
> Conference Center FidoNet:
> 110 S. French St.--Ste 200 Frank Bell@1:150/160
> Wilmington, Del. 19801
>
>
>
>
>... Borger King: Have it our way. Your way is irrelevant.
>___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
>

Re the theater metaphor for business:

just to throw a little Goffman in here where he belongs, we have to remember
that the audience is a willing participant in the performance interaction.

if the audience for business is society at large, there is a larger cultural
context for the way managers manage. it is the way society approves of:
authoritarian, hierarchical, intolerant of innovation. we aren't going to
get very far with the collaborative model until society becomes more
accepting of it.

do you see any changes these days?

Bev Smith

Miles Davis wrote:

>I will be more receptive to sports methaphors when organizations start
>firing the "coaches" and keeping the "players."

Here is something I came across recently...thought I'd pass it along:

A Japanese company and an American company had a boat race. The Japanese won by a mile. The Americans hired analysts to figure out what
went wrong. They reported that the Japanese had one person managing and seven rowing, while the Americans had seven managing and only one
rowing.

The American company immediately restructured its team. Now they had one senior manager, six management consultants, and one rower.

In the rematch the Japanese won by two miles. So the American company fired the rower.

On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Davis, Miles wrote:

> I will be more receptive to sports methaphors when organizations start
> firing the "coaches" and keeping the "players."

I suppose you mean the CEOs, then that would be the general manager
wouldn't it? In any case, why get rid of the coach when it might just as
well be the team? (I do come at this from leadership studies position.)


______________________
Great Optimism,

Dutch Driver
Dept. of Communication
McMurry University
Abilene, TX
ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu

Your assumption of me referring to the CEO as "coach" is inaccurate for
the reason you mentioned. I am not sure what you mean by coming at
this from a "leadership studies position."

IMNSHO, the discussion is academic whether you are talking about
Managers, Leaders, Coaches, what-have-you. What ever name you want to
use, there are people in organizations that posses the ability to hire,
fire, allocate resources and give out assignments. These same people
are often rewarded when things "work" and should be held accountable
when things go wrong.

Unfortunately, the latter is seen much more infrequently than the
former. The examples of mass layoffs because of poor decisions made by
organization Managers/Leaders/Coaches are too numerous too waste time
detailing. Most of the time subordinates employees/players pay the
price for the poor decisions. And even when a sacrificial
Executive/General Manager is offered up, his termination has far more
pillows to cushion the landing then his subordinates.

>----------
>From: Dutch Driver[SMTP:ddriver@CS1.MCM.EDU]
>Sent: Thursday, February 20, 1997 2:00 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: The Team:
>
>On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Davis, Miles wrote:
>
>> I will be more receptive to sports methaphors when organizations start
>> firing the "coaches" and keeping the "players."
>
>I suppose you mean the CEOs, then that would be the general manager
>wouldn't it? In any case, why get rid of the coach when it might just as
>well be the team? (I do come at this from leadership studies position.)
>
>
>______________________
>Great Optimism,
>
>Dutch Driver
>Dept. of Communication
>McMurry University
>Abilene, TX
>ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu
>

Dutch Driver wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Davis, Miles wrote:
>
> > I will be more receptive to sports methaphors when organizations start
> > firing the "coaches" and keeping the "players."
>
> I suppose you mean the CEOs, then that would be the general manager
> wouldn't it? In any case, why get rid of the coach when it might just as
> well be the team? (I do come at this from leadership studies position.)

My mom was a coach and *her* team was undefeated.
Even written up in Sports Illustrated.
So...

That's a fact, Jack!

1 for the Dutchmester again.
Hooo Haaaaa

Go VOLS!

P.S. Hasn't anyone ever heard of Pat Head Summit?
Or have all of you been in academic caves somewhere?

--
Best Regards,

Pat Gantt pagantt@worldnet.att.net Pat@HomeMail.com
The University of Tennessee M.S. Human Resource Development
Electronic Performance Instructor Information Source Locator (ISL)

What is your point?

>----------
>From: Pat Gantt[SMTP:pagantt@postoffice.worldnet.att.net]
>Sent: Thursday, February 20, 1997 3:11 PM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: Re: The Team:
>
>Dutch Driver wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Davis, Miles wrote:
>>
>> > I will be more receptive to sports methaphors when organizations start
>> > firing the "coaches" and keeping the "players."
>>
>> I suppose you mean the CEOs, then that would be the general manager
>> wouldn't it? In any case, why get rid of the coach when it might just as
>> well be the team? (I do come at this from leadership studies position.)
>
>My mom was a coach and *her* team was undefeated.
>Even written up in Sports Illustrated.
>So...
>
>That's a fact, Jack!
>
>1 for the Dutchmester again.
>Hooo Haaaaa
>
>Go VOLS!
>
>P.S. Hasn't anyone ever heard of Pat Head Summit?
>Or have all of you been in academic caves somewhere?
>
>--
>Best Regards,
>
>Pat Gantt pagantt@worldnet.att.net Pat@HomeMail.com
>The University of Tennessee M.S. Human Resource Development
>Electronic Performance Instructor Information Source Locator (ISL)
>