Why teams fail

The team also evolves over time. Today, the traditional functional team still exists, but it is no longer independent, and various types of teams emerge as the times require. In work teams, each member has similar skills but is assigned different tasks; in project teams, each member has different strengths and is responsible for different parts of the same project; There are also functional and cross-functional teams .

The only thing that hasn't changed over time is that some ominous mist has always loomed around many organizations. This work environment will adversely affect team communication, quality control and productivity.

The previous generation didn't know what a team was, but that didn't mean it didn't exist. In fact, the opposite was true, except that the teams back then were traditional and functionally constrained. The accounting team, finance team, production team, and advertising team are all composed of experts in parallel functions, and the work done by everyone in the team is similar.

Members of functional teams work together most of the time, doing the same things and saying the same things. They did not deal with the troubles of "hereticism", and always maintained a peaceful atmosphere, but to a certain extent, they cultivated a lot of "Mr.

The only thing that hasn't changed over time is that some ominous mist has always loomed around many organizations. Here are some common myths that cause most teams to fail.

Myth #1: Adventure Games Achievement Teams

In this group activity, a team will complete a series of physically and mentally challenging tasks. This kind of learning is usually arranged in beautiful scenic spots, mountain resorts, pastures or parks, guided by professional coaches, and based on the psychological training of members.

Team members have since learned about overcoming fear, dispelling doubt, and the role of the collective on the individual. People who have experienced this kind of training praise it very much. They think that the training allows them to break through themselves and accomplish things they could not imagine before. They feel it has changed their attitude towards life. Many cheered after the event and even said, "Why didn't you get this training years earlier?"

Everyone ecstatically admitted that when they returned to the office after the team session, something positive would come naturally transfer to work. But when team members pack their bags and head back to the city, does the team look instantly refreshed? Eight out of ten, nine times it's impossible. Outside of the workplace, people may appear friendlier and more helpful. Climbing and net climbing training is not really a team activity, it can open up individual development potential, challenge their own limits, and excite members to overcome their fears. These activities improve an individual's attitude toward the team while increasing trust in others.

But at the heart of the matter is that teams fail not because of fear, fear, and distrust of others, but because members are so confused about their role in it: what are their specific tasks? Do you have the right to do what you think needs to be done? Their trust issues vary by role and workflow.

Myth #2: Sports Teams Benefit Work

Professional sports enthusiasts have a glaring weakness when it comes to team building: They want to work like their favorite sports team. This expectation has little chance of succeeding, especially among those on the team who are not fond of professional sports. Putting up posters of basketball superstar Michael Jordan, hoping to inspire members to play fair and strive for top results, doesn't actually work for everyone.

A sports team is a select group of professionals in a field with a common goal of winning. But they represent the traditional model, with a director or coach who stands above the members in the organizational hierarchy. Imagine a "self-governing" sports team, where each member does what they think is right and what is right for others. Self-managing sports teams like this often means hiring a high-quality coach.

From a professional point of view, a "team" in a sports team is very different from a "team" in a business team. In fact, sports teams are recreational teams and play under enormous pressure, but corporate teams don't have that pressure. The following questions and answers are representative:

Do sports teams empower each member to make autonomous decisions? Do not. ("I think I should play right wing, not the left wing that the game demands, and I'm sure I made the right choice.")

Do sports teams create an atmosphere that allows or even encourages players to make mistakes? Do not. ("You fouled an opponent and got a 20-yard free kick that resulted in a goal for my team. You guys have too long a learning curve.")

Sports teams can create loyalty and give Do members have the confidence to succeed? Do not. ("Sorry, your ankle hurt, Leo, we've moved you to another team.")

Athletic teams are supposed to be multipurpose teams. A team of 50 players will have a lot of experts. Team members with different functions rarely think of one piece. Offense and defense are friendly, but they don't work together.

Myth #3: Good leadership ensures success

It makes sense to say that leadership is the breeding ground for many bad teams. As the executor of the team's vision, the leader is always a talking point for people before and after dinner. Here are some misconceptions about team leadership.

Teams need only one leadership model - but that's not the case, there are many models of team leadership, from traditional iron-fist rule to various democratic liberals. Leadership styles vary by time and by task.

