The Digital Global Economy - Essay Example

The digital global economy poses a number of challenges for organizations notably that of using electronic systems, which in turn requires effective team work among knowledge workers. As Turban et al (2007) point out, in this new economy, digital networking provides a global platform over which people and organizations devise strategies, communicate, collaborate and search for information. The ability to innovate has become a key feature contributing to competitive advantage, but it is necessary to ensure that innovation is properly managed if such an advantage is to be achieved.(Tidd et al, 2005). Knowledge workers are the most important asset that an organization can have, and they may be more important than the management itself in contributing to organizational attainment of this competitive advantage. In this new economy, working in teams has become more effective to promote competitive advantage, as compared to earlier hierarchical structures of management. The new systems have generated conflicts between knowledge workers and managers because the knowledge that team workers possess on digital and electronic aspects may be far superior to the knowledge possessed by managers. As a result, managers may not be able to effectively supervise and control the work that is produced by knowledge workers, because the superiority of the knowledge these workers possess places them in a position where they need independence and need to feel valued. At the same time, working in teams helps these knowledge workers within an organization to interact more effectively with their counterparts in other branches of the organization over the world, since most organizations in a global economy are multinational. When knowledge workers work in teams, it offers enormous benefits to the organization, due to the facility it provides for the sharing of knowledge among them in arriving at more effective solutions to problems. The diversity of knowledge, resources and ideas among members in a team is beneficial to the organization, but the same diversity can also be a source of inter –team conflict, apart from the conflicts generated with managers as mentioned above. When teams have to be restructured in particular it is more likely that the incidence of conflict will increase. (www.innovativeteambuilding.co.uk). Such conflicts among the members of a team occur because of the differences in values and belief systems as well as the differences in their attitudes. Barriers to effective communication can also contribute to conflict, for instance poor listening skills and differences in interpretation of information can be a significant cause of generation of conflict. In order to improve team communication and reduce the incidence of conflict, it may be necessary to employ one of five different methods available for the resolution of conflict. The first is the direct approach, where the leader tackles the issue. In this instance, it is necessary for the leader to assume a dominant role in the team. Bargaining, on the other hand is the process of negotiation between the members engaged in conflict, using the services of a third person to find a compromise (www.innovativeteambuilding.co.uk). De-emphasis extends this form of bargaining to a focus on the areas of agreement between the parties. If the problem within the team is a minor one, it can be handled through retreat for a while, until the problem has subsided. Another way to resolve conflict would be through an enforcement of the rules, but this method is the lease favourable because it can make team members angry and upset with the leader and the rest of the team. This would increase the level of conflict by creating an atmosphere where discontent would continue brewing and is likely to erupt again. The method of enforcing rules also interferes with the optimum level of independence that needs to be allowed to knowledge workers that are part of a team, in order to enable their creativity to flourish and thrive. Tidd et al (2005) have emphasized the need to effectively manage innovation and knowledge workers who work in teams are the crucial source of the kind of innovation that can lead to a competitive advantage. According to Turban et al (2007) the digital economy and the emergence of technology has also changed the way in which teams interact; social networks are now evolving, which are essentially trust based relationships within a web based social network. As a result, independence among team members must be fostered so that these knowledge workers feel valued, but at the same time conflicts need to be resolved through effective interaction and communication among team members. LaRue, Childs and Larsen (2006) suggest that Action Learning teams be formulated to address the challenges that an organization may face. These are internal teams within the organization that focus upon a specific organizational problem or a process gap and fix this particular problem. The distinctive feature about these teams is that they operate on the principle of learning that is characterized by reflection in action. This means that they are able to stand outside the problem and view it as if they are looking at it from outside the organization rather than from within, as members of the organization. This is why ALTs are able to get a clear picture of what exactly the problem is by looking in from the outside, so that they can discover what is wrong and correct it. The advantage with these teams is that unlike management which may only have a vague sense of what is wrong, ALTs are able to gain a much clearer picture of what the problem is and how it can be solved. ALTs therefore function independently in researching a problem and finding solutions by applying their knowledge without being hindered by internal organizational bureaucracy or rules. One of the suggestions that LaRue, Childs and Larsen (2006) offer is that in order to improve the team performance and interactivity, the leader of the team should play the role of a coach and not a boss. Accordingly, each member of the team assumes certain responsibilities and all the other team members are also aware of which tasks each member is responsible for. Each task is like a bucket and the team member responsible for that specific task must make sure his or her individual bucket is managed in such a way that it is beneficial for the organization. If the bucket overspills, it could be damaging and affect the activities of other team members, hence providing each member individual responsibility for a specific bucket or task helps ensure that the particular task is managed effectively. This also encourages team members to focus upon improving their own performances because they realize that they are responsible for their specific task and that performing it improperly is akin to spilling the bucket and causing a fire to spread throughout the organization. If one specific task is improperly performed, it will affect the resolution of the entire problem because the various tasks may be interconnected and interrelated as component parts of resolution of the organizational problem. Hence, allowing such levels of team independence and individual responsibility for specific tasks is likely to improve the performance of individual team members, so that they make a more effective contribution. In conclusion therefore, it appears that teams must coordinate effectively and pool their knowledge to arrive at the best and most innovative solutions, if they are to enable an organization to sustain a competitive advantage. But it may also be necessary to allow some levels of independence to prevail among these workers in order to foster optimum creativity and output. References LaRue, B., Childs, P., & Larson, K., 2006. “Leading organizations from the inside out: Unleashing the collaborative genius of action-learning teams” (2nd ed.), New York: Wiley. Resolving conflict in work teams. http://www.innovativeteambuilding.co.uk/pages/articles/conflicts.htm; Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (3 rd ed.). San Francisco: Wiley. Turban, E., Leidner, D., McLean, E., Wetherbe J. (2007). Information Technology for management: Transforming Organizations in the Digital Economy, (5th ed.). San Francisco: Wiley. Read More