Management Organisational Behaviour - Term Paper Example

"Teams can be extremely powerful when they work well, but transforming a group of individuals into a team can be hard work". Critically debate and discuss this statement. Let us commence the discussion with a definition of the word team. "A team is a small number of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable." (Katzenbach and Smith (1993 p 112). Katzenbach and Smith insist that the size of a team be small enough for each of its members to be able to interact directly with each of the others. They flatly discard any claim that "the entire workforce" of "a large and complex organization"(1993 K & S, p112) may make to be called a team - a single team. Complementary skills in team members are necessary for it to be able to function effectively and produce results. In case a team starts out with all of its members having only one skill set, and they need some more to be able to produce results, it would either need to induct more persons with the required skills, or its members would have to acquire the skills themselves, if they have to continue as a unit of any significance. The members of a team would have a common purpose or vision, articulated performance goals, and an accepted way of doing work in order to reach those goals. They would also hold themselves "mutually accountable" for what the team did or did not achieve. If I achieved something as part of the team, I would be willing to share the credit with the others; if someone in there made a boo-boo, I'd be willing to take the flak as well. Does the above definition of a team - a text-book one actually fit the real world It should, since the definition itself, we must remember, is also derived from observing that real world. However, as work conditions and situations get more diverse and complex, our definitions and understanding of how teams work must evolve from the simplistic to include complex aspects of their functioning. Teams can be extremely powerful when they work well. Of this there can be no doubt. More powerful than individuals working alone, for the simple reason that two sets of hands, and two heads can produce more work. And differing perspectives and complementarity produce better and quicker results. Apart from the simple arithmetic of two plus two making four, in the case of a team operating well, the two plus two could make five or seven or even ten. 'Synergy' (from the Greek word 'synergos' or working together) happens when the combined effect of two or more persons working together is more than an aggregation of the individual members' efforts. It is interesting to reflect that Adam Smith, the originator of the science of Economics, was in fact referring to this synergistic effect of increase in production, when he stated that division of labor (the process of production being divided into many parts, with each part being performed by a different person) resulted in a higher output. Smith's model, which did not even consider it necessary that the worker be happy, still produced a higher output. Such is the power of synergy. (Hines 1996, para 3 ) However, synergy can go terribly wrong too, and work negatively. Negative synergy can undo all the benefits that possibly accrue from working as a team. To understand this better, let's take the analogy of a person working by himself and another with a computer. The computer's output can be a hundred times more than that of the person working unaided. But let a computer make an error - it would probably take hundreds of persons working hundreds of hours to make the kind of error that a computer could make in a nano-second! And synergy is just that. When working positively, it produces much more than disparate individuals can; negatively it destroys quicker and faster than an aggregation of individuals working separately. A real life example of the operation of negative synergy has been mentioned by Ghoshal, Piramal and Bartlett in the working of Ranbaxy, the largest Indian pharmaceutical company. (Ghoshal, Piramal & Bartlett 2000, ps 201-202) They talk of how excellent people are recruited, and produce work below their capabilities, because "the company's legacy of a hierarchical, top-down management style proved to be very hard to shake off. Senior leaders found it very difficult to delegate responsibility Ranbaxy was their life, and they found it hard to trust anyone with their legacyTop level managers cannot let go till they feel that people are ready; people find it hard to be ready till the leadership is able to let go." (G,P &B 2000, p202) Having agreed with the statement that teams that work well are indeed, powerful, let us examine how one transforms a group of individuals into one such smoothly functioning team. We shall base most of this discussion on how to create an effective team, on Glen Parker's (1990) discussion, and simultaneously examine the difficulties that come in the way of building such a tem. Parker talks of twelve characteristics that distinguish an effective team from an ineffective one. Clear sense of purpose: The members of the team should have a "mission, goal, charter or task"(Parker) and a common one at that. They should know where the team would be, say five years' hence. This is apart from their knowing what their day-to-day tasks are. The management or team leaders therefore have to take the extra trouble of explaining to team members why a certain task is done, and what is proposed to be achieved. Milestones marking each achievement have to be identified first, and celebrated by the team. Informal climate: The atmosphere in which an effective team functions is informal and relaxed. People like being there. They tend to offer to help with work/ data without being always formally asked. There is quite a bit of humor and light banter, and people may want to share meals and coffee breaks. The relaxed atmosphere does not in any way mean that the members are goofing off. They are, as a matter of fact, energized by this sense of belonging and want to work for the team. In such an atmosphere, they do not mind sharing credit with team members for a task done. Participation: In an effective team everyone participates. 