Archived Article

A Brief (admittedly simplistic) History of Team Skills in the United States

In the 1980's Japanese businesses were beating U.S. businesses at their own game, and at every turn. Corporate America wondered "What have they got that we haven't got?". They came up with two key answers: team skills; and, Systems thinking (primarily Deming).

Suddenly, team was the thing. Team training, teamwork slogans, everybody had to have teams. Unfortunately, it was more a fad than a movement. Upper level executives saw themselves as above and apart from the teams. Personnel who did receive training often got it from "trainers" who had little or no training themselves in the area of team skills. Many were re-treaded inspirational, motivational, or sensitivity trainers who went where the demand (i.e.- $) was. (More on this in an article yet to be published.)

Since upper level management often did not view itself as part of the team, and many people received substandard team training, it was no wonder that little real improvement was observed in many corporations.

The reaction was a predictable "I told you so" from those who espoused Strong Leader models. Not surprisingly, these were usually from the strong leaders themselves. They then thought that they needed to swing the pendulum the other way. The focus became individual accountability. Of course, if these executives had a proper understanding of teamwork from the beginning, they would have realized that there IS individual accountability within teams. However, since they never really bought into the idea or learned how to measure this, it appeared to be immeasurable to them. It was much easier to determine whether or not an individual had successfully carried out the strong leader's orders, and to then hold that individual accountable for the results. Clarity is what the strong leader gained through the individual accountability models (most often found under the heading of Management by Objective). Unfortunately, what was "accountability" in management discussions became "blame" in practice. "Someone must be punished" became the unspoken philosophy. Teams and Systems thinking only complicated matters, for if one accepts Systems thinking then upper level executives are as much a part of the system (and perhaps even more to "blame" since they have more influence in the design of the system) as anyone else in the organization. Such a thought is preposterous to those who see their jobs as hiring people who will bring success and firing those who do not. In the Strong Leader model, sewage flows downhill.

Worse yet, some continued to give lip service to team concepts, but corrupted their meaning as they attempted to bring them into line with their focus on accountability and objectives. This writer has observed situations in which Management by Objective was inappropriately translated in practice to "Just get it done, I don't care how" or, "the end justifies the means". Such messages are invitations to employees to violate ethical or legal boundaries. To those who say that this is not related to the focus on reaching objectives because such violations can bring expensive and perhaps, criminal sanctions- this writer points out that in many cases the message is slightly modified to "Just get it done, I don't care how. But I didn't TELL you to do it the wrong way, and don't get caught". In this context, "being a team player" means that you hide the activities of the organization so that they do not get caught. This corrupted combination of Management by Objective and teamwork has been dubbed by this writer to be Management by Fear. It is full of contradictions and mixed messages that keep the bulk of the staff confused, off balance, and disconnected from one another while insulating upper level managers by providing them with plausible deniability.

Despite efforts by some to muddy the waters, there are still ways to tell whether you are observing a true team, or a corrupted version thereof. Here are a few things to watch for: