dispatches from the new world of work

For What (Little) It's Worth

I always reply to the juvenile, "There's no 'I' in Team" with an equally juvenile, "But there is an 'I" in Win." In truth, I believe it is eminently possible and accurate to believe simultaneously in Team and I. (I'm in O'Hare as I write this ... think Bulls & Michael Jordan & Scottie Pippen & Dennis Rodman. A lotta "I" and a lotta Team ... and a lotta Championship Rings.) So if you're a "Team & I" person like me, I guess it's, "There is an 'I' and 'T' in Victory."

At any rate, the real point of this Post, I did find to read in today's USA Today sports section that in the NCAA tourney the nation's leading scorer has not been on the national championship team since ... 1952! (The occasion was yesterday's losses by both Duke and Gonzaga, who between them have the nation's #1 and #2 scorers.) (Whatever.)

Tom Peters posted this on 03/24/06.

Comments

My favourite "equally juvenile" - but to the point - reply: "But there's no Team without M-E"

Posted by John at March 24, 2006 10:10 AM

I always respond to that with, "and there is no ME in TEAM...oh wait, never mind."

Posted by Chris at March 24, 2006 10:28 AM

Teams can, do and SHOULD have individuals. The greatest footballer (soccer) of all time in the greatest team of all time

The late lamented genius George Best

Manchester United

I rest my case!

Posted by Trevor at March 24, 2006 11:28 AM

George though Trevor wasted it bad in drink - and there are plenty of "I's" in millionaires - billionaires - philanthrop[i] ...

Posted by Sean at March 24, 2006 1:09 PM

True Sean ... and what an absolute tragedy that was. However while he played from 1963 - 1974 at Manchester United he was very much part of the 'team' and yet an outstanding one-off individual. The other ten players on the field had to just just let George do his own thing although he was also a great and loyal team player too. A genius! Ana genius's have to be left to their own devices!

Posted by Trevor at March 24, 2006 2:27 PM

Point well taken Trevor! And Adam Morrison #1 though soon to sign a $5M/year long-term NBA contract ... some solace in that!

Posted by Sean at March 25, 2006 10:54 AM

Interestingly, until the Michael Jordan years, the top NBA scorer was almost never on a championship teamâ€”and the Boston Celtics during their run of 8 consecutive national championships in the 1960 never had a superstar shooter (tho' John Havlicek had some good years). The Celtics epitomized the "we" rather than "me" philosophyâ€”a terrific example of a team approach to winning. But the cult of the superstar hero/savior enduresâ€”especially in the US. When I told a small business owner Iâ€™m writing a book on business teams, he commented (with a straight face), â€œTeams are a Trojan horse designed to undermine our ideals of American individualism.â€

Posted by John O'Leary at March 25, 2006 12:33 PM

I'm heartened that TP has dissed that 'no 'I' in Team' comment with a 'juvenile' slap-down. It's a piece-of-sh*t remark that should have been buried eons ago.

I'm sure there's loads more - maybe we can gather and dis them too.

On a relevant note, of course it requires a balance of individuality and teamwork... the true createurs don't bother with concensus - can you imagine Jobs, Branson, Disney, Gates, Honda, and co bothering with committees? That said, all successful ops require 'lesser mortals' to deliver the gods' whims.

;-)

Posted by gulliver at March 26, 2006 6:32 AM

The USA cowboy individual approach is perhaps unique. Several communist, socialist and Nazi cultures tend to make it mandatory to NOT stand out ... so as to be a part of the machine. 1st gen Germans in the USA after WWII laid low per past experience.

Realtor - deals in "I" mainly then when it is time to close the $$$ deal - it becomes "team" time to make it happen.

Posted by Sean at March 26, 2006 10:08 AM

What an interesting topic. I think both I and we are necessary in any team. I understand I and we as cynetic forces rather than as closed entities. If the team happens to enhance the level of energy by interacting on the IÂ´s and the WeÂ´s the whole system will gain power. If interactions just reduce the energy the IÂ´s bring or the We has achieved, it will be the whole team dynamics that will lose power.

I am a L.A. Lakers fan since the 80Â´s and apart from pure efficiency in points or results IÂ´ve never seen a more beautiful play than the one displayed by Magic and Co. For me, beauty is also a key issue.

Energy is the matter, beauty is the form.

Posted by Felix Gerena at March 26, 2006 6:49 PM

Yeah, let's get together a team of guys who have no ego, no sense of self. They'll stand around and say, "you take the ball."

"No, you."

viagra uk paypal

"No really it's your turn."

A healthy ego is important to making split second decisions. Leadership requires it.

A team with leadership isn't a team.

Posted by Liz Strauss at March 26, 2006 8:08 PM

I know some programmers who are technically brilliant, who can write amazing code. But they aren't particularly good "team players". They don't document well, and avoid talking to the rest of the team about how their ideas fit in with others.

But sometimes, they are the people who can pull the project out of a deep trench.

You have to be careful how you manage them.

Posted by Tim Almond at March 27, 2006 11:56 AM

Liz, do you mean to say that a team with leadership isn't a team or a team withOUT leadership isn't a team?

Posted by John O'Leary at March 29, 2006 11:27 PM