Which prompted me to consider the differences. All had talented and smart and capable folks on them. So, what made some of them much more enjoyable to be on?
Here are a few of my conclusions about the "good" teams, the ones that were most fulfilling, usually more successful, and always more self-actualizing:
- They had a clear vision of the outcomes they were pursuing.
- Their leaders were others-centered people, interested in team objectives and not personal accolades.
- They pursued challenging goals and tackled tough problems.
- Team members gave more than they took, and didn't "skate."
- Tussles, conflicts, and debates were civil, respectful, and centered on team (not personal) objectives.
- Trust between and among team members was pervasive.
- The collective focus permeated the team's interactions and created synergy.
- Team members understood that effort, failure, laughter, struggle, blood, sweat, and tears were necessary ingredients in the process.
- They were adaptable, fluid, and dynamic in response to the conditions/contexts.
- They ran their course, then ended (they didn't artificially try to extend the life cycle of the team).