What is attempted here is to demonstrate that working as a team is not something spontaneous, but it is necessary to build it by means of convictions and a firm decision of the leadership structure of the companies. Man is not someone configured to carry out tasks together with others without reservation; and from this derives the need to think this as an objective to be achieved, and not as a fashion to which it is necessary to join without hesitation.
Although the benefits that teamwork brings have begun to be considered for some years, this way of carrying out daily activities is more a declamation than a reality.
There are many organizations that, trying to join the current management train, bet (most of the time with good intentions) that their collaborators carry out their tasks in a cooperative and solidary way.
However, they face a different reality from the one outlined by their wishes: many people find it difficult to share their work with others, thus concluding that teamwork is a utopia.
Let's start from the beginning, demolishing the first lyrical myth: Working as a team is an activity that does not tend to arise spontaneously, but needs to be built.
The difficulty with which companies meet is that they almost naively assume that man is a being prone to having the other at the time of their tasks, when experience teaches otherwise. Here it becomes essential to clarify that we are not talking about universals, and that logically there are countless people who escape this rule, revealing a real disposition to joint work. But without diminishing these exceptions, the important thing to keep in mind is the axiom that we propose: "Teamwork is always about building and it is never given a priori."
And the cause of this we must anchor it in the incidence of a contradictory process, present in each of the people who make up an organization. This process manifests itself in divergent feelings regarding "my place within the company". Specifically, each of the collaborators joins and participates in a company beyond a pure economic interest: it does so because it supposes that this will achieve higher objectives that could be achieved alone. But this tension between individuality-collectivity is the main reason why teamwork becomes a difficult path to travel.
If the majority of men consider work as a means to satisfy their needs, and at the top of which we find their own satisfaction, we must recognize that this is not achieved in a frank way, that is, without others. When the people who make up a company fall into the discomfort that a potential alienation generates or a possible loss of their own subjectivity in the networks of the organizational culture, a weakening in social ties occurs, resulting in and as the main manifestation, serious difficulties in teamwork.
In this way, it can be seen with total clarity, answering the initial question of why it costs the application in the company of a real collective logic. Let's say it once again: by the incidence of opposing forces of cohesion (willingness to be with others, and achieve common goals) and dispersion (fear of being confused with the other, losing their own qualities, and being absorbed by their own frame and ways of being from the company).
The fact is to be aware of this dialectical relationship between individual desires and the limits imposed by the group itself, allows entrepreneurs eager to achieve results through joint effort, to think that they must advance on arduous and steep terrain, but with the enormous capacity to provide enormous satisfactions upon reaching its final point.
