Teams in the workplace are all the rage. Seizing an opportunity to reduce overhead, and increase profitability many companies have embraced the idea of self-managing teams. Research has shown that the use of teams results in greater productivity, and increased efficiency (Northouse, 2013). However, these benefits will not be reaped if an organization’s culture does not support collaborative work and decision making (Northouse, 2013). In so many cases, it seems, companies embrace the terminology of teams while continuing to adhere to hierarchical managerial structures. It is time, therefore, to dispel the clich�s of what working as a team is and discuss the requirements to benefit from a true team environment.
At workplaces across America every employee is a team member and every instance of two or more employees working together is a team, and if you fail to follow the rules you are branded as not being a team player. Calling employees team members is perceived by some to be a positive, inclusive way to express that as an employee you are part of an important group with common goals. So, in a generic sense when the CEO of a corporation calls every employee a team member it is an accurate use of the term if you consider them all to be working together for the overarching company goals. However, when the CEO describes every organizational unit and sub-unit of the company, from division, to department, to individual product lines as teams, the term becomes diluted, and team member is little more than a synonym for employee unless the necessary organizational structure exists.
From the early 1900’s, when the American economy rapidly shifted from craft production to mass production, the most common form of managerial structure was a bureaucratic hierarchy. In the latter half of the twentieth century American companies shifted to a flatter organizational structure to remain competitive in the global marketplace. The terms agile and lean became buzzwords as companies sought to reduce the time and costs involved in responding to market demand. As an increasing body of research supported the move to a flatter corporate structure many companies jumped on the bandwagon and embraced the team concept, but often only in name. Unfortunately many managers and executives fail to embrace requisite dyadic exchange of both information and responsibility between teams and their managers. For the team approach to be successful managers must set aside a desire to command and adopt a philosophy of monitoring and facilitation (Northouse, 2013). Hill’s model describes leaders as monitoring both the internal and external environment the team is operating within, feeding back to the team relevant information which will guide their success, and intervening internally or externally only when necessary. This approach is not entirely dissimilar to the philosophy of the servant-leadership model which suggests that leaders act in ways which promote the growth and welfare of their employees (Northouse, 2013). Hill’s model is similar in that team managers act when the team requires assistance to be successful. In both cases the manager eschews being a commander and instead becomes a nurturer.
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.