The Sherpa Project

I sat down to catch up on a little reading this weekend and have been making my way through The Wisdom Of Teams. This is a very interesting book about the observations of various types and levels of teams, the way teams perform, and the characteristics of each respective type.

I’ve always viewed teams as teams and recognized good teams by “that feeling” that you get when you participate in one or see one in action. Beyond “that feeling”, I really hadn’t thought about the categorization of teams beyond a “good” and “not-so-good” level. This book has been very interesting because of the research and observations that they have done in grouping the different categories as well as comparing and contrasting the different types.

Throughout my time in the IT industry I’ve seen all these categories of teams and participated in each respective type. One very relevant point from the book is the discussion about the differences between working groups and teams. This really hit home with me because of the methodology changes that I’ve been involved with as both a consultant and an FTE.

The image below shows the different categories discussed in the book and the evolution of performance when moving along the curve.

One thing that I’ve noticed from starting up various initiatives to move towards agile methodologies over the past couple of years is the thrashing that occurs when you move from a command-and-control structure (usually accompanying traditional methodologies) to a self-organizing structure (more prevalent with agile methodologies).

It’s rare that a new agile team hits the ground and starts performing as a “high-performing” team in the first couple of months. I’ve never seen it happen when the team members are coming from traditional methodology backgrounds. I really think this can be expected because there is so much happening so quickly. This scenario is usually very disruptive and usually overwhelming from the standpoint of the individuals on a new team.

While the leap from “working group” to “potential team” can be a rough experience for many individuals, the progression from “working group” to “real team” (and possibly to “high-performing team”) is a pleasure to watch and a pleasure to be involved with.

So, what is the difference between a “working group” and a “team?” The book recognizes the basic distinction as performance.

“A working group relies primarily on the individual contributions of its members for performance, whereas a team strives for a magnified impact that is incremental to what its members could achieve in their individual roles.”

I think that the giant leap in forming a team for most individuals from a command-and-control structure is the blurring of roles and shared accountability that occurs on a team. Most individuals in command-and-control organizations or models think from the standpoint of individual contributions while a true team focuses on mutual accountability and the contributions of the team. This is a hard leap to make, but the benefits (both organizationally and personally) are usually tremendous.