Effective Teams: A Symptom of healthy leadership
Cyndi A. Crother-Laurin, Ph.D.
From the times of our ancestors, the need to succeed has been paramount
to our survival. And it should not be much of a surprise to note
the more effective the team, the more likely the chances were of
surviving. From observing natural living systems to the larger, planetary
ecosystem, we are finally beginning to recognize that vitalizing
the relationships between the parts of the system is of greater consequence
than optimizing the parts of the system, or in this case, the organization.
The purpose of this article is to address new thinking about the
intentions and uses of teams. More specifically, the article will
address looking at healthy leadership as an approach for increasing
the effectiveness of teams rather than creating teams as an approach
for increasing collaboration. It will also examine new thinking and
building an infrastructure necessary to support a culture of effective
teams.
Corporations,
large and small, spend billions of dollars every year on team building, relationship
building, and trust building. Many leaders attempting to foster a culture that
encourages teamwork tend to view teams as an approach to getting business done.
Typically, teams have become something to be deployed. We are disillusioned
by clichés such as, “two heads are better than one”, “lean
and mean”, or “the combined effect is greater than the sum of the
individual parts.” Often times, there is no consideration of whether
or not using teams will be the most effective or efficient method of working,
nor how it will affect individual learning and development. Effective teams
should not be the goal of the organization – they should be the result
and culmination of healthy leadership.
As it relates
to effective teams and organizational transformation, W. Edward Deming stated, “The
first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous.
It comes from understanding the system of profound knowledge. The individual,
transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers;
to interactions between people…he will apply its principles in every
kind of relationship with other people. He will have a basis for judgment of
his own decisions and for transformation of the organizations that he belongs
to” [1]. From Deming’s perspective, it is clear that organizational
transformation does not begin with management providing or mandating opportunities
for collaboration or teamwork. It begins with each individual, and therefore,
is the responsibility of the leaders to foster each individual’s learning
and development such that collectively the organization can realize the capacity
and contribution of each member.
More now than in any other point in history, leaders of organizations
must produce sustained results. Information, without an appreciation
for systems or an awareness of organizational complexities, is no
longer adequate or relevant to those who must guide their constituents
into an unknown future. Even decades ago, Albert Einstein advocated
a shift of priorities from the accumulation of bits of information
and data points to capacity building and a clear recognition of the
relationships in the data. It is the responsibility of the leader
to create an environment where constituents can align themselves
to the organizational vision and make a meaningful difference as
individuals or in team settings.
A successful business environment in today’s complex, global
market requires that workers have specific competencies including
technological, strategic, and interpersonal skills across traditional
organizational boundaries [2]. In turn, today’s leaders face
extraordinary challenges to effectively navigate through a diverse
array of internal and external demands that require the capacity
to identify and respond to uncertainty. They must “embody a
paradoxical mix of personal humility and professional will” [3].
For example, leaders in manufacturing environments are not only required
to have the skills necessary to effectively manage integrated product
teams whose members work together to evaluate existing practices,
recommend both small-level and organization-wide improvements, and
implement changes throughout the production process—they are
also expected to inspire and motivate constituents. One of many measurements
of today’s successful companies is the ability to attract,
develop, and retain talented employees who can work effectively and
efficiently together [4].
We are also currently in the midst of a paradigm shift that is beginning
to embrace and encompass—to a greater extent than ever—the
basic tenets of systems thinking. Evolving out of the quality movement,
the language of today is more reflective of the systems movement,
with more prevalent terms including relationships, networks, interdependencies,
teams, integration, holistic approaches, synergy, connections—all
supporting the recognition that the relationships among
people and processes are more valuable than more traditional, fragmented
management theory. This newer systems-based language carries broad
implications, among them the new leadership skills and competencies
that are necessary to sustain long-term results and a responsibility
to encourage a culture that fosters effective teamwork. There also
must be an infrastructure in place to invite opportunities to work
as a team and foundational thinking that guides the infrastructure.
It all begins with the thinking behind the actions.
For effective teamwork to be a symptom of healthy leadership, the
leaders must have an appreciation of systems thinking. Systems thinking
concepts emerged nearly seventy years ago with the work of W. Edwards
Deming, along with Russell Ackoff, Genichi Taguchi, Peter Checkland,
Jay Forrester, Edward de Bono, Chris Argyris, and Peter Senge among
many others. The past decade has seen an increase in research revolving
around systems dynamics, natural/or organic organizations, and systems-thinking
organizations. In simplest terms, systems thinking is a way of viewing
an organization from a range of perspectives that integrates people
and processes with events, rather than just viewing an event as an
isolated occurrence, distinct from the people and processes.
A systems-thinking framework is extremely effective on the most difficult
types of problems to solve, particularly those that have a great
deal of dependence on the past or on the actions of others, and those
stemming from ineffective coordination among those involved. This
broad view helps the leader of an organization identify the root
causes of problems and know how to most effectively address them.
The knowledge of when teams should be used, or who should handle
a project flows naturally out of an appreciation of the inherent
interdependencies that exist within any organization.
Along with W. Edwards Deming, Russell Ackoff recognized the lack
of collective, organizational understanding. His work continues to
focus on how and why constituents of an organization collectively
behave the way they do [5]. As workers apply systems thinking methodologies
and tools to gain a better understanding of the organizational context,
they inevitably and simultaneously learn to more effectively identify
problems and make informed decisions for taking action independently
or with the help of others.
