Incorporation of teamwork is a growing ideology in today's organizations. We can do more than me, and teamwork combines the talents of the many versus the skills and abilities of one to accomplish more "work" in a shorter amount of time. Utilizing teams, more specifically high-powered teams comprised of highly skilled people working towards an objective, can cause obstacles for traditional styles of leadership. In essence high-powered teams are fully capable to manage themselves thereby shifting the purposes of leadership to guider-ship (trademark patented word not to be used without the expressed permission of Jody Powell Inc.).
There are many benefits to a self-managed team. The purpose of a team is to accomplish a goal, or purpose. These goals and purposes are laid out into objectives by project managers. Once the objectives are shared with the group get out of the way and let the team do what they do best. Simple, clean, and efficient. This would probably drive middle-managers and traditional leaders crazy. Where is the accountability? What if they accomplish their goals in a completely different way than upper management had anticipated? Who do we hold accountable?? The answers to these questions lie within the team itself. The team does not generally make the goals or objectives to hit (although it would be a good idea to include the team in on the ideas and direction planning process). The team purpose is to make it happen, and the self-managed team knows how best to do that very thing. Set the team in motion, provide guidance when necessary, track progress, and be of support and assistance... this is all that needs to be done to "manage" a self managed team.
Personally, I worked in self-managed work teams in the Navy. This typically happened when our Leading Petty Officer was a technical expert and used the junior people, with varying levels of experience, to accomplish tasks. The goal of this type of SMT was to keep Chief out of the team. Chiefs always had a tendency to over-analyze and micro-manage, so to counter that the team work autonomously to accomplish our mission feeding the Chief the information he/she required.
Currently I work in a similar situation. I am the team leader for a store in Corpus Christi, TX with our corporate offices in San Antonio about 2 hours up the highway. We have three sales people including an assistant and 4 production team members. We have goals and projects passed down from corporate and we carry them out how we see fit. As the team leader I make the reports to my boss and inform home of our progress. We manage our own issues, find solutions to our market's unique obstacles, and work interdependently with each other to accomplish our goals. We vary in our collective expertise, but compliment each other with different skill sets. I didn't realize until this week's lesson on SMTs how many similarities we share with Brown's definition, but we are very much an autonomous unit.
Managing a self-managed team requires more guidance than leadership in the traditional sense. Brown describes upper management as a support team in this scenario, which is exactly what is needed for a SMT to operate at capacity... support. Being able to track production and effort is part of team management. Keeping the team on track is a shared responsibility of the internal team leader and the support team. Overall, self-managed teams run themselves. Point them in the right direction, provide as much support as the team needs, and let them do their thing.
JP
There are many benefits to a self-managed team. The purpose of a team is to accomplish a goal, or purpose. These goals and purposes are laid out into objectives by project managers. Once the objectives are shared with the group get out of the way and let the team do what they do best. Simple, clean, and efficient. This would probably drive middle-managers and traditional leaders crazy. Where is the accountability? What if they accomplish their goals in a completely different way than upper management had anticipated? Who do we hold accountable?? The answers to these questions lie within the team itself. The team does not generally make the goals or objectives to hit (although it would be a good idea to include the team in on the ideas and direction planning process). The team purpose is to make it happen, and the self-managed team knows how best to do that very thing. Set the team in motion, provide guidance when necessary, track progress, and be of support and assistance... this is all that needs to be done to "manage" a self managed team.
Personally, I worked in self-managed work teams in the Navy. This typically happened when our Leading Petty Officer was a technical expert and used the junior people, with varying levels of experience, to accomplish tasks. The goal of this type of SMT was to keep Chief out of the team. Chiefs always had a tendency to over-analyze and micro-manage, so to counter that the team work autonomously to accomplish our mission feeding the Chief the information he/she required.
Currently I work in a similar situation. I am the team leader for a store in Corpus Christi, TX with our corporate offices in San Antonio about 2 hours up the highway. We have three sales people including an assistant and 4 production team members. We have goals and projects passed down from corporate and we carry them out how we see fit. As the team leader I make the reports to my boss and inform home of our progress. We manage our own issues, find solutions to our market's unique obstacles, and work interdependently with each other to accomplish our goals. We vary in our collective expertise, but compliment each other with different skill sets. I didn't realize until this week's lesson on SMTs how many similarities we share with Brown's definition, but we are very much an autonomous unit.
Managing a self-managed team requires more guidance than leadership in the traditional sense. Brown describes upper management as a support team in this scenario, which is exactly what is needed for a SMT to operate at capacity... support. Being able to track production and effort is part of team management. Keeping the team on track is a shared responsibility of the internal team leader and the support team. Overall, self-managed teams run themselves. Point them in the right direction, provide as much support as the team needs, and let them do their thing.
JP
No comments:
Post a Comment