Two Most Important Roles for Effective Teamwork - Literature review Example

Modern Teamworking Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Name and Code: University: Date Assignment is due: Table of contents Cover Page…………………………………………………………………….....1 Introduction………………………………………………………………….…..3 Literature Review………………………………………………………………..3 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….....9 References………………………………………………………………………10 Modern Teamworking Introduction Meredith Belbin’s team roles are considered “one of the most popular and widely used analyses of individual roles within a work group or team” (Mullins, 2010, p. 342). According to Mullins, a team role can be defined as a pattern of behavior which is characteristic of the manner in which a team member interacts with another for the purposes of facilitating the team’s progress. In spite of their popularity, the nine team roles invented by Belbin have raised possible doubts. This paper is a critical reflection of the following statement with regard to Belbin’s theory of team roles: ‘Belbin’s evolved team roles serve little practical value. Behaviour does not fit into neat categories and most people do not acknowledge allowable weaknesses. The two most important roles for effective teamwork are, firstly, a strong and decisive leader and secondly, the humourist to make people laugh and reduce tension’ (Mullins, 2010, p. 344). The paper will critically reflect on this statement and will also consider the relevance of this theory to the modern, de-layered UK workplace. Literature Review The statement above asserts that the first most important role for effective teamwork is a strong and decisive leader. The benefits of a strong and decisive leader are numerous. For a team to be effective, at its helm is usually a strong and decisive leader who can communicate various objectives to his or her peers, allowing his or her actions be the ultimate example of how to be effective at the workplace. Without a strong leader, a team faces the risk of become indecisive, and can result in poor results and faltering progress (Goethals, Burns, & Sorenson, 2004, p. 689). A consideration of the modern, de-layered UK workplace, however, raises important controversial concerns with regard to the statement above. Worth noting is that the present-day UK workplace relies heavily on teamwork and requires various leadership approaches. Many leaders in the present-day organizational environments can be regarded to as strong and decisive. However, the modern-day de-layered UK workplace environment raises the question of whether these leaders are sensitive to the needs of other colleagues and employees and whether they recognize the benefits of interpersonal relationships. After the Kremlin dubbed Margaret Thatcher ‘the iron lady’ in 1976, she claimed in a speech that she stood before the people in her green Chiffon gown and her fair hair waved in a gentle manner with her face softly made up. Being interpreted as an iron lady of the western world was acceptable, she said, if referred to her defense of values together with freedoms supreme to way of life. The ‘iron lady’ reference was to signify her strength and decisiveness, which is contrasted with her ability to be a sensitive leader. With regard to the notion that the leadership abilities of Margaret Thatcher may have been abilities that she was born with, she considered herself a good leader because she had the ability to remain at a job and stick to it when other people walked off and left it (Goethals, Burns, & Sorenson, 2004, p. 690; Chhokar, House, & Brodbeck, 2007, p. 511). A strong and decisive leader is often compared and contrasted with a teamwork leader, which strongly suggests that the most important role for effective teamwork may not be a strong and decisive leader. This is especially the case when modern, de-layered UK workplace is put in consideration. Times have changed, and the modern organization and its leaders need to consider the most appropriate style for approaching leadership in the workplace. The present-day method of teamwork calls for a more involved approach than just dominating or ordering proceedings. Robert Draisnfied in his book Business for Foundation Degrees and Higher Awards argues that in addition to being strong and decisive, effective teamwork in the modern organization calls for sensitivity to others, and interpersonal skills. It is therefore safe to argue that a strong and decisive leader is not competent enough for there to be effective teamwork, sensitivity to others, interpersonal skills are also very important ingredients in especially the modern organizations (Dransfield, 2004, p. 164 ). The humorist was identified as the other most important role for effective teamwork, as he or she makes people laugh and reduce tension. This statement is criticized below in consideration of the present-day de-layered UK workplace. Task activities of a team can build tension amongst the team members. Tension reduction activities have been established with the purposes of draining off destructive and negative feelings. The increasing interest of leaders in the use of humor is a reflection of the contemporary impact of postmodernism and its focus on paradox and irony. One of the most influential perspectives on the increasing interest in the value of humor in teambuilding is the perspective brought about by the anthropologist Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1995). According to Brown, joking relations in societies were extremely essential to social order because they reduced conflict and tension, especially between those individuals that have competing interests but who should also cooperate to realize certain tasks (Goethals, Burns, & Sorenson, 2004, p. 691). Humor and joking have been found to be effective behaviors that enhance the social relationships in teams. According to a study carried out of 25 team groups over a period of five years, it was found that performance improvements in these groups had an indirect result from improved relationships, which were attributed to the humor as well as joking behavior. These behaviors were established to lead to co-operation, togetherness and teamwork, making members to attain psychological intimacy at the same time furthering the team’s success (Nelson & Quick, 2007, p. 211). Leadership dynamics comprise a fertile source for the emergence of humor. Things such as paradoxes, contradictions and incongruities in leadership practices can be very good source material for the humor and laughter. In modern workplaces, there has been a growth of interest in humor as a tool for boosting employee motivation. In the context of teamwork, leaders are increasingly coming up with a positive relationship between laughter, employee humor and productivity. In the UK and other western societies, there are an increasing number of humor consultants whose purposes include encouraging leaders to recognize and implement the workplace benefits of humor and laughter. Consultants and writers are now campaigning for leaders to use humor as an instrument of persuasion so as to exercise discipline and solve problems. According to these consultants, humor can lead to more effective leadership. Not only can humor lead to divergent thinking, better problem