Creating a 'team'

[Pentagon]

For my story, I want to have a team of graduates, who are assigned to work on a project.

I have some idea's about what makes them different, so from a fundamentals perspective, one of them is good at computers, one of them is good at science etc.

I suppose the question is, in the service of the story, why has Pentagon chosen to use a team of 4, rather than just one talented person who knows all of it?
- part of it, was I wanted them to actually talk to each other, and there are times where they have to split up, and god forbid, work as a team!
- but also, I wanted to subtly convey some of the nuisances of how they interact with each other, without it turning into, 'the entire team stopped work on their super important assignment to discuss how they felt about two of the team dating...'

Does anyone have any experience of using this effectively, and any pitfalls to avoid?

Pentagon

 

[MemoryTale]

In answer to the first question the Pentagon would probably rather go for a team rather than one super brainy person. First off, a team of four with different specialities would be easier to find and recruit rather than a genius who excels at multiple sciences. Second off, what would the Pentagon do if this paragon got run over by the number 42 bus? Replacing a computer specialist is going to be a lot easier than replacing a super genius.

In regards to the second question, it all depends on how professional your team are. Do your dating couple keep their job faces on while at work, or are they sneaking off to the supply cupboard for a quick snog? If they are, how do the other two feel about this? Can they keep working together if they break up?
Personal discussions can still happen even if your team is uber professional. Lunch breaks happen and people can discuss things then. A good example is The Big Bang Theory. When the characters meet during work time their conversations are usually to do with work stuff, but when they meet in the canteen they'll talk about movies and relationships and stuff like that.

Hope this helps.

 

[Brian G Turner]

What you need with a group of people is conflict. Each members has their own interests, desires, and motives - and some of these should clash with others in the team.

That way you make both the characters and the story seem more real, as opposed to a dull narrative of "a group of people got together to work on a problem, and got on professionally well as they solved it".

 

[Pentagon]

In answer to the first question the Pentagon would probably rather go for a team rather than one super brainy person. First off, a team of four with different specialities would be easier to find and recruit rather than a genius who excels at multiple sciences. Second off, what would the Pentagon do if this paragon got run over by the number 42 bus? Replacing a computer specialist is going to be a lot easier than replacing a super genius.

Of course, as a writer, I can invent said paragon in about 20 seconds. The question is, is the complexity of going into the team, I think those elements are critical in the sense that these characters DO have to work together.

As a plot device, I can have the MC have questions answered by one person and give no explanation at all. I think that showing a little of how the team does it, is worth the words as it were. But it's just about bringing them out of their shells, but also thinking 'I'm bothering to explain some of the working's here, how can I get most value from it, and keep them as characters not glorified setting porn masquerading as characters.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Google Belbin's team roles (and also Tuckman's stages of team formation)

Belbin lists the 9 critical team roles that must be represented for a team to function well - and that is the common reason for a team rather than an individual approach.
Possibly also of interest is the Tannenberg-Schmidt model which links team management to the maturity of a team.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Two of the podcasts of the last months 'writing excuses' by Brandon Sanderson et al, have dealt with ensemble casts.

Check them out.

pH

 

[The Big Peat]

I found the TVTropes page for Five Man Band and other such groups surprisingly helpful when I was considering ensemble casts myself. Ultimately, ensemble casts live and die on the inter-character dynamics - the TVTropes gets pretty quickly to the usual dynamics. Might be worth looking at some ensemble casts you really like and breaking down the dynamics there.

i.e. Harry Potter

Harry - Ron - Their relationship is marred by jealousy. Ron is the family underachiever who'd love some of the spotlight Harry gets; Harry hates the spotlight he gets and gets angry when Ron doesn't see it that way.

Harry - Hermione - Their relationship is marred by Harry taking decisions largely on emotional grounds and Hermione making decisions largely on logic. When those two things conflict, they really struggle to see the other's point of view, and as these two act somewhat as co-leaders, we get more of that.

Hermione - Ron - Their relationship is marred by refusing they want to get frisky... eh, something else I can't quite get at the moment.

But I hope the idea comes through.

*goes to google* Jo, do you mean Tannenbaum-Schmidt? Or is google being stupid?