Along the same organizational context reflecting an appreciation
for systems and collective ownership, this phenomena is also represented
by the theory of social construction of reality [6]. The literature
surrounding social construction of reality supports the extension
of individual contribution to the group level resulting in organizational
behavior. In more recent years, Peter Senge and Patrick Lencioni
have made great contributions in furthering the study of group dynamics
within a systems thinking construct. Systems thinking is the foundation
for the development of learning organizations and for fostering effective
teams. Peter Senge identifies specific "component technologies" as
the basis for building learning in organizations as well as systems
thinking in individuals [7].
While there is vast disagreement over what exactly leadership is,
most would agree that however it is defined, it makes a significant
impact on an organizations success and sustenance. In a recent, unrelated
and informal survey the author sent to nearly 700 industry, government,
and nonprofit constituents, leadership was the predominant response
when participants were asked what their greatest obstacle hindering
extraordinary product(s) and or service(s) was. The survey also revealed
that the language people used to define leadership either created
or hindered their own ability to see opportunities to lead within
their organization. As a result of the study and other research,
the author recently redefined leadership as “a commitment to
the success of the people around you.” In this light, anyone
from any position within the organization can find opportunities
to lead.
The work of Chris Argyris has also influenced thinking about the
relationship of people within organizations, collective learning
and action research. Argyris discovered conflict tended to exist
between individual personalities and organizational management and
structure [8]. The tendency for managers to exert power over people
at the lower levels of the organizational hierarchy produces fear,
passivity, and ambivalence, which are in conflict with the real needs
of human beings. Many managers attempt to restrain workers through
the creation of mechanized jobs, tight controls, reward and punishment
as well as more directives resulting in frustration.
While research on leadership indicates that 50-75% of organizations
are currently managed by people sorely lacking in leadership competence
[9], they continue to be hired or promoted based on technical competence,
business knowledge and politics. Relatively few are chosen or promoted
for their leadership skills. Such managers, often also lacking an
appreciation or understanding of systems thinking, manage or lead
by crisis. They are often poor communicators, insensitive to morale
issues; tend to be viewed as mistrustful, over-controlling and micro-managing.
This inability to recognize how the organization functions as a system
leads to their failure to follow through on initiatives or commitments
resulting in ineffective teams, low morale, poor quality, alienated
employees, and costly attrition.
Progressive and healthy leaders tend to foster creativity out of
their constituents. It is the creative spirit that leads and supports
an innovative culture. The work of these creative persons is a part
of a whole, which cannot be appreciated in isolation. Creative persons
need to work with others of equal competence. Healthy leaders naturally
express a sense of trust that creates the environment necessary for
constituents to operate [10]. Workers who trust their leader invite
and generate buy-in of the leader’s vision. Healthy leaders
let it be known regularly and often that relationships are important,
that connections, interdependencies and integration are at the heart
of the organization.
Once a leader has acquired an awareness and understanding of systems,
he or she begins to see the connections and relationships everywhere.
He or she begins to realize that many of organizational issues commonly
addressed as leadership, learning, or organizational development
challenges are really an inevitable part of the flux, size, and scope
of the system. Without the courage to open one’s mind to the
notion of vitalizing the relationships of the parts rather than maximizing
the efficiency of each part, no leader can be effective for very
long. The best leadership development programs implicitly address
the challenge of appreciating systems and understanding change—they
are experiential, tailored to the needs of the organization, and
based on delivering real-world results.
Where work was once based upon task and mission accomplishment, now
it is based on the ability to retain talented people and manage effective
teams who want to put the leader’s vision into action. Healthy
leadership, rather than teams, should be the approach for increasing
collaboration, by which the organization gets to delight in the best
efforts and contributions from each constituent.
REFERENCES
1 Deming, W. E. 1993. The New Economics For Industry, Government & Education.
Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced
Engineering Study.
2 Van Eynde, D.F. & S.L. Tucker. 1997. “A Quality Human
Resource Curriculum: Recommendations From Leading Senior HR Executives,” Human
Resource Management, 36, No. 4, 397-408.
3 Collins, J. 2001. Good to Great. New York: Harper Collins
Publishers.
4 Barney, J. B. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive
Advantage,” Journal of Management, 17 (1991), 99-120;
Stewart, T. A. “See Jack. See Jack Run Europe,” Fortune,
(September 27, 1999), 124-136; Ulrich, D. “A New Mandate for
Human Resources,” Harvard Business Review, (January-February,
1998), 124-134.
5 Ackoff, R. 1978. The Art of Problem Solving. New York:
John Wiley & Sons; Ackoff, R. 1999. Disciplines, The Two Cultures,
and the Scianities. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 16:533-537;
Ackoff, R. & S. Rovin. 2003. Redesigning Society. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press.
6 Berger, P. & T. Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction
of Reality. New York: Anchor Books.
7 Senge, P. 1990. The Fifth Discipline NY: Currency/Doubleday.
8 Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning:
A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley;
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & McLain Smith, D (1985) Action
Science, Concepts, methods, and skills for research and
intervention, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; Argyris, C. (1993)
Knowledge for Action. A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational
change, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
9 Hogan, R. 2003. "Leadership in Organizations." Paper
presented at The Second International Positive Psychology Summit,
Washington, D.C. Oct. 2-5.
10 De Pree, M. Spring 2001."Creative Leadership" Leader
to Leader. 20: 10-13.
|
