On the surface of it, it would appear that
effective teams are always good, and that it
is always worthwhile to invest in
team-building activities. That worries me.
So far I have found nothing that works as a
panacea for the ills of everything,
particularly in the area of organization
improvement. We know that teams don't always
make the workplace better, in terms of work
climate or productivity. The North American
effort to transplant Japanese Quality
Circles has taught us that at least some
team-building efforts can result in chaos
and negative outcomes.
So that we don't become
blindly enamored with the notion of teams we
need to look at whether there are situations
where a team-based workplace may not be
effective, and where investment in
team-building activities may be a wasted
investment.
Teams Exist
In a Context
When organization
improvement efforts "go wrong", it is often
because implementers forget that anything
that occurs in an organization exists within
an organizational system, or context. When
we forget this, and don't consider related
parts of the system, we get into trouble.
Teams work within an
organizational context that will either
support teamwork or discourage it. In some
cases, other factors in an organization will
totally preclude effective teamwork, and can
suggest that a team-based workplace is
inappropriate.
Let's take a look at
these factors.
Autocratic
Leadership/Management
Some of the most bizarre
things I have seen in organizations occur
when autocratic managers or executives
decide to force people to work in
participatory teams. As often as not this
occurs when the executive latches on to an
idea or fad without a full understanding of
its implications at all levels of the
organization. In this situation, teamwork
becomes something that is done TO people BY
a manager or executive. While it is possible
to legislate the structures of teams, and
command their existence, it is not possible
to order a team to work efficiently or
harmoniously. In fact the use of power to
create teams sows the seeds of destruction
of those very teams. Not only does this not
work but it can have disastrous
consequences.
What happens when an
autocratic approach is used with respect to
teamwork?
-
Team members sense
the contradiction between participatory
teams and autocratic management. They
don't believe the rhetoric of the leader
regarding his or her commitment to
teamwork.
-
There is a tendency
for autocratic leaders to lack the
skills needed to lead a team, so that
teams end up directionless and confused.
Some autocratic managers try so hard to
"not be autocratic", that they refuse to
give any hints as to what the team is
expected to accomplish. Other autocratic
managers supply such rigid constraints
for teams, that there is no point having
a team at all.
-
Autocratic leaders
tend to use elastic authority. While
they make a game attempt to "let go" of
at least some power, they will quickly
pull the elastic band to remove any
autonomy that a team has. This elastic
banding confuses teams since they can
never tell what the bounds of their
authority are, or, they realize it's all
a sham and they have no autonomy or
power anyway, just the appearance of it.
-
When we have an
autocratic executive in an organization,
this makes effective teamwork at lower
levels difficult, even though that work
unit may have a more participatory
leader. The work unit team may work as a
team until they notice that someone
"upstairs" is ignoring them, or
rendering their ideas and work
irrelevant or useless.
What results is:
-
loss of credibility
for management
-
increased frustration
on the part of team members
-
difficulty in
sustaining any team efforts difficulty
in achieving even simple team goals
It might be better to
forgo team development efforts where an
autocratic manager is involved.
Predominance
of Independent Job Tasks
Some tasks require
teamwork, while some tasks are best done by
a single individual working alone. Some
require a mix. If you have a predominance of
job tasks that are best done independently,
then productivity can suffer if you try to
shoehorn them into a team situation.
Writing is an example of
a task that is best carried out by a single
individual. Having more than one person
working simultaneously on the same piece of
work is likely to stop effective writing in
its tracks, because teamwork disrupts a
process that occurs primarily in a single
brain.
Putting together an
entire magazine, however, is an example of a
mixed task. Some parts of the process,
particularly the creative components,
benefit from team involvement, and all tasks
depend on team coordination.
Fire-fighting, however,
is best done by a highly integrated team,
because it is complex, and the safety of all
depends on the ability of members of the
team to act in a concerted way. That's way
we rarely hear of the superstar firefighter.
Now, here's some
criterion that can be used to determine if
any given task is best carried out by a
team, or an individual. At the end of the
section, you will find a chart.