 

[Overread]

Other thoughts:

1) Even if you've a genius, a single person is going to have a certain outlook on life and a certain viewpoint. If you've one person you've only one viewpoint and thus in any problem solving situation you run the risk of missing key and critical elements because of that blinkered vision. Thus even if one person is carrying the team, others might well have strong value in simply tackling the issue from another angle, even if its just to present that angle as a possibility for the "genius" to consider.

2) Try to avoid a formula team. In most work situations a team will be comprised of experts within fields; but most (not all) will be aware of areas of importance outside of their field of interest. And if the team task relies on regular interactions within the industry then chances are several team members might already have a good awareness of other team members areas of interest - even if not as experienced or deep an understanding.
This is essentially saying build a team not a Dungeons and Dragons party - where a mage is a mage and can't know about swordplay and vis versa etc...
Note you'll often see a lot of very "limited" perspective characters in TV shows; its an excellent way to have a character then go on to explain what is going on or the situation (that can be justification for a rooky/idiot/outsider etc... to be in on the team - heck since he's mentioned Harry Potter is a fantastic example of a character who is an outsider who then has to have the magic world explained to him - a good way to mask and sneak in info-dumps).

3) Relationships and such conversation will vary depending on the situation and how they interact. Even in a highly important office or situation there will be down-time here and there. Or the team might make their own. It also depends on how regularly they interact; how much they can interact with the "outside world (ergo outside of the team)"; how long hours their work is; the duration of the contract (the longer the project takes the more those social elements will likely creep in, whilst if its a week or two short term chances are most will have a greater chance of remaining professional).
It can also vary depending greatly on the team leader(s) (appointed or whoever rises to the top) and the tone set early on by the team. A very professional start will keep things professional for longer with most people; similarly a very lax start will have the opposite effect.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I found the TVTropes page for Five Man Band and other such groups surprisingly helpful when I was considering ensemble casts myself. Ultimately, ensemble casts live and die on the inter-character dynamics - the TVTropes gets pretty quickly to the usual dynamics. Might be worth looking at some ensemble casts you really like and breaking down the dynamics there.

i.e. Harry Potter

Harry - Ron - Their relationship is marred by jealousy. Ron is the family underachiever who'd love some of the spotlight Harry gets; Harry hates the spotlight he gets and gets angry when Ron doesn't see it that way.

Harry - Hermione - Their relationship is marred by Harry taking decisions largely on emotional grounds and Hermione making decisions largely on logic. When those two things conflict, they really struggle to see the other's point of view, and as these two act somewhat as co-leaders, we get more of that.

Hermione - Ron - Their relationship is marred by refusing they want to get frisky... eh, something else I can't quite get at the moment.

But I hope the idea comes through.

*goes to google* Jo, do you mean Tannenbaum-Schmidt? Or is google being stupid?

Darn phone spellchecker yes - Tannenbaum

 

[The Big Peat]

Tuckman's Stages of Team Formation looks really useful as a storytelling device actually. Its a small plot framework right there.

I don't suppose you've got anything on new people joining established teams?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Tuckman's Stages of Team Formation looks really useful as a storytelling device actually. Its a small plot framework right there.

I don't suppose you've got anything on new people joining established teams?

Plenty of powerpoints but no formal model - basically when that happens the team reverts to stage one of Tuckman's but often progresses quicker through the stages (provided leadership ensure amalgamation)

 

[Scarfy]

I'm currently reading THE LONG WAY TO A SMALL, ANGRY PLANET, in which the crew mostly get along fine with one another; in the main, it's the crew against their environment. I'm 70% of the way through, and while there is some squabbling, the team, as buddies, works well. It's a very enjoyable novel, and I recommend it to anyone who's not read it.

(I actually found out that Becky Chambers originally self published it, before it was picked up by a publisher. Great for her!)

 

[RX-79G]

Pentagon should use a team because Pentagon wants to write about a team. No need to rationalize it.

The pitfalls of writing about teams are usually the aforementioned perfect division of skills - that's baloney. Their skills will sometimes highly overlap, or have huge gaps.

Don't assume simple hierarchy - real groups of people don't always fit into flow charts in neat ways.

The formation of the team may be a combination of both personal and purely professional connections. Some of the members may be imposed from the outside, and that isn't necessarily negative.

