The Trouble with Teamwork
By Patrick Lencioni
Virtually every executive staff I've ever come across believes in teamwork. At least they say they do. Sadly, a scarce few of them make teamwork a reality in their organizations; in fact, they often end up creating environments where political infighting and departmental silos are the norm. And yet they continue to tout their belief in teamwork, as if that alone will somehow make it magically appear. I have found that only a small minority of companies truly understand and embrace teamwork, even though, according to their Web sites, more than one in three of the Fortune 500 publicly declare it to be a core value.
How can this be? How can intelligent, well-meaning executives who supposedly set out to foster cooperation and collaboration among their peers be left with organizational dynamics that are anything but team-oriented? And why do they go on promoting a concept they are so often unable to deliver?
Well, it's not because they're secretly plotting to undermine teamwork among their peers.That would actually be easier to address.The problem is more straightforward— and more difficult to overcome. Most groups of executives fail to become cohesive teams because they drastically underestimate both the power teamwork ultimately unleashes and the painful steps required to make teamwork a reality. But before exploring those steps, it is important to understand how the compulsory, politically correct nature of teamwork makes all of this more difficult.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, teamwork is not a virtue in itself. It is merely a strategic choice, not unlike adopting a specific sales model or a financial strategy. And certainly, when properly understood and implemented, it is a powerful and beneficial tool. Unfortunately, management theorists and human resources professionals have made teamwork unconditionally desirable, something akin to being a good corporate citizen.
As a result, many of today's leaders champion teamwork reflexively without really understanding what it entails. Pump them full of truth serum and ask them why, and they'll tell you they feel like they have to promote teamwork, that anything less would be politically, socially, and organizationally incorrect."What choice do I have? Imagine me standing up in front of a group of employees and saying that teamwork isn't really all that important here."
Ironically, that would be better than what many—if not most—leaders do.By preaching teamwork and not demanding that their people live it, they are creating two big problems.
First, they are inducing a collective sense of hypocrisy among their staff members, who feel that teamwork has devolved into nothing more than an empty slogan. Second, and more dangerous still, they are confusing those staff members about how to act in the best interest of the company, so they wind up trying at once to be pragmatically self-interested and ideologically selfless.The combination of these factors evokes inevitable and sometimes paralyzing feelings of dissonance and guilt.
Executives must understand that there is an alternative to teamwork, and it is actually more effective than being a faux team. Jon Katzenbach, author of The Wisdom of Teams, calls it a "working group," a group of executives who agree to work independently with few expectations for collaboration.The advantage of a working group is clarity; members know exactly what they can, and more important, cannot expect of one another, and so they focus on how to accomplish goals without the distractions and costs that teamwork inevitably presents. (For guidance on deciding whether teamwork is right for your organization, see sidebar, "To Be or Not to Be a Team.")
Of course, none of this is to say that teamwork is not a worthy goal. There is no disputing that it is uniquely powerful, enabling groups of people to achieve more collectively than they could have imagined doing apart. However, the requirements of real teamwork cannot be underestimated.
The fact is,building a leadership team is hard. It demands substantial behavioral changes from people who are strong-willed and often set in their ways, having already accomplished great things in their careers. What follows is a realistic description of what a group of executives must be ready to do if they undertake the nontrivial task of becoming a team, something that is not necessarily right for every group of leaders.
Vulnerability-Based Trust
The first and most important step in building a cohesive and functional team is the establishment of trust. But not just any kind of trust.Teamwork must be built upon a solid foundation of vulnerability-based trust.
This means that members of a cohesive, functional team must learn to comfortably and quickly acknowledge, without provocation, their mistakes,weaknesses, failures, and needs for help. They must also readily recognize the strengths of others, even when those strengths exceed their own.
In theory—or kindergarten—this does not seem terribly difficult. But when a leader is faced with a roomful of accomplished, proud, and talented staff members, getting them to let their guard down and risk loss of positional power is an extremely difficult challenge. And the only way to initiate it is for the leader to go first.