Strong leadership ensures success—no! No amount of leadership will help if the team is underpowered or uninterested in the team's tasks.

It doesn't matter how leaders are elected---wrong! The way leaders are chosen must be consistent with the team's mission and the type of team. For example, a new leader may have difficulty fitting into an experienced team.

A great leader and a great team can never win -- absolutely! Not all work is suitable to be done as a team. If a job is simply not suitable for the team to do, it doesn't matter who leads it or what level it is. If you get carried away by team wins, then any job wants to be done as a team. There is an old saying: "There is only a hammer in your hand, and problems are like nails", this is true! The top management team has a tacit understanding - you are too naive! Everyone on the top management team is well aware of the lack of genuine camaraderie within the team. The high-level team is very similar to the Renaissance scene: dukes, earls, and ministers crowd each other out for profit. At the top level of management, politics reigns supreme, and "team members" are more chasing an electoral agenda than acting together.

Myth #4: Teams are better than individuals

Don't be too quick to take down the walls and throw everyone together to make a "team". Calm down and you'll find that working alone can sometimes work better than a team. Most people need their own space to be calm and feel safe. Spending an entire day working in a fence with team members is less like planning a show and more like rehearsing a boring farce.

The first impression of a successful team's work environment is less "team". In a very successful team-oriented engineering firm, team members have small office spaces, no heated arguments, and appear deadly. The engineers in the house worked closely together and shared information, but they didn't meet face to face, they were isolated but efficient and impressive.

When designing a team environment, you must respect their creed: Teamwork is valuable, and individual effort is more valuable.

It's like walking a tightrope, keeping your balance is the most important thing. People must be able to find others easily and there should be no communication blind spots anywhere, but they also need personal space.

The biggest mistake made by the team era is that people expect too much from the team, thinking that a job is much better done by a team than an individual because the team has synergistic advantages and masters shared information.

The fact is that teams are inherently less efficient than individuals. If a person has enough information to complete a task, he will be several times more efficient than a team that undertakes the same task. Because there is no work handover in personal work, there is no mutual misunderstanding and cultural conflict, and there is no conflict between different personalities.

It's worth noting that building a team can be a bad thing. Sometimes managers prefer teams because they share responsibility and make it harder to hold them accountable. But at the same time teams mean increased travel and entertainment budgets, and select team members cost the business a lot. Forcibly building a team is a misuse of the team's enthusiasm, which is team autocracy and will inevitably be disgusted by people.

Myth #5: Larger Teams Are Better

A current trend is that many managers view their entire organization as a team. This statement sounds interesting but unhelpful. The very nature of teams predestines them not to be very big. When a team exceeds a certain limit, it ceases to be a team and becomes a mob.

Occasionally, the team size may be larger due to the addition of some affiliates and peripheral support teams, these include:

Core members: The current team, everyone is 100% committed to the team's tasks.

Consultants: Like agile seagulls, they leave as soon as they finish their work.

Support staff: They help core team members with tasks.

Team Sponsor: A manager who is there when the team needs protection and guidance.

Team Leader: The creator of the team.

Outsiders: Outside employees who help the team function properly.

The size of the team is critical, and smaller teams have an advantage. A team can be autonomously led or led by a special person, and the form can be formal or informal, but it should not be too large.

Once the fog of teams has been lifted, an important step is to actually apply the concept of teams to help you solve problems in your organization, including inefficiencies, low productivity, unclear processes, high costs, overstaffing, low morale, and return on investment inferior. Teams are able to magically transcend traditional hierarchies and make everyone get along well. But don’t forget that, like many organizational changes, building teams isn’t all smooth sailing. In fact, if you're sincere, keep your promises, and care about your colleagues, these may be good signs that you're on the right track.

Original text excerpted from The New Why Teams Don't Work with permission. The book is published by Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., San Francisco, California (www.bkconnection.com). The author registered copyright in 2000. Translated by Zhu Jie.

Harvey Robbins is president of Robbins & Robbins, Inc. and a business psychologist. Its clients include American Express Bank, AT&T, 3M, Johnson & Johnson. Finley and Robbins have co-authored numerous books, including Transcompetition, Why Teams Don't Work, and Why Change Doesn't Work.