Teamwork Myths: Formation

People have been working in teams since before the word 'team' was invented, but modern industrial organizations have adopted the team structure in just the past generation. Because the transition from functional structures is still underway, our understanding of teams is incomplete, and in some ways, incorrect.

To advance our knowledge, and to become more comfortable with this relatively new way of organizing work, we adopt and propagate beliefs that seem plausible. They might apply often, but they aren't necessarily universal. I call them myths because their universal truth certainly is questionable, even though they do sometimes yield desirable results.

One popular example is the idea of the "Mythical Man-Month" conceived and popularized by Fred Brooks. This myth holds that we can speed up all work by applying more people to the task. The reverse usually occurs: applying more people usually slows the work.

Brooks's myth is just one of many teamwork myths. Here is the first in a series about teamwork myths, exploring two myths about team formation.

There is an optimal size for all teams

Various investigations have reported optimal sizes for teams, ranging from five to fifteen and more. In team-oriented organizations, wide variation in team size can create management problems, which lead some to search for an optimal team size.

Problems arise, for example, in task reporting, management development, performance management, and compensation equity for team leads. For instance, meeting reporting requirements can be easy for a large team, but an undue burden for a small team.

An optimal team size range probably does exist, but it depends on the culture of the organization in which the team is embedded; the degree of dispersion in geography, language, or profession; the need for specialized knowledge; the complexity of the task; the prevalence of split assignments; and the skill of the team's leadership. Most important is how well the teammates know each other.

When sizing a new team, be guided not by purportedly universal rules of thumb, but by the nature of the task, the character of the organization and the particular people who lead and belong to the team.

Team building is worthwhile only at the beginning

We use team building to achieve team cohesion and effective collaboration. Some believe that after the first application, further investment in team cohesion provides only minimal returns.

Although we do use team building in the beginning of the team's life, we must attend toWe must attend to team
cohesion continuously,
not just at the outset team cohesion continuously. The need increases with the frequency of changes in team composition; with increases in geographic dispersion; and with increases in stress. Stresses can result from new challenges, or from changes in resources, requirements, or constraints imposed from external sources.

Following erroneous guidelines is always problematic. It can be especially damaging during team formation, because damage occurs so early and repair can be so, so costly.   Next issue in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering is a classic of the literature of software engineering, but it has a place on the bookshelf of any project manager or project sponsor. Order from Amazon.com

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness:

The Hypothetical Trap

Politicians know that answering hypothetical questions is dangerous, but it's equally dangerous for managers and project managers to answer them in the project context. What's the problem? Why should you be careful of the "What If?"

Annoyance to Asset

Unsolicited contributions to the work of one element of a large organization, by people from another, are often annoying to the recipients. Sometimes the contributors then feel rebuffed, insulted, or frustrated. Toxic conflict can follow. We probably can't halt the flow of contributions, but we can convert it from a liability to a valuable asset.

Hyper-Super-Overwork

The prevalence of overwork has increased with the depth of the global recession, in part because employers are demanding more, and in part because many must now work longer hours to make ends a little closer to meeting. Overwork is dangerous. Here are some suggestions for dealing with it.

Confirmation Bias: Workplace Consequences: II

We continue our exploration of confirmation bias. In this Part II, we explore its effects in management processes.

The Tyranny of Singular Nouns

When groups try to reach decisions, and the issue in question has a name that suggests a unitary concept, such as "policy," they sometimes collectively assume that they're required to find a one-size-fits-all solution. This assumption leads to poor decisions when one-size-fits-all isn't actually required.

See also Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness and Personal, Team, and Organizational Effectiveness for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info