Showing vulnerability is unnatural for many leaders,who were raised to project strength and confidence in the face of difficulty. And while that is certainly a noble behavior in many circumstances, it must be tempered when it comes to demonstrating vulnerability-based trust to hesitant team members who need their leader to strip naked and dive into the cold water first. Of course, this requires that a leader be confident enough, ironically, to admit to frailties and make it easy for others to follow suit. One particular CEO I worked with failed to build trust among his team and watched the company falter as a result. As it turns out, a big contributing factor was his inability to model vulnerability-based trust. As one of the executives who reported to him later explained to me, "No one on the team was ever allowed to be smarter than him in any area because he was the CEO." As a result, team members would not open up to one another and admit their own weaknesses or mistakes.
What exactly does vulnerability-based trust look like in practice? It is evident among team members who say things to one another like "I screwed up," "I was wrong," "I need help," "I'm sorry," and "You're better than I am at this." Most important, they only make one of these statements when they mean it, and especially when they really don't want to.
If all this sounds like motherhood and apple pie, understand that there is a very practical reason why vulnerability-based trust is indispensable.Without it, a team will not, and probably should not, engage in unfiltered productive conflict.
Healthy Conflict
One of the greatest inhibitors of teamwork among executive teams is the fear of conflict, which stems from two separate concerns. On one hand, many executives go to great lengths to avoid conflict among their teams because they worry that they will lose control of the group and that someone will have their pride damaged in the process. Others do so because they see conflict as a waste of time.They prefer to cut meetings and discussions short by jumping to the decision that they believe will ultimately be adopted anyway, leaving more time for implementation and what they think of as "real work."
Whatever the case, CEOs who go to great lengths to avoid conflict often do so believing that they are strengthening their teams by avoiding destructive disagreement. This is ironic, because what they are really doing is sti- fling productive conflict and pushing important issues that need to be resolved under the carpet where they will fester. Eventually, those unresolved issues transform into uglier and more personal discord when executives grow frustrated at what they perceive to be repeated problems.
What CEOs and their teams must do is learn to identify artificial harmony when they see it, and incite productive conflict in its place.This is a messy process, one that takes time to master. But there is no avoiding it, because to do so makes it next to impossible for a team to make real commitment.
Unwavering Commitment
To become a cohesive team, a group of leaders must learn to commit to decisions when there is less than perfect information available, and when no natural consensus develops. And because perfect information and natural consensus rarely exist, the ability to commit becomes one of the most critical behaviors of a team.
But teams cannot learn to do this if they are not in the practice of engaging in productive and unguarded conflict. That's because it is only after team members passionately and unguardedly debate with one another and speak their minds that the leader can feel confident of making a decision with the full benefit of the collective wisdom of the group. A simple example might help illustrate the costs of failing to truly commit.
Becoming a team is not necessarily right for every group of leaders.
The CEO of a struggling pharmaceutical company decided to eliminate business and first class travel to cut costs. Everyone around the table nodded their heads in agreement, but within weeks, it became apparent that only half the room had really committed to the decision. The others merely decided not to challenge the decision, but rather to ignore it.This created its own set of destructive conflict when angry employees from different departments traveled together and found themselves heading to different parts of the airplane.Needless to say, the travel policy was on the agenda again at the next meeting,wasting important time that should have been spent righting the company's financial situation.
Teams that fail to disagree and exchange unfiltered opinions are the ones that find themselves revisiting the same issues again and again. All this is ironic, because the teams that appear to an outside observer to be the most dysfunctional (the arguers) are usually the ones that can arrive at and stick with a difficult decision.
It's worth repeating here that commitment and conflict are not possible without trust. If team members are concerned about protecting themselves from their peers, they will not be able to disagree and commit. And that presents its own set of problems, not the least of which is the unwillingness to hold one another accountable.
