Consulting Journal: Techniques - Making teams stronger

This article is reprinted from The Consulting Journal
http://www.consultingjournal.com

Techniques: Making teams stronger

by David Blakey

The buffalo theory of Cliff Claven from Cheers has some lessons for those who believe that teams add strength.

[Monday 2 September 2002]

Cliff Claven was a mailman in the television series Cheers. If you are not aware of Cliff Claven's buffalo theory, here it is.

Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Now, as we know, excessive intake of alcohol kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. And that, Norm, is why you always feel smarter after a few beers.

This theory is a beautifully written piece of humour. It begins with a statement of fact and moves through a few logical steps before it jumps to an unfounded parallel argument and then continues to its conclusion.

The statements in the first part are fact. They have some interesting - and logical - parallels with teams.

The herd

When the herd is hunted, it flees from its hunters, and the slowest and weakest are killed first. There is an assumption here that the hunters do not intend to kill the entire herd. They just want to kill enough of the herd to provide them with food. They only need to kill and eat a few members of the herd.

While the herd is grazing, the weakest members may present no threat to the rest of the herd or to themselves. This requires the following conditions.

There is sufficient food to support all the members of the herd.
There is no competition for this food from other herds or from other animals.
The only action required of the herd is to graze.

Consider what can happen.

Option 1: there may not be enough food

The food could run out at any time. There may be seasonal conditions that dry up the water-holes. There may be a prolonged drought. The herd may grow too large for the food that is available.

If there is no longer sufficient food for the herd, then the herd may have to move to somewhere else where there is enough food. Finding food must be the main priority for the herd, and it must be willing to abandon its weakest members in order to survive. Even if the herd is not running, as it would be if it were fleeing from hunters, there may still be some members of the herd too weak to keep up with the pace of the herd. So, a herd that is forced to move can lose its weakest members, even without running.

Option 2: there may be competition for the food

New animals may arrive at the grazing area already occupied by the herd. They may deprive the herd of some of its food, or they may make food harder to obtain. The weaker members of the herd may die. Alternatively, the herd may move into a grazing area already occupied by other animals. The competition for food may kill off the weakest members of the herd. So, a herd that needs to compete - either to hold its existing share or to move to a new area - may lose its weakest members, without being actively hunted.

Option 3: nothing unusual happens

Even if the food supply is enough for the herd and even if there is no competition for it, events can occur. Members of the herd may be injured. They may be grazing and stumble, or fall into a hole, or damage themselves on a tree or rock. They may even be injured accidentally by another member of the herd. The weakest may not be able to recover. They may be too sick to graze. So, a herd may lose its weakest members anyway, even with enough food and without competition and without being hunted.

Given these three options, a herd is unlikely to make any special effort to save its weakest members. Any other member of the herd is unlikely to risk its own well-being by attempting to save one of the weaker members.

The team

There is a generally accepted belief that a group of individuals will always work better as a team. Consultants should know that this is simply not true. We often work as specialists in a team of specialists from other disciplines. When we do, we expect those other specialists to be as good in their field as we are in ours. We would not tolerate having a member of the team who was significantly weaker than the others.

When we work as a team, we recognize the characteristics of each team member and work to make best use of positive traits and least use of negative ones. If there is a consultant who is poor at writing, someone else should help them. There is now a trade-off. The consultant with weak writing skills will need strong skills in other areas in order to justify their place on the team. Their skills in those other area must be strong enough to justify diverting another consultant from their own work.

Consultants whose weaknesses exceed their strengths should not be on the team.

Corporate teams outside consulting seem to be more tolerant of their weaker members. I often see management teams that are impeded by their slowest, weakest members. But in most cases, it does not seem to matter. While the herd is grazing, it faces few threats.

If the market becomes weaker, or if there is more competition within that market, or if the company is building market share or profitability within its existing market or within new markets, then the team needs to respond. One of its responses should be to let nature take care of its weaker members, like a herd. In fact, faced with problems, many corporate teams will continue to use precious resources to support their weaker members.

Can you imagine a herd, under threat from lack of food or increased competition, making sure that its weakest, sickest members were fed, even if this meant that its strongest, fittest members went hungry?

With a strong threat, from a predator, the weaker members of a herd - or a team - may die. The herd will abandon them in order to survive. But a grazing herd - or team - may also benefit from losing its weaker members. The team may need to deal with reduced revenues, increased competition or a move into new markets. It should not be slowed by its weakest members.

A corporate team may be able to support its weakest members when times are good. It cannot afford to support them through their corporate or personal crises. It should abandon them, as the herd does.

It is true that herds do not usually kill off their weakest members. The weak usually die first when food runs out or predators hunt them. But consider this. Herds do not usually store food. Herds graze. In the corporate team, your clients may want to save resources in order to face possible future crises. Does it not make sense that they may be able to save more resources for the future if they do not have weak members consuming those resources now?