If there's no "I" in "TEAM," then why are there so many "I"s on so many teams?

I had a conversation with a friend yesterday, and we got to talking about my new career venture in corporate culture speaking and consulting.  I was describing my philosophy and core belief system driving this venture, and he asked me a question, along the lines of "...So are you saying that working as an individual is better than working in teams?"  I answered, "no," of course, because, my goodness, a positive corporate culture thrives on collaboration and teamwork.

After our conversation, I thought about it more, and it hit me.  It seems that one of the first thing companies do when they are trying to foster a positive culture from within is to introduce some sort of "team building" exercise or lesson.  As I thought about it more, I realized that, in my opinion, any sort of team building exercise should be one of the final steps of the process in improving workplace culture.

How can you expect people to work as a team if the team members don't know how to be a team player, or what it means to be a team player? When you want to form a basketball team, you can't throw untrained people on the court and hand them a ball and expect them to play together.  The potential team members have to be trained first, by a coach. 

Potential team members have to learn the fundamentals of being a basketball team player.  They have to learn how to dribble, pass, shoot, set screens, play defense, and more.  They also have to learn the rules of the game, so that they understand the limits they must operate within, so that everyone is safe and sportsmanship is maintained.  After the potential team members have been trained, they can finally be expected to be able to function at a basic level as a basketball team.

The coach has to give the team direction.  The coach has to communicate a game plan, or philosophy.  Is the team going to be predicated on defense, or offense?  Is the team going to try to push the ball down low into the post, or is it going to be a perimeter team which tries to shoot the three-pointer as much as possible?  What is the team's identity?  Without direction, the team will be in disarray, with nobody on the team quite sure of what is expected of them.  The team will be able to play a game, but chances are they will lose more games than they will win.

On any successful team, the players must buy into and follow the team's game plan and philosophy if they wish to stay in the game.  There is no "i" in "team," meaning that everyone should play together toward a common greater goal.  Good teams don't have players who think, "Bob is a great three-point shooter, but every time he makes a basket and helps us achieve our goal (which is to win the game), the crowd loves him, and I don't like that.  I want the glory for myself, so I'm not going to pass to him...I'm going to keep the ball away from him and shoot it myself."  If any team has a selfish player, the team is likely going nowhere.  Most of the time, the selfish player will be benched and replaced with someone else in who buys into the team's philosophy.

A great teammate is someone who will say, "Bob, you're a great three-point shooter.  You're helping our team win.  Can you show us what you do to be such a good shooter, so we can all get better?"  A great teammate taps into the strengths of teammates so that everyone feels better, and the collective team gets better at the same time.

An organization needs a coach, who will train its employees the fundamentals of what it takes to be a team player.  Team players need to learn and buy into the team philosophy, with a clear understanding of established rules and limits.  A team with people thinking "i" is going nowhere fast.

Best wishes,

Victor