Football, baseball or basketball? | LSW#55

The role of team structures in career success

“Team player” — it shows up on every resume. But you might not be suited for certain kinds of teams. In this edition, I share a key element of person-environment fit that determines how well you do. Or don’t.

Hey! It’s Sheril Mathews from Leading Sapiens. Welcome to my newsletter, where I share strategies for getting savvier at the game of work.

Previous edition: The Control Paradox

---

Over a 20-year corporate career, I reviewed 1,000s of resumes. Almost every one of them cited the term “team player.” It’s now common to the point of being a meaningless, fluff word.

But while ‘team player’ has lost its meaning, understanding the kind of team you’re on is still a key ingredient of success. There’s a fundamental difference between being “on” a team, playing “in” a team, and playing “as” a team.

Consider football, baseball, and basketball teams. They are all “teams” but operate differently.

1. In a team (American football)

Football teams operate with a centralized structure. Each player has a specific role, and the game relies on executing preplanned plays. Decisions are made by leaders, the coach or quarterback.

This structure lacks flexibility. Decision-making can be slow, and adapting to unexpected situations may require multiple layers of approval.

The military exemplifies hierarchical, command-and-control structures. Teams operate with clear roles and responsibilities, and leadership is centralized at the top, with orders flowing down the chain of command. Flexibility is minimal, and the focus is on following orders to achieve mission success.

These structures are common in highly regulated industries where mistakes are costly, like aviation. It’s the difference between “tightly coupled vs loosely coupled”.

These organizations are effective, but for high-performers craving autonomy, this can be stifling.

2. On a team (baseball)

Baseball teams focus on individual roles and expertise. Each player performs independently, whether pitching, catching, or batting. Success depends on specialized skill execution.

Decision-making is partly centralized (the manager sets strategy) and partly decentralized (each player makes decisions within their role). Because roles are specialized, it is difficult for players to help each other. Collaboration is limited.

Professional services firms embody this style. Each consultant or lawyer contributes to the overall goal but operates independently, like a baseball player at bat. Success is measured by individual client work and billable hours, rather than continuous team collaboration.

This works well for organizations that rely on specialized expertise. Individual contributors thrive in this environment, but it can feel isolating for those who crave collaborative work.

3. As a team (basketball)

Basketball teams are highly integrated and interdependent. Players work closely together, reacting quickly to changing situations. Roles are fluid, with team members expected to adapt and shift as needed.

Decisions are spontaneous and decentralized. Players make real-time choices without waiting for a central authority. Leadership is shared, focused on quick coordination.

This structure requires significant time to build familiarity and trust. Teams can struggle initially because high levels of understanding are necessary to function effectively. Without strong relationships, the fluid nature of roles and decision-making leads to confusion or conflict.

This structure is common in software development teams where daily stand-ups and sprint reviews are the norm. Teams work in sprints to deliver work quickly while responding to ongoing feedback.

Implications

Of course, real-world organizations won't be as clean-cut and will exhibit a combination. However, one style usually predominates. Often one is dominant at the company level, while your team might be slightly different.

What does this mean for your work and career?

A recurring mistake is to overlook the context and conditions that influence performance. It’s hard to be a superstar in all conditions. Just because you’re a high performer doesn’t mean every environment will bring out your best.

It’s easy to see this in sports, but it’s not as obvious in the workplace. Early-stage companies need basketball players who thrive on creativity and collaboration, while later-stage ones might need football-style leaders to scale operations.

To prevent blindspots, regularly track:

• Structure fit: Does the organization's structure align with my working and decision-making style?

• Stage fit: Is the company's current stage of evolution (startup, scaling, mature) compatible with my career goals?

• Culture fit: Do the organization's values, style, and collaboration approach match my preferences and work ethic?

Here are additional patterns I’ve noticed.

Measure fit by failure criteria

Failure is inevitable, but how you’re encouraged to fail says a lot about fit. In a football-like organization, it’s top-down: you’re failing by not following the plan. In baseball-like structures, failure comes from not excelling in your specialized task. In basketball-like teams, it comes from not adjusting to real-time changes. Recognize what feels motivating versus demoralizing. What bothers you more: a bad plan, a lack of expertise, or not being quick enough?

Identify the type of failure you can keep repeating, in order to improve.

The wrong kind of autonomy

Being in a baseball-like team may give you role autonomy, but without interdependence, you’re stuck in your own silo, unable to influence the bigger picture. True autonomy comes from having control over your role combined with the ability to collaborate on the fly.

If your role leaves you isolated, it might be less autonomy and more of a cage.

Mind the gap

When you notice misalignment between your strengths and the team’s dynamics, watch it closely. Too many high-performers stay in environments that no longer suit them because they’re trying to “adapt.” If you’re not aligned with the growth stage or team dynamics, you may have already hit the ceiling. Plan your next move before you’re too deep in the wrong game.

It’s easier to change the “game” than to “adapt” to something we’re not suited for.

Liabilities as opportunities

Every team structure has a built-in weakness. In hierarchical teams, it’s a lack of flexibility. In baseball, it’s the inability to collaborate. In basketball, it’s the time needed to build trust and familiarity. Your value as a leader is tied to how well you can compensate for the team’s inherent weakness. If you can identify and address these, you’ll become indispensable quickly.

Some liabilities are better for your career than others.

Clarity as strategic

Clarity is usually seen as a requirement in communication, but it’s a key aspect of strategy as well. In fast-moving environments, ambiguity breeds indecision and slows momentum. The clearer you are—about roles, authority, and expectations—the faster the team can move.

If you provide clarity in uncertain situations, you’ll build credibility.

Productive discomfort

It’s easy to stay where we feel competent, but staying too long leads to stagnation. Good enough won’t get you noticed.

Successful leaders place themselves in uncomfortable environments that grow their skills—but not in ways that break their confidence. It’s a fine balance: too much comfort creates complacency, too much discomfort causes burnout.

Find roles that challenge you without overwhelming you.

Fuzzy authority

Often people struggle because they’re given authority without clarity. In football teams, it is centralized, and your role is clear. But in decentralized decision-making (baseball or basketball), clarity on where your authority starts and ends becomes fuzzy. Ask: “Where does my authority reside?” If unclear, define it or find a new opportunity.

The mistake is to misinterpret frustrations as a personal issue when it’s really about mismatched clarity.

Staying too long makes you a blocker

Your effectiveness depends on your environment, but they constantly change. Today's basketball star might fumble in tomorrow's football lineup. Watch out for complacency—what works now isn't guaranteed to work later. Reassess fit regularly, and be ready to make changes.

Ensure you’re in the right game, not just the familiar one.

Collaboration is not consensus

In basketball-like teams, collaboration is critical, but not everyone should have an equal say on every decision. It’s easy to think it means consensus, leading to indecision and watered-down outcomes. Real collaboration means trusting people to act decisively on behalf of the team, even without full agreement.

As Jeff Bezos says, “disagree and commit”.

Tolerance for ambiguity

A key factor of success is how well you tolerate ambiguity. It is a given, but tolerating it looks different depending on the team dynamic. In football, it’s about waiting for plays to be called, while in basketball, it’s about making decisions without a perfect plan.

Learn the particular brand of ambiguity that you can excel in.

---

That’s it for this edition. If you found this valuable, please like and share. It makes my day and helps other folks find this publication. See you next week!