Corporations and politicians love to emphasize “team play.” A whole mythology surrounds the concept. There are 1,800,000 Google search results under ‘team play.” Websites are devoted to “team building,” “effective team work” and “team play.” Corporate and political entities adopt sports analogies and metaphors for success: teams that play together as a unit win. Thus, if we convince independent and sometime maverick executives to sublimate their needs to the “team,” the team will be more successful, that is, win more.
By extension, we obviously must isolate and demonize the non-team players. Those who have not embraced team play are mavericks, lone wolves, naysayers, whistleblowers or worse. If we round up these “stray camels” and get them all under the corporate tent, how much better off will we be?
Team Play Sounds Great, Right?
Superficially, ‘team play” sounds like a great concept: everyone on “the same page,” effectively communicating, sublimating individual ego and producing outstanding results. But there is a more insidious inner lining to team play. ‘Team play” is a way of quashing independent thought and dissent. What upper management or senior government officials really want is an employee who will carry out directives from above blindly, without assessing the wisdom or integrity of a particular strategy or project. This paradigm values adherence to “the program” and loyalty over competence. Even when some thoughtful criticism can produce a much better result, the team will value mediocre results.
Unfortunately, “team players” get promoted disproportionately, perpetuating the “team play” cycle. Those not promoted learn an important corporate lesson: “go along” and “get along” or look for other opportunities elsewhere.
I am not privy to BP succession planning, but I would guess the lead management representative on the Deepwater Horizon rig was the consummate team player. One has to wonder if common sense came in second place to “team play.”
The Strange Case of Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard law professor, was named chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel looking into the bank bailout program (“TARP”). Unfortunately, Prof. Warren had the temerity to grill Secretary Geithner on the AIG bailout and backdoor assistance to Goldman and other banks. Indeed, by doing this she was questioning the wisdom and integrity of a measure that would ensure that these banks would be paid in full on credit derivative positions with the failed AIG.
Ms. Warren is the champion of establishing a consumer financial protection agency. The new bill establishes a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Knowledgeable financial commentators such as Yves Smith and Simon Johnson believe that Prof. Warren would be the right person to head the new bureau.
Warren is the obvious choice to head the otherwise-guaranteed-to-be-a-joke consumer financial services agency due to set up its shingle at the Fed. She has been a tireless consumer advocate, is trusted and well liked by the public at large, an effective communicator and a respected legal scholar, and is willing to stare down political opponents. All those qualities make her hugely threatening. Banksters and their lobbyist allies have been saying loudly and clearly that they are firmly opposed to having Warren head the new consumer agency. So, predictably, Geithner acts as their water-carrier. See Elizabeth Warren in Treasury Crosshairs Again
Mr. Geithner has proved to be a toady for the big banks and Wall Street firms. Of course, he would like to block Ms. Warren’s appointment. He instead wishes to install a “team player” such as his pro-bank rubber stamp lieutenant, Michael Barr, Assistant Treasury Secretary. Mr. Barr’s bona fides are set forth:
This Administration has acted quickly and aggressively to confront the economic challenges facing our economy and the housing market. See Elizabeth Warren or Bust, I’m Drawing the Line
No comment is required.
Afflicting the Comfortable
Humans are tribal. We are comfortable with our own tribe and team. Along comes an individual of integrity, conviction and unquestioned competence like Elizabeth Warren. Those individuals attack “group think,” upset the powers that be and make some a little uneasy. Suddenly, the name calling comes out and Prof. Warren is called a “commie” or a “weirdo” because she questioned the overly cozy relationship between the Administration and the banks. Moreover, perhaps hidden in the discomfort is the fact that she is a female in the largely male world of banking and the Treasury.
Undercutting the maverick in a corporation is a little more subtle: is the person sound, can we rely on him in a pinch, or isn’t he a little different from us?
For the sake of the country, we need more more mavericks like Prof. Warren. Sometimes it is good to afflict the comfortable.
loading...
Related posts:
- One Year of Blogging
- Recycling Losers
- Timothy Geithner and Plausible Deniability
- You Say You Want a Revolution Part II
- The Failure of Extrapolation
Tags: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, group think, Michael Barr, team players, Timothy Geithner
