To some, the word power is a four letter word, in other words, a dirty word. Power just means the ability to accomplish work. Power exists and failure to acknowledge it, can prove disastrous. Some people who know they have power may avoid being members of work teams. Others with power may try to unduly exert that power if they are a member of a team. What powers do you have?

Power is typically associated with the movers and shakers of the world, like the Donald Trumps, the Warren Buffets or the executives in a corporation. Yes, these types all have power. Does the CEO have more power than a VP just because he or she is the CEO? In most cases, probably yes. However, there are times and circumstances when someone else’s power might trump the CEO’s power. Let’s take a look at the type of powers you might see and use on a daily basis.

Expertise or What You Know Let’s say you are excellent at negotiation and the CEO is not. You might be called into the trenches to land the next big deal with your negotiation skills. You have the power - at least for the "moment." Having information or expertise can also be used in power plays to embarrass, surprise or frustrate someone.

Teams usually have a mutual goal. Sports teams have a goal to win a game or tournament. Scientific teams might have a goal to find a cure, or gather information or find the source of a problem. Work teams have projects such as improving marketing, conducting customer research or product development to name a few examples. What happens to the team goal if the entire team is not clear on the goal or if each member has his or her own agenda either for the team or themselves?

A few descriptive words that come to mind are chaos, confusion, conflict, and failure. Have any of these ever happened to a team of which you’ve been a member? Have you ever been an observer of a team, such as a sports team, and observed the team falling apart right before your eyes. This can often happen during major playoff games where the pressure to win is even greater than normal. How does this same scenario occur in business teams?

Wouldn’t it be great to roll through each work day with a team that is collaborative, communicates well, values training and development, and has a genuine concern for the future leadership of the organization? Or is your team rolling on deflated tires? Is a team such as the description gone the way of Ford’s Edsel? (OK, I’m dating myself now, and you younger readers, just Google it). Such a team does exist at Goodyear North America. First a brief scenario of how this team began its journey as conveyed in the August issue of HR Magazine.

Their journey began with two questions, 1) who would replace current leaders? and 2) how was the company preparing future leaders? In addition, business pressures from global competition and volatile economic conditions were looming. Something had to be done. The decision was made to restructure the company. Now the team was able to identify the type of leadership the company would need to drive it forward. This, in turn, helped the team to identify the type of development these leaders needed to steer the company in the right direction. The team made the commitment to develop the process and put it in place to accelerate the shift. How does a company develop such a team?

Goodyear North America paved the way for their executives by laying out a roadmap taking each executive and the team to their destination of creating a tandem team.

Teams are supposed to work together flawlessly, share the workload, be collaborative, and watch each other’s backs. Operative words, supposed to. At least this is the theory. As we all know from school, theories are just that. Once we’re out of school theories go to hell in a hand basket and reality sets in. Let’s look at a few realties, what they are and how to deal with them.

Theory 1. Your team is working well together. Members are collaborative, cooperative, and respectful of one another and their ideas. In addition, if one member stumbles or has a problem, all or at least one other team member is there to take up the slack. Well, these descriptions are true except for one team member. Pat is argumentative, doesn’t pull her weight, and is pessimistic. Pat does not like teamwork, constantly misses deadlines and thinks the team meetings are boring. Behaviors such as these can bring morale down like a ten-story building imploding on itself.

Pat’s CEO values her as a competent employee. His solution? The CEO decides to allow Pat to skip all team meetings. He then spends extensive time both getting input from Pat before team meetings and then filling Pat in after team meetings. Seriously? This is hardly the best use of a CEO’s time. Further, this will only encourage Pat to have her own way about any other activity in which she doesn’t want to take part. In essence the CEO is condoning Pat’s behavior and may even be paving the way for other executives on his team to act out.