Teams and How They Function - Essay Example

?Teams and How They Function What is a team? A team is defined as a a group of people who depend upon each other for information, resources, and skills and who seek to combine their efforts to achieve a common goal (Thompson, 2008). It is “two or more interdependent individuals who interact with and influence one another in order to accomplish a common purpose” (Zayed & Kamel, 2005, p.1). From this definition, it is apparent that while working in close proximity may identify a team, this circumstance alone does not define it. According to Thompson, there are five key characteristics that define a team. Teams, first of all, exist to accomplish a shared goal, producing outcomes for which all members share in a collective responsibility and realize a collective reward. Secondly, team members are interdependent which signifies their reliance on each other, which is the hallmark of teamwork (Thompson, 2008, p. 2). Thirdly, team members are bounded to each other and are relatively stable over a period of time. By boundedness is meant a finite and identifiable membership the composition of which is known to all members as well as outsiders; by stability is meant that there is tenure of membership. Fourthly, team members are empowered to manage their own work and exercise their discretion over the internal processes. They do not need constant permission or approval from the team leader or manager. Finally, teams operate within the context of a larger social system. Teams work alongside other teams and draw upon resources outside their team, from the larger social system (Thompson, 2008, p 3). Team characteristics may be summarized as follows (Zayed & Kamel, 2005, p.2): A team can involve as few as two people. A team is not a mere aggregate of individuals. More than that, it is an integrated unit that functions in a coordinated and complementary manner. A team’s success depends on the interdependent and collective efforts of various team members, not just a few individuals; each member makes a significant contribution to the team effort. Team members are likely to have significant impacts on one another as they work together. When tasks require multiple skills, experience and sound judgment, teams usually outperform the sum total of the work of separate individuals. Teams are found to be more flexible and responsive to changes in the environment and other unexpected events, compared to traditional organizational hierarchical structures or other forms of permanent groupings (Zayed & Kamel, 2005, p.1; Thompson, 2008, p. 6). Factors that make a team work Zayed & Kamel (2005, p.3) specify four requirements for teams to function well: (1) Team members must have an interdependent relationship with each other in the performance of their team activities. (2) This interdependence dictates that group members must interact through conversation or work activities. (3) A team is characterized by a condition of mutual influence between team members. (4) Teams have a common purpose such as accomplishing work, completing a project, or preparing a report. Aside from internal factors possessed by the effective team, there are external factors that have made the development of the self-managed team not only apropos but necessary. The first of these is the degree of specialization required in addressing an increasingly globalized environment. The globalization of the economy enables more organizations to form and, with the increasing complexity of productive activity, assume more specialized functions. This gives rise to a need for specialists in many fields, experts with indepth knowledge and training who are particularly equipped to assess and render competent decisions within their fields of expertise, more than a general manager or team leader (Dyer & Dyer, 2010). The second factor is competition, where the global market is increasingly dominated by a few large firms who enjoy economies of scale and large profits. For these firms, teamwork is becomes a source of competitive advantage in coordinating the activities of the various component groups performing work within the organization (Neumann, 2008). The third factor is the arrival of the information age, where practically all workers have access to practically unlimited information almost instantaneously. The free flow of information and communication provides team members the necessary bases for making quick and sound decisions when needed (Brittain, 1998; Al-Istiratijiyah, 2002). Finally, the fourth factor is customer service focus and orientation. In a progressively individualized service environment, business has moved from the transactional model, which is temporary in nature, to the relational model, where businesses develop longer term relationships with their customers. Organization according to teams provide the capability to quickly address client concerns and needs on a continuing basis (Thompson, 2008). Factors that prevent a team from working effectively There are some potential obstacles to the success of a team. One is the unwillingness of some members to cooperate with one another. It is also possible that some teams do not receive the support they should be getting from management. Conversely, there are some instances when managers are unwilling to relinquish control over some functions to team members that would have enhanced effectiveness. Finally, teams may sometimes fail because while they cooperate well internally, they fail or are unwilling to coordinate well with other teams (Zayed & Kamel, 2005, p. 45). (1) Personality and work