'Participation' does not refer to the number of times that a member speaks up in team interactions. Participation is qualitative, and differs from member to member. A team member may speak very little, but the relevance of what he says for team functioning could be high. Participation could be non-verbal, in the form of getting tasks done, helping a person to communicate something, listening and encouraging people, especially the quieter ones to speak up. Participation is reflected in 'opportunity', the opportunity to be an active part of a team's processes. Mere communication is not participation, but relevant communication is. Listening: This is a skill or quality much talked about, rarely practiced. Listening is not about using auditory skills. Parker says that listening is all about doing active listening - showing the speaker with verbal and non-verbal cues that what he says is being taken in. Active listening also involves paraphrasing what the other person has said to convey to him that, he is being received correctly by the listener. Reserving judgment till the speaker finishes, and acknowledging when views differ are also part of active listening. Covey, however, says that to build synergy, in any relationship, a person has to go beyond mere "skills", and be genuinely interested in the other person.(Covey 1989 ps261-284) Civilized Disagreement: Differences of opinion or conflicts happen in teams. This is essential, and not bad, as diversity contributes to a team's effective functioning. What is bad is if the conflict is not resolved to the satisfaction of all, or in a manner unacceptable to the members. Uncivilized disagreement is what we are talking about. Teams have various methods for resolving conflicts. Sometimes they deny its existence, or smooth it over ("smoothing over is the first cousin of denial"- Parker). Excessive humor may be used in this process. Although humor is necessary for greasing the channels of communication, too much of the grease makes the space slippery. Using power (the leader decides) or compromise (if you want six meetings, and I, four, we settle on five) leaves an unpleasant after taste. It is "problem solving", where everyone participates, and generates alternatives that can satisfactorily decide an issue. Problem-solving is synergistic. The problem-solving process results in throwing up solutions, which perhaps the two or more contenders to the disagreement had not initially thought of. It is a time consuming process, at the end of which we should settle for nothing less than a "Win-Win or No Deal" solution. (Covey). Here, I would like to add the caution, that some of the terminology - ' Win -Win' 'active listening' - have been bandied about so much that the words sometimes seem to lose their original meaning. We have to take care to really go deep into the words, and take in their essence. Consensus: "A consensus requires unity but not unanimity and concurrence but not consistency."(Parker) Consensus is not horse-trading, which is a variation on the compromise approach. Parker says that it was argued that, "The consensus approach is fine. But I do not want a pilot on my next flight having a nice group discussion with the crew when the plane is having engine problems and in danger of crashing. I want one person in charge." However, he points out that " research and practice in the airline industry itself indicate that there is need for more teamwork in the cockpit". And that there are few situations in which split-second decision making skills are required, even there! Open Communication: People must have the trust and the confidence to air their views openly. In fact, excessive politeness may hide disagreements. A climate of open communication can be created only by the leader setting an example. Clear Roles and Work Assignment: This does not merely mean that a person understands the jobs and functions connected with his position, but also the fact that he may at times have to step beyond the narrow confines of tasks to ensure that his role is effective. This means that I must be willing to sometimes work outside my "defined role" in the team's interests. Shared leadership: This is a concept that is indeed very difficult to put into practice. The leader has to have the confidence to let go, to delegate, and not be afraid that his position would be threatened. The team-members should be willing to act, to stick their neck out in the absence of the leader. The best example of shared leadership, perhaps, is evident in the way really cohesive families function. The parents act together - in the absence of one parent, the other parent takes on the tasks of the absent one, even if (s)he is not very sure how that task is done. And in the absence of the team leaders (parents) the children would do that which "Mum and Dad would have done" External Relations: Managing