On the Overvaluation of Teamwork

Teamwork

work done by a number of associates with usually each doing a clearly defined portion but all subordinating personal prominence to the efficiency of the whole.

Teamwork is a failed paradigm. Too much emphasis is given to Teamwork at the expense of individual effort. This is simply another way of obviating personal responsibility in America's drive toward mediocrity.

No one is more important than the individual. Individuals make accomplishments. Although at times these accomplishments are made in a team setting, the team is most often contrived. When I expound my perspective on teams with my colleagues, two examples are prevalent: sports and symphonies. However, each of these metaphors can be taken to boldly underscore the significance of individual contribution as determined by rôle rather than the accomplishment of a team. If each member performs his own rôle efficiently, the objective of the team will be realised. Anything less is disingenuous, as it requires others to take up the slack. There is no reason to subordinate to the group. As C G Jung said (roughly) "Those things valued by Society results in the diminution of personality of the individual."

Professional baseball supports my argument perfectly. In baseball teamwork is heralded. Take for example the bunt or the sacrifice fly. That is the epitome of sacrificing oneself for the team. But this stance is specious. For the rôle of the individual at that juncture is to sacrifice. Once the goal of the individual is recognized and defined, we are no longer bound to describing this as teamwork. Even scoring takes into account the nature of the sacrifice so as to note its importance. The bottom line is that if an individual player fails to reach a certain goal or perform at a certain level; he will no longer be a member of the team. We should take more examples from the arena of sports. There is a lot less unproductive dead wood abound in professional sports, though we might all have notable exceptions to this assertion.

With the departure of Michael Jordan from the National Basketball Association, we have lost another prime individual. Not many ever accused Jordan of being a team player, and nobody made any excuses. Universally, he was the go to guy. It was generally accepted, and the only price the team had to pay was a string of championship rings. If individuals on other teams could have risen to the individual challenge posed by Jordan, the rings might have been placed on different fingers.

Is the symphony the consummate Team? Is the interdependence upon each other paramount in order to produce a Masterwork? Does the reliance on the conductor to manage the orchestral team subjugate the individual performers? No. Yet again this is a red herring. Each player has a rôle to play. Individuals playing these rôles in concert produce a harmonic euphony. It takes but one individual to reduce this to cacophony. The first violinist has a part, as does the second. The conductor participates in giving direction. This is a management rôle. None can afford not to play under the assumption that someone else will compensate for him. This is a train of thought that is allowed to pervade corporate settings from coast to coast and to the world beyond.

It does not follow that a student and a teacher are a team. The are two individuals. While it might be argued that the teacher might by altruistic (subordinating his individuality to the so-called team), the student is focused on a personal selfish quest. Therefore, this does not fit the definition of the team. Moreover, professional teachers are paid to teach. In this instance it is the rôle of a teacher to teach.

While symbiosis is a team concept with merit, it is still contingent upon the efforts of each individual in the relationship. And while synergy can exist at certain levels, this is more of a Holy Grail than is practical to expect at all levels. Moreover, interpersonal synergies cannot be imposed. These will manifest and extirpate with the vicissitudes time.

In the end it should not be incumbent upon the team to support weaker members of the Team. It should, however, be incumbent on the team members to rise to a certain level of attainment. While thing such as learning curves exists, these should be understood and defined at the onset. In the absence of real goals or systems of measure, inefficient working models will continue to propagate and infiltrate our corporate structures. We need to again understand that there is no one as important as the individual. Grasping this concept wholeheartedly will ensure a more competitive and productive workforce as we move into the second millennium.

workplace | randommusings | women