Unapologetic Accountability
Great teams do not wait for the leader to remind members when they are not pulling their weight. Because there is no lack of clarity about what they have committed to do, they are comfortable calling one another on actions and behaviors that don't contribute to the likelihood of success. Less effective teams typically resort to reporting unacceptable behavior to the leader of the group, or worse yet, to back-channel gossip.These behaviors are not only destructive to the morale of the team, they are inefficient and allow easily addressable issues to live longer than should be allowed.
Don't let the simplicity of accountability hide the difficulty of making it a reality. It is not easy to teach strong leaders on a team to confront their peers about behavioral issues that hurt the team. But when the goals of the team have been clearly delineated, the behaviors that jeopardize them become easier to call out.
Collective Orientation to Results
The ultimate goal of the team, and the only real scorecard for measuring its success, is the achievement of tangible collective outcomes. And while most executive teams are certainly populated with leaders who are driven to succeed, all too often the results they focus on are individual or departmental. Once the inevitable moment of truth comes, when executives must choose between the success of the entire team and their own, many are unable to resist the instinct to look out for themselves.This is understandable, but it is deadly to a team.
Identify artificial harmony; incite productive conflict in its place.
Leaders committed to building a team must have zero tolerance for individually focused behavior. This is easier said than done when one considers the size of the egos assembled on a given leadership team. Which is perhaps why a leader trying to assemble a truly cohesive team would do well to select team members with small ones.
If all of this sounds obvious, that's because it is. The problem with teamwork is not that it is difficult to understand, but rather that it is extremely difficult to achieve when the people involved are strong-willed, independently successful leaders.The point here is not that teamwork is not worth the trouble, but rather that its rewards are both rare and costly. And as for those leaders who don't have the courage to force team members to step up to the requirements of teamwork, they would be wiser to avoid the concept altogether. Of course, that would require a different kind of courage; the courage not to be a team.
So how do well-intentioned leaders go about deciding if teamwork is right for their staffs? They can start by recognizing that organizational structure is not nearly as important as behavioral willingness.
Most theorists will call for teamwork in organizations that are structured functionally, but may not do so for those that are organized divisionally or geographically.
In other words, if the work can be organized in departments that operate largely independently (with regional territories, distinct product divisions, or separate subsidiaries), then the executives at the top can follow suit and function as what Jon Katzenbach, author of The Wisdom of Teams, describes as "working units."These are groups made up of individuals who, though friendly and cooperative at times, are not expected to make willing sacrifices to one another to achieve common goals that lead to joint rewards.
However, when executives run an organization that is made up of departments that have structural interdependencies, teamwork is usually presented as the only possible approach for the leadership group. But although this is a sound and reasonable theory when all other factors are considered equal, it is not necessarily advisable in the messy and fallible world of real human beings. Before deciding that teamwork is the answer, ask these questions of yourself and your fellow team members.
- Can we keep our egos in check?
- Are we capable of admitting to mistakes,weaknesses, insufficient knowledge?
- Can we speak up openly when we disagree?
- Will we confront behavioral problems directly?
- Can we put the success of the team or organization over our own?
If the answer to one or more of these questions is "probably not," then a group of executives should think twice about declaring themselves a team.Why? Because more than structure, it is the willingness of executives to change behavior —starting with the leader of the organization—that should determine whether teamwork is the right answer.
