Being A Good Team Player, Does NOT Mean Blindly Following & Obeying

There is an adage that "there is no I in team," and while an over-simplification, is often the essence of effectively getting a project done, and done well. Many people confuse being a "good team player" with not taking any individual initiative. "Team players" that follow that kind of behavior rarely benefit their team of organization, but merely are often using the "team player" concept as a justification for not doing what's expected or needed of them. A good "team player" works with others in the group toward a common goal or vision, and each individual works either alone or with others toward the satisfactory completion of certain goals. However, being a "team player" certainly does not mean that an individual should "blindly" agree with others, if he has good reason to believe that he is right, and that their decision is neither well thought-out, nor beneficial to the organization.

In order to be a good "team player," one must understand the organization's needs, mission and vision. The individual must listen carefully and fully "buy into" the organization's significance. This individual must subordinate his own ego to the good of the group, and use his abilities to help the group. If the individual disagrees with the way the organization is going about achieving its goals, either believing the current methods being used are either incomplete, ineffective, or could be improved using another technique, it is the responsibility of that individual to respectfully approach the group and voice his concerns. This does not mean blaming anyone and certainly does not mean bead-mouthing anyone or anything. It means effectively explaining his case, and why changing the approach will improve the effectiveness and ability to achieve the organization's goals.

Unfortunately, all too often, individuals will accuse someone who disagrees with them of not being a good "team player." Very often, there is nothing further from the truth! If one really cares about an organization's mission, he will attempt to improve its ability to successfully achieve its goals, rather than simply following the less effective "status quo."

There is a big difference between trying to improve an organization to make it more effective, and making radical changes that changes the organization's identity, often abandoning the mission (or reason for being) of that organization. There is a clear and distinct difference between evolution and revolution. All organizations need to evolve and adapt to changing times, by improving the way certain things are done. Organizations that do that live on for a very long time, and continue to achieve and merit belonging. As I've evaluating numerous organizations over the last three decades, I have noticed that in most cases, organizations that follow the "revolutionary" approach nearly always fail, because many of their most loyal and fervent followers and supporters feel a sense of abandonment, and the reason (justification) for the organization's existence (which is its mission) no longer continues in a recognizable form.

Organizations need "team players," while nurturing leaders who have the vision to work with members for the common good of that organization!