The Downside of Teams

                This week in Leadership we discussed ethical leadership and team leadership. The importance of ethical leadership in any environment cannot be understated. It is vital that our leaders behave morally. If they don’t, what reason do their followers have to do so? Scandal after scandal—Enron, Abu Ghraib, Martin Shkreli (AKA Pharma Bro)—has proven this. Every workplace and organization should be confident in the character of employees before hiring them. Will these people uphold the vision you have for the company? Will they make the work environment pleasant? Are they concerned with humanity and the plight of others, or are they merely concerned with making a profit? I believe we have entered a more ethics-concerned time period in recent years. However, still, so many companies and people are drug to unethical lows by greed. I hope through ethics education, research, and training a day may come when companies that behave well are higher esteemed than those that merely make a profit.

                The idea of teams has also become a hot topic in the professional environment. Teams are no longer confined to the sports arena. They can now be found in everywhere from our classrooms to our workplaces. We have been taught that teams get jobs done faster. They allow for more productivity, accountability, and fresh ideas. However, how often have we been a part of a team that does not work? I have personally been a part of many ineffective teams where one person is forced to carry the bulk of the load while others enjoy the rewards.

                The team is a fragile being. There have been countless theories on how to improve teams, on what makes a good team, on the dysfunctions of teams. In my research this week, I ran across an interesting, almost shocking article by Harvard Business Review. The title screams “Why Teams Don’t Work”. Immediately, I was intrigued, but more so pleased to know that I was not alone in my dissatisfaction with team performance. The article published in May 2009 contains portions of an interview of J. Richard Hackman conducted by HBR senior editor Diane Coutu. Hackman’s extensive research on teams has shown that “most of the time…team members don’t even agree on what the team is supposed to be doing” (Coutu, 2009).


               Even in the sports arena, where teams are so commonplace, teams have issues. Consider movies like Remember the Titans. Coaches have a hard time maintaining team attitude in places where teams are completely necessary. It is only that much harder in a place where teams are not so natural like the workplace or the classroom. Hackman explains that teams often suffer due to “problems with coordination and motivation” (Coutu, 2009). Often these factors coupled with competition between teams makes for a wholly unsuccessful team.

                But, teams can be successful. Scores of research has shown this. So, what can we do to have successful teams? Some of the best teams have strong leaders that ensure success. This may seem counterintuitive, but good teams have a trailblazing leader that keeps the group focused and on task. Hackman provides the example of Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King Jr has examples of team leaders, but he acknowledges that “even the best leader on the planet can’t make a team do well”
(Coutu, 2009).

                So, “given the difficulty of making teams work, should we be rethinking their importance in organizations?” (Coutu, 2009). Hackman answers, “Perhaps. Many people act as if being a team player is the ultimate measure of one’s worth, which it is clearly not. There are many things individuals can do better on their own, and they should not be penalized for it” (Coutu, 2009). Forcing teams may be more of “a hindrance than a help” for many workers (Coutu, 2009). So it becomes “the challenge for a leader… to find balance between individual autonomy and collective action” (Coutu, 2009).

                Hackman warns that too much individualism or too strong of a team environment can harm the work environment (Coutu, 2009). Teams have their place. Individual work does as well. Strong, effective leaders will be able to find the right balance for their workplace. When this is done, success can be found. This again brings up the importance of a leader knowing and understanding his people. He should understand each player’s strengths, weaknesses, gifts, and abilities. He should understand who thrives in individual work and who needs a team environment. The leader’s role in the team is extremely valuable. Leaders have to be intentional, purposeful, and dedicated to their team to make it successful.

   
             Forcing team work where it does not belong is not effective, but teams can be successful with the right leader, time, and dedication. Leadership, organization, and knowing followers are vital to successful teams and organizations. There is no use in forcing trams where there should be individual work.  As with so many other things, it is all about balance and a healthy dose of what is needed at just the right time.

                I hope you have enjoyed exploring this realistic approach to team leadership. Be sure to join me next week for another look into leadership. Check out my blog anytime at http://exploringleadershipinpublicadmin.blogspot.com/

References

Coutu, D. (2009, May). Why teams don’t work. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2009/05/why-teams-dont-work


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Hofstede’s Dimensions of Culture

Image
This week in Leadership we discussed two very interesting areas—gender and culture—and how they relate to leadership. For this week’s blog post I will focus on culture and how it is related to leadership. Culture Culture describes “learned beliefs, values, rules, norms, symbols, and traditions that are common to a group of people” (Northouse, 2016, p.428). every person has their own culture. We get culture from our religions, nations, regions, states, hometowns, genders, races, and even our individual families have their own culture. Culture permeates every decision we make and almost everything we do—from how we speak, what we eat, and even how we perceive individuals. It all comes back to culture. So, it is important for leaders (and followers too) to understand differences in culture and how this will affect the workplace or any environment. “Of all the research on [the] dimensions of culture,” Hofstede’s is likely the most cited (Northouse, 2016, p. 431). Geert H. Hofstede...
Read more

Eight Archetypes of Leadership

Image
This week in Leadership we discussed the adaptive and psychodynamic approaches to leadership. Adaptive leadership describes how a leader helps his followers adapt to change and solve problems. Psychodynamic leadership points out the importance of seeing beyond actions alone and understanding that humans are complex beings with many motivations and conflicts at play in any one instance. Individuals and organizations respond differently to different types of leaders. Likewise, some situations call for different kinds of leaders. Within our text for this chapter, an assessment involving the eight archetypes of leadership was presented. Manfred F. R. Kets de Vries presents these archetypes in a discussion of them in a 2013 Harvard Business Review article “The Eight Archetypes of Leadership”. You can find the article here: https://hbr.org/2013/12/the-eight-archetypes-of-leadership . According to this article, the eight archetypes of leadership are as follows: 1.  ...
Read more

The Behavioral and Situational Approaches to Leadership

Image
This week’s discussion covered two other approaches in leadership theory—the behavioral and situational approach. Each of these approaches considers the leader’s behavior across two main dimensions—task and relationship behaviors. Consider this diagram from our text that depicts the behavioral approach: Picture source: Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7 th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers. P. 76 The Behavioral Approach Figure 4.1 depicts the behavioral approach to leadership. As you can tell the two dimensions considered are the concern for people or relationship behaviors and concern for results or task behaviors. This diagram does a great job of portraying the approach. I especially like the names given to each type of leader. Beginning in the top left we have “country club management”. These types of managers are almost wholly concerned with relationship behaviors. They are interested in being the follower’s friend and likely making...
Read more