style differences – People usually have divergent personalities and work style preferences, and may have different motivations in joining the team. The differences do not necessarily mean that these individuals cannot work together, but there will be times when these personalities and work styles will tend to clash. (2) Poor task/ problem definition – Group members see their roles in relation to the problem the group is to address. However, perceptions may vary, and thus the members’ efforts may be wasted because they are not directed at the same objectives (3) Poor preparation – Meetings usually precede a group’s activity, but they are not always maximized. Sometimes this is due to a lack of focus, the absence of a structured discussion, or failure to reach a final decision at the end of the meeting. (4) Difficulties in compromising – Some members may be inflexible, probably due to a deep-seated principle or mere refusal to lose the argument. When members approach a discussion with a closed mind, there is usually no chance for a genuine compromise. (5) Lack of empathy – Members tend to see a project in terms of their own roles and efforts and fail to appreciate the efforts of the other members. Such members do not concern themselves with the group’s problems that do not affect them personally. (6) Poor conflict management skills – Conflict itself is not necessarily bad, because some conflict could lead to constructive efforts that improve upon the situation by expanding ideas, clarifying issues, or alert groups to potential problems. However, when the conflict is not managed well, it may become destructive, leading to infighting and adversity. (7) Lack of cohesiveness – Cohesiveness means that members share common goals and are committed to helping each other and understanding one another. A lack of cohesiveness leads to failure to address problems and find solutions. In many of the problem areas identified above, the leadership traits that best address the situation are open communications, the ability to listen attentively and with comprehension, and the establishment of empathy among team members. It is only by establishment of strong lines of two-way communication that esprit de corps and a feeling of community can be developed among the group members, turning the group into a team. How a leader can inspire and develop a team When asked to define what a good leader is, any one person will answer the question with his/her own preferences about how he/she would want to be led. However, trying to get a consensus about what a good leader is has eluded practitioners and academics. What everyone appears to agree on, however, is that a leader is not the same as a manager. The power of a manager is conveyed by an appointment; the power of a leader is ingrained in his personality, whether inborn or acquired, and is recognized by other individuals (Flaherty & Stark, 1999; Tripathi & Reddy, 2006). A manager gets things done by compelling others out of duty, aided by promise of rewards or threats of punishment. A leader gets things done by inspiring others through his/her vision, and motivates them to want to accomplish the task because they feel a sense of satisfaction from doing so (Leitner, 2007; Bertocci, 2009). There are several schools of thought about leadership, which shall be briefly recounted here: (1) The Great Man theory – It used to be thought that great leaders were exceptional men, and only a few of them are born with the necessary traits to become great men. The Great Men assumed heroic or mythological status, and it was thought that only men could be leaders – usually military leaders. Women were thought not to be capable of becoming leaders (Bass & Bass, 2008, p. 49). (2) Trait theories – Because the study of selected “great men” did not reliably yield any common characteristics, researchers on leadership felt that instead of concentrating on the persons of the leaders, there was a greater chance of identifying the exceptional character traits that define a leader. It is built on the idea that effective leaders must possess a certain set of characteristics, which should be evident by an examination of a wide range of exemplary leaders (Schriberg & Schriberg, 2011, p. 66). (3) Behaviourist theories – The difficulty with a purely trait theory approach is that findings resulted in every conceivable positive trait, including intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, honesty, and so forth, without necessarily delimiting those truly important ones. The academic studies therefore sought to define the behaviour patterns that comprised “leadership styles.” Focus shifted from personal characteristics to the role leaders fulfil and the manner with which they fulfil them (Crainer & Dearlove, 2003,p.1). (4) Situational leadership theories – This school takes leadership theory from mere definition of traits and behaviours, to setting he context of these elements in the particular situations. Also known as the contingency model, the effectiveness of specific leadership behaviours is ensured only when they respond to the proper situation; thus the alignment of leadership style and context (Hellreigel & Slocum, 2007, p.221). (5) Transactional leadership theory – This theory conceives of leadership as a task-oriented role which is relevant only on the duration of the transaction (i.e., the accomplishment of the project or objective). The leader does not invest himself personally in the team, but uses all means at his disposal – threatening, pleading, or enticing his subordinates – in order to attain the objective. After