In the past, I've written strong critiques of cliché talk about Teamwork in Business.  

I've really objected to sayings like, "There is no 'I' in Teamwork".

And, I've penned a new organization structure that would fit both well if business and team sports truly wished to be similar. 

So, I admit I'm not inclined to overstate the similarities shared by business and team sports. However, comparing business to team sports can help us firm up our thoughts about business goals, rules, action, and success...and, of course, about ourselves, other people, and how we can work together. After all, people are people. 

[I recognize professional sports teams are businesses, however, that’s a whole different topic.] 

***  

Some points to consider when comparing business and team sports:  

• In business, the puck or ball isn’t so easy to define or see and whether or not it can be seen as a tangible thing of possession it is rarely carried by a single person.

• In business, most roles are heavily skewed to either offense or defense...in business, there are value-addition roles and there are quite different and typically quite separate value-protection roles. 

• In business the defensive players have significant day-to-day influence over their team’s offensive players and this isn’t common in team sports. 

• In business, we don’t get to hear tens of thousands unite to create thunderous noise and we don’t get to see standing ovations when we achieve our annual targets. On the other hand, we also don’t get to hear real-time Bronx Cheers or see octopi projectiles coming our way - in fact, stuff like that is frowned upon in business.

• Most business consultants would be very troubled by managers or leaders who have a style like that of NFL Coach Bill Parcells. In fact, most people in business would say and do whatever they could to make Bill Parcells change and conform to much softer, kinder, and more-empathetic ways.

***  

When we have business goals and we are committed to achieving them it is possible to separate our work into 2 broad categories: work designed to move us toward our goals and work designed to stop action that could reduce our ability to achieve our goals. We could call these offensive and defensive roles.

While there are radical differences between the work of team sports and the work of business a team sports metaphor, laced with offense and defence, can help us sort out our thoughts.  

In sports, there is offensive work and there is defensive work. In sports like North American football the lines are clearly drawn between offense and defence. There are offensive players, trainers, coaches, etc, and there are defensive counterparts. That doesn't mean the roles are permanent. In football one interception causes everyone on both teams to reverse roles instantaneously. For basketball, soccer, volleyball, etc, a change in possession of the ball causes most players to immediately shift their focus from offense to defence and vice-versa.

In many sports, possession of the ball is subject to task-completion/failure rules. In baseball one team gets to be on offense until it fails enough to have 3 outs. If we ignore the pitchers [or at least ignore some of them some of the time] baseball players are half-game defensive players who have the opportunity to take turns being the key point of offense a few times during the other half of each game. It seems to me that must also be happening in cricket but I'm going to need a lot more time to figure that out.

Again, in certain team sports the rules of the game require a sequence of repeated failed offensive actions to cause a change in possession of the ball…that applies to baseball. In other team sports failed offensive action can cause an immediate change of possession where the offense is required to leave the field of play…that applies to North American football. In other team sports, possession changes frequently and as a consequence all the players alternate frequently between offensive and defensive roles and action…that applies to soccer, basketball, and hockey. 

In sports like soccer and basketball, where most or all of the players split their work regularly between offensive and defensive action, the players often focus on one of those roles. Forwards are primarily offensive while defensemen are primarily defensive. However, both types of players alternate roles and take the action that best suits the situation. The situation is defined in terms of many things such as: where are we located on the field?, who holds possession?, and how much time is left in the game? We could describe these team sports players as 'majoring' in one type of work while 'minoring' in the other.  Often possession of the ball dictates their choice of action and always the rules of the game limit the extent of the action.

But, who is carrying the ball in business? 

Does any individual player ever actually carry the puck in corporate business? 

In business, the puck or ball isn’t so easy to define or see and whether or not it can be seen as a tangible thing of possession it is rarely carried by a single person.

Do we ever pull the Purchasing VP with less than a minute on the clock so we have one more person in the Sales Department?

***

In sports, players cannot gain unfair advantage by going offside and stepping out of bounds carries consequences. 

