Self-Managed Teams: Undeniable Impact
In his book, Leadership
and the Art of Struggle, Steven Snyder (2013), former business manager for Microsoft
and Bill Gates’ right-hand man said, “Spending time with Bill Gates in his
formative leadership years gave me a privileged perch for observation. It turns out that Bill’s sagacity and insight
do not stem solely from innate genius. He surrounds himself with very smart people,
and he’s a voracious reader” (p. 171).
Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, Herb Kelleher, and Howard Schultz all
understand their name is attached to the corporation; however, it is the
teamwork and synergy of all the employees that truly produce outstanding
results.
The definition of a leader is changing. While his or her name may be publicly recognizable,
the days of autocratic control, directing employees, and micromanaging
processes are decreasing and organizations are turning toward flatter
structures and empowered work teams.
Great leaders have always understood the power of teamwork; however,
today, mere awareness has been replaced with application. Historically, teams were temporary and
tightly managed. Managers wrestled with
their own fears and nervously contained and directed individual team
members. Teams and teamwork were
encouraged but rarely supported from higher management levels. In The
Secret of Teams, Mark Miller (2011) said, “Although every business unit
said they were organized in a team structure, in truth, many were not teams at
all” (P. 8).
The idea of teamwork has evolved to include more than
helping a coworker on an assembly line.
With the introduction and growth of self-managed work teams,
responsibilities and management formerly reserved for corner offices has made
its way to the factory floor and in the hands of the specialist performing the
work. Ripping through bureaucratic red
tape and felling hierarchical organizational structures like redwoods, the
increase in work teams is proving to be the difference maker between equally
empowered organizations. In an INSEAD
(2008) interview, Peter Tesluk, Professor of Management and Organization at the
University of Maryland, defined a self-managed team as “A team that has formal
responsibility and authority for making their own decisions about how they
organize their work and about how they decide they’re going to get their work
done.”
I’ve been included in teams and been excluded from teams. I’ve sat through hours and hours of training
on effective teamwork and studied it extensively at work, in sports, and in
churches. I’ve read numerous books and
continue to face challenges and experience breakthroughs from successful teams
and cooperative teamwork. When it comes
to performing at a high level by integrating self-managed work teams, there are
some benefits and drawbacks.
One of the key benefits of self-managed work teams is they
contain fewer levels of management. With
a flatter organizational structure, decisions can be made quickly without the
delay inherent in traditional, hierarchical structures. Also, in work teams, various skills are
contained in the group rather than externally in another department. Brown (2011) said, “There are fewer support
staff, such as engineering, planning departments, and purchasing, because the
work team performs these jobs. The people
who do the work are integrated into the work team” (p. 351).
Yukl (2010) said, “Self-managed work teams offer a number
of potential advantages, including stronger commitment of team members to the
work, more effective management of work-related problems, improved efficiency,
more job satisfaction, less turnover, and less absenteeism” (p. 336). While self-managed work teams have grown
popular and many companies are experiencing a surge in productivity, it is not
a panacea and research data remains mixed.
Additionally, lack of interpersonal training, poor group dynamics, and
dim goal clarity can result in unhealthy conflict, lack of productive results,
and frustrated team members.
One of the key factors of a self-managed team is
trust. Members must be willing to be
open and vulnerable, share concerns, and provide feedback. In his bestseller The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni (2002) said,
“Trust lies at the heart of a functioning, cohesive team. Without it, teamwork is all but impossible”
(p. 195). For trust to develop, team
members must create a vulnerability-based relationship. Trust is the currency of accountability. In self-managed work teams, trust means being
able to count on the other members to fulfill their roles. In The
17 Indisputable laws of Teamwork, John Maxwell (2001) said, “The Law of Countability states that ‘teammates must
be able to count on each other when it counts’” (p. 117). He explains his law by the following simple
but powerful formula: “Character + Competence + Commitment + Consistency +
Cohesion = Countability” (p. 122).
Successful self-managed teams rank high in countability.
As a leader in the local church, self-managed teams have
become a necessity. Most churches have
small staffs and operate by and large through their volunteers. Currently, I am the director of the
Assimilations Ministry. This area is
concerned with integrating new members and visitors into the life of the local
church. By using small groups,
relationship-based strategies, and personal connections, church leaders help
people feel accepted and connected.
Since it is impossible (and unhealthy) to try and control the entire
assimilations process, I have set up small (5-7 people) self-managed teams to
govern the process of member integration.
As a result, we have seen an increase in retention and work-team members
have taken a larger role in “owning” the vision of the church. As a leader, I ensure they have the resources
they need and continue to nurture support from the senior pastor and the
governance team.
As an external leader of several work teams, garnering
support from the senior pastor and governance team (church board members) is
the easy part. My proficiency in
coaching, facilitating, and inspiring the team continues to improve. However, my skills as an external coach could
improve in planning and organizing the work.
As a very detailed leader, it can be challenging to delegate and release
the intricate details of a project to a team of five members with a vast array
of skills. Peter Tesluk said, “There is
somewhat of a contradiction to leading self-managed teams as they lead
themselves. The type of leadership style
moves away from directing to one that develops team capabilities.” As a leader, I have taken his advice and
focused more on “helping them team understand their unique strengths and
inspiring them rather than coercing or directing them.”
Seth Godin (2008)
said, “We live in a world where we have the leverage to make things happen, the
desire to do work we believe in, and a marketplace that is begging us to be
remarkable. And yet, in the middle of
these changes, we get stuck. Stuck
acting like managers or employees instead of like the leaders we could
become. We’re embracing a factory instead of a tribe” (p. 10). If we are to create greater innovations, if
we are to reach more people, and if we ever hope to change the world for the
better, we will need to power of successful teams. Instituting self-managed work teams is a key
link that raises relationships and output to another level. Maxwell (2001) is correct, “One is too small
a number for greatness” (p. 1). It’s the
power of teams that carry a global impact.
References
Brown, D.R. (2011). Organizational development. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Godin, S. (2008). Tribes. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
INSEAD. (2008).
Self-Managing Teams: Debunking the Leadership Paradox. Retrieved from
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Maxwell, J. (2001). The 17 indisputable laws of teamwork.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
Inc.
Miller, M. (2011). The secret of teams. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.
Snyder, S. (2013). Leadership and the art of struggle. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers, Inc.
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
No comments:
Post a Comment