Teams in Organization
This weeks readings focused on the complex nature of teams. Articles addressed strategies for success
to create effective teams and teams gone wrong. An article in the Business Review by Banutu and William's (2011) addressed many of the common themes embedded in this weeks readings, the importance of communication, strong and effective management and trust. Levy (2001) asserted that these same issues resulted in the demise of the Nut Island waste water treatment plant. In this situation communication from management was poor and ineffective and lacked needed action which resulted in a lack of trust between plant workers and staff. Banutu and Williams (2011) contend that communication should be open to encourage support and trust between management and staff (p. 5). However, in the Nut Island example, it was staff who attempted communication and when the result was unfruitful they sought other avenues to accomplish tasks. Banutu and William's (2011) approach differs in its by indicating that communication was a responsibility of management in managing an effective and successful team. This reinforces Levy's (2001) recommendations in how to prevent the Nut Island Effect (p. 10). As Levy pointed out, many managers recognize the effect after examining his article, yet I wonder why it is less obvious as the events unfold. Many of Banutu, Williams and Levy's recommendations for success seem obvious and common place, yet successful team interaction remains a struggle for many organizations.
Hinds and Mortenson (2005) contend that distributed teams experience more conflict and like Banutu and Williams address communication as a key component to resolving the conflict (p. 302). However, Banutu and Williams take the communication strategy further by suggesting the implementation of a "team charter" that addresses the groups purpose individuals roles and communication flow. I concur with their findings and wonder whether a team charter and clearly defined communication plan could have aided and prevented the Nut Island incident. However, without the shift in leadership would have had minimal effects. All articles lead me to believe that successful teams are the result of a very careful balancing act. Management must direct and support while also allowing some autonomy and idea generation, support strong communication in an effort to gain trust which strengthens relationships and teams. I have often found it funny that people dread working in teams and after this weeks readings I see that working in a team and more importantly managing a team takes a tremendous amount of work and care.
References
Banutu, M. B., & William, G. R. (2011). Teams in organization. The Business Review, 18(1), pp. 54-60.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu/docview/871968527accountid=
14749&title=Teams+in+Organization#.UKCg1F6rkQg.blogger
Hi Ramona,
ReplyDeleteI agree that in order to have an effective team there needs to be communication flowing from both ends. Management needs to keep the employees in the loop at all times so they can maintain trust. Employees also need to be open with management and let them know whenever there are potential issues. However this is probably easier said than done. Most times employees are afraid to speak out for fear of retaliation. Eventually though I think the balance can made and an effective team will be the result.
Makes sense. Your comment about balancing being directive and allowing for autonomy is interesting. It reminds me of Situational Leadership theories. For example, Hersey and Blanchard would argue that you would be more directive or less directive based on the maturity (defined in terms of competence and motivation) of those being led. Is there a similar dynamic? Is always a balance or can extreme directiveness or extreme autonomy be the proper choice?
ReplyDeleteBrad,
DeleteI think that brings up a good point. I definitely think that there are situations where extreme directiveness or autonomy would be a proper choice. However, I also feel that it should be gauged based on the compilation of the team. In other words, know you audience. Some teams depending on their culture or compilation may be put off by extreme directiveness and could result in an opposite effect. Therefore I think it is a bit of a balancing act. On the other hand there are certain situations where a team just needs a leader to help point them in the right direction and the direct approach is necessary. However, since we are talking about human interaction there is not catch all answer each situation should be appropriately weighed.
Thank you for the feedback,
Ramona
Hey Romona, great article. thanks for the input. I thought different of the Nut Island case. As you mentioned, I do believe communication was an issue that reduced trust, but I believe there were so many other issues involved. Issues such as perception as the "other" or tense relationship between the manager and the team. I thought ultimately it was a principal agent issue, in which the manager should have set up practical methods (such as incentive systems, relationship structures, communication channels, etc.) to make sure that the principal agent issue would be reduced.
ReplyDeleteYeirang,
DeleteGreat points, and I completely agree communication is just one piece of many overarching issues in teams. However, wouldn't you also agree that it can be the most detrimental to things going awry. Yet, you nailed it by recommending additional methods in the Nut Island case, the odds were certainly working against them and your strategies would have helped. However, I also believe that implementing those types of strategies requires a manager or management team that wants a two-way relationship and that seemed to be lacking with the Nut Island team. Great points!
Ramona
You are so right that successful teams require a very careful balancing act! When I had a team (we already know how well that ended) it took as much time balancing, grooming, inspiring, and trouble-shooting with the team as it did the rest of my job! But the open flow of communication kept everyone moving forward following specific short-term and long-term goals, not just spiraling out of control thinking we were all ok - as in the Nut Island case.
ReplyDeleteI was definitely one of those people who did not like working in groups and it was truly the biggest thing that concerned me about joining a masters program - coupled with the fact that we'd be working remotely most of the time. However, I've been fortunate enough to get amazing groups throughout the program so far and also I feel that we are all at a level where we know our role (thanks to Strength Finders) and our purpose for being here and are inspired to work together for a great outcome. Great overview of our reading!