I have a love-hate relationship with the team concept. Freeriders of course love it. I love teamwork because of its obvious advantages - fresh ideas, somebody to bounce ideas with, critical review, division of work! A lot of us would snigger at the last bit - 'division of work', which brings me to the hate part of it. The contribution of every team member is hardly ever equal.
I have always wondered as to whether the free-riders think they are smarter than the lot who do honest and earnest work? Where should one draw the line between tolerance and good naturedness and being 'rude' enough to tell the bugger on face that they are not contributing.
Well to tackle this I have come up with what I call the '3D2 Approach to Team Management'
3D(i) : Define > Discuss > Decide
3D(ii): Delegation > Deliverables > Deadlines
The two flows happen independent of each other depending on how directive or inclusive the Team Management is.
It is a concept that I have put to use often and seen it work. Nothing is more important in getting an timely and quality output than the team members knowing what is expected of them and what they are expected to do.
I personally prefer Taskforces to Teams. A Taskforce exists for a definite purpose. The member selection by its very nature is functionality based. Hence, their is no role ambiguity. People with particular skill sets group together for the execution of their task. Since they do not vie for the position of the Boss, one commander keeps the taskforce together and takes strategic decisions. The individuals are empowered to take decisions in their area of expertise.
It is a objective oriented approach. The idea is to get work done. That is most important. Great ideas fail because of the 'democratic' nature of a team.
I am in process of developing this idea further. Maybe someday I will write a Paper on this.
-Troubleshooter
