Wolf credo
The wolf pack: team
dynamics for the 21st
century
Pamela R. Johnson
Virginia L. Heimann and
Karen O'Neill
The authors
Pamela R. Johnson, Virginia L. Heimann and
Karen O'Neill are at the Department of Management,
California State University, Chico, California, USA.
Keywords
Communication, Self-managing teams, Teamwork
Abstract
Today, many companies don't want employees who
merely ``do their jobs.'' Instead, they want people who
will make them profitable. And because profit-generation
is increasingly in the hand of ``teams'' of co-workers who
collaborate on short- or long-term projects, or even
permanently, companies are looking for people who can
fit this type of work structure. This article discusses how a
high performance team is much like a wolf pack, and
gives a background on the purpose of teams, and
describes the many reasons for failure of teams,
discussing the qualities needed for successful teams in the
21st century.
Electronic access
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at http://www.emerald-library.com
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today
Volume 12 . Number 4 . 2000 . pp. 159±164
# MCB University Press . ISSN 1366-5626
159
Respect the elders
Teach the young
Cooperate with the pack
Play when you can
Hunt when you must
Rest in between
Share your affections
Voice your feelings
Leave your mark
Introduction
Today, many companies don't want
employees who merely ``do their jobs.''
Instead, they want people who will make them
profitable. And because profit-generation is
increasingly in the hand of ``teams'' of co-
workers who collaborate on short- or long-
term projects, or even permanently, companies
are looking for people who can fit this type of
work structure (Chemical Times & Trends,
1995). Over the past decade, teams have
become a way of life in virtually all American
companies. In fact, more than 50 percent of all
Fortune 500 companies utilize them, and it is
estimated that by the year 2,002, 90 per-cent
of all North American organizations will have
at least some type of self-managed work team
in place (Elmuti, 1996). Heightened
productivity, improved quality and customer
service, fewer layers of management as well as
increased employee morale are just a few of the
selling points (Hayes, 1995).
Teams are fast becoming the management
practice of choice for organizations that wish to
become more flexible, push decision making to
the front lines, and fully use employees'
intellectual and creative capacities (Wageman,
1997). This paper will discuss how a high
performance team is much like a wolf
pack of the 21th century, give a background on
the purpose of teams, describe the many
reasons for failure of teams, and discuss the
qualities needed for a successful wolf pack
team.
The wolf pack
Andrew S. Grove of Intel Corporation has said:
You have no choice but to operate in a world
shaped by globalization and the information
revolution. There are two options: adapt or
die....
 The wolf pack: team dynamics for the 21st century
Pamela R. Johnson, Virginia L. Heimann, and Karen O'Neill
Organizations, today, need to plan for the
future like a wolf pack. The pack cannot
anticipate events so the pack must be flexible
and capable of responding to unpredictable
events (Townsend and DeMarie, 1998). Not
surprisingly, teams of the 21st century need
many of the same qualities as a wolf pack.
Attitude
The attitude of the wolf is always based upon
the question, ``What is best for the pack?''.
The attitude of the wolf is a constant
visualization of success. Wolves do not run
aimlessly around their intended victims,
yipping and yapping. They have a strategic
plan, executed through constant
communication. When the moment of truth
arrives, each understands his/her role and
understands exactly what the pack expects of
them. Wolves do not depend on luck. The
cohesion, teamwork, and training of the pack
determine whether the pack lives or dies
(Towery, 1995).
With humans, the strongest motivation and
the best work do not come primarily from the
lure of money, stock options, formal
recognition, or advancement. Most people,
even creative artists, want to be recognized
and rewarded for their work (Collins, 1996).
Successful teams have the right perspective
and right attitude. There is the story of David
and Goliath. When Goliath came against the
Israelites, the soldiers all thought, ``He's so
big we can never kill him.'' David looked at
the same giant and thought, ``He's so big, how
can I miss him?'' (Towery, 1995).
