4 ms·

> By definition it can't. Please, we should not be so dismissive. "Great team" commonly refers to output, not internal organization. (At least if we use a char

> By definition it can't. Please, we should not be so dismissive. "Great team" commonly refers to output, not internal organization. (At least if we use a charitable interpretation. And if we don't, we're in the uncomfortable position of demoting many teams from "great" once we learn of their internal dynamics.) Many teams even often seem unaware of their dysfunctions. Even if we don't use the charitable interpretation, then perhaps a "great team" would act on the assumption that it is almost certainly dysfunctional, as part of ongoing processes of self-improvement. After all, once you think you're perfect, you're in trouble. (http://model-view-culture.myshopify.com/products/your-startup-is-broken http://model-view-culture.myshopify.com/products/your-startu...) And teams aren't "closed". Outsiders (like that contractor or executive from another department) interact with the team and are momentarily part of it. Interactions with them may be dysfunctional, due to culture clashes, inevitable bumps as people learn to cooperate, etc.

jacquesm 10y ago
> "Great team" commonly refers to output, not internal organization. I'd love to see an example of a team that is internally dysfunctional but that still manages to produce. I've been in this industry for 3 decades and yet I've never seen such a beast, on the other hand - and in the spirit of the argument - I'd love to see examples of this. > Many teams even often seem unaware of their dysfunctions. A dysfunctional team means: a team that does not perform (or at least, that's my reading of the word, it does not 'function'). To have some issues that could be improved on does not immediately qualify a team as dysfunctional, that's a pretty heavy term. > Even if we don't use the charitable interpretation, then perhaps a "great team" would act on the assumption that it is almost certainly dysfunctional, as part of ongoing processes of self-improvement. Yes, great teams tend to strive to become better (and they usually do). They also tend to leave companies as a unit and move on if they feel they are not appreciated, so for companies there is actually some risk to having a 'great' team, great teams tend to negotiate as one and team members will look out for each others interests. > After all, once you think you're perfect, you're in trouble. Agreed. > And teams aren't "closed". Outsiders (like that contractor or executive from another department) interact with the team and are momentarily part of it. Interactions with them may be dysfunctional, due to culture clashes, inevitable bumps as people learn to cooperate, etc. That's not how I would define a team but you are welcome to your interpretation and within that interpretation I'd agree with you.

jacquesm 10y ago

> "Great team" commonly refers to output, not internal organization. I'd love to see an example of a team that is internally dysfunctional but that still manages to produce. I've been in this industry for 3 decades and yet I've never seen such a beast, on the other hand - and in the spirit of the argument - I'd love to see examples of this. > Many teams even often seem unaware of their dysfunctions. A dysfunctional team means: a team that does not perform (or at least, that's my reading of the word, it does not 'function'). To have some issues that could be improved on does not immediately qualify a team as dysfunctional, that's a pretty heavy term. > Even if we don't use the charitable interpretation, then perhaps a "great team" would act on the assumption that it is almost certainly dysfunctional, as part of ongoing processes of self-improvement. Yes, great teams tend to strive to become better (and they usually do). They also tend to leave companies as a unit and move on if they feel they are not appreciated, so for companies there is actually some risk to having a 'great' team, great teams tend to negotiate as one and team members will look out for each others interests. > After all, once you think you're perfect, you're in trouble. Agreed. > And teams aren't "closed". Outsiders (like that contractor or executive from another department) interact with the team and are momentarily part of it. Interactions with them may be dysfunctional, due to culture clashes, inevitable bumps as people learn to cooperate, etc. That's not how I would define a team but you are welcome to your interpretation and within that interpretation I'd agree with you.