Team Building and Delegation in Unilever Australia - Essay Example

? Team Building and Delegation in Unilever Australia TEAM BUILDING AND DELEGATION IN UNILEVER AUSTRALIA Team building can be viewed as a design in the work place where employees are considered as individual members of a team that is interdependent, rather than as individual members of the workforce. It is pursued via a range of practices, for example, exercises aimed at bonding, simulations, and retreats that build teams. It is important in all organizations, and its focus is bringing out the best in individual, team member. It ensures development of leadership skills, positive communications, and self-development. The delegation theory has to do with assignment of responsibility and authority to someone else so that they can complete the specific task. The individual, to whom the task is delegated, however, remains answerable for the task’s outcome. When properly carried out, it is not an act of abdication but one that allows the subordinate to be decisive. While poor delegation may be the cause of confusion and frustration, structured delegation saves time and money, as well as motivating employees and aids in the building of skills. This paper aims to explain how Unilever Australia conforms to team building and delegation theories. Unilever Australia is a European organization in Australia that deals in consumer goods, products, and services. It notes the differences inherent between practice and theory for Unilever and then gives recommendations for any changes needed for development. Finally, it presents the organizations overview. 1. Team Building a) Expected Team building needs for managers to go along with planning and implementation that is systematic (Alexander & Carol, 2008 p14). This allows them assess the possibility of a team’s improvement to attain the goals set by the organization, remove team building barriers, and the construction of effective teams via training followed by empowerment then feedback. In order for teams to be successful, they need an array of social skills available. These include listening, questioning, persuading, respecting, helping, sharing, and participating. Constructive conflict resolution is another critical skill when building a team (Alexander & Carol, 2008 p14). There are specific exercises and techniques that aid in the use of team building, with conflict resolution interwoven into all of them. Conflict resolution is thus a vital component in the effective use of team building. Effective skills at communication help to avoid conflict. Individuals will sometimes have body language that is not consistent with their verbal message, which creates cognitive dissonance for the member listening. Listeners may thus tend to personalize issues and rather than criticize the issue, situation, or behaviour criticize the person (Diamond & Harriet, 2007 p20). Effective listening is another vital component of effective communication. Most individuals have the urge to allow their mind to move before the voice of the speaker, which they utilize to formulate defences or responses, on top of making them miss portions of information being delivered. The above issue leads to misunderstandings. Exercises that aim at training the members on focusing on each other’s messages and words without wandering are recommended for instilling good communication skills in the team. The members learn to analyze information given to them and to formulate responses based on information given to them. It is also vital to instil skills aimed at defining of problems, gathering, of information, to solve the problem, synthesis of solutions, choosing the most effective solutions and their implementation. These exercises are carried out in steps that are distinct from each other, being ordered and structured (Diamond & Harriet, 2007 p20). Members need to have good skills aimed, at problem solving, to avoid rushed conclusions, which in normal circumstance are wildly different. These could lead to a contest about the member who is wrong or right, which could degenerate to a contest on who is correct and who is not. Exercises in this category are constructed to avoid consensus and structure conflict. Team members learn to treat conflicts as problems, for which they analyze, look for viable solutions and implement these solutions. Time management aids in preventing conflicts on the member that does what and at what time they do it (Parcon, 2006 p34). Exercises aimed at cross training helps to keep away boredom and avoidance of conflicts connected to workloads. Via facilitation, control is gained during meetings, and there is a reduction at frustration over time wasted. Intervention is a good mode for confrontation of conflict within the team. A member of the team separately and quietly pinpoints the situation with one member or more involved. The entire team may also confront those parties who are conflicted. Feedback is another technique that is effective at a resolution of conflict. One of the team members may confront another member of the team in an ordered setting where they describe the behaviour that they find disagreeable then their emotion, the reason they felt those emotions and then await a response (Parcon, 2006 p35). The member being addressed is then required to respond in a similarly ordered manner. A facilitator is useful since he controls and governs the above. It is crucial for teams to get rid or at least reduce individual resistance since this is a potentially destructive barrier. Resistance is because of the absence of conviction about the team’s viability, risk and discomfort for members, and a lack of clarity on success and performance (Parcon, 2006 p38). Activities aimed at developing common goals and working together, as well as encouraging members in the team. Make them comfortable and to speak up, helps in eliminating lack of conviction. Shared common goals and vision can remedy the lack of focus on success and performance. b) Actual Unilever underwent a restructuring problem that merged teams and decided to hold activities that would let the teams comprehend each other’s aspirations, needs, and backgrounds (Jones, 2012 p32). This was important for the teams, inclusive of the organization since the