Uniqueness
In truth, there are usually no more than five to
eight wolves howling in a pack. The secret is
that the wolves are always careful not to
duplicate each other. Each wolf assumes a
unique pitch, respecting the distinctiveness of
the other members of the pack.
While the notes may change, as in any
beautiful song, one wolf will not copy the
pitch of another (Towery, 1995). This is also
true for organizational team members when
the awareness of each individual is celebrated
rather than stifled. Each person must assume
his/her share of responsibility for the group by
employing their special talents and strengths.
By expressing their own uniqueness and
respecting and encouraging the uniqueness of
others, the unity of the team becomes a
strong, formidable one. No one, regardless of
160
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today
Volume 12 . Number 4 . 2000 . 159±164
how large or small that person's part, is
looking to take over someone else's job
(Carley, 1996). Everyone has a job and each
job is vital to the success of the project.
Communication
The central principle behind teams is that the
members, rather than the managers, take
responsibility for their work, monitor their
own performance, and alter their performance
strategies as needed to solve problems and
adapt to changing conditions. The team also
recognizes that they exist in an organizational
context and, accordingly, their performance
goals should align with those of other
organizational units (McDermott, Waite and
Brawley, 1999). This group success is
dependent on effective communication and
on sharing knowledge among members
(Townsend and DeMarie, 1998).
Like humans, wolves do not rely upon any
single form of communication, but utilize
every means at their disposal. They howl,
nuzzle, lick, assume a dominant or submissive
posture, utilize intricate body language
including lips, eyes, and facial expressions to
relay messages. And like humans, a wolf's
eyes are used for the most sensitive of
communications. Miniscule movements of
the eye's musculature, as well as changes in
pupil size, express surprise, fear, happiness,
recognition and other emotions (Towery,
1995).
Creativity
Walter Elliott has said,
Perseverance is not a long race; it is many short
races one after another.
The Omega wolf is usually, but not always, a
male wolf and is often the runt of the litter.
The pack relegates him to last place in almost
everything, particularly getting to eat. When
they survive, however, the Omega wolves tend
to become very tough indeed. At some point,
they begin giving every bit as good as they get.
And it is not unusual that these Omega
wolves, after proving their survivability and
creativity, venture off on their own, becoming
the proverbial ``lone wolves'' for a period of
time. These lone wolves eventually join other
packs or find a mate and begin a pack of their
own (Towery, 1995). Members of the pack
must be prepared to not only carry their own
load, but also assume greater leadership and
creativity at any time. The viability of the
 The wolf pack: team dynamics for the 21st century
Pamela R. Johnson, Virginia L. Heimann, and Karen O'Neill
organization may well depend upon it.
Experience has shown, in fact, that if
managers stifle workers' creativity, as was the
historic cases emanating from the separation
of planning and doing, workers, accordingly,
will act dumb, thus fulfilling management's
expectations. On the other hand, if workers
are given the opportunity to be self-directed,
or more precisely, work-group directed, they
do rise to the occasion (Helfgott, 1994) much
like the Omega wolf.
Play
Humans routinely use the term ``work hard,
play hard,'' but this is the way wolves actually
live. Wolf pups are exuberant, and their play is
often uninhibited. Wolves are sociable animals
that draw strength from physical contact with
each other. Play refines their skills of
communication, teamwork, and hunting.
But play serves other purposes. It provides a
practical method of establishing and constantly
reassessing the pecking order within the pack.
Through experimental play, wolves learn how
to acquire food and sustenance. They also
become physically stronger and mentally
tougher at play (Towery, 1995).
Human beings know that positive peer
relationships are essential to success at work.
Cooperation, in addition to having fun,
among team members typically results in
higher achievement and greater productivity;
more caring and committed relationships; and
greater psychological health and self-esteem
(Smith, 1996).
In play, members participate in team-
building exercises and training; this increases
commitment to the team by increasing
members' satisfaction with each other and by
reducing conflict (Bishop and Scott, 1997).
