Jena McGregor has a thoughtful article in this morning’s Washington Post that’s titled: “Miami Heat falls victim to belief in the Dream Team.” Here’s the money quote.
“Like so many leaders before him, Heat President Pat Riley fell victim to belief in the Dream Team. Spend enough money, hire enough stars, do it amid enough fanfare—the thinking seems to go—and you’re virtually guaranteed a win. The problem? It often doesn’t work.”
McGregor goes on to highlight several situations where a “dream team” made up of the very top talent available didn’t measure up to the hype and the expectations. It’s a good read, not least because so many companies center their people strategy on the idea of assembling a dream team of top performers.
For me, teams are the way we get most of the work done and I know that it takes more than simply hiring talented people. So I’m less concerned with why dream teams often fail than I am with how you go about putting a top performing team together. I think there are three important components.
Great teams in business or in sport have a potent mix of skills. The magic is in the mix. There are people who are star performers and others who do excellent work setting them up.
Great teams in business or in sport have a way to turn potency into performance. On great teams, the goal is clear and the plan is known. Somebody has to make that happen. Coaches usually do it on sports teams. Bosses usually do it on business teams.
Great teams in business or in sport have good chemistry. People enjoy doing important work with people they like. They want to be part of a winning team. In sport and in business that usually means that the stars set the example in terms of work ethic and values.
There’s a difference between a top-performing team and a bunch of stars. In business and in sport, the winners are almost always the organizations with the teams.
timely, relevant and interesting; love the phrase, “the magic is in the mix”. thanks…
So true! I once was sent in on a project that had gone south. The team was a bunch of brilliant PhDs who all worked independently until the last day and then tried to go live. To make a long story short, everything crashed and burned. Chemistry and skills mix matter!
There is definitely a difference between a top-performing team and ‘a bunch of stars’, as you put it.Most people forget the very crucial aspect of ‘team dynamics’. Sometimes, a team full of ‘stars’ can fail because their contributions are not in sync.One person’s input can, at times, completely wipe out someone else’s work.Care needs to be taken that this doesn’t happen.
Another important aspect is the delegation of tasks. Having the ‘perfect mix’ isn’t enough. It is also important to be able to assign the right task to the right person.
These are two more points that I thought were relevant to the success of a team.
– Sindoora (http://beyondhorizons.in)
Great post. I wrote just yesterday in Compensation Cafe about this, riffing on UC Berkeley research that found teammates who fist bump, chest bump, high five, etc., (physical demonstrations of appreciation and recognition) more often in a game are more likely to win. Unsurprisingly, the Mavericks had double the number of such displays as the Heat. Instead of superstars, the Mavs brought a team.
If you’re interested, that post is here: http://www.compensationcafe.com/2011/06/presence-attitude-frequency-employee-recognition-lessons-from-the-nhl-nba.html
Seems to me that the Mavericks bought both superstars and a team and then made sure the pieces meshed. I would put Nowicki and Jason Kidd on anybody’s star list.