None of Us is as Smart as All of Us

I sat in a meeting today that resulted in an, "I told you so." It wasn't said out loud but it was felt by all in the room. Being a part of a team can be a wonderful, exhilarating, delightful, excruciating, debilitating, and/or harrowing experience. Navigating the roads to a successful partnership can be dangerous and filled with trepidation that must be cajoled with tenacity. Without the stubbornness that must be honed as business partners/owners, we may become nothing more than corporate doormats; laid out for all to wipe their feet on.

Knowing when to utilize strength in the office or on a team is a difficult line to walk. Too much and you run the risk of ostracizing yourself from the rest of the team, not enough and yep, wipe your feet here. Attaining sufficient self-confidence will enlist some of the gumption required but also, acting on your knowledge and experience may be the right prescription. Sometimes, we fear that we will be wrong or that our own personal assessment of the situation is inaccurate or the dread of ridicule may cause inaction when we know the right course of action.

Teams fail when members refuse to take advantage of or even recognize each other's strengths. One team member may be excellent at providing feedback, another may know the required tech inside and out, and still another may be an organizer and able to quickly identify the right strategy with which to proceed. When each member is strong in their particular arena, it may be difficult to ascertain who the leader it. One may develop merely by default. Some leaders are born in the middle of the project, without much effort or contemplation, they simply emerge.
"None of us is as smart as all of us." ~Ken Blanchard

Reminiscent of the old, "whole is greater than the sum of the parts...," But is the whole greater? Wouldn't it be more accurate to state that the whole is equal to the sum? and vice versa? For without one, you cannot have the other. This isn't to say that teamwork is all hunky-dory for friction is what creates the fire. Why come together at all? To solve a problem or complete a task. Because there are times when it cannot be done efficiently or sufficiently enough individually.

"Synergy is the highest activity of life; it creates new untapped alternatives; it values and exploits the mental, emotional, and psychological differences between people." ~Stephen Covey

Whose side are you on?

by rayannethorn

Tags: issues, rayanne, self-confidence, solutions, synergy, teamwork

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rayanne on June 12, 2009 at 12:07pm

This post wasn't really about the right or wrong way, it was about working together as a team.

There really is not a definitive way to find effectiveness within a team - it will be different with each one, the desire is for it to simply work.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rayanne on June 12, 2009 at 1:02pm

"This isn't to say that teamwork is all hunky-dory for friction is what creates the fire."

Then, we agree.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Ceccarelli on June 12, 2009 at 2:56pm

The best part of team work is pot stirring. Which means bringing controversy out into the open. But there in lies the challenge. It takes courage to do that and very few of us are really great strategists when working within a team to play the role of the "pot stirrer". And those that are, usually are not the most popular person on the team, but typically have the admiration and respect of the others because they are courageous as a team player. I believe the whole is the sum parts of all of our contributions, but then too, all of us are disposible and at the end of the day someone else can easily come in and play our role just as effectively. So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective. You don't have to be smart in order to check your ego at the door each morning when you arrive at the office. You do have to be humble though. And how many of those types really exist out there? Being humble and effective is what I think being "smart" on the team truly means.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Maureen Sharib on June 12, 2009 at 3:20pm

I don't think effective pot-stirrers are easily replaced.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on June 14, 2009 at 9:08am

So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective.

Pete, show me someone without the right type of ego and I'll show you a failure. Checking one's ego and succumbing to group think is a lovely concept but when the group is headed towards an iceberg and no one dares to speak of it - perhaps because its not on the agenda, then very bad things can (and usually do) happen.

"Team" doesn't imply a shared passion or that each individual possesses the tested abilities to perform the tasks at hand.

Not all teams are great teams and it often takes a healthy ego or two to right the ship.

Peter Ceccarelli said:

The best part of team work is pot stirring. Which means bringing controversy out into the open. But there in lies the challenge. It takes courage to do that and very few of us are really great strategists when working within a team to play the role of the "pot stirrer". And those that are, usually are not the most popular person on the team, but typically have the admiration and respect of the others because they are courageous as a team player. I believe the whole is the sum parts of all of our contributions, but then too, all of us are disposible and at the end of the day someone else can easily come in and play our role just as effectively. So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective. You don't have to be smart in order to check your ego at the door each morning when you arrive at the office. You do have to be humble though. And how many of those types really exist out there? Being humble and effective is what I think being "smart" on the team truly means.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Ceccarelli on June 15, 2009 at 1:17pm

I'm not inferring "ego" as you believe I am. The type of ego that I'm speaking about that needs to be checked at the door is the ego of the person(s) who thinks they are better than, smarter than, their opinions are more valuable than, their ideas are better than, blah, blah, blah, than everyone elses! There's a difference. I think what you might be referring to is "confidence" and assuredness. At least I hope that you are.