When employees are involved in the creation
and progress of their project, they have more
fun and are more interested in their jobs.
Also, they are more likely to remain involved
and committed to their work. This creates a
work environment where the employees know
their mission and have a vested interest in its
success (Elmuti, 1996). Studies have shown
that commitment to a team may translate into
a willingness to help team members and
improve team results. Where there is little fun
and low level of commitment, teams
experience higher absenteeism, higher
turnover, and a greater desire to quit not only
the team but also the organization (Bishop
and Scott, 1997).
161
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today
Volume 12 . Number 4 . 2000 . 159±164
Background of teams
Self-managed work teams are essential not
because corporations are becoming kinder
and gentler toward employees, but because
they want to survive in a globally competitive
marketplace. New technology is
revolutionizing, albeit gradually, the nature of
work, with employees having to ``do'' less but
``think'' more, bringing intellectual abilities
into play (Helfgott, 1994). The accelerated
speed of change has made attention to quality
a necessity, and thus teams need to be more
dynamic, adaptable, and creative (Elmuti,
1996).
Yet, not surprisingly, all teams are not alike.
Some teams are permanent, others are part-
time, and still others are created only for a
specific project. In addition, some work teams
are comprised of people with similar skills,
while members of other teams have diverse
backgrounds. Some teams are like a crew
(rowing) team ± all pulling in unison. Some
are like basketball teams because
interpersonal coordination of different roles is
important. And still others function like
gymnastics teams; each person performs ±
and is scored-individually (Chemical Times &
Trends, 1995). Thus, teams come in assorted
shapes and sizes and exist for various
purposes. Companies risk, however, having
teams become just another ``flavor of the
month'' if they do not look at what makes
them work, where they work best, and what
effort is required truly to gain team
commitment, synergy, quality and
productivity (Glacel, 1997).
Because vivid team experiences are woven
through the fabric of our personal histories,
we are apt to regard teams in the workplace as
almost second nature. Yet doing teams right
is not second nature in most organizations. It
requires considerable preparation and a
different kind of management. And, it
requires more management, not less
(Frohman, 1995). Yet, the quality of a team's
design actually has a larger effect on its level
of performance than coaching. Well-designed
teams show far stronger signs of self-
managing than poorly designed teams
(Wageman, 1997).
When a team is well designed, there are
sound business reasons for organizations to
adopt teams:
(1) reduced costs;
(2) reduced workforce;
 The wolf pack: team dynamics for the 21st century
Pamela R. Johnson, Virginia L. Heimann, and Karen O'Neill
(3) increased profits;
(4) getting closer to customers;
(5) fewer layers of managerial bureaucracy;
(6) shorter time to market for products and
services;
(7) increased employee motivation and
commitment;
(8) increased recognition of individual
employees' contributions (Elmuti, 1996).
Team failure
However, in business, teams often yield
disappointing results. The unfulfilled promise
of such teams remains a mystery to many
people. After all, teams are usually composed
of successful, smart, hardworking people who
have been effective in their own areas. Yet,
they often fail to realize their potential for
collaborative, high-impact action (Hart, 1996).
While no magic formula exists, good
teaming needs conscious and conscientious
practice. Good teams simply do not happen
(Glacel, 1997). A great deal has been written
about why work teams fail, and most of the
blame indeed is laid at management's door.
Much of this criticism is well earned. Lack of
a long-term vision, insufficient commitment
of time and money, inadequate planning,
insufficient training, and too little coaching
are all common sources of team failure. And
these problems all arise from managers who
want results but are unwilling to provide what
is needed (Holpp and Phillips, 1995).