While there are many official rules, the sports coaches can set bounds on action tighter than the rules of the game. Αs an example: (while I haven't really spent much time on hockey since the Leafs completed their first couple of decades of playoff lackadaisy), maybe goalies are not allowed to cross the centre line? That could be the rule for hockey. On the other hand, the coach could set a team or individual rule that limits the goalie's forward progress to the blue line. The coach may set similar restrictions on defensive players…restricting some players to be defensive defensemen while allowing others to be offensive defensemen. Or, some forwards could be told to back check while others could be set up ice to cherry pick. 

Regardless, in many team sports the players alter their actions swiftly back-and-forth between offense and defense. There are game rules. There are also team/coach rules. In most sports there are considerable rules governing what defensive and offensive players are allowed to do: penalties for offsides stands out as a general rule that applies to many team sports.

[Attention to the rules is very important in sports while in business, particularly smaller and mid-sized business, there often is no detailed rule book.]

In business, most roles are heavily skewed to either offense or defense…in business, there are value-addition roles and there are quite different and typically quite separate value-protection roles. 

There are business-development roles and there are business-risk-management and business-control roles.

This is a key area of difference.  

Ideally, the value adders in business will be considerate of the risks and temper their action when required. Ideally, the risk managers and controllers in business will be considerate of the need to grow through expanded commerce and ease their rules and actions when required.

***

In business the defensive players have significant day-to-day influence over their team’s offensive players and this isn’t common in team sports.

That is another key difference between team sports and business. As examples: CFOs, legal counsel, and credit managers can dictate policy that limits the day-to-day actions of purchasing, marketing, and sales people.

This control isn't limited to pre-game, pre-set rules...it also happens in an ongoing way during the day-by-day actions of business.

If business and team sports were similar at the action level then we might regularly see many defensive players repeatedly screaming “Be Careful” or “You can’t do that” as their offensive players pressed toward the other team's goal. And, if team sports were like business then maybe Bobby Orr would have only scored short-handed goals when he got really lucky flipping the puck in from centre ice? 

This difference identifies a key need in business that seems to go without saying in team sports: in business we need to make efforts to optimize the balance between offense and defense...not just in theory and in practice but also in action throughout the game.

***

In sports, the scrutiny on action is intense, sometimes off the Richter Scale. Consider penalty kicks, breakaways, and bases-loaded at bats. In these game situations at least 2 people are under intense scrutiny: one offensive person and one defensive person.

Scrutiny of action is extreme in sports. Feedback is immediately-rewarding in sports. Fans scream, sound systems wail, the jumbo screen flashes, and coaches ride emotional roller coasters. [And if you are in Tampa Bay then you get to see a pirate ship fire its cannons.] 

In sports the rewards of the immediate, intense feedback can be positive or negative. In fact, most often it is both positive and negative at the same time. Your team and your fans cheer your success while at least some fans who root for the other team yell insults and deride you and your performance even if it clearly was a terrific piece of action and a scored goal.

Those who watch you perform in sports are biased…and many of them are not timid at all about showing it, wearing it, screaming it, or, from time to time, rioting during or after the game to prove it.  We don’t see that often in business.  In business, feedback about our actions is much more subtle. As business individuals, our action isn’t monitored by a zoomed-in camera lens.  

In business, we don’t get to hear tens of thousands unite to create thunderous noise and we don’t get to see standing ovations when we achieve our annual targets. On the other hand, we also don’t get to hear real-time Bronx Cheers or see octopi projectiles coming our way…in fact, stuff like that is frowned upon in business. 

We see and hear even less immediate feedback in the day-to-day commercial trenches while we are doing the buying and selling action of business. Business people can operate with some privacy, whereas, sometimes, in some sports stadia, your own fans give you that Bronx Cheer.

In sports, sometimes your coach hugs you while tears stream from all eyes. At other times your coach screams vulgarities at you and you can watch replays of the whole thing over and over on the jumbo screen and later you can watch it on the Sports Channel when you get home from the game.  

Missing a penalty shot or letting an overtime goal sneak by you – that’s newsworthy.

Failing to make a sale or paying too much for some raw materials – that’s not newsworthy. 