译文:
干嘛死抱“团队合作”不放？
团队合作是重要的，但团队合作也是很困难的。
如果没有足够的条件，倒不如远离这个理念。
难哉！团队合作
几乎每一位管理者都 信奉团队合作的意义，至少在口头上他们是这么说的。然而可悲的是，真正在自己的企业中实现团队合作的人寥寥无几；真实世界中他们反而常常在企业中制造勾心 斗角和部门间各自为政的环境。但他们却仍然不断地兜售自己对于团队合作的信仰，好像仅凭口头上的推广就能让它成为现实。尽管“《财富》500强”中有超过 1/3在自己的网站中公开宣称团队合作是自己的核心价值观，但实际上只有很少的企业真正理解和在行动上支持团队合作。
为什么会这样？为什么聪明的、善良的、本应在同事中推动合作和协同的管理者们，却建设出万事俱备、唯缺团队合作的组织机制？而且为什么他们还要继续推广这么难以实现的理念？
绝大多数管理者团队没能成为有凝聚力的团队，是因为他们既严重低估了团队合作的巨大效力，也严重低估了实现团队合作所需要经历的痛苦过程。然而，我 们在探究这个过程之前，先要明白一件事：恰恰是团队合作所具有的强制性的、道义上正确的本质，反而让它的实现过程变得更加艰难。
团队合作的虚伪
与传统观念相反，团队合作本身谈不上是一种美德，而只是一种战略选择，与采用一种特殊的销售模式或财务战略没有什么不同。当然，如果能够被正确理解 和执行，团队合作是一个强有力的宝贵工具。但遗憾的是，管理理论家和人力资源工作者把团队合作变成了企业绝对必需的东西，类似于做优秀企业公民这样的目 标。其结果是，很多领导并没有真正理解团队合作需要什么条件，就机械地去拥护它。而当逼迫他们说出心里话时，他们会说自己不得不这么做，稍有松懈都会是政 治上、伦理上和组织上的错误。“我有什么选择？难道站在一群员工面前说团队合作其实并不那么重要？”
其实，如果真这样做，反而会比很多领导的实际做法更好些。鼓吹团队合作而没有从行动上要求员工贯彻，就会产生两个重大问题：第一，让员工产生一种集 体性的虚伪感，让他们觉得团队合作只不过是一个空洞的口号；第二，也是更加危险的一点，是让员工对于如何服务于企业的最高利益感到困惑，于是他们只能是理 论上无私、行动上自私。这些因素结合在一起，无可避免地造成了有时甚至是致命的不和谐与罪恶感。
管理者们要知道，还有团队合作之外的选择，而且这比一个虚假的团队更有效率。《团队智慧》一书的作者杰弗里·卡岑贝赫把这称之为“工作团组”，即一 个独立工作、很少指望协同作用的管理者团组。工作团组的优势在于明确：成员清楚地知道自己能够以及不能够从彼此那里得到什么，从而在专心实现目标时避免了 团队合作所无法闪躲的干扰和成本。
当然，这绝不是说团队合作没有价值。毫无疑问，团队合作有着无可比拟的力量，团队成员集体能够实现个人能力简单叠加所无法达到的成就。但是，真正的团队合作所需要满足的条件是不可以被低估的。事实上，建设一个领导力团队是不容易的。这需要那些有着坚强意志、确立了自己的道路，而且已经在职业生涯中取得了瞩目成就的人做出重大的行为改变。
团队合作的四个资格
以人性脆弱为基础的信任
要建设一个具有凝聚力并且高效的团队，第一个且最为重要的一个步骤，就是建立信任。这不是任何种类的信任，而是坚实的以人性脆弱为基础的信任。
这意味着一个有凝聚力的、高效的团队成员必须学会自如地、迅速地、心平气和地承认自己的错误、弱点、失败、求助。他们还要乐于认可别人的长处，即使这些长处超过了自己。
在理论上，或在幼儿园里，这并不很困难。但当一个领导面对着一群有成就的、骄傲的、有才干的员工时，让他们解除戒备、甘冒丧失职务权力的风险，是一个极其困难的挑战。而唯一能够发动他们的办法，就是领导本人率先做出榜样。
