Teams, question uno

I have been fortunate to work on many different types of teams - effective, dysfunctional yet effective and of course, the good 'ol ineffective team. I wouldn't be the first to say it or think it, but the idea of a team as a permanent unit is false. Each time someone is added or subtracted the team changes, the team goes through a process of "forming, norming and storming" as the team finds its new balance.

The best team I worked on was a team that helped convert the Seattle Times from an afternoon paper to a morning newspaper. The complexities were amazing, yet no one ever said it couldn't be done in the tight timeframe we had (even if some thought that was the case). The mandate handed to the team from the VP of my department was not only that we would make the conversion on time, but that it would be done "flawlessly."

Some of the reasons it worked, and I think this applies to good teams in general:
- sense of urgency
- a clearly understood mission or team charter
- a designated "decision-maker"
- trust within the group
- a positive "yes" attitude

The last point is critical. I have been on teams where negativity takes on its own life force. As simplistic as it sounds, having a can-do attitude and approach to problems makes a team highly effective.

One last comment: whether a team is one formed for the a finite period of time or a team that has a longer-term role (i.e. a management team), it is important to take time to celebrate the accomplishments of the team.