Scrutiny of performance and feedback on performance – in sports versus in business – are areas where huge differences exist. In sports winning is revered. Winning is revered to the point where critics and fans and coworkers applaud the end result and they also applaud the means to that end result whether the coach is Bill Parcells [known to be a tough autocrat] or Tony Dungy [known to be a real people person].

In business, we often hear coaching-and-counselling advice about teamwork. We hear, “There is no ‘I’ in teamwork”. I suppose team-sports players may hear the same counsel? That counsel seems to be an attempt to state that something about individuals must be of lesser something than something about the team. That interpretation should come across as nebulous. That’s because comments like “There is no ‘I’ in teamwork” are nebulous. Perhaps, the common interpretation isn’t nebulous. Perhaps, the comment means each individual should be prepared to sacrifice personal needs whenever they conflict with team goals. If that’s the case then there are better ways to express that sort of thinking. The reality is: every team consists of individual people, each of whom is an ‘I’. So, rather than talk in terms of letters of the alphabet we should be more specific. For example, we could say the key to team success is optimizing: optimizing the balance between the team’s goals and each individual’s goals and optimizing the balance between each individual’s goals and the goals of each other individual. That would at least allow us to focus on each person’s needs/goals and the needs/goals of the team. We could seek an understanding of whether or not the various goals are similar and aligned. We could talk about individual compromise in objective ways. We could work out acceptable individual adjustments.   

***

In business, we are much more conflicted about management style and often we hear advice that the likelihood of winning increases under certain leadership and management styles.

Most business consultants would be very troubled by managers or leaders who have a style like that of NFL Coach Bill Parcells. In fact, most people in business would say and do whatever they could to make Bill Parcells change and conform to much softer, kinder, and more-empathetic ways.

[In recognition of another way of looking at it - Bill Parcells did get to present some of his sports-to-business leadership thoughts in Harvard Business Review. The message he presented in HBR made sense. It is interesting to consider his HBR words while watching him in action at the sidelines.] 

Whether Bill Parcells or Tony Dungy, for team sports differences in leadership style, coaching style, and management style are embraced. Style differences are embraced by owners, fans, players, and media critics. Style differences are embraced while a potential to win is in the mind of the sports critic. When the potential to win is no longer in the mind of the sports critic the sports critic often promotes leadership change specifically to bring about a change in leadership style. If the failed sports leader was viewed as ‘too nice’ then the critic would promote a change to tougher leadership – more discipline, more control, and a firmer hand. If the failed leader was viewed as ‘too autocratic’ then the critic would promote a change to a more easy-going leader. Interestingly enough, these sorts of radical changes in style often do bring about near-term success in team sports.  

Sports fans love this stuff...they call in to talk shows, watch the highlights and the pundits, etc.

But, what about in business?  

In business, how often do we hear, “Let’s bring in an autocratic leader to inject a good dose of discipline into this organization”? 

***

People invented sports.

People invented business.

Both business and sports are fundamental to our human condition.

While business and team sports are both constructs that combine human cooperation and human competition, they are so different it is dangerous to assume too much similarity.

It is particularly dangerous to think the concept of teamwork in business is interchangeable with the concept of teamwork in sports. Business might be much easier to perform if it was performed in a manner similar to the relatively simple way sports teams perform.

On the other hand, those same sales consultants insisted emotions play a large role when buyers buy.

So, perhaps there were two psychological conclusions: 

1. buyers employ logical thought (WIIFM?) as they make purchasing decisions and
2. buyers' emotions often (or is it always?) influence their purchasing decisions.

I'm suspecting the combination of these two psychological conclusions spawned the sales doctrine that can be summed up as ‘Find the Buyer's Pain and Make That Pain Go Away’.  

Put another way, Salespeople were instructed to become diagnosticians, something like Doctors...Salespeople were told to diagnose the customer’s pain and prescribe the remedy. And, of course, that would lead to making the sale. We were instructed, however, the Salesperson's role differed from that of the Doctor because the Doctor used logic and precedent to do the diagnosis of an already-existing pain while the Salesperson had to figure out how to cause the customer to feel the pain.