solving and willingness and the motivation to take risks, it can also make leaders more sociable to other team members thereby humanizing the hierarchy. Writers and researchers also write that humor is able to provide a prudent manner of sanctioning deviant behavior at the same time as disarming one’s aggressors. They suggest that humor may significantly help in defusing tense situations and can play a great role in making difficult messages or situations more agreeable. These are important actions that help in building teamwork. In addition, researchers argue that humor is able to rejuvenate corporate cultures and develop energy for organizational change. However, leadership humor is not just significant; it is also complex and ambiguous than it appears at first (Martin, 2007, p. 368; Fry, 2004, p. 14). There are some writers, for example, J. L. Barsoux, who recommend that leaders in the modern day workplace environments should encourage not just the humorist, but also oppositional humor from subordinates. In spite of how critical this encouragement may be, these writers subscribe to a safety-valve theory of humor whereby the employees’ oppositional joking is viewed as a manner of letting off steam without necessarily jeopardizing the status quo. In this view, a humorous response of a leader to employee satire helps in building teamwork since it affirms the power of the leaders by affirming that those that are in charge of leading the team are strong enough to tolerate criticism (Mullins, 2010, p. 343). The modern UK workplace calls for open, constructive criticism of not just the employees but the leaders as well, as this helps greatly in understanding more the needs of workers, thereby building teamwork. This view is an interpretation of employee resistance in a manner that is similar to that of the dissenting voice of the court jester. With the ability to speak the unspeakable, the nonconformist clowning of the jester reduced hostility together with social tension. This reduction of tension is certainly essential in building teamwork. Further writers argue that the humorist that takes on the role of the organizational fool and operates as a quizzical truthsayer usually easily moderates the tendencies of the leaders towards self-importance. The humor of the humorist is easily accepted in the present-day workplace since it is articulated by means of a self-deprecating form of teasing. Researchers propose that management consultants use humor to ease tension and boost organizational change at the organizations that hire them. Corporate leaders are increasingly generating a humor culture within their organizations. The National Health Service, for example, developed a Laughter Clinic in 1991, and professional comedians are now recognized as jesters to the elderly. At the Meadowhall shopping center in Sheffield, England, clowns are employed to entertain shoppers and train employees on ways through which they can joke with colleagues and customers. It is increasingly common in modern workplaces for managers to encourage employees to wear pajamas and silly hats on what is now referred to as ‘dress-down days’. Such fun days are very common and are usually organized at the end of the week for purposes of improving productivity and mitigating absenteeism, thereby boosting teamwork (Goethals, Burns, & Sorenson, 2004, p. 691). On the other hand, leadership is considered to be a highly rational process that is associated with serious issues, for example strategic vision, inspiration, decision making as well as the effectual exercise of power. This notion is reinforced by historical evidence. Throughout the ages, leaders have sought to retain a serious conduct. In their concern about social control, leaders have viewed humor as dangerous and uncivilized. They have therefore required its censorship through legal imposition or even exhortation. From the late fifteenth century to the eighteenth century, for example, leaders have sought to censor numerous forms of humor. As an element of a wider civilizing process, this censorship of humor is also central to the preservation of a particular kind of identity that displays dignity and distinguishes the elite from other common people (Nelson & Quick, 2007, p. 212). The relationship between the humorist and effective teamwork is also strongly criticized by an analysis of ancient Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato, who asserted that humor and amusement made people to mislay control of their reason. Aristotle associated too much laughter with the lower classes while Plato banned laughter in his academy. Cases of humor backfiring have also been reported in the past, whereby the humorist’s role came under fire. This was demonstrated when Gerald Ratner, for example, the head of Ratner’s, a family-owned U.K. jewelry chain joked on the quality of the organization’s products. In 1991, the company was the biggest jewelry chain on earth with over 2,500 outlets. In a speech, Gerald Ratner joked that some of the products at the company were total crap, which was profoundly criticized by the tabloid press. In the end, Ratner resigned in 1992 and company sold off (Goethals, Burns, & Sorenson, 2004, p. 691). Backfiring of the humorist can also occur when employees refuse to respond to the humorist leader. Conclusion This paper has extensively criticized the two most important roles for effective teamwork as described in a reflective statement by Laurie Mullins (2010) in Management and Organizational Behavior; the role of a strong and decisive leader and the role of the humourist in modern team-working. These roles were criticized according to the modern, de-layered UK workplace. It was found that while a strong and decisive leader can catapult a team or workers towards success, these attributes alone are not efficient in the present-day UK workplace, which calls for not just strong and decisive leaders but also sensitive leaders as well. The second role of the humorist was comprehensively reviewed and it was established that certainly, the role of the humorist in making people laugh and reducing tension is increasingly relevant in the modern UK workplace. The humorist should, however, be very cautious of the organizational culture and should also be well knowledgeable of the needs of all stakeholders to avoid a reputation of the Gerald Ratner scenario, whose backfired humor on the company’s products led to the fall of the biggest jewelry chain on earth within only one year. List of References Chhokar, J. S., House, R. J., & Brodbeck, F. C 2007, Culture and leadership, across the world: The GLOBE Book of In-Depth Studies, Routledge, London, p. 511. Dransfield, R 2004, Business for Foundation Degrees and Higher Awards, Heinemann, London, p. 164. Fry, A 2004, Laughing Matters: The Value of Humor In The Workplace, Krug Industries, New York, p. 14. Goethals, G. R., Burns, J. M & Sorenson, G 2004, Encyclopedia of Leadership,London: SAGE, Martin, R. A 2007, The Psychology of Humor: An Integrative Approach, Academic Press, London, p. 368. Mullins, L. J, 2010, Management & Organisational Behaviour, Pearson Education 9th Edition, London, p. 342- 344. Nelson, D. L & Quick, J. C 2007, Understanding Organizational Behavior, Cengage Learning EMEA, New York, p. 211- 212. Read More