the objective is attained, the leader has no commitment to the team or his subordinates (Martin, et al., 2006, p. 47). (6) Transformational leadership theory – This theory is concerned with leadership as it impacts beyond the scope of the immediate task. The principal role of leaders is to develop other leaders among their subordinates or team members. In this manner, each team member is empowered, and the team may function as a self-managed team. In a broader context, the leader and empowered team become agents of social change (Bass & Riggio, 2006, p.2). From the foregoing leadership theories, what may be noted is a progressive development towards the concept that everybody can be a leader. Leadership traits are necessary, as well as the behaviour expected of leaders when certain situations develop. However, there is also a dispersion of the possession of leadership traits, which began with the belief that only a few select individuals can become leaders, to the present accepted theory that every member of a team can become empowered as leaders – the so-called self-managed team. Team dynamics There are many concepts of the effective team, but it is generally acknowledged that good leadership attributes are present for the goal to be attained. One such framework is the NHS leadership framework, which provides a solid basis for the development of dynamic teams. The NHS Leadership Framework centers on the core objective of delivering the service, which is the team’s ultimate goal. This can be done by five principal functions which include (1) setting team members’ respective directions; (2) demonstrating and optimizing the team members’ personal qualities and skills; (3) working with others within the team as well as coordinating with other teams; (4) improving services towards the clientele who are the target of the team’s efforts; and (5) managing the services, which is not only the job of the team leader but of each empowered member of the team, within their own functions. As empowered leaders, team members have two principal concerns uppermost in their priorities, which are to deliver the strategy and create the vision that the team collectively aims for. The NHS Leadership Framework Source: http://www.nhsleadership.org.uk/framework.asp In conclusion, this discussion of teams and team leadership points to the importance of communicating goals and visions, sharing responsibilities and prerogatives, and working in a coordinated manner so that each member of the team is engaged and free to exercise his/her own decision-making capabilities while serving the central goal of the team. The designated team leader is tasked with harnessing the power of the individual team members, in order to derive from them the greatest good for the attainment of the objective. References: Al-Istiratijiyah, M 2002 Leadership and Management in the Information Age. The British Academic Press, London. Bass, B M & Bass, R 2008 The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory , Research, and Managerial Applications, 4th edition. Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, NY Bass, B M & Riggio, R E 2006 Transformational Leadership, 2nd edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey Bertocci, D I 2009 Leadership in Organizations: There is a Difference Between Leaders and Managers. University Press of America, Inc., Plymouth, UK Bolden, R; Gosling, J; Marturano, A; & Dennison, P 2003 “A Review of Leadership Theory and Competency Frameworks.” Report for Chase Consulting and the Management Standards Centre. Center for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter. Accessed 27 November 2011 from http://centres.exeter.ac.uk/cls/documents/mgmt_standards.pdf Brittain, J 1998 Star Team Dynamics: 12 Lessons Learned from Experienced Team Builders. Oakhill Press. Coral Teams in Organizations http://coral.wcupa.edu/Teamorg.pdf Crainer, S & Dearlove, D 2003 Business, the Universe, and Everything: Conversations with the World’s Greatest Management Thinkers. Capstone Publishing Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex Dyer, W G & Dyer, J H 2010 Team Building: Proven Strategies for Improving Team Performance. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY Flaherty, J S & Stark, P B 1999 The Competent Leader: A Powerful and Practical Tool Kit for Managers and Supervisors. HRD Press, Amherst, Massachusetts Gibson, C B; Zellmer-Bruhn, M E; & Schwab, D P 2003 “Team effectiveness in multinational organizations: Evaluation across contexts.” Group & Organization Management, Vol. 28, no. 4, Dec 2003, pp. 444-474 Hellriegel, D & Slocum, J W 2007 Organizational Behavior, 11th edition. Thomson South-Western, Mason, OH Leitner, A 2007 Concept of Leadership and Management Within the Manufacturing Industry. GRIN Verlag, Norderstedt Germany Martin, B; Cashel, C; Wagstaff, M; & Breunig, M 2006 Outdoor Leadership: Theory and Practice. Human Kinetics, Stanningley, Leeds Neumann, J 2008 “Team Composition as a Source of Competitive Advantage.” Masteral Thesis, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Maastricht University Schriberg, A & Schriberg, D 2011 Practicing Leadership: Principles and Applications, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY Thompson, L 2008 Making the Team: A Guide for Managers, 3rd edition. Pearson Prentice Hall. Tripathi, R & Reddy, P N 2006 Principles of Management, 3rd ed. Tata McGraw-Hill, Delhi Zayed, A M & Kamel, M M 2005 Team and Work Groups. Center for Advancement of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Engineering Sciences, Cairo University, Cairo Read More