Wrong. Pure collaboration is as problematic as pure competition. Each has its purposes. But each, practiced to the exclusion of the other, leads to collapse.

Unabated competition, like a Panzer division rolling over Poland, creates a spirit of over-the-top, scorched-earth absolutism — legitimizing whatever means result in victory:  treachery, deceit, corruption, murder.

Unabated collaboration is also problematic. It is the nemesis of individuality, progress, diversity, and change.

Here are some of the hallmarks of supercollaboration:

1. Sameness – Overly collaborative teams adopt rigid standards and impose them on themselves, foreclosing creative deviation.

2. Groupthink – This leads to purges of perceived outsiders, and stultification of the ideas of insiders.

3. Blurriness – Too much democracy leads to mush.  When everyone has full and equal input into a process, you can bet that process will lack focus.

4. Slowness – Consensus doesn’t “snap to” the way intimidated agreement does.  It is a slow ooze, and teams lose momentum waiting for the ooze to arrive.

5. Leaderlessness – When everyone is encouraged to lead, the end result often is that no one does.

6. Defenselessness – When everyone knows everything, because sharing is so important, there is no confidentiality, and there are no firewalls.  Some teams become so intimate and sensitive with one another that they can’t function among outsiders.

7. Interiority – Teams who work too long together have a way of becoming cross-eyed over time, focusing on subjects of interest exclusively to the group.

8. Mercilessness – “The many are stronger than the one”, is the motto of supercollaboration.  It is also the motto of fascism.

We define a team as being two persons or more. But it may be useful, as you sort through the people available to you, to consider “the team of one.”

People think we’re joking when we talk about teams on one (”Why would you call a person a team?”) but we’re not.

A team of one is a virtual team, a single person with lots of diverse expertise treated by others as a separate team.

In complex organizations, it’s very common for teams to interact. A new product team, for instance, will have dealings with the design team down the hall. They’ll get input from another team in finance, and another team in marketing.

Usually these teams have a number of people on them. Occasionally, though, the connection is a single person. When this happens, it is good team politics to treat that person just like a bona fide team. You extend him or her the courtesy you would extend a group. Just because the team is a singleton does not allow you to go on a blaming rampage.

Meanwhile, contemplate the beauty of the team of one. It means that instead of putting several people from different functions on the team, the team’s diversity is integrated in a single person. Think of the arguments that never happen. Think of the handoffs that never take place. Think of the rapidity with which the team gets through the storming phase.

Diversity of knowledge is the reason for teams. But the age of the corporate specialist is yielding to the age of the one-man-band — technology driven, entrepreneurial jacks of all trades.

A team of one is so much faster, and is much more unambiguous than a team of more than one.

A team of one is also a splendid way to outplace a team member who doesn’t work well on a close, daily basis with your team, but whose knowledge remains valuable – or someone who just doesn’t want to belong to you. Simply take the individual out of the team box, draw a dotted line to a box that is all his own, and poof, you have a team of one serving as a resource to the team. No muss, no fuss, and everyone is happy.