Talk with Tom
Get the dispatches from the new world of work
Individualism in Business
"There's no 'I' in TEAM, but there is a 'Me' if you look closely."—Ricky Gervais
At the risk of starting another sport blog-spat, I want to start by saying that I watched the English rugby team beat the French group and reflected on how often it is we see groups beaten, who, at least on paper, "shouldn't be." On the pitch, they are beaten by a team effort because they can't collaborate. My thought here is that, in the absence of a strong sense of collective aspiration, individualism kills collective effort, which, in turn, spoils the result. Is there any learning here for business leaders? We all talk the talk on the importance of good teamwork. But just how prevalent is it in our respective organisations?
We seem to live in an age of increasing comfort and selfishness. Most of us are fortunate enough to be hovering nearer the top of Maslow's hierarchy than the bottom. Yet we live in a society that seems to value celebrities more than teams. Prima donnas more than grafters. Individualism more than cooperative effort. The media try hard to turn team efforts into the individual virtuoso performances. Count how many post match/event interviews are spent with the interviewee shying away from the accolades and reminding the reporter that it was a team effort? Are we witnessing the sound-biting of performance? Is the neat icon/success package the only good story? Is great teamwork poor press?
It seems increasingly rare to find a true business "team." (Dys) functional reporting groups appear to be much more common. The more senior the group, the less likely they are to be collaborative. The old adage of "No one wins on a losing team" does not seem to be true in the boardroom.
What are the drivers of this willing acceptance of mediocrity? Do we trade results for an ego boost? Does a need for control force us to inhibit the threat of collaborative effort? Did we get to be senior managers for being individualistic? Will we only collaborate when there are more serious threats than most of us face every day? Will individual interest and greed always win ... ??? Investing in process and systems improvement feels more reassuringly tangible than investing in talent, it seems. An SAP R4 ERP system feels more likely to deliver ROI than "teamwork development." Even though the stats on ROI for ERP implementation are frightening, they are more tangible than the "soft" stuff.
Are managers just unaware how much better their organisations could be performing, so that they consequently fail to pay attention to the development of the team?
Should I buy SAP or invest in my team? Please give me some investment advice!
ARCHIVES
Before blogging became all the rage, Tom was posting book reviews and Observations (essentially early blog posts) to this site. You can find the archives below.
What Tom's Reading Archives
OBSERVATIONS ARCHIVES
right now
What we're talking about
on the front page.
Comments
"Hard is Soft. Soft is Hard."--Tom Peters
Posted by cathy mosca at October 23, 2007 11:14 AM
Anyone can buy an ERP system. But having a great team is a true sustainable advantage.
Posted by Paul at October 23, 2007 11:34 AM
Chris, My thoughts--
1. After a great team performance it's difficult to interview the entire team. So the media picks one or two stars of the day to interview. But great coaches (and team leaders) focus on team performance and provide feedback and recognition to the total team. Of course they also provide coaching and feedback to individuals as needed.
2. Certain team roles like quarterback in football and pitcher in baseball are more important than other team roles. Also, some individuals raise the performance level of all the other team members. So shouldn't those individuals be singled out? In business, I think the team leader is the most important role.
3. Creating high performing teams is very difficult. Getting the right people on the bus is vital. All the ingredients--common goals, simple team rules, strategy everyone supports, a spirit of collaboration, clearly defined roles and responsibilities, a willingness to hold each other accountable and an effective team leader is hard to find on most teams. But we must keep trying to put the pieces together that will create great teams.
...to answer your question--do both.
Posted by Paul B. Thornton at October 23, 2007 11:34 AM
I would go with paul thornton on this one.
Do both.. with some caveats
a) Sap isn't that flexible, you'll need to have to have very strong and well documented processes before you start implementation. Use your very good people to do this work. That'll give them a good view of your business and how all these processes help the business make money
b) You already have great people, otherwise you wouldn't have the budget to invest in SAP.. :-) Take good care of them. Use your employees in the design process of your ERP system. If they help you save money on your SAP implementation (Standard SAP is cheaper. Customisations cost money), distribute the savings to them as a one time bonus..
c) Invest in training. I cannot repeat myself enough.. invest in training.
