Tue • Sep 15th, 2009 • by Tom Nees • Comments 3
knowing about one another is as important as knowing the mission
Most leaders work with and guide an inner circle of colleagues in teams and groups. Many so-called teams are in fact simply groups of people who meet to report in to a leader and one another. There is nothing wrong with groups – it’s just that they are not teams.
Teams are made up of individuals whose individual success depends upon the efforts of others and and the group as a whole – as in an athletic team. And, as in athletics, most teams are built around role-players, that is, each one has a unique assignment in the success of the team.
Industrial teamwork was pioneered by Toyota where automobile assembly line workers were clustered into teams working together to complete a specific task. Teamwork is the creative genius in high-tech companies where groups of people are given product ideas to develop.
Team-building is the skill to organize people to get things done most effectively. That is as important as the reputation of being a “team player” – a cliche that often means no more than going along to get along.
Most leaders, including those in the nonprofit and public sector worlds are engaged in team-building – transforming a working group into a team, or improving a team as in Patrick Lencioni’s best-seller, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team .
I recently spent several hours with a group in a team-building exercise. They were given a team report compiled from their individual iWAM assessments from which they leaned important differences and similarities about their motivation and behavior.
For instance, while some of them were motivated to take immediate action, to move ahead with projects, others were inclined toward patience wanting to take more time before deciding. They learned that some of them think out loud while others are more reserved, if not silent during discussions. Silence was not disengagement. Most of them were big-picture people with less interest in problem-solving. That too has its advantages and disadvantages.
This team-building process proved to be as fun as it was revealing and positive. They learned that some of their differences provided balance even as some of their similarities strengthened their team.
Knowing more about themselves and how to adjust to one-another is as essential for building their team as is holding their mission in common.
September 15th, 2009 at 9:53 am
I have been thinking about the idea that knowing your team members is as important as knowing the mission. I am not sure I accept this at face value. It has always seemed to me that teams gather around mission, and that dysfunction happens when one or more members of the team do not accept or do not understand the mission. Are there other factors? Of course. But I think clarity of mission and commitment to mission takes precedence. What think ye?
September 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Certainly without a mission there is no team. But the best of players or members of the team can frustrate and sabotoge the mission unless they know and accommodate to one another. It’s true in athletics as well as organizational or corporate teams.
September 16th, 2009 at 7:58 am
As the Bible instructs us, without a vision (or mission) the people perish. But without the people (or team) the vision and mission perishes. I have two key staff members, both of whom have a clear sense of vision and mission for ministry. However, one is much more productive because has successfully incorporated that mission within a true team chemistry while the other’s effectiveness has been limited because he still leads his “team” as just a group of people reporting to him. I agree with Franklin that knowing mission is of first importance. But having and knowing your team is the only way to effectively fulfill that mission.