What it means to be a “team player”
The misuse of an acute learning tool to meet business needs
The “team player” designation is a funny thing. It pressures an individual to set aside personal comforts for shared successes; exploiting the common childhood experience of playing team sports to meet unrealistic business goals. These goals require more effort than one person can give, so those most invested in achieving that goal will persuade others to give more than is normally expected as well. Hopefully enough to ensure the goal is met.
Interestingly though, it has intentionally vague criteria for membership and typically follows a high watermark of sacrifice within the group. The amount required to give is unknown, so “all” is the common request. That’s hard to understand though, so the person sacrificing the most becomes the new definition of a “Team Player,” becoming a proxy metric for everyone else. Essentially, if you cannot understand how much to give, give as much as the person most invested. This person is a “leader.”
Within team sports, it’s typically a measure of one’s ability to surpass mental barriers to previously untapped physical endurance. Living sedentary post-industrial lives means the exertion is likely good for you. It’s good to be pushed past your known limitations. It makes you stronger. It teaches perseverance. These experiences will help you excel in strenuous circumstances as an adult.
When applied to a work environment, the analogy degrades significantly. The endurance is mental and the result isn’t a euphoric rush of endorphins but relief from the stressors applied by the leader. If applied sparingly, the emotional reward is greater than the acute stress experienced during the exertion. If applied regularly, as is often the case, the aggregated stress quickly eclipses any emotional reward promised from shared success. Over time, the regular application and relief from the stress hormone cortisol begins to resemble negative reinforcement far more than positive reinforcement.
For these reasons, I have added “Team Player” to my list of words and phrases I refuse to use or acknowledge in business.
The list includes:
“Obviously”
“Clearly” is usually what you mean. You can lack clarity in understanding something, but you’re an idiot if you don’t understand something that’s obvious. It’s used (intentionally or unintentionally) to force an issue or belittle someone into agreeing with them. The only defense is that it’s not obvious, which leaves you at fault.
“Need to” and “have to”
It’s almost never true. “Should” or “expected to” are typically more accurate. We need to securely process credit cards, but we’re expected to have this feature done by Friday.
“Knock out” and “just _______”
Both downplay the amount of work or difficulty in accomplishing a task. Asking someone to “knock out” or “just” do a thing is almost always a way of pumping up someone’s ego in the face of an unreasonable request.
Assumed
If you use the word, you’ve already made a mistake. Don’t do it and you don’t use it. Using in place of “for the sake of argument, assume…” is okay, but it’s just easier to avoid making assumptions altogether.
“Always” and “never”
It’s almost never true. Just don’t.