Yes......we all need to be confident and use innovation, creativity and be competitive for the sake of the teams effort to gain an inch on the competition. Right? Right! But out and out ego, that shouts to the rest of the world saying "here I am........notice me............aren't I great!" is just plain destructive and distracting. It serves zero purpose not only in the business world, but in life in general. And if any of us think that living by an ego crede is the only way to stand out and be counted, then I can guarantee you, you have no friends. People will tolerate you, but they will also slam you behind your back as soon as you and your ego turn your back on them.

Make sense?

Steve Levy said:

So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective.

Pete, show me someone without the right type of ego and I'll show you a failure. Checking one's ego and succumbing to group think is a lovely concept but when the group is headed towards an iceberg and no one dares to speak of it - perhaps because its not on the agenda, then very bad things can (and usually do) happen.

"Team" doesn't imply a shared passion or that each individual possesses the tested abilities to perform the tasks at hand.

Not all teams are great teams and it often takes a healthy ego or two to right the ship.

Peter Ceccarelli said:
The best part of team work is pot stirring. Which means bringing controversy out into the open. But there in lies the challenge. It takes courage to do that and very few of us are really great strategists when working within a team to play the role of the "pot stirrer". And those that are, usually are not the most popular person on the team, but typically have the admiration and respect of the others because they are courageous as a team player. I believe the whole is the sum parts of all of our contributions, but then too, all of us are disposible and at the end of the day someone else can easily come in and play our role just as effectively. So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective. You don't have to be smart in order to check your ego at the door each morning when you arrive at the office. You do have to be humble though. And how many of those types really exist out there? Being humble and effective is what I think being "smart" on the team truly means.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Barby Budds on June 16, 2009 at 12:24pm

This is so true but many people don't understand how important synergies are. They think they can figure out everything by themselves and in the end they always complain.
A community is so important!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on June 16, 2009 at 1:20pm

Pete, the blah, blah, blah is a very complicated set of interwoven attitudes, traits and values. For the sake of this post, I'm referring to the ego that is of course confident and self assured but also to the ego that is stubborn and IS better than others. Innovation throughout the years HAS been singular (or very small); many leaders will "ego" their way through difficult periods.

While you do make sense, I simply do not believe it is necessary to follow the herd of "make nice" people who believe that ego according to your definition is a bad thing. You don't have to like everyone you work with to achieve personal self-actualization.

Peter Ceccarelli said:

I'm not inferring "ego" as you believe I am. The type of ego that I'm speaking about that needs to be checked at the door is the ego of the person(s) who thinks they are better than, smarter than, their opinions are more valuable than, their ideas are better than, blah, blah, blah, than everyone elses! There's a difference. I think what you might be referring to is "confidence" and assuredness. At least I hope that you are.

Yes......we all need to be confident and use innovation, creativity and be competitive for the sake of the teams effort to gain an inch on the competition. Right? Right! But out and out ego, that shouts to the rest of the world saying "here I am........notice me............aren't I great!" is just plain destructive and distracting. It serves zero purpose not only in the business world, but in life in general. And if any of us think that living by an ego crede is the only way to stand out and be counted, then I can guarantee you, you have no friends. People will tolerate you, but they will also slam you behind your back as soon as you and your ego turn your back on them.

Make sense?

Steve Levy said:
So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective.

Pete, show me someone without the right type of ego and I'll show you a failure. Checking one's ego and succumbing to group think is a lovely concept but when the group is headed towards an iceberg and no one dares to speak of it - perhaps because its not on the agenda, then very bad things can (and usually do) happen.

"Team" doesn't imply a shared passion or that each individual possesses the tested abilities to perform the tasks at hand.

Not all teams are great teams and it often takes a healthy ego or two to right the ship.

Peter Ceccarelli said:
The best part of team work is pot stirring. Which means bringing controversy out into the open. But there in lies the challenge. It takes courage to do that and very few of us are really great strategists when working within a team to play the role of the "pot stirrer". And those that are, usually are not the most popular person on the team, but typically have the admiration and respect of the others because they are courageous as a team player. I believe the whole is the sum parts of all of our contributions, but then too, all of us are disposible and at the end of the day someone else can easily come in and play our role just as effectively. So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective. You don't have to be smart in order to check your ego at the door each morning when you arrive at the office. You do have to be humble though. And how many of those types really exist out there? Being humble and effective is what I think being "smart" on the team truly means.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter Ceccarelli on June 16, 2009 at 4:36pm

Um, my name is Peter, not Pete!

We can agree to disagree. West Coast philosophy versus an East Coast philosophy. There is a difference. We're a lot nicer out this way! I've lived on both coasts, so that much is true! And most others agree with me on the W/E differences.

Good day!

Steve Levy said:

Pete, the blah, blah, blah is a very complicated set of interwoven attitudes, traits and values. For the sake of this post, I'm referring to the ego that is of course confident and self assured but also to the ego that is stubborn and IS better than others. Innovation throughout the years HAS been singular (or very small); many leaders will "ego" their way through difficult periods.

