Team Theory
Submitted by
meserole on Sun, 02/24/2008 at 9:25am.
After playing in my first vote chess game here on the site, and doing some pondering on the dynamics of the "older" side of the board, I have realized that this is similar to my MBA program team and my work team (GE Oil & Gas). While the team concept seems to have permeated society on the theory that a team will increase the strength of thought and action brought to bear on a project, whether winning a chess game, completing a team paper on organizational theory, or winning new business, its value appears dubious to me at the least. If not downright insidious to our society in general, and work output quality specifically.
What do I mean?
Well, when I write a team paper, each member gathers some information and research, presumably lets this info marinate for a bit, and then composes a section addressing the papers issue(s) and submits for team review. Since this is the basic process across the board, I will continue with the team paper idea, in order to present the generic process that I propose is the result in nearly all cases.
Anyway, the paper section having been turned in, the team reviews and comments and suggests for some time, but these activities really bring us no closer to resolution, and when one member has the wrong or weak understanding of an issue, may not only miss a problem in his or her own piece, but may waste time critiquing anothers work erroneously. Thus, many eyes only creates more issues, they often do not move the honing and completion process forward. In the end, there will be arguments over who is smarter, has better knowledge on specific areas such as proper citation, better and stronger conclusion write-ups, etc...
This brings me to the solution for chess, papers, and the team concept in general. With out a clearly appointed editor, leader, or coach, all team work fails in the consensus stage. This is where the group effort has been congealed into either a winning strategy OR a edited an strong paper. The editor must allow for a specific discussion period and valid parameters, and then take control of the final strategy.
In the real world of sports, all teams have a coach to make final rulings on the team play/strategy. In the business world, too many teams are set up with equality and group consensus in mind, but only tend to break down in reality. With the game on the line, and with strong and weak ideas, there must be a clear solution for gathering strong ideas, and eliminating or shelving the weak, in order that the paper can be turned in with the highest grade potential possible or best strategy for meeting the assignment requirements.
Finally, while the attitude in the US has become one of all points are equal and all voices must be heard, someone has to admit or shout out that BAD ideas are NOT equal to good, and someone has to referee and rank them. Otherwise team outcomes will become "just average chess" as mentioned in the Old vs. Young vote chess game here on this site, and the weak will never be allowed to gain the true value of the once popular apprentice position. Sit down, shut up, listen, and learn.
"nuff said.
Mez