The Mysterious Team Chemistry
Originally posted by cowboysfanindc from another sports forum:
We have all heard this Mysterious Team Chemistry (MTC) thrown about quite a bit, specially with teams such as AZ having so much post season success and their coaches approach to fixing their problems.
I am a firm beliver in MTC. This doesn't just exist in football or sports but for all types of organizations. Companies spend millions in building TEAMS and not GROUPS. Although we may have a "GROUP" of individual talent, perhaps some of the best in the NFL we are not a TEAM and thus until we become a TEAM we will never achieve what the ultimate goal is, that winning a superbowl.
by definition
TEAM is : A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable
group vs. team:
Understanding: In a group, members think they are grouped together for administrative purposes only. Individuals sometimes cross purpose with others. In a team, members recognise their independence and understand both personal and team goals are best accomplished with mutual support. Time is not wasted struggling over "Turf" or attempting personal gain at the expense of others.
Ownership In a group, members tend to focus on themselves because they are not sufficiently involved in planning the unit's objectives. They approach their job simply as a hired hand. "Castle Building" is common. In a team, members feel a sense of ownership for their jobs and unit, because they are committed to values-based common goals that they helped establish.
Trust. In a group, members distrust the motives of colleagues because they do not understand the role of other members. Expressions of opinion or disagreement are considered divisive or non-supportive. In a team, members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to openly express ideas, opinions, disagreements and feelings. Questions are welcomed.
Conflict Resolution. In a group, members find themselves in conflict situations they do not know how to resolve. Their supervisor/leader may put off intervention until serious damage is done, i.e. a crisis situation. In a team, members realise conflict is a normal aspect of human interaction but they view such situations as an opportunity for new ideas and creativity. They work to resolve conflict quickly and constructively.
Clear Leadership. In a group, members tend to work in an unstructured environment with undetermined standards of performance. Leaders do not walk the talk and tend to lead from behind a desk. In a team, members work in a structured environment, they know what boundaries exist and who has final authority. The leaders sets agreed high standards of performance and he/she is respected via active, willing participation.
so its clear that we are a group and not a team. I have worked long enough and in many different organizations that I have seen both sides of the above. I have seen depts and divisions achieve unbelievable results by being a TEAM and I have seen companies fail and go under by being groups. I know in my current position we spend tons of money and time to be TEAM. At the core of all of it, the key that I believe is critical in becoming a TEAM. is TRUST.
If there is no TRUST, then you can't challenge each other, you can't get through conflicts which are healthy and necessary part of getting better. you can't rely on each other. If there is no trust you can't have healthy conflict because it will all be taken as personal, where if there is trust at the foundation, then you can easily challenge each other without feeling threatened. Right now it is obvious there is no trust among the many parts of the organization and that lack of trust between a few has torn the fabric of the TEAM that's the cowboys and lead to under achievement and breakdown. I read an article on CNNSI this morning regarding Piloi and Bilicheck. How they would argue and fight each other, yet there was so much trust that neither felt threatened and as a result they grew the patriots into the power house they are today.
Thus the case against TO, because he is not a TEAM player as talented as he maybe, he creates conflict, he is not trust worthy and he has not been able to be part of the team, for the betterment of the team. He has strong enough personality that he will have a "posse". a Group of players that will listen to him, side with him and most can see benefit to themselves by getting what he is also asking.
In my previous experiences I had seen dept managers, directors, etc. who were not and did not participate or believe in becoming part of the team, cause great failure to the entire organizations. It never failed, they had a posse. it never failed, there was always gossip, back biting, in figthing and lack of trust. It was also always amazing that as soon as they left, how quickly things came back together again. And some of these managers were extremely smart and talented individuals.
In order for the cowboys to achieve the ultimate goal, they need to be a TEAM. in order to be a TEAM, there needs to be trust (not cryptic messages sent through the media, no gossip, etc.). In order to build trust, you need to remove those who can not be trusted.
and lastly, the last bullet point clearly points to Jerry Jones contributions to this mess. without clear lines of command there is Chaos and confustion. I think he made the proverbial mistake by counting his chickens too early when he declared "Chemsitry is over rated". We went 1-3 in december and completely collapsed in the most important game of the season.
I strongly believe the main reason behind that is the conflict in the roles he plays. I read in several places that he mentioned that some of the player tardiness was justifiable because they had media commitments, which is a marketing thing......this is in conflict with being a football team. So his role as the president and owner is in conflict with being a GM. The interests of the roles is in conflict with each other, thus Jerry plays judge and jury of his own conflicts and no checks or balances.
I am just surprised since he is such a smart businessman and my expectations would be he would have a better understanding of these concepts. but his ego is getting the better of him, because he can't admit to himself (conflict) that he is doing the wrong thing.
