We value individual performance, and recognise, our individual star performers with extra benefits, pay, recognition, and promotion. We encourage (eg transformational) leadership qualities to emerge in our workforce irrespective of position, level or role, and heavily invest in those ‘lone-wolves’ in anticipation that they are the ones who will lead change, and bring the bleaters along for the ride. Reorienting the skills of the clever wolves and aligning their aptitude, wit, values and consciousness to roles that enable them to drive productivity and performance (as we know they deliver 80% of the benefits) is much better ROI than investing in the flock. We just need those wolves to emerge from the dens and make it to the top. The literature is prolific with leaders who make squillions from the books that reinforce notions of individual style and effort as responsible for organisational success. The lone wolf leaders make, or break, an organisation.

We similarly believe that it takes a village to raise a child. From this perspective, are the teams behind the successful leaders deferring the credit for success to the tall poppies, and taking the rap when they fall? Is this a cultural phenomenon, or are we just poor at ‘recognising the contribution of many, to the success of the whole’. It is easier to measure individual over team success (after all, those in leadership courses are a captive audience for measurement of change)?

Now to the real world. Can those individuals truly achieve success on their own? How we best understand the genuine contribution of teams to organisational success? What is it that we are missing? Can the flock really rise above the wolf? And what is the role of organisational psychologists in shepherding teams to enable their contribution, to measure their contribution and enable this to be recognised, supported and acknowledged? Or is the notion of teams just another metaphor?