As Paul Tesluk explains in his video
interview, self-managed teams are no longer a rare occurrence in today’s
businesses (Insead, n.d.). Companies are moving towards flatter
hierarchies and more decentralized management practices as both Tesluk and
Brown conclude (Tesluk, n.d. and Brown, 2011). I think there are a lot of advantages to
self-managed teams and feel this is the route for improved performance in most
cases. I think that moving away from hierarchical team management allows for a more fluid way of working. Removing the authoritative element gives
employees more freedom to individualize their practices and I believe opens the
doors for creative and innovative thinking.
Directive or even micro-managed environments stifle creativity which I
believe is an important element for organizational growth. I also feel that in self-managed teams,
members feel more personally invested in the goal which increases not only
performance but motivation. When you are
directly involved in the decision-making process you also have a higher degree
of investment and responsibility in the outcome. It is as simple as flipping the perspective
switch between doing something for someone else and doing it for yourself. In fact, you could have two teams working
towards the same end result, one team is organized, managed and led
by management, while the other is self-managed.
Both teams may have the same objectives, same resources, and even the
same talent, but the self-managed team will more likely perform better because
they have the perspective of doing it for themselves or in this case, the
team. This type of perspective
translates into everything we do in life.
Things are good and bad, depending on how we view them. The end goal is always the same, but how we
choose to arrive there and the state of mind we choose to have makes the
difference between failure and success.
Of course there is the downside to
everything. You cannot have ying without
yang and nothing is ever perfect. There
must be synergy and balance as this is nature at its best. Therefore, self-managed teams are not always
the answer to everything. There will be
occasions were the cure-all self-managed team just won’t work. I found this great article, although it’s
outdated from 1994 but amazingly enough, the information in the article is
still useful and practical in today’s businesses. The author, Brian Dumaine, explains that
sometimes companies create teams for situations where teams are not needed (Dumaine, 1994). He explains situations where sometimes a
single person will resolve a problem faster whereas a team will just become an
obstacle. Also, you cannot “force”
certain individuals into team situations.
Some people are more productive and more creative on their own and will
be more beneficial to the company when working alone with minimal management. When I used to work for an IT firm, we
contracted a lot of IT specialists. They
are the epitome of the “lone-wolf” workers that Dumaine explains in his article
(1994). Many of these folks lacked the
social skills to work in groups which posed a challenge for me as an account
executive. My job was to make sure that
things went smoothly for our clients as well as our contractors who were also
employees. That meant that I had to make
sure that our IT contractors played well with others. This was not always the case and I found
myself intervening on many levels because our contractors had a difficult time
integrating with the company teams that they were contracted to help. An added stressor was that 95% of my
contractors were Indian and therefore there were culture roadblocks we had to
deal with. A last factor to consider in
regards to these ‘team dynamics’ was the length of the projects these
contractors were hired to do which could be as short as a few months. By the time everyone worked out the internal
kinks and interpersonal conflicts, the contract was ending. So to resume, self-managed teams are not
always the one-stop solution to organizational evolution.
In the end, I think that
self-managed teams are a very effective tool that companies can adopt for
growth and success but they have to be formed and integrated properly. Dumaine points out some very important
factors to consider when forming teams (1994).
Here are the main takeaways from
his article (Dumaine, 1994):
a) “Use the right team for the right job”. Don’t just form teams haphazardly, instead
think about the skills needed, the project at hand, types of personalities
needed to make the teams work and type of team.
Will it be a problem-solving team? A product-development team? A virtual
team?
b) “You can’t have teams without trust”. This takeaway needs no explanation. Individuals who are working so closely
together need to know that they can count on each other.
d) “Tackle the
people-issues head on”. Clashing
personalities and interpersonal conflicts need to be addressed first off. This is where intergroup team-building
sessions come into play.
Tesluk (n.d.)
explains the difficulties of teaching teams how to lead themselves. He describes it as walking a balancing
beam. His analogy makes me visualize
someone walking on a balancing beam while someone holds their hand. The balancing and the work is done by the
individual on the beam, the other person is only guiding and supporting that
person and ready to catch them if they fall.
I think this is a good way of looking at how external managers lead
self-managed teams. Tesluk also points
out the importance of being an inspiring force and role model. Our energy, excitement and way of behaving as
leaders influence those we lead. If you
inspire trust in your team members, they will be more likely to model
themselves after you. A good external
manager knows how to create the mold while giving teams the flexibility and
control of filling it however they see fit.
I personally feel
that being in a self-managed team would bring out my best qualities. I also tend to be stifled by authority and
become reserved in my opinions. I like
the idea of disclosing information and group communication. I feel my organization is very hierarchical, and
although I see an effort to make us feel equal and valued, the foundation of
how my organization is run is more traditional. I also feel that the geographic factor, of campuses
in different countries, makes it difficult to adopt this type of model. There is too much distance between all our
centers and a hierarchical type of management is more convenient and appropriate.
References
Insead. (n.d.). Self-managing
teams: Debunking the leadership paradox
No comments:
Post a Comment