Register now or log in to join your professional community.
Partially agreed, To be more optimistic I would give enough cover to the weak links and will see that they are not exposed too much to the vulnerable situations.
I don’t agree with this commonly shared notion and will never adopt it in a so-called team building practice or strategy. I actually even dislike it! (please allow me to elaborate)
The moment you point fingers of blame is the moment you start destructing instead of constructing what is supposed to be a water-proof dam of a team. This may sound more philosophical & utopian that it is in real life, but I have immense belief in its truism & effect. You can either call it a team & make it act like one, or refrain from concealing its main reliance and point of strength: individual competitiveness aimed at not becoming the weakest link as opposed to togetherness. How will this effect creativity or long term orientation of the more creative or analytical team-members, for instance?
When you highlight a “LINK” (in a team) you subtract (or weaken) a link in that team. Teams & team building is all about working & thinking together like one entity pulling in the same direction, supporting each other & sharing strength & knowledge weight. (Like how the ancient Spartan myth depicts fearless warriors’ ability of defeating humungous standing armies based on nothing but togetherness, skill, equality & agreement on shared values).
Besides, team building nowadays emphasize on encouraging creativity, autonomy & diversity. How will you measure "weak"? An accent, not liked by others, low sales figures?
Example: Pierre van Hooijdonk in Dutch football
The Dutch national football team (last World Cup finalist against Spain) & a famed football school in itself, used to have a player a couple of years ago named Pierre van Hooijdonk in its main formation (well, sitting on the bench as a substitute!). I never liked him as a footballer, as he wasn’t skilled & looked rather clumsy & slow. He was an excellent goal maker, though, in foreign competitions, especially with headers given his length, and through free-kicks, but he never really stood out in national team. This guy was always selected during his age-related peak time, yet he wasn’t famed for big tangible achievement! He actually spent more time on the bench. How selected & why?
The brilliant coach had enough excellent player fitting his formation & strategy but this guy was named in Dutch the “flavor maker” of the team nonetheless. How? He was that off the pitch, in hotel rooms, restaurants, during trainings & everywhere off the pitch. ALL players would run to him (as if they were thanking him!) after scoring a goal in weird way of celebration to someone who doesn’t know who this guy was! Can he be loved by all? He had a strong charisma, admirable likability, excellent coaching abilitie, thorough football insight & most importantly he never complained about being second or12th to others in an envious way! He was the perfect team player! He is now a business man & a football commentator now. He’s said to have partially developed these abilities because of his early mixed-race life experiences being a son of a Moroccan biological father & a Dutch mother (diversity).
Was Pierre van Hooijdonk, the poor goal scorer for Dutch national team a weak link or a strong one?
Yes, it's right because the weak link may be broken even the rest of the team is strong or being affected badly also it will affect on the whole team.
Truth: one mistake can damage your history
Do you need help in adding the right keywords to your CV? Let our CV writing experts help you.