I mean – the sales training taught us: 

• the Salesperson had to guide communication in a manner that would induce the customer to truly experience emotional pain,
• the customer would first gain awareness of the nature of that pain and then come to realize the remedy for that pain,
• that remedy, of course, would be the service or product of the Salesperson, and
• with one having induced the pain and the other having felt it and enjoyed its remedy, and with one having done the sale and the other having done the purchase, the seller and the buyer would have concluded a successful business-communication experience. 

That’s the sort of sales training that I heard when I first heard the WIIFM? philosophy.

Later, the use of WIIFM? instruction became more widespread. We were told it didn't just apply to customers, it applied to everyone in our workplace...indeed, some instructed us that it applied to all interpersonal relationships. Of specific concern, it applied to communication in the office and more-specifically it applied when bosses communicated with employees. Most recently, I've heard it applied in an even-more-specific way...we must be extra careful to make sure we don't lose track of WIIFM? when we deal with ‘Gen Y’ or are they ‘Millennial’ employees. (Whatever the right terminology is, I am referring to our youngest employees.)  

Covey’s Seek First to Understand Then to be Understood. This is certainly an insightful instruction. It is tremendous in theory but sometimes it can be tough to do in practice. For most of us the practice is tough because we have lots of great ideas we want to share with others. And, on top of that, sometimes we forget the value of listening. Listening is one of those good habits so it is easy to break. Regardless, for most communication it makes sense to try to understand the other person before you expect them to try to understand you.

If everyone tried to follow this Steven Covey Habit #5 then business communication would improve. That is - in general, business communication would improve. There would be situations where communication would not improve. In fact, in some situations the value of the communication could be neutered. At the risk of being ridiculous…consider the situation where the employee is running through the office screaming "FIRE!!!". Coworkers and even the boss might find the best course is to simply act by making a prompt exit from the building. One could argue that isn't just a ridiculous example, it doesn't contravene "Seek First..." because everyone would immediately understand what "FIRE!!!" means so no seeking of understanding would be required. On the other hand, the boss might be really busy at the time and he/she may be tempted to stand some ground and make sure the employee who is yelling “FIRE!!!” has a good reason for such an interruption. Regardless, each of us can come up with fair-and-reasonable examples of business situations where "Seek First..." is not the best way.  

Or, maybe that's not true? While I've heard many business consultants instruct about "Seek First...", about WIIFM?, and about both I've never heard one of them instruct if or when these ‘rules’ can be or should be broken.

Perhaps it goes without saying?  

Perhaps the instructors assume we know "Seek First..." and WIIFM? are guides and they expect people will use common sense to judge when these guides can be or should be set aside? But, I've never heard any instructor make that sort of comment. In fact, every time I've heard it taught, WIIFM? has been presented as if it is a hard-and-fast fact of life. The instruction seems to be: when we deal with people we must always recognize the other person is using What's In It For Me? as the measuring stick that dictates his/her interest in and reaction to what we are saying.

The WIIFM? philosophy provokes thought and questions.  

• If WIIFM? prevails then how does an organization build teamwork?
• If WIIFM? prevails then how should bosses communicate with the people who report to them?
• If WIIFM? prevails then to what extent must the boss temper his/her personal WIIFM? needs in order to communicate successfully amidst the array of WIIFM? needs of his/her subordinates?  

“Seek First to Understand Then to be Understood” and “What's In It For Me?” are interesting pieces of advice.

It seems to me "Seek First..." is a Habit that serves well in many communication situations. However, for business communication it must have some limitations.  

It seems to me the advice on "What's In It For Me?" is at least a bit out of control. One should not ignore the fact other people have needs. However, that's but one facet. Needs are relative. That's another facet and, in business, that facet will conflict with the philosophy and instructions of WIIFM?.

Twenty-five years ago, a boss taught me a variation of the “Golden Rule”...it was – “He Who Carries The Gold Makes The Rules”. Not having heard any advice on WIIFM?, I accepted that Golden Rule and went about trying to be the best subordinate I could be. Not having heard any advice on "Seek First...", I went about trying to understand my boss' requests...again, so I could be the best subordinate I could be.  

