>Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:14:35 -0500
>From: Kicab Castaneda-Mendez <
kicab@AEJES.COM>
>Subject: Re: Teams
I'd like to elaborate a little on Kicab's reaction to my posting.
>
>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.
No, I said that it the **idea** that good teams are created by measurable
items that bothers me. The whole concept that if we can measure we can
then create accordingly is, I think, somewhat falacious.
>How do you know that the people on teams are "reasonably confident and
>>capable"?
I don't put so much stock in "knowing" this. Of course, as a manager I
would use whatever information I had to do my best to provide sufficient
confidence and capability. More of an art than a science, I would say.
>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.
I enjoy the discussion. I would say a practical definition of a team is a
group of people who are reasonably effectively accomplishing something
valuable.
>
>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?
I would say, getting something valuable done, through cooperation.
>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).
I frankly don't agree with this assumption. The emphasis on measurability
often precludes any emphasis on essential aspects which are inherently
immeasurable!
When I teach Organizational Behavior I often point out to the students that
almost all of the constructs in the text books were generated to facilitate
some researcher studying his/her logical model. They unfortunately rarely
jive with a manager's day to day commonsense experience. This is a big
failing, and I would assert, an unnecessary one! I for one find quality
elaboration of essential common sense to be more applicable than scientific
measurement of tightly controlled reductive models. I was a line manager
for twenty years before entering academia, so this has something to do with
my bias.
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.