~uring the last decade of the Twentieth Century， nearly every company<br >in North America caught the team bug. If the hype was to be believed， work-<br >place teams would solve virtually every corporate problem， ratchet up qual-<br >.it}，， increase productivity and profits， improve organizational culture， and<br >cure the common cold. Teams were good. Teams were in. Hierarchy was bad.<br >Hierarchy was out.<br > Try this thought experiment: The boss comes back from a conference<br >(always a dangerous thing) carrying a big binder they handed out at the con-<br >ference and announces that the organization is going to "institute teams? <br >Clearly he or she expects everyone else to share the zeal and， so， forms an<br >executive team to plan the "teaming effort? <br > Soon， teams are being formed across the company. There s a big kickoff<br >meeting or videoconference broadcast. An eye-catching logo and clever motto<br >are flashed on the screen and emblazon the T-shirts， baseball caps， and but-<br >tons that are distributed to everybody in the company.<br > The training department gets into the spirit and training classes， Web<br >sites， manuals， and posters are popping up all over the place. There are teams<br >meeting everywhere， employees carrying notebooks， gathering data and mak-<br >ing presentations to management with their proposals.<br > It s now 18 months later. The posters are gone; the buttons are junk in<br >the back of that pencil drawer in your cubicle and the word"team"--if spo-<br >ken at an--is whispered or elicits a sneer.<br > Ring a bell? It would in lots of cubicles and offices across America. So<br >what happened? Was the idea to try teams a bad one? The answer， I believe，<br > is a clear and resounding NO! The problem was not with teams. This is a<br > description of what can happen in atW organizational change effort and isn t<br > about teams.<br >