TEAMING FOR RESULTS

Every organization eventually discovers that the most important work cannot be done alone. Complex challenges—whether in ministry, education, government, or the nonprofit world—require collaboration. They require people who can bring their gifts, perspectives, and experiences into a shared effort. They require teams.

But not all groups are teams, and not all teams function well. Some groups are committees—efficient, structured, and task‑oriented. Others are true teams—collaborative, adaptive, and committed to doing the work together. Understanding the difference is essential for leaders who want results rather than activity.

My framework, Teaming for Results, offers a clear, practical, and deeply human approach to building teams that can meet adaptive challenges, navigate conflict, and deliver meaningful outcomes.

Defining Teaming: Coming Together for a Purpose

Teaming is “the coming together of groups of people to achieve particular goals.” It is not simply assembling individuals; it is forming a collective with a shared mission. Teaming is intentional. It requires clarity about purpose, alignment around goals, and commitment to the work.

Teaming is not a technique. It is a posture—a way of approaching complex work with humility, curiosity, and shared responsibility.

Teams vs. Committees: Understanding the Difference

One of the most helpful distinctions in your presentation is the difference between teams and committees. Many organizations confuse the two.

Committees

• Strong leader sets the agenda
• Individual accountability
• Efficient meetings
• Discuss, decide, and delegate the work

Committees are useful for technical problems—issues with clear definitions and clear solutions. They are efficient, structured, and predictable.

Teams

• Shared leadership with participatory goal‑setting
• Shared accountability
• More open‑ended meetings
• Discuss, decide, and do the work

Teams are necessary for adaptive challenges—situations where the problem and solution both require learning. Teams require trust, collaboration, and a willingness to engage in the work together.

The distinction is not moral; it is functional. The key is choosing the right structure for the right situation.

Why Teaming Matters

You identify three core reasons for teaming:

1. Adaptive situations – When the challenge requires learning, experimentation, and shared insight.
2. Division of work – When the task is too large or complex for one person.
3. Shared responsibility – When ownership must be distributed for the work to succeed.

Teaming is not about efficiency; it is about effectiveness. It is about bringing the right people together to solve the right problems in the right way.

Limitations of Teaming

Teaming is powerful, but it is not a cure‑all. It has limitations:

• It is ineffective for purely technical problems.
• It can suffer from unequal participation.
• It can falter when working styles clash.

Leaders must diagnose the situation correctly. Misusing teams—especially for technical tasks—wastes time and frustrates people.

Types of Teams: Functional, Cross‑Functional, and Task Forces

Your presentation identifies three primary types of teams:

Functional Teams

• Members from the same department
• Report to a single manager
• Common in hierarchical organizations

These teams excel at routine, technical, or specialized work.

Cross‑Functional Teams

• Members from different areas
• Equal authority
• Multidisciplinary perspective

These teams are ideal for adaptive challenges requiring diverse expertise.

Task Forces

• Formed for emergencies
• Members dedicate themselves exclusively
• Goal: find the best solution quickly

Task forces are high‑intensity, short‑term, and mission‑critical.

Understanding these types helps leaders build the right team for the right task.

Formal and Informal Teams

You also distinguish between formal and informal teams.

Formal Teams

• Long‑term
• Focus on mega‑issues
• Statutory
• Members require formal approval

Examples include the Constitutional Convention, a school board, or a corporate board.

Informal Teams

• Short‑term
• Focus on limited issues
• “Extra‑legal”
• No vetting process

Examples include Andrew Jackson’s “Kitchen Cabinet,” Edison’s lab, or FDR’s “Brain Trust.”

Informal teams often generate creativity; formal teams provide structure and legitimacy. Healthy organizations need both.

Team of Teams: A Modern Model for Complex Environments

Drawing from General Stanley McChrystal, highlight the “Team of Teams” model—a response to environments where complexity outpaces hierarchy.

Processes

• Networking
• Centralized communications
• Decentralized authority
• Breaking down silos

Characteristics

• Trust
• Common purpose
• Shared consciousness
• Empowered execution

Results

• Adaptability
• Flexibility
• Agility
• Speed with precision

This model reflects a truth you emphasize often: leadership is not about control; it is about connection.

Building a Team of Teams

To build such an organization, leaders must:

• Develop hybrid structures across vertical and horizontal boundaries
• Mentor “connector influencers”
• Encourage networks
• Align promotions and pay with new realities
• Decentralize decision‑making
• Centralize communication

This is adaptive leadership at scale.

Team Development Models

You highlight three classic models:

Lencioni Model

• Trust
• Conflict
• Commitment
• Accountability
• Results

Tuckman Model

• Forming
• Storming
• Norming
• Performing
• Adjourning

Drexler/Sibbet Model

• Orientation
• Trust building
• Goal definition
• Commitment
• Planning
• Implementation
• Reassessment

Each model offers a lens for understanding team dynamics and diagnosing challenges.

Evaluating Team Process: The STAR Method

The STAR method provides a simple, powerful way to evaluate team performance:

• Situation – What created the need for the team?
• Task – What was the mission?
• Actions – What did the team do?
• Results – What happened—intended and unintended?

This method encourages reflection, learning, and continuous improvement.

Conclusion: Teaming as a Moral and Strategic Practice

Teaming is not merely a management technique. It is a moral practice. It requires humility, trust, shared responsibility, and a willingness to listen. It requires leaders who understand that complex problems demand collective wisdom. It requires organizations that value collaboration over ego, mission over turf, and results over rhetoric.

Teams are not optional. They are essential. They are the vessels through which meaningful work is accomplished, the communities where people grow, and the structures that allow organizations to adapt, innovate, and serve.