Dear Bob ... I agree that the main problem that 'Teeming' has is semantic in nature. However, I think you've side stepped the issue. Instead of just explaining your definition of 'Team', it may be more insightful to adopt his/her vocabulary for a moment. My impression is this person is either a direct report of one of the "players", or just a level or two down from that. I further believe that this point of view Dear Bob …I agree that the main problem that ‘Teeming’ has is semantic in nature. However, I think you’ve side stepped the issue. Instead of just explaining your definition of ‘Team’, it may be more insightful to adopt his/her vocabulary for a moment.My impression is this person is either a direct report of one of the “players”, or just a level or two down from that. I further believe that this point of view is probably pressed on them from above, and that he/she is frustrated that your discussion of healthy vs dysfunctional team play seems to be inapplicable to their situation. I find the statement “[…] you’re inside a player; and now you know that what you should say is “How can we help you achieve your goal?”. Because the most important thing for an organization is to be sure of only one thing, “What game is my player playing?” to ensure its survival.” interesting from several different angles. I think this is a question in disguise, but let’s just translate it first. It’s saying, that to be a successful team, your own team must be aligned with whatever your boss’s goals are, which must be aligned with what their boss’s goals are etc. I think this is overly simplistic, especially when you get down into the middle management ranks. Each person is going to bring their own set of ideals, desires, and goals, and it isn’t uncommon to have opposing goals. I think the disguised question is, “Is this a logically correct argument?” Some people are going to actively use subterfuge to harm others, sometimes their own boss in the hopes of becoming more powerful. And, if you as a part of the “group” under that person are following that statement and are actively trying to harm those this boss is against, this may or may not be healthy for the organization as a whole; most likely it is not. Thus the presented argument can be false. If the ‘Player’ is in fact acting (playing) in the best interest of the organization, then it is probably right to be aligned with that. And I’ll (almost) keep the comment, that it seems very few executives are playing in the best interest of the organization any more, to myself 🙂I think the biggest problem I have with the statement presented is that it seems to demand that the underlings blindly follow their boss without adding any additional voices or viewpoints. The question “What game is my player playing?” is generally not going to be obvious either (in publicly held companies), unless the player isn’t very good at playing the game in the first place. Even if all a given player’s goals are on the up and up, with SEC rules, it is very dangerous for any player to clearly communicate what exactly they think or know is happening. In a privately held company, this could be a non-issue, but in most cases the real goals will be held close to the chest.Anyway, these are my thoughts, have I sparked any new thoughts for you?-Scott L. Miller Scott …No argument, from all appearances “Teeming” is dealing with a numbr of organizational issues. I agree with your inferences regarding where they’re unhealthy, too. I just chose to deal with the points he raised, figuring there’s little less useful than unsolicited advice.Having said that, I have to say that the organization in question sounds like one in which everyone except the executives are seriously disenfranchised. And the executives are the exact opposite of a team, as they aren’t aligned to a common purpose – the essence of any team. Which doesn’t bode well for this company.So here’s my advice to Teeming: If there’s a company stock plan and you hold shares, sell ’em!– Bob ——– Technology Industry