We have all heard this Mysterious Team Chemistry (MTC) thrown about quite a bit, specially with teams such as AZ having so much post season success and their coaches approach to fixing their problems.
I am a firm beliver in MTC. This doesn't just exist in football or sports but for all types of organizations. Companies spend millions in building TEAMS and not GROUPS. Although we may have a "GROUP" of individual talent, perhaps some of the best in the NFL we are not a TEAM and thus until we become a TEAM we will never achieve what the ultimate goal is, that winning a superbowl.
by definition
TEAM is : A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they are mutually accountable
group vs. team:
Understanding: In a group, members think they are grouped together for administrative purposes only. Individuals sometimes cross purpose with others. In a team, members recognise their independence and understand both personal and team goals are best accomplished with mutual support. Time is not wasted struggling over "Turf" or attempting personal gain at the expense of others.
Ownership In a group, members tend to focus on themselves because they are not sufficiently involved in planning the unit's objectives. They approach their job simply as a hired hand. "Castle Building" is common. In a team, members feel a sense of ownership for their jobs and unit, because they are committed to values-based common goals that they helped establish.
Trust. In a group, members distrust the motives of colleagues because they do not understand the role of other members. Expressions of opinion or disagreement are considered divisive or non-supportive. In a team, members work in a climate of trust and are encouraged to openly express ideas, opinions, disagreements and feelings. Questions are welcomed.
Conflict Resolution. In a group, members find themselves in conflict situations they do not know how to resolve. Their supervisor/leader may put off intervention until serious damage is done, i.e. a crisis situation. In a team, members realise conflict is a normal aspect of human interaction but they view such situations as an opportunity for new ideas and creativity. They work to resolve conflict quickly and constructively.
Clear Leadership. In a group, members tend to work in an unstructured environment with undetermined standards of performance. Leaders do not walk the talk and tend to lead from behind a desk. In a team, members work in a structured environment, they know what boundaries exist and who has final authority. The leaders sets agreed high standards of performance and he/she is respected via active, willing participation.
so its clear that we are a group and not a team. I have worked long enough and in many different organizations that I have seen both sides of the above. I have seen depts and divisions achieve unbelievable results by being a TEAM and I have seen companies fail and go under by being groups. I know in my current position we spend tons of money and time to be TEAM. At the core of all of it, the key that I believe is critical in becoming a TEAM. is TRUST.
If there is no TRUST, then you can't challenge each other, you can't get through conflicts which are healthy and necessary part of getting better. you can't rely on each other. If there is no trust you can't have healthy conflict because it will all be taken as personal, where if there is trust at the foundation, then you can easily challenge each other without feeling threatened. Right now it is obvious there is no trust among the many parts of the organization and that lack of trust between a few has torn the fabric of the TEAM that's the cowboys and lead to under achievement and breakdown. I read an article on CNNSI this morning regarding Piloi and Bilicheck. How they would argue and fight each other, yet there was so much trust that neither felt threatened and as a result they grew the patriots into the power house they are today.
Thus the case against TO, because he is not a TEAM player as talented as he maybe, he creates conflict, he is not trust worthy and he has not been able to be part of the team, for the betterment of the team. He has strong enough personality that he will have a "posse". a Group of players that will listen to him, side with him and most can see benefit to themselves by getting what he is also asking.
In my previous experiences I had seen dept managers, directors, etc. who were not and did not participate or believe in becoming part of the team, cause great failure to the entire organizations. It never failed, they had a posse. it never failed, there was always gossip, back biting, in figthing and lack of trust. It was also always amazing that as soon as they left, how quickly things came back together again. And some of these managers were extremely smart and talented individuals.
In order for the cowboys to achieve the ultimate goal, they need to be a TEAM. in order to be a TEAM, there needs to be trust (not cryptic messages sent through the media, no gossip, etc.). In order to build trust, you need to remove those who can not be trusted.
and lastly, the last bullet point clearly points to Jerry Jones contributions to this mess. without clear lines of command there is Chaos and confustion. I think he made the proverbial mistake by counting his chickens too early when he declared "Chemsitry is over rated". We went 1-3 in december and completely collapsed in the most important game of the season.
I strongly believe the main reason behind that is the conflict in the roles he plays. I read in several places that he mentioned that some of the player tardiness was justifiable because they had media commitments, which is a marketing thing......this is in conflict with being a football team. So his role as the president and owner is in conflict with being a GM. The interests of the roles is in conflict with each other, thus Jerry plays judge and jury of his own conflicts and no checks or balances.
I am just surprised since he is such a smart businessman and my expectations would be he would have a better understanding of these concepts. but his ego is getting the better of him, because he can't admit to himself (conflict) that he is doing the wrong thing.
posted by The Gryphon at 8:40 PM
<< Home