teams already had inherent loyalties. The teams came together, coexisted and performed within a limited period. The activities included exercises aimed at characterization, visioning and characterization. The activities have proved to be a success in accordance with the plan. The simulator is now training them to listen to other members’ views and fit these views into the big picture (Sears, 2007 p80). It also accomplished its aim of imbuing understanding among the members and a desire to engender change. Unilever also uses learning simulation activities to let delegates solve problems of a complex nature (Jones, 2012 p32). These include the incorporation of sophisticated models that are computer based. Held in workshops and made use of experts from Pixelfountain solutions as facilitators, the activity was enjoyable and engaging to the delegates according to the majority of the team members. The members were required to take specific decisions and get feedback immediately. Combined, these factors allowed them to construct an authentic understanding among themselves. They were started on the change and transformation process by gaining new knowledge and skills. This activity was configured to fit into the learning process, where members give input to the learning simulation spanning over different sessions. The exercise involves gaining of new perspectives by the members on the organization, with the members giving information to the facilitator that can be incorporated into the simulation. Unilever also holds a sailing expedition for its team mangers. They believe that to be competitive has more to do with relationship organizing than amassing force, which helps the organization build teams that are highly performing (Jones, 2012 p33). This activity builds on team relationships that make the teams competitive, as well as competitive. The recession left a new reality that staffs have to be smaller and at the same time accomplish larger workloads. This activity was conceptualized as a motivator, which inspires the delivery of teams. Before the expedition, the members were involved in a program whose aim had been to show that each member was unique and that the strength of the team laid in the differences. It was also meant to train them on how to understand themselves better, and on connection and adaptation with the rest of the members. They answered questionnaires with assigned colours that investigated their decision-making and interpretation skills. Yellow was assigned to natural net-workers, red to direct and competitive individuals, green for patient, listening, and highly trustworthy individuals, while blue was assigned to individuals who were precise, deliberate, and deeply questioning (Jones, 2011 p34). During the knot tying stage of the expedition, each member had to rely on the other as those who tied stronger knots helped out those with difficulties. Since it was impossible to sail alone, the group learned how teamwork helped make impossible tasks possible. c) Differences Unilever’s utilization of team building is an advanced case, which shows that they have invested time and resources into building teams to improve efficiency. There is not a mighty deal of difference between the theoretical approaches to team building and the actual practices inherent in the organization. They engage in activities, which aid them in getting to know each other thus reducing conflict and breaking down individual resistance. However, they do not seem to put emphasis on the need to build trust in the team. This is especially evident in the manner of arrangement of the sailing expedition. They place importance on the mangers of the teams rather than the whole group, which could interfere with trust between managers and their subordinates since they could feel negligence. Aside from this, Unilever carries out a near perfect team building exercise. d) Recommendation Unilever should direct its additional invest towards building of trust in the teams since this is of special importance especially after merging the two teams, which have prior loyalties to people who are still part of their working force. Ability to trust their new teammates is vital if the plan for quick and efficient integration is to be realized. It is necessary to cultivate trust in order to work in group settings, take risks thoughtfully, and feel the ability to rely on the other team members (Berkley, 2012 p65). This is achievable through holding team meetings, review progress of projects and build experiences into the agenda of the organization involving fun and sharing like retreats and team sports. All the above are aimed at publicly celebrating the team’s success and each member’s role constructively, and use activities that promote camaraderie and interaction before team meetings. While the managers cannot make the members trust each other, they can provide the required resources needed to move trust building along. While the organization has activities geared towards breaking of individual resistance, they are not a vital part of the agenda as they should be. Employees who do not feel part of the group, especially after merging two different teams, are often paranoid about the effects of the new team members. They are also negative about the team’s progress. This can have an effect of making the workplace dreadful for other members and manager. Some may believe that the other team has usurped their freedom, especially if the manager was the other team’s former manager and may try to force their beliefs on the other members. This can be remedied by making decisions in a transparent manner to disprove the belief inherent in some members that the decisions favour the organization and some members (Berkley, 2012 p66). Other techniques that could be used include explaining to the members the team’s expectations and that there are no hidden expectations required from them, directly confronting the employees who are the main cause of the resistance, and finally reassure the members that their jobs are not under threat. 