While you do make sense, I simply do not believe it is necessary to follow the herd of "make nice" people who believe that ego according to your definition is a bad thing. You don't have to like everyone you work with to achieve personal self-actualization.

Peter Ceccarelli said:
I'm not inferring "ego" as you believe I am. The type of ego that I'm speaking about that needs to be checked at the door is the ego of the person(s) who thinks they are better than, smarter than, their opinions are more valuable than, their ideas are better than, blah, blah, blah, than everyone elses! There's a difference. I think what you might be referring to is "confidence" and assuredness. At least I hope that you are.

Yes......we all need to be confident and use innovation, creativity and be competitive for the sake of the teams effort to gain an inch on the competition. Right? Right! But out and out ego, that shouts to the rest of the world saying "here I am........notice me............aren't I great!" is just plain destructive and distracting. It serves zero purpose not only in the business world, but in life in general. And if any of us think that living by an ego crede is the only way to stand out and be counted, then I can guarantee you, you have no friends. People will tolerate you, but they will also slam you behind your back as soon as you and your ego turn your back on them.

Make sense?

Steve Levy said:
So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective.

Pete, show me someone without the right type of ego and I'll show you a failure. Checking one's ego and succumbing to group think is a lovely concept but when the group is headed towards an iceberg and no one dares to speak of it - perhaps because its not on the agenda, then very bad things can (and usually do) happen.

"Team" doesn't imply a shared passion or that each individual possesses the tested abilities to perform the tasks at hand.

Not all teams are great teams and it often takes a healthy ego or two to right the ship.

Peter Ceccarelli said:
The best part of team work is pot stirring. Which means bringing controversy out into the open. But there in lies the challenge. It takes courage to do that and very few of us are really great strategists when working within a team to play the role of the "pot stirrer". And those that are, usually are not the most popular person on the team, but typically have the admiration and respect of the others because they are courageous as a team player. I believe the whole is the sum parts of all of our contributions, but then too, all of us are disposible and at the end of the day someone else can easily come in and play our role just as effectively. So that means "no ego" on the team is most effective. You don't have to be smart in order to check your ego at the door each morning when you arrive at the office. You do have to be humble though. And how many of those types really exist out there? Being humble and effective is what I think being "smart" on the team truly means.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Levy on June 16, 2009 at 9:04pm

Awww what the heck...

Karen agrees with Peter so what he wrote must be the Gospel! East coast - West coast differences? Show me a legitimate survey as opposed to anecdotal data and then we can talk bit last I checked California's in the crapper and New York is still trying to deny ever saying mortgage backed securities. Rayanne, am I really a loathsome, loudmouthed meanie???

Ego Karen? Check your college psych textbook for a definition.

Peter, have you ever read Senge?

KarenM said:

Steve,
maybe you should explain your definition of ego.. based upon what Peter is saying, of which I agree, (and don't perceive as blah, blah, blah) there is a difference between Confidence versus Ego

Ego is never ever a good thing in a business team effort.. as it get's in the way.. but on the other hand Confidence is always positive

Think John Wooden (who has the best quotes on confidence and humility) says it best -*- Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful.
John Wooden

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rayanne on June 16, 2009 at 9:18pm

Interestingly enough, Steve, I DO NOT think you are a loud-mouthed loathsome meanie.
I know exactly what you were addressing when you hit on "ego," as this is what I was trying to address in the post about "enlisting some gumption" and not becoming a doormat or afraid to speak your mind when it comes to being a contributing member of a team that is trying to solve an issue. Everyone playing nice in the sandbox doesn't solve problems AND it's really boring.

A healthy balance of ego is necessary in this business, as in most. Synergy isn't about playing nice and conceding every point. It is about different strengths and skills coming to the table and working together to solve a problem. Sometimes you give, and sometimes you take.

Steve Levy said:

Awww what the heck...
Karen agrees with Peter so what he wrote must be the Gospel! East coast - West coast differences? Show me a legitimate survey as opposed to anecdotal data and then we can talk bit last I checked California's in the crapper and New York is still trying to deny ever saying mortgage backed securities. Rayanne, am I really a loathsome, loudmouthed meanie???
Ego Karen? Check your college psych textbook for a definition.

Peter, have you ever read Senge?

KarenM said:
Steve,
maybe you should explain your definition of ego.. based upon what Peter is saying, of which I agree, (and don't perceive as blah, blah, blah) there is a difference between Confidence versus Ego
Ego is never ever a good thing in a business team effort.. as it get's in the way.. but on the other hand Confidence is always positive
Think John Wooden (who has the best quotes on confidence and humility) says it best -*- Talent is God given. Be humble. Fame is man-given. Be grateful. Conceit is self-given. Be careful.
John Wooden

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Phil McCutchen on June 17, 2009 at 12:32pm

Teamwork is all well and good -- and required to acheive any goal that one alone cannot.

But someone must call the beat and lead with vision, like it or not, or the team will wander aimlessly, all following their own particular vision.