Reading time: 4 – 6 minutes
For several years now organizations have been trying to become more team oriented. Somewhere along the way we collectively seemed to understand that more things can be done when we split the work amongst a team of people. Nowadays job applicants need to prove that they can play well with others and many times job interviews aren’t with a single person, but with other members of the team to make sure the new person is a good fit.
Based on my experiences, I think we are overselling the use of the word team. I think we use the word team because we want all of the things that “team” intimates but in practice, most of the time what we really have is just a group of individuals working on the same project. So instead of real teams we end up with workgroups. While this may seem like semantics, it makes all the difference in the world.
The reason we so desperately want to organize into teams is because when the conditions are right a team can do amazing things that a group of individuals can’t (for an example of a highly functional team, please read this previous article). But the conditions have to be right and in most cases we don’t take the steps needed to create these needed conditions.
Building a team needs to start at the beginning, but we usually don’t take the time to determine the right individuals that need to be part of the team. Most of the time workgroups are born out of necessity; we include members from the functional areas needed to complete the task. This group building by necessity gets us the coverage we need from an organizational standpoint, but most times we just end up with representatives from different departments who come together to report on the work of their units. Rarely do we see a group like this turn into a team because many times different departments within an organization end up with competing priorities and needs for resources which sets up competitive instead of collaborative dynamics.
But even if we do take the time to find the right mix of individuals to be part of a team, the need for the team to produce immediate results tends to get in the way of building team cohesion. Building a highly functioning team doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time for members to experience working with teammates and learn how best to work together effectively. Not giving the team the time needed become cohesive and expecting high performance from them is setting the team up for failure.
Sometimes the issue is not about finding the right team members, it’s about not providing the support that the team needs in order to accomplish it’s goals. We’ll get the team up and running but fail to provide adequate time and resources for the team to meet as often as needed. Or, we expect the team to operate and get the work done while still requiring the individual team members to continue doing their already full-time jobs. Not giving the team the support and resources they need and expecting high performance from them is also setting them up for failure.
Most times we also have issues with team leadership. Leadership in a highly functional team shouldn’t be top down. Instead, when a team is high performing any team member at any time can lead the team. Leadership in a highly functional team is based on the needs of the team at any given time, for any given reason. Unfortunately, most times we don’t give teams the autonomy they need to lead themselves. We usually appoint someone in position of authority to oversee the work of the team, often giving this person a title of something like “team lead”. Designating someone as a team leader tends to stifle the opportunity for each member of the team to step up and lead when it’s the right time.
I’ve identified what I think are some of the major reasons why the “teams” we try to create have trouble operating at the high performing levels that we desire and know are possible. These reasons show why we end up with groups of individuals who are all working on the same project instead of highly functional teams.
Are there other reasons you’ve seen that keep our workgroups from becoming teams?
Leader’s Reflection: Even though we know the promise that a highly function team holds, most times we don’t give adequate support to the creation, growth, maintenance, and leadership of teams. This lack of support makes it more likely that our “team” will end up just being group of people working on the same project.
Interesting post. I’m curious what your thoughts on the Tuckman model for team develop are.
Hi David, I’m not familiar with Tuckman’s model. Is there a link you could share that you think does a good job of describing it?
Teamwork is something many leaders talk about but they conveniently forget that a team needs to be chosen according to the objectives and goals in mind and the team needs to be duly motivated via job satisfaction, money, respect, caring and sharing of the profits generated by the team, ethical behaviour of leaders and others, no false promises or unreasonable demands,etc. Verbal praise is not enough to motivate a team and good leaders must realize that.
Some thoughts on leadership and motivation:
Leadership is the art of mobilizing others toward shared aspirations. Leaders must take care of all stakeholders: employees, customers, suppliers, the government, the community, etc. in order to promote overall welfare.
Great leaders are visionaries whose intuition helps them to capitalize on business opportunities. They surround themselves with “like-minded” professionals who complement them to help reinforce their strengths and eliminate their weaknesses. They realize that profits result from fruitful relationships and are prepared to share these profits with their team members.
Great leaders lead by (ethical) example: morals, fairness, caring, sharing, no false promises or unreasonable demands on others, etc., and structure compensation packages which promote effectiveness. Is “ethical leadership” an oxymoron?
An employer-employee relationship is a business courtship or marriage, depending upon how the relationship is handled by both parties. Job satisfaction and the welfare of corporations and individuals depend upon the degree of motivation. Motivation may be characterized as a drive toward some goal(s) selected in preference to other possible goals.
Leadership is the art of achieving results through the efforts of other people who must be willing to perform the task(s) required of them. The leader should understand and appreciate the values of his/her subordinates because these values/standards determine their opinions, attitudes, preferences, and actions. Congruence in the values of the organization, its top executives, and other employees leads to organizational effectiveness. Failure to understand values leads to barriers in communication, wastage of time and energy, distrust, plus ill feelings within the enterprise, and high employee turnover, with adverse implications for the bottom line: the satisfaction of all stakeholders: owners, leaders, managers, other employees, customers, suppliers, the community, the government, etc., i.e. all those upon whom the firm depends for its survival and success.
Job satisfaction results from (inner and outer) motivation of employees who have been selected on the basis of merit and duly motivated via money, respect, fairness, training, challenging assignments, appreciation, and other factors. Every leader must serve the interests of the organization and its stakeholders, so that the latter are geared toward working at maximum potential. The manager then helps them to solve most problems, with or without direct involvement in the solution to such problems. The leader’s behaviour affects followers, other stakeholders and organizational development.
It should be noted that knowledge workers are “associates” or “partners” who must be given a considerable amount of freedom and responsibility; otherwise, they will leave because they have their own tools of production (i.e., their specific knowledge as discussed earlier). They are in favor of decentralization and a nonhierarchical structure as far as possible.
Man continues to develop psychologically even after his/her physical development stops. Job enrichment through meaningful, challenging, and interesting work provides ample room for psychological growth and motivates people, if duly supported by fair treatment and sound working conditions.
I have a policy of distributing free abridged versions of my books on leadership, ethics, teamwork, motivation, women, bullying and sexual harassment, trade unions, business law, etc., to anyone who sends a request to crespin79@hotmail.com.
Maxwell Pinto, Business Author
http://www.strategicbookpublishing.com/Management-TidbitsForTheNewMillenium.html
An extremely strong, reflective piece Tom. It is rare to find someone who really gets that great leadership and team-building is the result of hard work, patience, years of experience, and really working with the unique details of every organization and community. There are no silver bullets.
Thank you for reinforcing the ‘craft’ of team-building.
Intersting post! I was looking, and still am looking for a blog post that relates to team roles in an online environment as part of an assignment for school and came across this.
Recently I’ve been studying team roles as it relates to leadership and am quite fascinated with Helgesen’s Web of Inclusion http://www.kon.org/leadership/web_inclusion.html as a leadership style.
You might also be interested in Williams Issac’s article on Role in Teams – Dialogic Leadership http://www.dialogos.com/resources/files/systhink.pdf He provides a different, systems thinking perspective although not out of line with Belbin, Tuckman or the Meyer Brigg for that matter.
Also related and perhaps foundational is Lencioni’s The Five Dysfunctions of Teams which mirrors your thinking about “Building a team needs to start at the beginning…” and finding the right mix.
I think I need to go blog about this myself lol
jamie