quote:

There is no “leadership” on a team – a team functions as an entity – and the group as a whole is accountable to deliver.

I respectfully disagree about the no leadership part in a way. For a team to function, people on the team have to have specific roles and responsibilities, and one of those roles is to facilitate (in one manner or another) the team's teamwork. Sometimes the leader is officially appointed, other times, the person just naturally takes on the role because of rapport and experience he/she already has with the other people in the group. Look at any time you (the general you, not you personally) have ever had to do a "group project" -- there's always someone who takes on the administrative-keep-track-of-everything role.

You (the general you, not you personally - and this applies when ever I say "you") can't just glom a bunch of people together and say "here's a project, go work on it." There needs to be someone with the authority to say "yup - we're done, let's go show it to the CEO", another to facilitate everything that needs to happen, another to help with innovation and creativity, etc... There should be a method to the madness. When people don't know what their responsibilities are, either working alone or on a team, they tend not to get much done.

Also, teams often flounder when there isn't somebody who establishes that each person must be responsible for his/her role on the team. Haven't you ever been on a team where there are some people who work hard and others who hardly work? Putting it bluntly, it sucks -- it creates an environment of resentment and anti-team mentality. "Why should I have to worry about finishing this part on time when he hasn't even started to do his part of this project?" You can avoid that scenario by having very clear roles, responsibilities and expectations up front -- particularly by having someone who has the authority to hold everyone accountable.

Look up info on self-directed work teams. Very helpful.

I agree - and along the same lines, if team leadership is poor, the team will fail. Especially if the leader is formally appointed. If someone informally takes the leadership role, adjustments can always be made if things aren't working out. If this person is formally appointed in the leadership role and doesn't do a good job of communicating and/or enforcing the roles and responsibilities, the team will suffer. Members of the team will feel resentful if they are left to flouder and don't have the formal authority to step into the leadership role.

Of all the components that comprise team management the ability to amass the appropriate mixture of minds, personalities, and talents, as well as inject the genius of the human mind is the most difficult.

For a team to experience the chemistry of accomplishment there must be a continuous sense that the interacting members of the team are mutual in as many ways and on as many planes as possible.

The team must operate in a pervasive environment of challenge, of "quid pro quo" - "give and take.” The most commonly attempted process or relationship used in building sharp project and/or management teams is collaboration. What is most commonly experienced among work groups is co-operation. In working together to achieve notable results collaboration is the ultimate tool. Co-operation is the least effective tool and a very poor substitute for collaboration – and unfortunately it’s what most people experience.

Collaborative teams are driven from within. Although interdependent upon the organization in which it exists, it functions to achieve the goals determined by its members, in the context of the organization’s mission and current strategic plans. The team functions as an autonomous entity, respectful of its relationship to the organization it serves, and mobilized by its collective intelligence.

Yes, teams are usually comprised of isolated experts convening to merge disciplines. Excellent management and leadership within an organization depend upon being extremely well informed generalists. Teams however, are comprised of competent specialists, whose specialized fields provide the "quid pro quo" - give and take, of inventive thinking, which produces exceptional and original results and solutions.

The team works best as a fixed group, because it requires the interactive development of the individual personalities and chemistries to form a cohesive body and collective mind, to address group goals. Most outside intervention in the team’s processes acts more often than not as an inconvenience and/or an obstacle. The team establishes a fluid, flexible pattern of group-think. These empowered teams produce employees who are innovative, productive, self-actualized, participating partners.

That said, not many have had the opportunity to really participate on a high functioning team because they believe it’s okay to have a “leader” or allow the stronger personalities to drive the team. In that case, you’re back to co-operation not teaming. In basketball, when someone passes you the ball the other four guys fully expect you to catch it and do your bit to move further toward the goal. If you don’t show up or don’t pick up the ball, or just hang back and think the others can play for you – you’re not on the team long. Nor should you be in business teams either. In using this sport metaphor I would have to add, that the coach is not on the court – it’s not up to him to perform, so I wouldn’t consider him/her a team leader.

If you believe that there isn't a leader of some sort amongst the five people on the court, I think you're fooling yourself.

In any case, it's not about "I lead, you follow" it's about who does what, and inevitably, one of the "whats" consists of tasks that a leader or manager typically does. Or it's simply that there's usually someone who fosters team spirit the most and kind of naturally stands out as the one who motivates everyone else to be a cohesive unit. Whatever you want to call that person, it's still the same type of role. It doesn't mean that person dictates or delegates. A leader and manager are two very different things. All teams, whether recognized or labeled or not have somebody who is the "leader". It's just the nature of groups of people.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Laura L,

A couple of comments on the teaming ideas:

First off, what's the difference between a team and a work group? And how do you know when you might need each? I would welcome your comments on that one. . . .

I'm also surprised no one has mentioned Tuckman's stages of team development:

Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing

If you do a google on "Tuckman team" you'll find quite a bit of info on these concepts. My experience is that all teams go through these stages of development (some stages more quickly than others) and it is not necessarily chronological (i.e. events can trigger the team to go from performing back to storming). What you can't typically do is skip ahead - go straight from forming to performing.

What say you?