Perhaps it goes without saying, but I will say it anyhow...for most of us, the “Rules” we are taught will tend to influence our behaviour.

The WIIFM? approach to communication is a piece of advice that is grounded on a reasonable starting point. Other peoples’ needs are important. That grounding would be a much more useful starting point if it yielded philosophy that could be embraced as a two-way street. If both parties accepted they must adjust their communication to accommodate the other person's WIIFM? then the practice of the philosophy of WIIFM? might be able to generate much more communication value. However, it seems deeper exploration will show us just how oxymoronic the WIIFM? philosophy is.  

The way I am looking at it, the WIIFM? philosophy either:

• works as a one-way street where one person must drive the car in the direction dictated by the other person or
• fails to work as a two-way street because both drivers will always struggle to determine which direction they should point their car.

The One-Way WIIFM? Street: 

The way I've heard it taught, the WIIFM? philosophy works as a one-way street. The Salesperson is taught to adjust his/her behaviour to address the WIIFM? needs of the customer. And, the boss is taught to adjust his/her behaviour to address the WIIFM? needs of the subordinate. While nobody has clarified it, the one-way street starts with the Salesperson going through a personal what-are-my-needs exercise...”What's in it for me if I deal with this customer?” Then, the Salesperson must apply the WIIFM? philosophy during communication with the customer. Similarly, the boss' one-way street starts with his/her personal needs then moves to the subordinate's WIIFM?. Perhaps bosses and Salespeople will achieve greater success by traveling down these One-Way WIIFM? Streets?

The Two-Way WIIFM? Street: 

I have never heard an instructor or a consultant provide WIIFM? advice to both Salespeople and buyers or to both bosses and subordinates. I would be very interested to know if any buyers have received WIIFM? indoctrination…ie, have any buyers been told to make sure they consider ‘what's in it for the Salesperson?’ and ‘how can I adjust my behaviour to address the needs of the Salesperson?’ Also, I'd be interested to know if any consultants advise both subordinates and bosses, together, on how to employ the WIIFM? philosophy for communication. Under that joint education, subordinates would be taught to back their communication with thinking like ‘what's in it for my boss?’ and ‘how can I adjust my behaviour to address the needs of my boss?’

While I have serious doubts, for the moment let's assume the Two-Way WIIFM? Street can happen. Let’s assume both customers and Salespeople can learn how to employ the WIIFM? philosophy…attending to one another's needs. And, let’s assume subordinates and bosses can do the same thing. Every person seeks to understand the other and to adjust behaviour accordingly to ensure the needs of the other are addressed. At the surface, maybe that sounds reasonable? Maybe that sounds like a great way to go about communication? 

I don't think we need to spend too much time thinking about how good (or bad) this would be in practice. It is flawed at theory, well before practice. In fact, it seems the flaws of the Two-Way WIIFM? Street illustrate what could be fatal flaws in the construct of the WIIFM? philosophy.

Here are some steps in logic:

• If WIIFM? generates better communication when one party in the communication employs it then surely even better communication will happen if it is embraced by both parties in the communication.
• But, as stated in its name the foundation of the WIIFM? philosophy is - "What's in it for me?".
• With that in mind we must conclude each of us will always start by thinking - "What's in it for me?". We will not start by thinking – “What’s in it for the other person?”. We will start by thinking – “What’s in it for me?” and with that established we will move to “What do I need to do to satisfy the WIIFM? needs of the other person?”
• Having gone through those two thinking steps we will then adjust our behaviour to accommodate the needs of the other…I would alter my behaviour to satisfy what I believe is your need while, at the same time, you would alter your behaviour to satisfy what you believe is my need.
• Each of us would be playing a communication charade on the other while each of us would in fact only be truly motivated to satisfy our own needs.
• Our tandem, self-imposed behaviour changes would simply be means to personal ends.

Each of us must be solely motivated to satisfy our own needs or nobody would have come up with this WIIFM? thinking in the first place.  

