> You foster a team environment when you find ways for every one to care for/after every other one, in the perspective of the group (because the group cares for each part of itself, and each part cares about the group).
Basically this only exists if all the profits the group makes are shared equally between members. (if not all profits are shared, like being employed by an organization that takes a cut, the group will care enough to leave and form their own organization)
> But too often, people that prefer teamwork, really just want to be heard and receive credit for work done, together. But they're generally not very productive and their opinions not that valuable.
Not every team I've been on is like this, but this resonates. Some teams are the equivalent of group projects in school and I think most of us unfortunate enough to have endured those would agree.
For me, the best team is a group of like-minded and like-disciplined individuals that align well and otherwise operate separately.
> "...if teams have an antagonistic working relationship"
Yes of course a set of people constitute a team if and only if it meets the requirement for teamwork. That is, cooperate via info sharing, work load distribution and other support to get jobs done. Obviously merely assigning random workers to contiguous cubicles in no way constructs a team. That remains true even if a manager is loudly chanting holy corporate verse while pronouncing teamhood upon the hapless crew.
This is as it's always been, teamwork is essential for the survival of modern humans. Companies that foster teams, and teamwork among teams, are the ones likely to succeed in the marketplace.
> Better try to reduce variance by bringing the other people up, which requires much more involved management than just giving more money to the ones with the high numbers.
yes, bringing people up that are not doing as well, has in my (anecdotal of course) experience, resulted in huge overall gains for all-round team performance (people share info with each other, help each other, are more motivated etc)
i would add, that unfortunately, the trend seems to be in the opposite direction...
> people are great at working not in their own interest, together, on something greater than themselves.
Only really true of small, tight-knit groups of people engaged in very similar kinds of work, where everyone knows that their contribution will be evaluated by everyone else. Hence small partnerships, co-ops or very early startups probably don't need management. These roles start to appear as scale increases.
> In school everyone always complains about group work sucking
I supervised software engineering projects at university. It works well when students in a group have similar motivation and abilities. This is the case when they are free to choose who they collaborate with. Otherwise, students are usually frustrated.
In a company, teams can be much more heterogeneous (cultural background, skills, age, social status, experience...), and the pressure is higher: goals can be loosely defined, evaluation is less fair, stakes are higher for everyone, managers can be less benevolent than teachers...
> Maybe instead of struggling to apply management concepts to the development process, companies would achieve more by breaking things up into 6-person sized teams.
How do you coordinate the six person teams, prevent them from ending up in contention, etc.?
> So basically, they are people willing to do work that is needed and doing it responsibly. The work you are not willing to do and doing it without throwing temper tantrum over being too good for the work.
Basically there are people who are willing to drag your organizations failure to build a reasonable system into the future to keep you business.
I suppose you probably do want a team like that if you're the owner.
>But teams behave in an infinite combination of size, members, companies, and time
Slightly off topic, but I realize this is a subject I'd be interested in reading more about. Would be interested in suggestions in the same vein as Creativity, Inc. by Edwin Catmull?
Basically this only exists if all the profits the group makes are shared equally between members. (if not all profits are shared, like being employed by an organization that takes a cut, the group will care enough to leave and form their own organization)
reply