Your writing focus doesn't have to treat the ensemble equally. An important team member can also be a minor character for their contribution to the telling of the story even if their contribution to the plot is huge.

There isn't a "smart guy". When it comes to epiphanies, anyone can have them - even outside their expertise. The team allows that to work because the expertise is right there to make it happen.

The best person at a given task isn't necessarily the person doing it. Your number one programmer might have to do the administration tasks leaving #2 to do the heavy lifting.


In other words, don't treat the team as a flat entity. You story is about whatever you want, and you shouldn't necessarily give the team special significance in the story, even though the team's formation is momentous to the members themselves.

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm not absolutely certain what you are asking here; but...

It wouldn't be uncommon for one man to have initiated whatever project that the group are selected for and he could be one capable of doing the whole thing. However as some have said, you don't put all your eggs in one basket. So everywhere you go there will be deadlines and having one person meet deadlines is riskier than having four so it might not be a matter even of having those people's talents be so diverse from each other.

And being graduates they may already have done graduate work that involved teams of people who were expected to have equal background and skills. More importantly the deadlines mean that the one man is now expected to assemble a team. Even though the mantra of hurry up and wait might still apply in a large number of fields, that's not enough to warrant putting all the pressure on that one genius and assuming there will be built in dead time for him to catch up.

Case in point; the private sector company I work for hired me when the Jack of all trades, his name really was Jack, was being overworked. I came in as engineering support; basically I could do all the electronic documentation for the projects and help with the printed circuit designs and interface with the production manager to determine if we had all the resources on site to accomplish the task. We would meet at least once a week and make sure we were on schedule. Later we brought in firmware designers to take up the load from the Senior designer, Jack, and eventually we brought in software designers. Up until that point dos software was just fine because windows was still an infant; but soon we would need windows software designers to bring us up to speed.(This was a while ago.)

The point though is that we built the team as a support structure under the overworked genius, adding members as the need became apparent.

An important part of the process was being able to recognize at each step where we needed a qualified body to fill a gap that was technically already there because Jack was doing all of this himself all along.

In the long run it makes perfect sense to make a team and even more sense that that team might grow over time if what they do is useful.

 

[Toby Frost]

The only thing I would add to what's been said is to avoid them either hating one another or bickering and sulking constantly. It does happen in quite a few stories, but it always makes the grownup (and highly professional, allegedly) characters look like teenagers. I find it very irritating when one of the team betrays the planet to Cthulhu just because he can't have the hero's girlfriend.

 

[The Big Peat]

The only thing I would add to what's been said is to avoid them either hating one another or bickering and sulking constantly. It does happen in quite a few stories, but it always makes the grownup (and highly professional, allegedly) characters look like teenagers. I find it very irritating when one of the team betrays the planet to Cthulhu just because he can't have the hero's girlfriend.

Note - while betraying the planet to Cthulhu because you can't have a team mate's girlfriend makes the book incredibly irritating, betraying the planet to Cthulhu because you can't have any of their chocolate digestives could make for a pretty entertaining book if approached right

 

[Theophania Elliott]

One thing I've noticed in the books I've read is that having a team - even if that's one main character with a few very regular "important" secondaries - often makes for a more interesting book/series than having one super-genius.

I'd say:

• Decide on your team culture. Is it cool and formal, or informal? Both have their advantages, but you probably want to avoid flipping back and forth.
• Do they work in an open-plan office, or do they have separate rooms? It sounds stupid, but it can be important. I work in a small team in one office. We all work on our own problems - but because we're all in together, we have the tendency to butt in on each other's work. Someone else's problem is always more interesting than your own... That would be harder to do with separate offices (though still possible). Also, one office means you can get chat during work time, but separate offices means chat during breaks only. It might make a difference to how the story works.
• How well do they know each other? What sort of things do they talk about? Do they know each other's favourite sexual position, or do they just talk about the weather?
• What are the working hours like? You'll get a different feel, and people will interact differently, if it's a 9am-5pm job with everyone going home on time, versus the long-hours-fuelled-by-coffee-and-pizza culture. With the former, people will have more time outside work to pursue family/hobbies, and may talk about that. If the latter, they may bitch about not having time for the former - or they may like it.
• Do any of the team have family outside the team, or are they all young, free and single? Or old, free and single?
• Do you have anyone whose attention isn't really on the job? That person who shows up at five past nine, and starts closing down at ten to five and is out of the door at two minutes to? Who's always got some excuse when the team needs someone to stay late?
• Is this a career, or just a job? Who's bucking for promotion - and to what?
• What did they all do before, and how have they brought that experience into the team? Not just technical knowledge, but also work-culture assumptions.
• Whose job is it to buy the cookies? (In my office, it's Management's job.)
• If there is fieldwork, or people are working on different projects, how do they communicate with the rest of the team? Team meetings? Notes pinned to a corkboard? Email?

