Clyde's talk of teams and different types collapses "organisation"
with "team". We seem to miss the distinction of organisation (as
design structure or its resulting form) and then get lost in the
collapse.
"Team" is not a particular organisation but a quality of working
together or a phenomenon of relationship in my (operational)
definition.
"Organisation" includes the structure (or design principles) of the
particular team. Clyde's example from Drucker of different "teams"
for different sports is an example of different organisation rather
than differences in "team", at least as I've defined it above.
It reminds me of playing various sports in high school and a new
coach that we had who coached many sports (basketball, lacrosse and
soccer). He had an approach that he applied quite creatively - if
unsuccessfully - to all organisation of sports teams. He referred to
as the "diamond strategy". The idea was that no matter what the
sport, the best relationship between any four players was a diamond
shape. (I have no idea why.) This dramatised for the distinctions of
organisation and team. We had great teamwork/teamspirit, in that case,
but lousy organisation.
> From: OrgPsych@aol.com
> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 1995 23:52:06 -0500
>
> I have seen what is, to me, a potentially distirbing trend in much of the
> dialogue here. That is the tendency to try to fix "in stone" exactly what
> something is and what it will produce. One example of this is the
> definition of a learning organization. Another example is the whole
> subject of teams.
>
> Each person, and each group, learns in its own unique way. This way may
> share some common characteristics with the ways of others, but it is still
> unique to the particular person or group.
>
> Likewise, a team in one situation may not work at all in a different
> situation. Peter Drucker gives three types of teams. These are the
> baseball/traditional manufacturing assembly organization,
> football/symphony, and the tennis doubles. Each of these is a true team
> according to any definition of a team. Yet, each type of organization
> will tell you that they are the best type of team. We also seem to have a
> tendency to pick the type of team that is most familiar to us and to try
> to build that type of team as a panacea for all our organizational woes.
>
> My point in all of this is that the basic question for me is "what does it
> look like?" This does not mean what SHOULD it look like? Nor does it
> mean what is the IDEAL? I mean simply that any given concept applied in
> any number of organizational contexts will yield that many different
> manifestations of "what it looks like."
>
> When I read so many trying to define a cocept and then fine tune that
> definition to include all possible permutations, I get worried that we are
> missing the chance to make a real difference in people's lives and their
> organizations rather than engaging in a pedagogical discussion or
> dialogue.
>
> I believe in the need for "pure" science or knowledge. However, I have
> just seen this pursuit taken to such extremes in the past that any real
> value of that knowledge is lost on those who really need it (i.e.
> application).
>
> Just a couple of thoughts to ponder.
>
> Clyde Howell
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk