And remember, it’s okay to decide that your group isn’t a team. In a world where teamwork is rarer than we might think, plenty of non-teams succeed. In fact, if your group is not meant to be a team, it’s far better to be clear about that than to waste time and energy pretending you’re something you’re not. Because that only creates false expectations, which leads to frustration and resentment. — 12: 182-185
Team members readily set aside their individual or personal needs for the greater good of the group. — 12: 178-179
If team members are never pushing one another outside of their emotional comfort zones during discussions, then it is extremely likely that they’re not making the best decisions for the organization. — 35: 528-530
Because when a team recovers from an incident of destructive conflict, it builds confidence that it can survive such an event, which in turn builds trust. — 37: 555-556
The lack of conflict is precisely the cause of one of the biggest problems that meetings have: they are boring. — 44: 661-662
Because most human beings are drastically more reasonable than we think they are. In my work with teams, I’ve come to understand that most people don’t really need to have their ideas adopted (a.k.a. “get their way”) in order to buy in to a decision. They just want to have their ideas heard, understood, considered, and explained within the context of the ultimate decision. — 48: 736-738
Another Lack of Accountability Story I once attended a staff meeting where one of the executives had his laptop open and was intermittently typing away during discussions. After the meeting I asked the CEO, “Does that bother you when he does that?” He told me, “Yeah, I find it distracting.” So I asked the obvious question: “Why don’t you tell him to stop?” A pained look came across the CEO’s face as he answered, “I don’t know. I’m not his parent. Who am I to tell him how to act . . .” I wanted to interrupt him and scream, “You’re the friggin’ CEO! That’s who you are!” But I didn’t. That’s because I too sometimes struggle with accountability. — 57: 869-875
The point of these stories is that human beings are naturally self-interested. Only by ensuring that the people on your team are committed to collective results ahead of their own needs, and by keeping them focused on those results, can you avoid the kind of individualization that breaks teams apart. — 68: 1042-1044
But perhaps most important of all, having too many people on a team makes team dynamics during meetings and other decision-making events almost impossible. That’s because a good team has to engage in two types of communication in order to optimize decision making, but only one of these is practical in a large group. According to Harvard’s Chris Argyris, those two types of communication are advocacy and inquiry. Basically, advocacy is the statement of ideas and opinions; inquiry is the asking of questions for clarity and understanding. When a group gets too large, people realize they are not going to get the floor back any time soon, so they resort almost exclusively to advocacy. It becomes like Congress (which is not designed to be a team) or the United Nations (ditto). One member says, “I think we should pursue proposal A,” provoking another member to say, “Well, I think we should pursue proposal B.” Someone else lobbies for C, yet another person wants A with a slight modification, and before you know it, everyone is trying to get their opinion heard. Inquiry, on the other hand, would entail one of the members saying, “Wait a minute. I’d like to hear you explain why you support proposal A, because I want to understand your rationale. After all, if it makes sense, I could go along with it.” Okay, that might be just a little too idealistic, but you get the point. — 76: 1159-1170
You see, a team is a relatively small number of people (anywhere from three to twelve) that shares common goals as well as the rewards and responsibilities for achieving them. — 12: 177-178