Don't you hate that pithy little sentence "Together Everyone Achieves More"? It's what the letters that make up the word "team" are supposed to stand for. Cute, isn't it? Or does it make you want to quietly throw up? I'm in the latter camp. Happy-clappy, touchy-feely sentiments leave me cold.
Then, of course, there's the old: "There is no 'I' in 'team'." Pass me a bucket. In fact, when I've been caught displaying some especially selfish attribute I've been known to say: "There is no 'team' in 'I'." It makes about as much sense as that oft-heard initial statement.
Groups and teamwork have long been talked up yet there's a bland uniformity and dullness associated with the way they're promoted that is virtually guaranteed to repel anyone with an ounce of creativity and independent spirit. Consider the examples set by such international superstars as Eleanor Catton, Lydia Ko and Lorde. Their respective areas of expertise - as an author, a golfer and a solo artist - are uncompromisingly individual. I'd put money on the fact none of these high achievers has "Together Everyone Achieves More" Blu-tacked to her bedroom wall.
Nonetheless teamwork continues to be hailed as a one-size-fits-all solution in the business world. It's as if creating conveniently sized and reasonably homogenous groups of people is the only way corporations can deal with staff members. Groups stifle individual flair while making people easier to manage.
For the company, group thinking offers efficiencies and economies of scale. But for every employee who finds the anonymity and diminished accountability afforded by being part of a group appealing, there's certain to be someone else who finds such an approach soulless and mechanical.