It is easy to blame the organization or boss
for the low performance of a team, but often
the ineffectiveness is within the team
members themselves who cause the team to
fail (Richardson, 1995). This failure is, after
all, a two-way street. While management
needs to get serious, teams need to take
responsibility for their own problems and
shortcomings. There are numerous reasons
why teams fail:
. people are not listening to one another;
. the tasks and objectives are not clear;
. a few people dominate the meeting;
. people are talking to the boss and looking
for approval from him/her;
. little sense of priority seems to exist
among the team members;
. novel ideas are frowned upon;
. little open disagreement is heard;
. decisions are made without challenge or
confrontation;
162
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today
Volume 12 . Number 4 . 2000 . 159±164
. team members demonstrate little passion
or enthusiasm (Richardson, 1995).
Another reason teams fail is because they have
not learned how to think and how to behave
the way team members on high-performing
teams do. High-performing teams are not
status conscious groups. People openly
debate and challenge one another. Consensus
comes out of the lively exchange of competing
ideas (Richardson, 1995).
Also, most team members simply do not
know themselves as a group. They are not
conscious of how they think together and
consequently cannot recognize and avoid the
barriers to group learning that they repeatedly
encounter (Hart, 1996). Responsibility falls
on all team members to bring people into
discussion and to listen to ideas opposite from
their own. In other words, all members need
to share the responsibility of leadership. In
high-performing teams, only limited hierarchy
exists. When hierarchy, conflict or style get in
the way of individual contributions, the team
fails (Glacel, 1997).
Finally, teams fail when there are
inadequate resources, inadequate time for
meetings, lack of coordinated work schedules,
and lack of decision-making authority (HR
Focus, 1996). For all their claimed promise,
then, many self-managed teams never
contribute to organizational performance and
adaptability because they never operate as
intended (Wageman, 1997).
While the wolf pack may be nature's most
effective hunting machine, they, too, fail. In
fact, wolves have a failure rate of
approximately 90 percent. In other words,
statistically, only one time out of ten does the
wolf have a successful hunt, which is so
necessary to the survival of the pack. Their
response is not lethargy, surrender, or defeat.
They don't brood or go into depressive funks
as people often do. Wolves simply rededicate
themselves to the task at hand. They continue
to apply their time-tested skills, utilizing the
knowledge they have recently acquired from
temporary setbacks, confident that success
will eventually come (Towery, 1995).
People need to become more like the
wolves. They need stamina, perseverance,
and self-motivation. As someone once said:
People are like stained glass windows; they
sparkle and shine when the sun is out. But when
the darkness sets in, their true beauty is revealed
only if there is light within.
 The wolf pack: team dynamics for the 21st century
Pamela R. Johnson, Virginia L. Heimann, and Karen O'Neill
Team success
With the light within burning brightly, well-
structured successful teams possess five
essential elements:
(1) positive interdependence; one cannot
succeed unless the other members of the
group succeed.
(2) face-to-face promotive interaction; team
members interact to help each other
accomplish the task and promote one
another's success.
(3) individual accountability/personal
responsibility; team members learn
together so that they can subsequently
perform better as individuals. Team
members are held accountable to do their
fair share of the work.
(4) teamwork skills; members use decision-
making, trust-building, communication
and conflict management skills.
(5) group processing; teams describe what
member actions are helpful and unhelpful
and make decisions about what to
continue or change (Smith, 1996).
In addition to these five essential elements,
superb teams encourage members to:
. experiment with new ways to work more
effectively;
. seek best practices from other teams and
other parts of the organization;
. take action to solve problems without
waiting for direction;
. discuss differences in what each member
has to contribute to the work;
. meet the needs of the customers;
. operate with increasing effectiveness over
time; and to be
. engaged in and satisfied with their work
(Wageman, 1997).
And finally, teams are successful when:
. people feel empowered and act upon it;
. they do what they feel is right;
. they aren't afraid to take risks;
. they look everywhere for answers, not just
up;
. they are linked to company strategies;
. they ask for help and are part of the
solution; and
. they look to themselves for answers rather
than complaining (Flynn, 1997).