Pitfalls

• Making it too much like those reality shows where it's obvious that people were picked because they'd all hate each other. And if there are two characters who can't stand each other, how do they show it? Teenage tantrums, or cool professionalism and distance?
• Forgetting that the team is (presumably) part of a larger organisation. If that's the case, they're not operating in a vacuum - there'll be reports and paperwork and meetings, and a need to do what the Top Brass say, even if it's complete broken biscuits. (And how do the team feel about Top Brass?) They can't just go off on a frolic of their own. Plus, how do they communicate with people downstream from them?
• Making all managers idiots. The idiot manager who only cares about politics and not about results is now a cliche. Why not strike out and make the manager the one who's right? Maybe the team is too blinkered and can't see the bigger picture...

• Paul Cornell does the 'team that hasn't gelled yet' in his Shadow Police books quite well.
• Anton Strout was going for 'bureaucratic insanity' in his Simon Canderous books - personally, I think he went too far and it stopped being amusing and just turned silly and not very believable.
• Daniel O'Malley's The Rook does amusing bureaucracy a bit better.
• Laura Anne Gilman's Paranormal Scene Investigations series features setting up a team.

 

[mosaix]

Regardless of any differences between them the real essence of any team is that, when push comes to shove, they're there for each other. They watch each others backs.

 

[Pentagon]

Wow, thanks for the huge amount of advise, which I shall slowly digest.

Context: Senior political figure has on board her personal ship the 'Communications and Research' team. They're all arguably 'genius' in their own right, or atleast very bright. As they are by definition chosen through a galaxy wide fast stream process. Their role, is to be a point and click, 'ambassador want's a solution' deal with it. So very generalist, as it stands they will have a lot of overlap on the fundamentals (they all know how to use google!), but they will also have their more niche skills.

Story plot as stands: Ambassador discovers that the Military/Police/Intelligence has a mole, ambassador cannot employ any of aforementioned organisations to deal with it for obvious reasons, so gives the problem, however reluctantly to the 'Communications and Research' team.

Dimensions as stand;

Team supervisor is removed before the story starts, at the time of briefing. So no official leadership. The oldest of them, but not by much- tries to assert himself over the rest of the team; in as much a big brotherly way as a egomaniac way, but this creates friction with the youngest. Not especially, because the youngest is vying for it herself, but she's more a 'plays by no rules but her own' type. This is exaggerated by the subtle knowledge that the youngest is 'probably' the brightest of them all, and they all know it. This dynamic I am working on 'showing' not telling, so looking at Michael being warm and constructive with all characters but Susan, who he snaps at.

I would add, it's going to be all of their first jobs, if not immediately out of, or possibly headhunted before finishing university. They're by far the youngest, so will be relatively close, as the four 'children' on an austere government vessel. Certainly no Cthulu biscuit rage!

The ambassador, DOES trust them, in as much a 'I have trusted them with this mission, to contemplate them failing would be a failure on my part' aspect. But there are points where they are defended by their boss. (though of course, they do get the results!)

Whilst they are all ambitious, there will be an element of overwhelmed, if you are immediately thrown into very big stakes, plus seeing what happens to the upper ranks, they're ambitions will be relatively tempered.

I am interested in the point about not treating them equally, as currently, I have the team member whose perspective the chapters are told from, plus Michael and Susan- the forth team member is useful, but I don't have as much to do with them as it stands.

 

[Theophania Elliott]

This sounds like my job.

OK, no spaceships and no ambassadors, and not so exciting, but my team's job is to sit in an office and be presented with problems. Which we are then supposed to solve. Sometimes, it's the kind of problem where we don't understand the question, let alone know what the answer is going to be, so we have to figure out what the question means before we can start on the answer!