Good luck,
Arun
Posted by Arun Sadhashivan at October 23, 2007 12:32 PM
*What's an ERP?
*I struggle with the term ‘best player’ in an excellent team. Surely it is counter productive to label someone ‘best.’ Every member of a high achieving team is equal – it’s just that they all make up samll but important bits of the same whole.
In answer to your question Chris – I suggest investment on the basis of 98% on the people in your team and 2% on the process – that is probably an over estimate on process.
This stuff of teams is all in the head and the heart and not learned from a book. Do we seriously believe Sir Alex Ferguson lays awake at night worrying if the statistical formula in a complicated process means that in tomorrow’s big match Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo will combine well … of course not .. He just knows this stuff intuitively. It’s intangible... it’s magical …it’s real leadership and how we miss that so desperately in business but we all know it when we see it.
Posted by Trevor Gay at October 23, 2007 12:37 PM
Great business teams always seem to be the ones doing great things. Unfortunately, at some point in the process the bean counters got in the mix and convinced almost everyone that everything must be measured down to the Nth degree. Teams suddenly became mired in bureaucracy, and as long as the proper procedures were followed, all risks taken into account, and metrics put in place, organizations would be considered successful.
To most everyone who reads this blog, I'm sure that they agree that this is just a bunch of rubbish. In order for an organization to truly survive and thrive its people must be motivated and enthusiastic about what they are doing. This generally requires both leaders and superstars.
My experience with great teams is that there is almost always one or two true leaders who keep everyone moving in the same direction and motivated. There are also superstars who tend to be specialists with abilities that can simply blow your mind. Rarely are the leaders and the superstars one in the same, but on great teams they complement each other. The key, however, is the supporting cast and how well they support the overall effort and long-term goals of the organization.
A great example of this is what I call the three phases of Apple. The first was when the company was new and entrepreneurial with the Steves - Jobs and Wozniak. The second was when the bureaucrats took over under John Scully and nearly killed the company (certainly killed a lot of the passion). And the third was the current incarnation under Jobs again. Sure the organization still has a level of process built in, but it also has its leaders, superstars, and a very solid supporting cast across the board.
ERP can help keep them organized, but it cannot help support the success of an organization. Lots of companies with really expensive SAP systems have failed because they forgot about the importance of their people and their customers.
Posted by Andrew Hayden at October 23, 2007 1:20 PM
Chris, you're sounding very "Deming" on this post. Dr. Deming often lamented the lack of cooperation amongst organizations, the failure to manage interactions between stovepipes.
And yes, I agree that the current generation of ERP software plays a part. The common ERP software (and MBA course content) concentrate on managing individual pieces, with the assumption that the sum of the outputs of the individual pieces is the output of the whole. Nothing could be further from the truth for many companies. Since accounting systems don't measure the losses due to poor cooperation, due to poor interactions between components, managers ignore those losses, and then wonder while the whole is less than the sum of the parts.
Steve Prevette
Fluor Hanford
Posted by Steve Prevette at October 23, 2007 2:06 PM
As we move into a world where just about every business you can think of runs SAP, we move into a world where no-one any longer has an advantage simply because they're deploying unique, better-than-the-competition software. That kind of software is rare anyway but today more than ever, the real differentiator is how well your people deploy it, execute it and remember that the software is there to serve the business and not to dictate to it.
Even yesterday, I sat in a meeting in which Marketing didn't want to share basic sales and purchasing forecast data with the Logistics team, data which would allow them to ensure we have sufficient resource ready to handle the anticipated volumes. Gulp! Other things being equal, then so long as silo's like this exist (and that one was rudely blown up yesterday) and we refuse to collaborate within our own "team," we'll underperform a competitor running his business on an abacus but whose people work together.