Successful teams need to fit into the
organization. They are never fully self-
directed or completely independent. Progress
163
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today
Volume 12 . Number 4 . 2000 . 159±164
must be monitored, and teams must be kept
informed of relevant developments elsewhere
in the organization. Otherwise, they may stray
off course without knowing it (Frohman,
1995). In addition, teams must do post-
project analyses to find out what worked and
what didn't. In a study done at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, hundreds of team
leaders were surveyed across the US and it
was found that fewer than half (46 per cent)
regularly did post-project analyses of any
depth. Of those, only 27 per cent said they
used what they learned to improve the next
project, and of that 27 per cent a scant 13 per
cent said they shared their new-found
knowledge with people in other parts of the
company (Fisher, 1998).
Conclusion
From being almost nonexistent a decade and
a half ago, involvement of employees in
decision making with respect to their work has
grown enormously. Such groups whether
called committees, teams, circles, or wolf
packs, have come to address the whole realm
of business concerns. Teams of the 21st
century need to look to the wolf pack to learn
how to work, play, and communicate with
each other. It is only in doing so, they might
confidently begin the new millennium.
References
Bishop, J. and Scott, K. (1997), ``How commitment affects
team performance'', HRMagazine, Vol. 42 No. 2,
February, pp. 107-11.
Carley, M. (1996), ``Teambuilding: Lessons from the
theatre'', Training & Development, Vol. 50 No. 8,
August, pp. 41-3.
Chemical Times & Trends ``The Catch: All teams are not
alike'' (1995), Chemical Times & Trends, Vol. 8
No. 3, July 1, p. 36.
Collins, J. (1996), ``Motivating high performance work
teams", INC., Vol. 18 No. 18, p. 55.
Elmuti, D. (1996), ``Sustaining high performance through
self-managed work teams'', Industrial Management,
Vol. 38 No. 2, March/April, pp. 4-8.
Fisher, A. (1998), ``Do scapegoats make the best team
players?'', Fortune, Vol. 138 No. 2, July 20, p. 156.
Flynn, G. (1997), ``How do you know if your work teams
work?'', Workforce, Vol. 76 No. 5, May, p. 7.
Frohman, M. (1995), ``Do teams ... but do them right'',
Industry Week, Vol. 244 No. 7, April 3, p. 21.
Glacel, B. (1997), ``Teamwork's top ten lead to quality'',
The Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 20
No. 1, pp. 12-16.
 The wolf pack: team dynamics for the 21st century
Pamela R. Johnson, Virginia L. Heimann, and Karen O'Neill
Hart, E. (1996), ``Leadership teams'', Executive Excellence,
Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 9-12.
Hayes, C. (1995), ``The new spin on corporate work
teams'', Black Enterprise, Vol. 25 No. 11, June,
pp. 229-32
Helfgott, R. (1994), ``The work group: Key to successful
employee involvement'', Business & The
Contemporary World, Vol. 6 No. 1, Winter, pp. 150-8.
Holpp, L. and Phillips, R. (1995), ``When is a team its own
worst enemy?'', Training, Vol. 32 No. 9, pp. 71-8.
HR Focus ``Motivating Teams to Succeed'' (1996), HR
Focus, Vol. 73 No. 1, January, p. 12.
McDermott, L., Waite, B. and Brawley, N. (1999), ``Putting
together a world-class team'', Training and
Development, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 46-51.
164
Journal of Workplace Learning: Employee Counselling Today
Volume 12 . Number 4 . 2000 . 159±164
Richardson, B. (1995), ``Why work teams flop ± and what
can be done about it'', National Productivity
Review, Vol. 14 No. 9, pp. 9-14.
Smith, K. (1996), ``Cooperative learning: Make
`groupwork' work'', New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, Vol. 67, Fall, pp. 71-82.
Towery, T. (1995), The Wisdom of Wolves, Sourcebooks,
Inc., Naperville, IL.
Townsend, A. and DeMarie, S. (1998), ``Virtual teams:
Technology and the workplace of the future'',
Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 3,
August, pp. 17-29.
Wageman, R. (1997), ``Critical success factors for
creating superb self-managing teams'',
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 1, Summer,
pp. 49-62.