If that isn't true then it is logical to conclude the creators of the WIIFM? philosophy feel it only applies to one person in the communication. This appears to be the fact. If a Salesperson is communicating then the WIIFM? philosophy only applies to the customer. If a boss is communicating then the WIIFM? philosophy only applies to the subordinate.

WIIFM? is a One-Way Street communication philosophy. That street has a set direction. When the philosophy is applied it flows from the person who wants to cause change to the person who must do something in order to effect that change. 

Each of us in business must be motivated by our own needs. And, our business behaviour, whether natural/involuntary or constructed/thought-driven, is done to satisfy our own needs. If the teachers of WIIFM? philosophy don't agree with this then it seems to me their logic is flawed.

Or worse, they are promoting a curious form of caste-thinking, which works something like this: 

• Salespeople are purer than customers. [Or, if it is preferred – Salespeople want to cause change while customer-buyers do not.]
• Since they are purer, the behaviour of Salespeople is not driven by personal needs. Rather, Salespeople are solely motivated by the WIIFM? needs of their customers.
• Salespeople are able to construct communication in a manner that enables them to determine customers’ needs…I mean deep-rooted emotional needs.
• In order to satisfy those customers’ WIIFM? needs, the Salespeople perform behaviour specially constructed to guide the communication process in a manner that ends up satisfying the needs of their customers.

Similarly, bosses are purer than subordinates. Subordinates are stuck at WIIFM? while their bosses are solely trying to help them get all that subordinate WIIFM? need satisfied.  

No reasonable person will accept a philosophy that is based on caste-thinking as described above. So, it appears the foundation of the philosophy of WIIFM? is flawed. The starting point is accurate: people are motivated to satisfy their own needs and that motivation brings ‘what's in it for me?’ into every business communication. But, actually, to be accurate, it brings at least two separate pieces of ‘what's in it for me?’ thinking into each business communication...that is, one piece for each person involved in the communication.

Recognizing caste-thinking must not be behind the WIIFM? philosophy, it is highly unlikely the One-Way Street teachings will yield communication success. That is true because in the absence of caste-grounding the parties to a conversation will always be at odds. One party in the communication will be aware of his/her own needs and will adjust his/her behaviour to address his/her perception of the needs of the other person while that other person will be working to serve only his/her personal interests. Since no caste differences exist each party will be starting from the same place: that is – “My needs are most important to me”. Each party will have a more-or-less similar ability to perceive the needs of the other. That is, each person will have equal opportunity to employ the WIIFM? philosophy. However, only one will be doing it. At least, one person will be thinking only one person is doing it…that person being the one who received WIIFM? communication training. That person, apparently, will be engaging in the communication believing the WIIFM? training is providing him/her a leg up. Or, that person will be thinking – “My self-adjusted behaviour changes will enable me to accomplish my goals…and, yes, I believe the other party in the communication will not be adjusting his/her behaviour as I am doing”.

Even if it isn’t fatally flawed, I don’t think this What’s In It For Me? philosophy has much value.

Steven Covey provided better advice when he stated "Habit #5: Seek First To Understand Then To Be Understood".

Certainly, there will be times in business where this Habit #5 cannot be employed. In certain situations, bosses will have to provide instruction without seeking input or consensus from subordinates. We in business ought to be able to have some faith in bosses' good judgment. In other situations, it will be impractical or unacceptable to seek understanding of others. Some needs are personal and personal territory should be respected. And, time will be a factor. 

The 5^th Covey Habit is good advice.  

Seek First To Understand Then To Be Understood is good advice because it:

• recognizes every person has needs, so it enables us to work on a two-way street.
• works on a one-way street. Even if one person in the communication refuses to follow or fail at performance of the 5^th Habit, the communication will still have some chance of succeeding.
• is balanced and that is a fair way to handle communication. It is fair to place a similar burden on each person in the communication.
• works for subordinates as well as it works for bosses. There is no caste-thinking, no hierarchical lines separating who must give from who must receive.
• works for customers as well as it works for salespeople. There is no caste-thinking, no lines separating who must give from who must receive.
• promotes respect for others, without ignoring respect for self.
• promotes listening. People like receiving that from others.
• builds Value into communication and that in turn builds Value into business.