-
When tasks are
simple...
...and repetitive, teams are unnecessary
and may create higher "overhead". Even
if the overall task is complex but your
organization breaks it down into teeny
discrete tasks, a team may be
unnecessary. An old style automobile
assembly line is an example of a set of
simple, discrete tasks that, when
combined, yield a complex product.
Note that breaking done whole tasks into
less meaningful little parts has some
other negative effects, but if your
organization does this, a team approach
is useless without changing the way work
is distributed and organized.
-
When tasks require
little communication...
...between those carrying them out,
putting them in a team context can
result in reduced efficiency and
frustration.
-
When the
information needed to complete a task...
...is held entirely by one person,
teamwork may disrupt the task.
-
When jobs are so
unrelated that...
...each job or task can be carried out
without the person knowing what another
person is doing, teams may not increase
productivity.
Rigidly
Structured Hierarchical Organization
Almost every organization
is structured in some hierarchical way.
However, organizations differ in terms of
the rigidity of that structure. The more
flexible organization is characterized by
increased delegation of authority to lower
levels of the organization, flexible
communication paths, and decentralized
decision-making. The more rigid organization
demands that its staff work through
channels, refer most decisions to higher
levels in the hierarchy, restrict autonomy
and restrict communication. As a result of
this rigidness, decision-making (and action)
take a great deal of time.
A rigid hierarchical
structure restricts individuals, but also
teams. Teams below the "decision-making
level" may work very effectively internally,
but when they are faced with obtaining
approvals through "channels", their
usefulness is curtailed. First, the process
is two slow to sustain team commitment.
Second, when teams realize that they have no
authority to complete their tasks, they
back-off, knowing that their work is not
very meaningful. Thirdly, rigid
organizations, by restricting communication,
can limit a team's effectiveness by reducing
access to information that the team needs to
succeed.
We won't go so far as to
say that teams cannot succeed in rigidly
structured organizations, but we need to
remember that teams are affected by the
larger context in which they must operate.
If you are considering a more team-based
approach, and team-building activities, you
need to consider whether the larger
management system will render your
team-building investment useless.
Preference
for Individual-Based Work
Some people prefer to
work in teams, while others have a
preference for working more independently,
or alone. It is possible that your workplace
may be inhabited by a predominance of
independent people who thrive on a higher
degree of isolation from their co-workers.
Moving to a more team-based approach may
actually reduce the effectiveness of these
people, while at the same time, increasing
their frustration and even anger. This will
be particularly the case if a team
environment is perceived to "slow them
down", or reduce their autonomy. Not
everyone wants to be a team member. What
this means is that an attempt to force them
into a team structure imposed upon them may
be counter-productive particularly if there
are no clear reasons for the team approach.
Extremely
Unstable, Chaotic Workplace
A final consideration is
the relative stability of the organization,
its structure, mandate, staffing, etc. It is
unlikely that any team will be effective
when it must interface with different
masters, when its role in the larger
organization constantly changes, or when its
own membership is always in flux.
Teams need some stability
to function well. If your organization has a
track record of constant change and
disorganization, it may be wise to wait to
initiate team-building processes until some
stability is evident.
Conclusion
A team approach to work
and team-building exercises occur within the
context of the entire organization. Some
elements, like stability, rigidity and
autocratic leadership may render
team-building ineffective, or even
counterproductive. Elements like task
structuring, and employee preference for
individual work also need to be considered
before the decision to improve team
functioning is made.
Teams are not a panacea,
neither are they useless. It is important to
consider the entire system of doing work, to
determine if team-building, or a
team-oriented approach is likely to justify
the investment of time of effort needed.
Post your comments at
amin@aiminlines.co.th
Copyright 2014, AIM Training Co., Ltd. All rights reserved.
No portion of this web site may be used or
reproduced in any manner
whatsoever without written permission, except in the
case of brief quotations
embodied in critical articles and reviews. |
Back to Articles
| Top of the Page
|