I disagree with the generalisation. If you're in a team with vastly different people (let's say someone who is depressed, someone who keeps wanting to be leader even though they aren't the best for the role, someone who is disruptive, someone who is lazy, someone who is prejudiced, someone who is feeling insecure) and you then have to get this team to perform, I'd say you can be anything but weak-minded.
For many, it can be hard to motivate even themselves into their best work, but motivating another (with a different mindset) is harder still. Motivating a bunch of them, all with different mindsets, and keeping a rudder on all the individual clashes in personality, sticking points, sacrificing yourself for the team, and not being bombastic about your own ideas... it's very difficult and often thankless.
It is *SO* much easier to work alone and just be responsible for yourself. Being a good team-minded person is so difficult that most people don't even try (making it more difficult again).
I do have to disagree completely with the generalisation. However, I will agree that most teams don't have a motivator. And I don't mean someone who sets themselves up as a motivator (they're always dreadful) but someone who does it quietly and carefully (and, ideally, without it being noticed). It's rare for people to care enough. Because of that, teams that could have produced something great, often fail. Teams, in general, fail.
Thanks for your response. You bring up great points I'm familiar with from my past college business bachelor and MBA courses, as well as coaching youth football and basketball, and running a small business for decades. (So I'm really not opposed to teams here, or the need to have teams in many situations... I'm really just making an observation that teams are no substitute for self-reliance and pulling ones own weight in all situations. The "team-only-minded", similar to government, seem to fall into an abyss of "nothing is of real value unless it is done as a team" (e.g. those who only value kids team sports and not individual sports.) Team members all too often also seem to exploit the team when they don't perform as "individuals striving for the team"... all for reasons you point out, etc.)
Yes, the self-reliance aspect is something I didn't really talk about because I completely agree. I also think I may have bluntly focussed my answer on a specific type of team. I was thinking very much of project teams (I'm a member of very many, and leader for some). The dynamic is obviously very different for teams in a sporting sense.
I completely agree with you that the inclusivity of "team-only-mindedness" allows people to hide behind the team and also not develop certain strengths that are required as individuals. I've nothing against team sports but I'd hate to live in a world where they were valued above individual sport for very dodgy reasons.
Is it normal that I think "Team minded people" are weak?
← View full post
I disagree with the generalisation. If you're in a team with vastly different people (let's say someone who is depressed, someone who keeps wanting to be leader even though they aren't the best for the role, someone who is disruptive, someone who is lazy, someone who is prejudiced, someone who is feeling insecure) and you then have to get this team to perform, I'd say you can be anything but weak-minded.
For many, it can be hard to motivate even themselves into their best work, but motivating another (with a different mindset) is harder still. Motivating a bunch of them, all with different mindsets, and keeping a rudder on all the individual clashes in personality, sticking points, sacrificing yourself for the team, and not being bombastic about your own ideas... it's very difficult and often thankless.
It is *SO* much easier to work alone and just be responsible for yourself. Being a good team-minded person is so difficult that most people don't even try (making it more difficult again).
I do have to disagree completely with the generalisation. However, I will agree that most teams don't have a motivator. And I don't mean someone who sets themselves up as a motivator (they're always dreadful) but someone who does it quietly and carefully (and, ideally, without it being noticed). It's rare for people to care enough. Because of that, teams that could have produced something great, often fail. Teams, in general, fail.
--
teamofone
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Thanks for your response. You bring up great points I'm familiar with from my past college business bachelor and MBA courses, as well as coaching youth football and basketball, and running a small business for decades. (So I'm really not opposed to teams here, or the need to have teams in many situations... I'm really just making an observation that teams are no substitute for self-reliance and pulling ones own weight in all situations. The "team-only-minded", similar to government, seem to fall into an abyss of "nothing is of real value unless it is done as a team" (e.g. those who only value kids team sports and not individual sports.) Team members all too often also seem to exploit the team when they don't perform as "individuals striving for the team"... all for reasons you point out, etc.)
--
dappled
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, the self-reliance aspect is something I didn't really talk about because I completely agree. I also think I may have bluntly focussed my answer on a specific type of team. I was thinking very much of project teams (I'm a member of very many, and leader for some). The dynamic is obviously very different for teams in a sporting sense.
I completely agree with you that the inclusivity of "team-only-mindedness" allows people to hide behind the team and also not develop certain strengths that are required as individuals. I've nothing against team sports but I'd hate to live in a world where they were valued above individual sport for very dodgy reasons.
Interesting post, by the way.