对于很多领导来说，表现自己的脆弱是很难受的事情，因为他们养成了在困难面前展现力量和信心的习惯。在很多情况下这当然是一种高尚的行为，但当犹疑的团队成员需要他们的领导率先脱光衣服、跳进冷水中展示以人性脆弱为基础的信任时，这些高尚行为就必须弱化。其实这反而需要领导具有足够的自信来承认自己的弱点，以便让别人仿效。我认识的一位CEO， 由于没能在团队中建立信任，结果目睹着自己的企业衰落。其中一个重要原因就是他没能带头塑造以人性脆弱为基础的信任。就像他曾经的一位直接下属后来对我说 的：“团队中没有人被允许在任何方面超过他，因为他是CEO。”其后果：团队成员彼此之间也不会敞开心扉，坦率承认自己的弱点或错误。
以人性脆弱为基础的信任在实际行为中到底是什么样的？像团队成员之间彼此说出“我办砸了”、“我错了”、“我需要帮助”、“我很抱歉”、“你在这方面比我强”这样的话，就是明显的特征。
以人性脆弱为基础的信任是不可或缺的。离开它，一个团队不能、或许也不应该，产生直率的建设性冲突。
良性的冲突
团队合作一个最大的阻碍，就是对于冲突的畏惧。这来自于两种不同的担忧：一方面，很多管理者采取各种措施避免团队中的冲突，因为他们担心丧失对团队 的控制，以及有些人的自尊会在冲突过程中受到伤害；另外一些人则是把冲突当作浪费时间。他们更愿意缩短会议和讨论时间，果断做出自己看来早晚会被采纳的决 定，留出更多时间来实施决策，以及其它他们认为是“真正的”工作。
无论是上述哪一种情况，CEO们都相信：他们在通过避免破坏性的意见分歧来巩固自己的团队。这很可笑，因为他们的做法其实是扼杀建设性的冲突，将需 要解决的重大问题掩盖起来。久而久之，这些未解决的问题会变得更加棘手，而管理者也会因为这些不断重复发生的问题而越来越恼火。
CEO和他的团队需要做的，是学会识别虚假的和谐，引导和鼓励适当的、建设性的冲突。这是一个杂乱的、费时的过程，但这是不能避免的。否则，一个团队建立真正的承诺就是不可能完成的任务。
坚定不移地行动
要成为一个具有凝聚力的团队，领导必须学会在没有完善的信息、没有统一的意见时做出决策。而正因为完善的信息和绝对的一致非常罕见，决策能力就成为一个团队最为关键的行为之一。
但如果一个团队没有鼓励建设性的和没有戒备的冲突，就不可能学会决策。这是因为只有当团队成员彼此之间热烈地、不设防地争论，直率地说出自己的想 法，领导才可能有信心做出充分集中集体智慧的决策。不能就不同意见而争论、交换未经过滤的坦率意见的团队，往往会发现自己总是在一遍遍地面对同样的问题。 实际上，在外人看来机制不良、总是争论不休的团队，往往是能够做出和坚守艰难决策的团队。
需要再次强调的是：如果没有信任，行动和冲突都不可能存在。如果团队成员总是想要在同伴面前保护自己，他们就不可能彼此争论。这又会造成其它问题，如：不愿意对彼此负责。
无怨无悔才有彼此负责
卓越的团队不需要领导提醒团队成员竭尽全力工作，因为他们很清楚需要做什么，他们会彼此提醒注意那些无助于成功的行为和活动。而不够优秀的团队一般 对于不可接受的行为采取向领导汇报的方式，甚至更恶劣：在背后说闲话。这些行为不仅破坏团队的士气，而且让那些本来容易解决的问题迟迟得不到办理。
承担责任看似简单，但实施起来则很困难。教会领导如何就损害团队的行为批评自己的伙伴是一件不容易的事情。但是，如果有清晰的团队目标，有损这些目标的行为就能够轻易地纠正。
团队合作并非是难以理解的理念，但当所涉及的人是具有坚强意志、自身已经成功的领导时，它极其难以实现。团队合作并非不值得经历这些艰辛，但其回报 鲜见且又代价高昂。如果领导没有勇气强迫团队成员去实现团队合作所需的条件，还不如彻底远离这个理念。不过，这又需要另一种勇气——不要团队的勇气。
Printer-Friendly Version
