To say that teaming is is a bad idea is like saying that taking a group of
nine people and putiing them out on a baseball field to play ball is a bad
idea. Consider the missing element to be an inability (either through
training or motivation) to participate on the team. I find it ironic that
we put people together in a group, give it a task (or mission, or
whatever), call it a team, and expect it to behave functionally. What
about the training (teambuilding skills?) necessary to function? Hello?
What else could be wrong?
At 06:28 PM 6/22/97 -0700, you wrote:
>Anita Bruzzese, a columnist who writes for Gannett News Service, reviewed
>a book, in her most recent column, written by William and Kathleen Lundin.
>The book is entitled, "Three values of leadership." I found this part of
>her review interesting, and thought I'd share it with you:
> "Lundin said much of today's negative emotions are being created
>because of teams--the very thing that is supposed to bring a more positive
>atmosphere to the workplace.
> "'I don't see teams as working very well, because we grow up
>learning to be competitive--and then we get a job and we're supposed to be
>cooperative with one another,' Lundin said. 'And I think that team output
>is often dumber than what the individual output could be. By working
>together, they actually come up with a less intelligent answer. That would
>make anyone emotional.'"
>I thought that this column would hearten all those who think that
>"teaming" was just a bad idea. I was curious what the subscribers to this
>list might think.
>Lundin is a psychologist and workplace trainer in Whitewater, WI,
>according to the column. His book is available for $8 by contacting him
>at N7411 Ridge Rd, Whitewater, WI 53190.
richard scherberger <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>