2. Delegation a) Expected Irrespective of freedom and responsibility that the principal delegates to the agents, the principal retains all accountability for the resulting problems. Delegating thus requires a very accomplished manager since successes are put down to the team while failures are blamed on the principal. This is a fair method of evaluation since the principal is responsible of judging any situation’s seriousness, risks involved, and the freedom that the team can be entrusted with to deal with the team (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p76). Delegation in teams and groups consists of various levels, which must be fulfilled for effective delegation. Poor delegation may cause confusion, demotivation, and frustration among employees, and it is thus important to build good skills of delegation (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p77). Delegation should include several components to be successfully used: Delegation should be viewed as a means for development for both the principal and the agents (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p77). Thus, it should be a mutual exchange of ideas. The principal needs to consider what they are delegating and to whom. Delegators also need to learn to be able to let go after delegation since it is impossible control all that happens around them (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p77). it is thus imperative that they trust their agents to handle tasks that are holding them back from achieving their potential. Creation of plans aimed at driving delegation by utilizing a delegation matrix that indicates the agents and the major components of tasks and also how one can develop the agents to get work done (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p77). This helps the agents comprehend the set expectations. Task to be done must also be defined by ensuring that the task is suitable for delegation. Clarity when delegating is very important since the principal is not clear on what they want; the agents will not be either. State the required results, outcomes, and answer questions on what the team should be expected to achieve (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p77). It is also vital to give the modes of measuring success and how the principal intends to decide on the success of the job. Discussion the needed resources with the team and individuals (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p78). Important concerns like money, materials, equipment, time, location, and people should be discussed, and creative solutions found. Agreement on deadlines and timelines must be reached including a report on the status to ensure the effective completion of delegated tasks (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p78). The principal also needs to seek reassurances that the task can be completed, and all the gaps in expectations and real results are addressed, as well as reinforcement of the principal’s belief in teamwork and individuals. It is, of the utmost importance, to look around the workplace and facilitation of communication between the agents and the principals, which should be two way (Ward & Bettye, 2009 p79). The principal should also keep his superiors in the loop on what is happening and progress made. b) Actual Unilever uses delegation of tasks to committees as a way to improve efficiency in the workplace (Jones, 2012 p65). The directors of the organization delegate their discretions, authorities, and powers. The discretion allows the principals to whom the tasks are delegated to sub-delegate them to team members who they deem fit. The teams led by the principals are expected to conform to the regulations imposed by directors. Responsibilities for day-to-day activities are delegated to senior managers who then sub-delegate these tasks to their teams for their implementation. There is annual monitoring of assurance of task compliance (Jones, 2012 p65). Compliance to lay down codes is reviewed by the corporate reputation and responsibility committee in conjunction with the principals. The Unilever board also expects their attention to be brought to any breaches in these codes via mutual exchanges. c) Differences Unilever also scores in ensuring efficient delegation of tasks. There are not many glaring differences between the theoretical approaches to delegation and the practical uses of delegation at Unilever. Some minor ones do exist, though. One is that delegation is highly controlled by the board compared to the managers of the respective teams. In this case, the directors are the Delegators, although they act as the principals for this particular case. d) Recommendations Unilever should implement another efficient mode of making status reports in order to improve on discrete supervision of delegated tasks. Status reports should be reworked to provide task details, explain accomplishments, list what the next reporting period should include, and discuss potential problems (Innes, 2012 p32). Some of the delegation responsibility and inspection should also be left to the team managers in order to make them extra responsible. Since they are the ones in direct contact with the team doing the delegated tasks and are the most likely to be blamed if the tasks fail to achieve their desired goals, they should be entrusted with almost total control of the task delegation and inspection. Compliance to task agreements could also be done regularly to avoid complacency, and this is possible through principals who are in constant contact with the delegation agents doing the task. 3. Organizational Structure at Unilever (Jones, 2012 p101) References Alexander M, Carol S. (2008). Personal Effectiveness. New York: Routledge. Berkley J D. (2008). Leadership Handbook of Management and Administration. Grand rapids: Baker Books. Diamond, L, and Harriet D. (2007). Teambuilding that gets results : essential plans and activities for creating effective teams. Naperville, Ill.: : Sourcebooks. Innes J. (2012). Ultimate new job. London : : Kogan Page. Jones G. (2012). Renewing Unilever : transformation and tradition. Oxford ; New York :: Oxford University Press. Parcon P. (2006). Develop Your Team Building Skills . New York: Lotus Press. Sears H. (2007). The front line guide to building high performance teams. Amherst, Mass.80: : HRD Press. Ward E, & Bettye M. (2009). Delegation and empowerment : leading with and through others. Larchmont, N.Y.: Eye on education. Read More