Management literature is responsible in subtle way for erroneous appreciation of some Group working fundamentals. So much is the need for commonality and similarity of thinking between team members over emphasized and celebrated that having even genuine differences between members in a team is abhorred and considered as revolting and triggering a near mutiny.
In moments of differences, Artificial Collaboration thus is exhibited more for optics & effects ... the ghost of unresolved differences, not being reconciled authentically, continues to linger. It periodically shows up its ugly head in subsequent moments of Power show.
Real effective teams have big differences between themselves. How do they then become effective ? Prevalence of 4 factors :
1. Manical Committment to purpose. Their evaluation of "Win-Lose' is Purpose Centric not Person Centric.
2. Maturity to debate, listen & appreciate another perspective before arriving at positive resolutions ... they are necessarily high on Interpersonal skills.
3. Their Win-Lose Balance Sheet is closed everytime upon closure of the event. There are no 'Carry Forwards'.
4. Prevalence of an established mechanism to reconcile
disagreements without Power Play by differing factions. Power voting is the least approved mechanism to arrive at a decision. Power Votes only fester conflicts for future issues. Thos who have the Power Votes believe that the need to debate and discuss is a waste of time. Just vote and be done. The loosers literally then plan for what is known in the Game theory as the ' NIGYSOB' moment - [Now I Got You Son Of A B***h].
Says Friedrich Nietzche - the German Philosopher - "the surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently"
Just because some teams do not have loud disagreements doesn't mean they are effective. But also that just because some teams have loud disagreements before they arrive at decisions, they are necessarily ineffective.