However, from personal experience:

• Technical genius only takes you so far. Life experience and simple time-in-grade counts. Problems come around again: "Oh, I looked at this in 2009 - check the records." Cuts down hours of research to minutes.
• Practicality counts - and this tends, but doesn't always, go with experience. Some of the worst trainees I've had have been the ones with the first-class degrees - they were great on theory and dreadful on practical application. As you gain more experience, you start realising that sometimes problems can be solved the low-tech, simple way. You also get better at being able to define what the problem actually is - and it's often not what the enquirer thought it was. You also realise that the stuff you were taught at university isn't the whole story - the real world is a lot messier, and people don't obey the rules. Even sensible ones like 'people should have one problem at a time'. (Note: the one rule people always seem to have no trouble obeying is 'Friday afternoon is an excellent time to have a problem'.)
• Problem-solving is a skill like any other: some people are naturally good at it (not necessarily the ones who are the 'cleverest') and you can get better at it with practice. It's a matter of seeing the way through, and that tends to come with experience. If you've ever worked with that bloke who's been in the job for forty years and has seen it all before, you'll know that one!
• Kids straight out of university often don't have the skills necessary for weird-ass problem-solving. It's not their fault - it's just that the more baseline knowledge you have of a wide range of subjects, the more chance that you know something that will help. We've got a new girl in my office at the moment - she's at least three years out of university, been doing a professional level job for those years, and we've only just started letting her answer the phone after several weeks in the office. She still has to get everything checked before she tells anyone anything, and even though she's a bright girl and works hard, it'll be months before she's really ready to work alone. The thought of four kids straight out of university being put in charge of solving important, technical/political problems makes my blood run cold.

You might also want to consider...

If Michael is nice to everyone but Susan, then a) he's not a good manager/leader and b) Susan will have a case for constructive dismissal. Why not consider having him be nice/professional to her - with that little extra bit of effort? And maybe sometimes he's just a bit sharp? The way you've described Susan, there'll probably be plenty of opportunities for her to be justifiably slapped down!

Why, for this team, did the ambassador recruit kids straight out of university? Why wasn't she looking for people with more experience?

My personal opinion is that you'd want at least one person with insider experience in the military, and somebody with political expertise, if they're being given military/political problems. Even if that one person is the only experienced person in the team, a bunch of kids are going to need someone to ride herd on them and provide the real-world-experience perspective. If their original supervisor has been removed, why not replace him? Even if he's replaced with someone good, there's plenty of opportunity for conflict, especially if the previous guy is the one who recruited the team and they have some loyalty to him.

Of course... if it's just the kids, they're probably going to screw up a lot. They're going to send back answers that are technically correct, and then have it thrown back at them with "That won't work because..." You could probably do a lot with the terror of realising that they all thought they were brilliant, and now reality is showing them that they aren't as good as they've always been told they were... and they're in a job that they're not qualified for, and if they get it wrong, people are going to die.

Looking at the team dynamics, a lot is going to depend on the type of people they are. If they're thrown in to sink or swim, how soon do they each realise what deep doo-doo they're in? Are any of them arrogant enough to believe they won't have any serious problems? Does anyone crack under the strain?

Also, have you ever had to work with someone who could annoy you just by walking in the room? Or just existing? And there's that special kind of cool, professional politeness you develop when talking to them, because the alternative is ripping their throat out with your teeth, which is regarded as unacceptable behaviour in a modern workplace? Or the count-to-five-and-smile you do after they've said something particularly irritating.

Then there's the I'm-not-getting-involved-in-this thing you do when two of your colleagues are constantly sniping at each other, and you are so not going to take sides. And then you stop going to the communal areas because you can't take the constant bitching or, worse, getting cornered by one of them and talked at about how awful the other one is. And the exhausting despair of knowing that their bickering is making everything take twice as long as it should...

Then there's the thrill of tackling a new problem, tracking the data through the undergrowth and pinning it down. Then the flying feeling when you're on the trail of the solution, and you just know you're going to nail it. And if you're part of a team, there's the amazing feeling of being part of something that is greater than the sum of its parts. That each of you brings something different, and together, you rock.