the boundaries is generally considered the responsibility of the team leader. But even the junior-most member of a team can do this effectively by the way he deals with the clients, users, sponsors and the public, in general. It also means not bad-mouthing your team members to others, especially outsiders. Style Diversity: This is important to add to the quality of the outcomes the team wants in its functioning. The danger here is that although we may deliberately add to the team a person with a different set of skills, we may be tempted to look for "someone who fits in" or "my kind of guy"(Parker). Benefits accrue if we can have a different kind of guy in our team; but the difficulty is in working around attitudinal differences, and harvesting only the synergy. Self assessment: The team members should be able to assess what they think the team has achieved, and where the shortfalls are. Working out all the criteria/stipulations mentioned above is not easy. They require very hard work - and a quality that Covey often mentions in all his works, as going beyond the personality driven to the character driven. What he means is that we have to practice not just some skills in dealing with people, but incorporate values in our life, and live these values. Team-building, like any other aspect of our life, is enriched only when we fully believe in the methods of functioning of the team that we try to follow, and not merely by paying lip service to these methods. However, Bonabeau and Meyer (2001) talk about how in the animal kingdom (ants, bees and white ants) for instance, "team building" has achieved phenomenal results despite the creatures not exercising any individual thoughts, but by just following certain biological rules and instincts. They talk about how an ant forages for food, and leads other ants to it. Two ants set out to search for food by different routes. On their routes each marks the trail through their pheromones (scents). The pheromones are there to lead the other ants in their wake. Now the ant which reaches the food source first, comes back quicker by the way he went, again trailing a pheromone odor. Since he has gone by his route two times, his trail is more scented, and the other ants are attracted to this trail, and they thus automatically use the shorter and more efficient route to their food.(!) Bonabeau and Meyer point out that termites which have meager intelligence are capable of building anthills which are engineering marvels, with proper air supply, by working as a team. The 'swarm intelligence' principles show that "complex, collective behavior can emerge from individuals following simple rules" of "efficiency, flexibility and robustness."(Bonabeau & Meyer, 2001) Flexibility is important here, and self regulation. In the case of honey bees, for example, there is strict specialization of tasks. But when an emergency occurs, when food is scarce, nurse bees will also help by foraging for food. When a bee hive becomes too large to function effectively, the bees split into two colonies. They seem to know instinctively when to separate into two colonies. The examples of these insects can offer us valuable insights into when companies need to break up into smaller units, and so on. Bonabeau and Meyer are basically offering a different view that team building is really a very simple process, and the crux lies in knowing what to do. However, the problem with team building among team members of the human variety is that there could be constant warfare within a person between feelings of individuality (independence) and inter-dependence. As long as we feel that independence is contradictory to independence, teams cannot be built. Covey (p261-285), however, offers us an interesting and insightful view by stating that independence and interdependence are not contradictory. In fact true independence precedes inter-dependence. What he means is that, I have to practice the same values of respect to self, discipline, sticking to my word and treating myself well by not being a doormat, before I can successfully relate to another person in the same way. 'Win-Win or no deal' can work only when I decide that I want to win, and then pass on that winning to others as well. We must all win, or we will not have any mutual dealings. The only way we can all win in a team, is, as I mentioned earlier, when we are all willing to go behind the faade of all the words that we use - team, listening, understanding, cooperation, coordination, synergy, listening, empathy - and understand the essence of all these words. When we are willing to try and understand the other fellow first, before demanding that we be understood, we are taking our first step towards forming a real team and experiencing its synergy. Works Cited Bonabeau, Eric & Meyer, Christopher Swarm Intelligence, Harvard Business Review, May 2001 Covey, Stephen The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Persons, (Part3: Synergize), Simon & Schuster UK Ltd, 1989 Ghoshal, Sumantra & Piramal, Gita & Bartlett Christopher Managing Radical Change: What Indian Companies Must Do to Become World-Class, Viking, Penguin India, 2000 Hines, Richard World Civilisations The European Enlightenment: Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations updated 6-6-1999; Retrieved May 13th, 2007 Katzenbach, Jon & Smith, Douglas Harvard Business Review, The Discipline of Teams, March-April 1993 Parker, Glenn Team Players & Team Work. The New Competitive Business Strategy: New Model of Team Effectiveness, 1990 Read More