A team is a team is a team, or so we think.
The sports team analogy is common when talking about a software development team's performance.
We even call iterations sprints in the Agile game of Scrum.
Although we are warned about many anti-patterns, like instilling a hero culture, we are people and we like our heroes and our stars.
I was thinking recently about the way we encourage team work while at the same time we reward the stars. What we seem to forget is that even though players in a sports team are rewarded differently, the medal they get at the end of the competition has the same color for all.
Not necessarily so for development team members.
It is more difficult and costly to do than it used to be but, we can still assemble all-star sports teams. They might even win things in the short term. Can they still be a performing team in the long run? Not so sure. I believe they don't stand a chance when facing a real team, one in which the team's success trumps personal glory.
If I were to choose a sports analogy, I would say software development teams are more like a rowing team: no stars, everybody's putting in an honest shift and the competition is mostly against time and personal limits rather than the opposing team.
One for all and all for one musketeer style heroes.
Of course, there is the little guy in front whose job is to steer the team in the right direction, keep the cadence, and synchronize everybody. Sort of a Scrum Master.
In most successful star lead teams, if the hero's missing or not performing they are in trouble.
If the star in the team is performing they might look down on their teammates, they might ask themselves how much better the team would perform if everybody was at their level, and they might question the strategy, the coach or the staff.
I've seen it happen and it's very disruptive.
So, what are we to do?
Do we need to revisit the incentives a company offers?
Could we have separate awards for the team’s accomplishments and for the special contribution of some individual members?
This could work but only if the special winner is chosen by their peers not by management.
Daniel Pink convinced us that only intrinsic motivation is working for knowledge workers by using three pillars: mastery, autonomy, and purpose.
For me, the most important would be the need for a clear, specific purpose.
What happens when one star in the team decides to take on the mission of fulfilling the purpose? Do we get a leader or a personal glory chasing jerk?
Should we add collaboration or teamwork in the mix?
Should we also make sure everybody's in the team of their own accord, under no pressure from somebody or from their own ego?