Team building for Dummies

Misunderstandings

I've just found a website that demonstrates the current limited understanding of how teams work: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/differences-between-work-groups-and-teams.html.  The Dummies series of books has a great reputation, but on understanding teams, we differ - fundamentally. 

They see teams as being a 3-stage improvement from "dependent" working group, through "independent" working group to "interdependent" team.  Sounds great.  But this reflects the traditional mental model about teams - that they are the only answer to improving the combined performance of a working group of people.  The assumption is that such groups have something to be interdependent around.  It also assumes that all teams can be treated the same way - that there is a single answer to any group of people: "become an interdependent team!" 

Experience

In contrast, I see many teams in organisations that don't depend on each other.  In fact, the members of these teams actually depend on people in other teams.  Because of this, such teams are a real challenge to manage: should the manager work harder at bringing their team closer together - after all, that's what all the "guru's" tell them to do; or should they not bother, because, to be honest, it's too difficult and doesn't really help anyway. 

Being a member of such a team can also be frustrating: why do I feel so isolated?  Why are our team meetings such a waste of time?  How can all our attempts to build the team lead to me being taken away from the work I need to do?  Why is this team SO dysfunctional!  In the Dummies' view, this is an independent working group which by default can't deliver high performance until it becomes "interdependent".  Actually, it can at least match interdependent teams without becoming one.  But the team must see that they are different and manage themselves differently as a result.  

Where is the dysfunction? 

Because actually, the team isn't dysfunctional - it's the mental model that is dysfunctional.  The expectation that all groups can improve by working better together towards a common goal is what causes many of the dysfunctions in such teams. Such expectations can't be delivered, because the team just isn't structured that way.  In other words, to work together more would mean a deterioration in performance - and that's simply not the promise of teams! 

If, in contrast, you recognise the difference in these types of teams - I call them Extra-Dependent Teams (distinct from Inter-Dependent Teams) because they depend on people outside their own team rather than inside - then it starts to provide different options for managing and developing such teams.  It is best to see such teams as  Communities of Practice since people in them do much the same thing and are more likely to identify with each other in what they do, and also learn from each other about how to do it, than work together towards a common goal.   I have been applying this mental model to members and managers of such teams and the results are really inspiring.  People I have worked with have found that this new understanding explains so much about their position whilst also providing a clear and practical way forward to improving the performance of their team.   

Conclusion

So before you believe yourself a dummy and read the so-called-experts' view on teams for dummies, make sure that the team you run has the capability of being an Inter-Dependent Team.  Because if it doesn't it is likely to be an Extra-Dependent Team and require a completely different approach.

Comment on this article or give us feedback in our Community