The difference between a "group of people" and a "Team."

I have been working in teams for years. Well, let's say a combination of groups and teams. See, a gathering of people to work on something starts as a group, and in some cases it remains just that - a group. Teams share a common goal, a way to score, a way to win. But teams don't happen by luck, teams are intentionally created, formed, and then nutured. Anyone who knows me knows that I really dispise the overuse of the word team - "hey team, let's get an update on the spreadsheet by next week" sounds about as authentic as someone who is faking being genuine.

Teams are made up of people, people who bring experience both in life and profession to the table. I've talked before about intentional culture on teams with on aspect being that environment from which you come. Think about the last project or team you were on - who were the people and where did they come from? On many projects, the team is made up of individuals from the project management roles, internal people from other business units, and external people outside the organization (sometimes many different external organizations are represented). This is where the environment all the players come from becomes important for the team to share an awareness amongst each others.

Let's say you examine three people on a team. The first person comes from your project management group, where success is defined by delivering on time and on budget. Additional recognition is received by coming in ahead of schedule or under budget. Pretty straightfroward - except that some people in this environment will beat the budget and schedule by any means necessary to gain the recognition, and usually these people do not join the team and outwardly declare "I will step on anyone for the success of the project." Instead team members learn this the hard way over time.

The second person comes from an internal business unit that has learned over time that protecting information and driving for accountability of others, while not necessarily success, but definitely safer and protective. No one set out and said "we will always send emails that protects ourselves, regardless of the impact on the project," though over time, leaders within the organization have lashed out at less successful ventures. While a "we embrace mistakes" poster may hang on the wall, the day to day reality is for team members of this unit to hide, protect, and be ready to blame others for mistakes.

The third person comes from an external firm where the bottom line is first and foremost for decision making. The time this person spends in the company focuses on spreadsheets, discussing business terms ranging from metrics to resources to units. People are not important here, only financial success. How this was missed during the selection astounds the team once they see the true intent come thru on a project, usually when the project is stressed.

Individual people are tremendously impacted by the environment they spend time in. If you want to quit smoking, don't hang around with smokers. If you want to deliver a project in a genuine, authentic, and collaborative mannger, engage and create a team that first is willing to acknowledge openly and honestly the environments they spend most of their time in - good, bad, ugly - it doesn't matter. The first step, the very difficult first step, is telling your project teammates "hey, the environment I come from is....." This is a trust building moment, one where people begin to feel safe. That safety allows for project teammates to open up and share, deepening the bond amongst those tasked with delivering.

All people start out good. By defaulting to extending trust and believing that people want to do good work with others, you can acknowledge the environment they come from and only then start to move from "group" to "team."