Chapter 9

Management Decision

DO YOU ASSEMBLE A TEAM OF STARS OR ORDINARY PLAYERS?

What criteria will you use to assemble a work team? Is a team composed of All-Stars better than
one composed of ordinary players? Recall that the Canadian hockey team in Torino in 2006 that
included Chris Pronger, Jarome Iginla, and Danny Heatley lost to the United States and Russia
and failed to reach the finals of the Olympics. The 2004 US Olympic basketball team consisting
of NBA star players finished third and lost to Lithuania. How could a Fortune 500 company that
was run by a brilliant former McKinsey consultant and that hired only graduates of Canada’s
elite business schools dissolve into fraud and bankruptcy? It happened at Nortel. “Some of the
worst teams I’ve ever seen have been those where everybody was a potential CEO,” says David
Nadler, chief of the Mercer Delta consulting firm, who has worked with executive teams for
more than 30 years.
“The most important lesson about team performance is that the basic theory of the
dream team is wrong,” says Geoffrey Colvin, senior editor at Fortune. Consider the 1980 US
hockey team that beat the Soviets at the Lake Placid Olympics; it was built entirely on anti-
dream-team principles. Coach Herb Brooks based his picks on personal chemistry: “I’m not
looking for the best players, I’m looking for the right players,” he said at the time. CEO John
McConnell of Worthington Industries, the Ohio-based steel processor, says, “Give us people
who are dedicated to making the team work, as opposed to a bunch of talented people with big
egos, and we’ll win every time.” That’s the philosophy that powers teams such as the New
England Patriots, which is only the second team in NFL history to win three Super Bowls in four
years. And in 2010, in Vancouver, Canada had a much younger team, without all the stars, and
once more captured gold and maintained Canada’s hockey world dominance in front of the
enthusiastic hometown audience.

Sources: CTV, “Team Canada loss casts shadow on players, Gretzky,” 23 February, 2006,
retrieved from http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060220/teamcanada;
W. Scanlan, “Canada wins hockey gold; sets new Olympic record,” Vancouver Sun, 1 March,
2010, retrieved from http://www .vancouversun. com/sports/2010wintergames/ice-
hockey/Canada+wins+hockey+gold+sets+Olympic+record /2624726/story.html; G. Colvin, “Why
dream teams fail,” Fortune, 12 June, 2006, available at
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/30/news/newsmakers/failures1_greatteams_fortune/index.ht
m

Short Answer Questions

1. Explain why teams full of All-Stars don’t work.

ANS: The definition of a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who hold
themselves mutually accountable for pursuing a common purpose, achieving performance goals,
and improving interdependent work processes. What makes successful teams work is how they
come together. Knowing how to work together is more important than being good on your own.
Team members must have complementary skills. By definition, that implies that every person
must have a different set of skills that come together interdependently. Also, mutual
accountability is an important part of a successful team; team members must rely on one
another to use their particular skill set to achieve their own portion of the goal.
Imagine an All-Star hockey team of goal scorers where each member of the team excels at
the same characteristic; goal scoring. Every player may have a 100 mph slap shot, but that won’t
help if you can’t get the puck down the ice. For a team to function well, each player position has
a different, interdependent objective on the ice: from the goalie to the forwards, from left to
right, each player must be successful in his or her own position, and this requires much more
than a good slap shot. Each player must relate to all other players on the ice, and must trust
each other to play their part unselfishly. Every player cannot be attempting to score all the time;
it is far more important, and difficult, to set up plays than to take shots on net.
Analysis: The definition of a team is a small number of people with complementary skills who
hold themselves mutually accountable for pursuing a common purpose, achieving performance
goals, and improving interdependent work processes. What makes successful teams work is how
they come together. Team members must have complementary skills. Every person must have a
different set of skills that come together interdependently. Also, mutual accountability is an
important part of a successful team; team members must look to one another to use their
particular skill set to achieve their own portion of the goal. A team of All-Stars typically does not
have these characteristics and the team ends up being one-dimensional.

2. What type of team might be best suited to win any sort of sporting championship?

ANS: Teams can be classified in a number of ways; however, the key difference among teams
relates to the amount of autonomy they possess. Autonomy is the degree to which workers
have the discretion, freedom, and independence to decide how and when to do their work. A
self-designing team has the highest level of autonomy: Team members manage and control all
of the asks that are directly related to production of a product or service without first getting
approval from management. Plus, members have control over the design of the team itself, the
tasks it does, and how and when it does them, as well as the membership of the team.
Allowing a team complete control over how they play and over members of the team would
force team members to be personally liable for the overall success of the team. This
responsibility would necessitate the mutual accountability required for good teamwork. Making
players responsible for their own team would also force them to ensure that they have the
necessary and overlapping complementary skills to succeed, as well as the relationship
necessary to work together to ensure success. If any one player was difficult to work with, or did
not contribute positively to the team, no matter his or her All-Star status, he or she would be
removed from the team, and replaced with someone who was a better fit.
Analysis: Teams can be classified in a number of ways; however, the key difference among
teams relates to the amount of autonomy they possess. Autonomy is the degree to which
workers have the discretion, freedom, and independence to decide how and when to do their
work. A self-designing team has the highest level of autonomy: Team members manage and
control all of the asks that are directly related to production of a product or service without first
getting approval from management. Plus, members have control over the design of the team
itself, the tasks it does, and how and when it does them, as well as the membership of the team.

3. What point(s) in team development might cause the breakdown, and failure, of a team of All-
Stars?
ANS: As teams develop and grow, they pass through four stages of development: forming,
storming, norming, and performing.
Forming is the initial stage of team development. This is the getting-acquainted stage, during
which team members first meet one another, form initial impressions, and try to get a sense of
what it will be like to be part of the team. This stage should pose no real issue for the All-Star
team; however, some of the first team norms will be established during this stage, and if the
initial team norms are not positive, then they will begin to set the team up for failure.
Storming is the second stage of team development, as conflicts and disagreements often begin
to develop. This is the stage where a team of All-Stars is likely to get hung up. Different
personalities and work styles may clash as team members become more assertive at this stage
and more willing to state opinions. It is very likely that the All-Star players have very strong
opinions and personality traits that do not blend well together. This is also the stage when team
members jockey for position and try to establish a favourable role for themselves on the team.
In this stage, team members need to be particularly patient and tolerant of one another;
however, ego may prevent All-Star players from working together, as each player is determined
to maintain their All-Star record and persona. In addition, team members are likely to disagree
about what the group should do and how it should do it.
Norming is the third stage of team development, and if the All-Star team can make it this far,
they will likely have some measure of success. In the norming stage, team members begin to
settle into their roles as team members, and teammates should know what to expect from one
another. Petty differences should have been resolved, friendships will have developed, and
group cohesion will be relatively strong. At this point, team members should be operating as a
unit, and be working together effectively.
Performing is the stage where performance improves because the group has finally matured
into an effective, fully functioning team. Again, if the All-Star team makes it to this point, it will
likely succeed. By the performance stage, members should be fully committed to the team, and
become intensely loyal to one another, feeling mutual accountability for team successes and
failures.
Analysis: As teams develop and grow, they pass through four stages of development: forming,
storming, norming, and performing. A team of All-Stars would likely get hung up in the storming
stage, and become mired in conflict and disagreement. If the team could get to the norming
stage, they would likely have some measure of success, and if they could somehow get to the
performing stage, they would likely be a winning team.