Perry Timms writes on social HR and asks the questions we should all we asking about the workplace. He has over 20 years experience in business change including project management, organisational development, talent strategy and L&D. He is well-known on the blogger and event circuit and is regularly asked to chair conferences, roundtables and webinars, both in the UK and around Europe. Perry is a CIPD adviser on social media and engagement.

There was an article in Harvard Business Review “Why Teams Don’t Work” and at that time, I was beginning to question the merits of teams so it struck me. The article called teams sacrosanct and so unchallenged and went on to describe the myths that surround team efforts being better – especially in corporate and at the most senior level.

Patrick Lencioni calls out the 5 Dysfunctions of a Team in what is now a legendary piece of writing and used by a lot of people I know in trying to rebuild teams.

There’s the danger of group think; the relationship exploitation and politicking that goes on within teams and so unless it HAS to be a team sport, we’re better not kidding ourselves that teams are the answer.

Team constructs are SO ingrained in us though, we have them from early school set-ups right through to the (often) awful team-building Go Karting we get forced on.  So they must be right then surely? Teams, tribes, units whatever. Collective human force is better than not right?

But what if the team model we know it is a largely broken model. What do we do instead? Hang on though – let’s not take down our rowing team poster JUST yet.

Firstly, some of the most interesting case studies I’ve seen recently came from Khoi Tu’s marvellous Superteams work. I loved his study of Pixar, the Ferrari F1 Pit Crew and others.  He illustrated just how these teams work together and made good on the contributions of members. What I found from Khoi’s summary of things was clever behavioural economics and motivation factors.  Not necessarily that they all clicked with each other and had harmony.

Indeed in the Pixar example and the HBR article, deviants and challengers were considered a vital part of teams and harmony was overrated. There’s also the fascinating concept of social loafing (see Max Ringelmann’s 1913 rope study).

So it’s a different and less romantic concept we’re looking at now: less Three Musketeers and more Dirty Dozen. Hold that thought: there is something in that. In fact there’s something more Dirty Dozen about the way we’re seeing teams these days.

Let’s start with the technology industry – which has had a team structure overhaul with the advent of agile working; scrum methodology and iterative development. This has rewritten the rules of teams from fixed roles to fluid deployment – and famously the Valve approach to this even involved people moving physical locations on mobile desks to start new teams.

This and social media’s communities; lists; groups; circles plus Jon Husband’s fabulous Wirearchy  concept and Richard Martin’s Pelaton  approach based on Team Cycling means we’re now seeing teams that have no need for forced organisation charts; seating plans or even fixed routines.

Instead we’re seeing teams assembled through purpose; rally to a vision; plan, adapt and build; test, tinker and tune; release, revise and revamp and then disassemble and do the whole thing again somewhere else, with someone else.

Like starlings have an amazingly fluidity to their teamwork in flight, the team at work as we know it is no more, long live the socialised murmeration of people and expertise. 

Teams are back and this time, it’s sociable.