What Team Do You Play For? Us vs. Them Within the Same Company....

Business is rife with sports metaphors and for good reason.  Business, while a contact sport - is also a team sport.  Very few, if any, businesses make it big - or make it at all - without the efforts of all the players on the team.  However, when building a company culture and brand - and developing the programs and initiatives that support that culture - you need to know what team you play for.

Ask most managers who's on their team and they will begin to list off their direct reports - their supervisors, associates, etc.  While these folks are on their team - it's not the team they play for.

Let me explain.  As a manager you "own" a team - a group of people who work together to achieve specific goals and objectives you've set out for them.  They are your team.  But you're the manager - not a player.

The team you play for is the team made up of others in the same position/level as you in the company. 

Look at it this way....

You have a horizontal team - the one you play for, and you have a vertical team - the one that plays for you. 

Managers often spend all their time worrying about the team that plays for them.  They build programs to reinforce the culture of "their" team - to reward efforts for moving the needle, "on their team."  But unfortunately, those efforts will be for naught if the team they play for isn't in alignment with the team that plays for them.

As a manager, you need to make sure that your team is lined up with all the other teams in the company and doing its part to advance the overall objectives of the team you play on.

In most sports the individual teams vie for the top spot - Superbowl, World Series, Stanley Cup, etc.  However, in business, the individual teams have to work on two axes.  The first axis is their own team and the second axis is the company team.  It's as if all the teams in the National League for baseball worked together to have a better record than all the teams in the American League.  The winner being the league - not the individual teams.

The individual department and division reward, recognition and incentive programs must align with your specific needs, but they must also mesh with the needs of the other members of the team you play on.  Don't forget - you support your bosses' team and your team supports you.

There's nothing wrong with working to have the team that plays for you be the best it can be - that's your goal.  But you need to pay attention to the team you play for and work with the other members of your team to come up with the best strategy to maximize the outcome of all of their individual teams, as well.

Editor's Note - Paul Hebert is the brain behind Incentive Intelligence and a recognized authority on incentives and performance motivation.  We've contracted with Paul at FOT to find a way to intice all the superstar contributors to use their powers for good... not evil....

Comments

[Meg Bear]

Paul,

Excellent post (and I don't even like sports metaphors). This exactly gets to a point I've been thinking on of late. Thanks!

[KD]

Paul -

Like the post. Does that mean you favor bonus plans with at least a majority weighting to company-wide results?

KD

[marenhogan]

Paul

I think you have identified one of the most key issues in the whole "why can't HR get a seat at the exec table" debate. We have to speak the language man and be ready to see beyond the "department".

[Paul Hebert]

Kris... not necessarily. That's up to the manager of the team (CEO/COO/Chairman, etc.) Depending on the company goals and the situation. I'm suggesting that before the individual managers in the "league" decide on the incentives and rewards for the team they manage they check with and validate their direction with the team they play on.

Maren...It has been my experience that HR seems themselves as the administrator of the players on the other team members' teams - but not necessarily a player on that team. For professional teams the scouting and talent area of the team typically has a huge impact on the ability of the team to win - so maybe the metaphor is a good one.

[Rod Fine]

Thanks for the thought-provoking article. I think the manager of the team you play on is largely responsible for determining the extent to which it functions as a team.

Let's take the sporting analogy a little further, using what I (being English) would call football; others may think of it as soccer.

If I'm the coach for the defence, I may be given either of two different objectives by the manager: stop the other teams scoring, maximize the defence's contribution to a winning team.

On the face of it, these may look like the same thing, but that's not necessarily true. The approach to creating a winning team might involve looking to pass the ball to an attacking teammate whenever possible - this might lead to more goals scored and more wins, but with an additional element of risk that misplaced passes may result in more goals conceded. If my remit is simply to concede fewer goals, I might encourage my defence to take no chances and always to avoid the risky option, even though this may result in fewer scoring chances for the team.

I'd argue that the more interdependence there is across the objectives of people on the same team, the more likely they are to work together effectively as a team.