Posted by Mark JF at October 24, 2007 3:08 AM
In the ideal world, the team stands out when it manages to empower its members individually. Sounds nice in writing but is much nicer when it actually happens.
Basic fact: We don't know it all. So teaming up with others helps us to know a bit more.
Finally something we all know and we carefully forget, any work is not about an ego boost and just personal ideas. That is just the tip of the big ice-berg.
Posted by Karl Galea at October 24, 2007 3:16 AM
This goes back to my constant soap box topic of difficulty in management and intangibles. Creating a great team is a lot of hard work and has uncertain results - therefore it usually gets lip service. You have to accept that you will get a dip in performance while you sort out a team before it really starts performing
Isn't part of the problem the way we promote people - we don't promote teams we promote high flier "leaders" so you could argue that the type of people who get to the top are not natural team players.
Posted by PaulH at October 24, 2007 1:18 PM
Chris, to take two quotes from your article:
A. "It seems increasingly rare to find a true business team. (Dys)functional reporting groups appear to be much more common." and
B. "Investing in process and systems improvement feels more reassuringly tangible than investing in talent, it seems. An SAP R4 ERP system feels more likely to deliver ROI than teamwork development. Even though the stats on ROI for ERP implementation are frightening, they are more tangible than the soft stuff."
In my opinion, failure with strategy B. is a direct result of the situation A and not an independent option.
And beware of that dysfunctional business team! What does business team stand for?
The sales team, the sales & marketing team, or the whole organization including several distinct IT silos working on the hosting, implementation, training, operations and support of SAP for the rest of the company?
The hard stuff/ software in itself is not to blame.
My answer: Buy SAP/ Oracle/ Microsoft and then invest in
- a cross-functional talented team
- jointly collaborating on the workflows and business needs,
- defining requirements for the implementation of the system and
- constantly training/ empowering the users thus
- enhancing the processes as well as the implementation by incessant feedback.
Posted by Harald Felgner at October 24, 2007 1:45 PM
If the team is young, they would SMS SAP and tell it what to do. Maslow's "Eupsychian Management" has some answers. The title is now generating search engine queries, so when the word is in the common vocabulary, you'll have the definitive answer. :-)
Posted by Sam Cannon at October 24, 2007 2:29 PM
Chris, I think you're correct that true business teams are rare if we look at entire organizations. But when we move in closer, there are lots of teams. Most of the time it is the leader, the boss, that makes the difference.
Posted by Wally Bock at October 24, 2007 2:35 PM
Chris,
I've been thinking along these lines, also, recently. Alex Rodriguez has led Major League Baseball in almost all statistics throughout the season, but his team failed to make it into the postseason. In fact, there are several stars on his team, men who are indisputably the best in baseball. (Not an easy thing for a Red Sox fan to acknowledge, by the way.) Why is this? Can anyone explain the "not supposed to be this way" results of the American League this year? Not that I'm complaining.
Oops! Sorry, Chris, you didn't want this to become a sports discussion. Okay, everybody, talk business here, not sports. Answer Chris's question rather than mine, or combine them. How can you hire business stars and get value for the team?
Posted by cathy mosca at October 24, 2007 3:27 PM
Minor correction:
"The soft stuff is the hard stuff, the hard stuff is the soft stuff" ==> MICHAEL HAMMER and not - with all respect - TP!
Posted by Luc Galoppin at October 25, 2007 9:08 AM
I think that the interesting aspect of England's rugby revival and victories over France and Australia is that it began with defeat and revolution. England were pumelled by South Africa 36-0 and this led to the players criticising the coach and demanding better. The players increasingly took responsibility for training, tactics and motivation. The coach, Brian Ashton, (either actively or passively) took this on the chin and let them have their way.
Perhaps the key to real team work in business, is a crisis, a bolshy set of employees who want better, truly honest communication and a boss who gives them their head.
Posted by Stuart Cross at October 27, 2007 5:09 AM