
Chances are you've built or inherited a team that most days seem to work pretty well. Perhaps you yourself are a part of a higher team. Perhaps your team members have their own teams in place. Looked at from this perspective, the entire organization is a collection of overlapping teams - from the board of directors to the smallest sales office and production unit. The organization thus functions like a complex molecule, with the various teams as its atoms and each leader as a nucleus. And as long as any given team does not show obvious signs of radioactive decay, the comfortable assumption is that it's stable and performing as intended. Naturally, team members have their foibles. Tom, for example, tends to become passive-aggressive when assigned tasks he doesn't enjoy. Amanda is too inclined to criticize other members of the team. And Ed shoots first, asking questions later. How many - if any - of such foibles should be accepted as normal human behavior? And how are they affecting overall team performance? Could the team be doing better than it does? READ MORE