Teamwork and its Discontents

What are the limitations of teamwork? We hear a great deal about the 21st century workforce and how we need to learn to cooperate and work in teams to produce... whatever it is that we are going to be producing to base our economy on... We are not always sure what this is, but we know what it is not. We are told what this is not a) industrial b) agriculture.

We are told it is "Service" or "Knowledge" or other vague concepts that translate into - hey, we really don't have any idea what we are preparing kids today for in the jobs of tomorrow but let's all pretend we do know and pass on the savings. We may be preparing children and youth for the complexities of climate control and nano technology, or a world filled with George Jetson jobs. We talk a great deal about "21st century skills" or "readiness" and that these skills, this readiness requires "teamwork." We don't know what the future work is or the conditions, but we do propose more than ever we need cooperation and teamwork. The only problem is, how do we teach teamwork? What is the value or limitations of teamwork?

Have we as a field really thought critically about what teamwork means as concepts as well as the difficulty in educating children and youth to work together? Are 21st Century Learning Skills just buzz words that perk the ears of funders? When so many of our peers and organizations cannot collectively make a simple decision, it does make one muse whether this is so important because - as Freud proposed - we seek to impart to others that aspect of ourselves we lack?

We try to develop many skills of children and youth during Out of School Time. We want our children and youth to work together, to live together, and in many activity-focused programs, how to solve questions and make discoveries that raise awareness among the entire group rather than benefiting a few "good students." Raising children and youth in groups necessitate a certain amount of teamwork whether for fun activities or for just the basics of maintaining order.

Teamwork, then is something those working in youth development should get to understand in-depth and to practice on a more regular basis both within our organizations and between organizations.

In a recent Boston Leadership Roundtable, we led an activity called "Chess Club" based on the management concepts of Dr. Malik who proposed that teamwork was pushed onto areas it does not belong and that what "we are increasingly confronted with today are senseless forms of organization and impracticable types of labour division, which prevent almost any productive work or make it inhumanly difficult" to accomplish goals to which we need to work individually and for which "teamwork" is an organic part of what it means to be human rather than a learned skill that can be taught. Dr. Malik proposes that often matrix organizations (the division of labor) are part of organizations that actually are "performance-hindering" rather than separating out areas of expertise or flattening the workload.

Chess Club riffs off of the idea he proposed that one cannot play chess as a team as well as the crowd chess site where an organization of a thousand people attempt to beat a single chess master. This is exactly what we are asked to do in Youth Development. We are given a game - developing youth - we may know from experience having played it as a youth ourselves but not touched as an adult, or we studied it and have practiced it for years learning basic and advanced moves, there are defined rules, there are multiple pieces each of which act in predictable but well defined ways, and we are having to not only consider all of the multiple complexities of our own pieces but the pieces, the strategy, and the ability of our opponents - detractors of youth development, etc. We play chess with regulations, families, communities, funders, children and youth, staff, schools, lawyers and courts, and our own personal lives and that like chess, youth development success is achieved over a very long time period - a length of time few spectators want to follow as they are increasingly demanding that each move we make produce a "win."

We made the rules to Chess Club simple. The room was divided into teams arbitrarily. Everyone had to be involved, but the roles were suggested. We were not there to teach anyone how to play chess. They had to hope to find that knowledge in their team. What happened was very interesting.

Each side, after an initial discomfort, brought themselves to understand who had what knowledge and what roles they were going to assign. There was a great deal of laughter but OST people are generally very gregarious and able to deal with disorder and ambiguity. Teams formed by much discussion and "who wants to be the" and "I never played chess." The possible roles were commonly sited aspects of teamwork; coordinator (the leader), shaper, team worker, completer finisher, and monitor evaluator. The majority of the participants didn't remember or know how to play chess and this caused a great deal of initial anxiety. After some discussion, each team was able to identify a person who knew how to play and could teach others. These individuals were assigned different roles on each team. They were also the younger people in the room. One team (team 1) huddled up and looked over the possible roles, talked about who was strong in what area, and voted on who should be the leader and placed the person who knew about chess as the shaper, the person who is full of drive to make things happen. The other team was in disarray and everyone wanted to have the role that was three steps away from the board (the coordinator) but not actually make decisions associated with the coordinator's role. The person who knew how to play chess (taught by his grandfather) on team 2 was pushed into the coordinator position. Team 1huddled and started discussing strategy at once. Team 2's coordinator looked over the roles that were assigned and then identified two roles that were indispensable - the team worker (the person who could move the pieces) and the completer finisher (the person who could finish moves involving a capture of the opponent's piece) and the other members of the team moved to the sidelines offering to repeat the rules or self-assigning tasks (cheering, saying "yes" etc.).

The play moved along with great gusto and fun and laugher... and then, after team 2 made its first capture, a pale of seriousness came over the room. This was about winning. Moves were timed based on estimates rather than fixed, and each group had a few minutes to communicate to their group, think about strategy, agree on direction, and make their needed move or gear at the opposing team.

What occurred when time was called was interesting. Team 1 that had grouped together quickly, really thought about roles, discussed movements, huddled together with their backs facing out, shared ideas, concepts, and discussed strategy... captured one pawn.

Team 2 where the coordinator was shoved into his position and who actually took the hand of the team worker and/or finisher and moved their arm a la Ratatoue while the rest of their team stood by doing... nothing.... captured a pawn, a knight, a bishop, and had the only "check" of the play before time was called

It is up to interpretation as to who won to this point and would would win the overall game had it been played to "checkmate." Would it be the team that worked involving all members but capturing a single low level piece, or was it the leader who was so involved that while they "could not touch the board" managed to find wiggle room by guiding the hands of the workers and captured several pieces and was leading an offensive move at the close of game? At the call of time, who had won?

We would have to play an entire game to discover this while most people would say that team 2 won at the call of time. Would the first team more effective in the long run while losing short term terrain? Would those who were being directly manipulated stop laughing and resist or would they learn by example and fall into being able to provide advise as well as action? Would any of the other watchers in the second team actually do anything?

Think of your organization and the teamwork experiences you have had. What of teamwork can we "teach" children and youth, and what opportunities can be provide where teamwork evolves organically as we communicate and create common goals? There is a great deal of talk about working together today. When was the last time you experienced teamwork bring about a successful project on time and on budget? Were you part of team 1 or team 2 when that happened and are we talking about a long-term play or the short win when time is called?