Historically, when I thought of a Team, the image that came to mind usually revolved around either sports or had some sort of competitive purpose. I thought competition was a driving factor in what made a group a team. This of course then led me to believe that a group was just a collection of individuals that were bound together for some purpose other than competition. After reading through the “Team Leadership” section of our course a couple weeks back, the light finally came on for me as to the true difference between a team and a group. According to PSU WC (2016), a group is two or more people that influence one another through interaction and their efforts are then combined into a final product whereas a team is a sub-group that requires high dependency on one another and that interaction is vital to their overall success. Being a former Navy SEAL, I can now understand why they referred to us as SEAL Teams and not SEAL Groups.
Growing up in the SEAL Teams, one thing that is very apparent to us is that you are no better than your weakest link. We count on one another and trust that we each will do what is required of us to ensure mission success. We do not have the ability to do our “own thing” but rather every movement or action that we take affects what the next person will do. According to Northouse (2016), “team members must work collectively to achieve their goals” which is exactly what is expected of us. If we work independent of one another, we will fail. If we only coordinate our activities and hope that the next person will do the same, we will fail. We are a single entity, functioning together to achieve a common goal.
One of the most important aspects of whether or not we are successful depends on the type of leaders we have making the tough decisions. According to Barge (1996, as cited in Northouse, 2016), a good leader must be flexible and have a wide repertoire of actions or skills. This is something the SEAL Teams take very seriously, and one of the reasons why every SEAL trains in very diverse settings. One very unique aspect of the SEAL Teams is that anyone can find themselves in a leadership depending on the situation. There are many instances where the most junior person may find himself as the one making a decision that will lead to either success or failure to the overall mission. For this reason alone, we treat every member as a potential leader, and try to ensure that we all have the wide repertoire of skills that is required in order to make these tough decisions.
If our organization treated itself as a group instead of a team, there is no chance that we would be as effective as we are. Without the help of the man behind you and beside you, you would never have the opportunity to push forward.
References:
Northouse, Peter G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice (7th Ed.). SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA. Print.
Pennsylvania State University World Campus (2016). PSYCH 485: Leadership in Work Settings, Lesson 09: Team Leadership. Retrieved on March 30, 2016 from: https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/sp16/psych485/001/content/09_lesson/04_page.html
Rahul Kiran Khandke says
I found your example of using the military to be interesting when being paired with team leadership. It is not that I disagree with the concepts of brotherhood and companionship that the military teaches but Northouse (2016) states that there must be member involvement when making decisions for an organization to be successful. Although you mentioned instances where lower ranked officers were asked to make decisions, a majority of the time this scenario does not occur and to be completely honest it probably shouldn’t. This is due to the fact that lower ranked officers have less experience and how can anyone possibly expect that they will have the best chance of creating a solution to a problem over an individual of higher rank. Instead, it makes much more sense for them to be listening, under the close watch and guidance of a higher ranked officer until they are experienced enough to be handling any sort of situation where people’s lives are at stake.
With that said, the military runs under vertical decision making versus lateral decision making which is associated with teamwork (Northouse, 2016). This is demonstrated by the various different ranks that officers must climb in order to gain further respect and hierarchical power. Since moving up in ranks obviously does not happen overnight and comes through much time and discipline, members of the military may be forced to tolerate dealing with a higher ranked officer for the sake of their own career potentially being jeopardized. Ultimately, this can create substantial difficulties because Northouse (2016) states, that positive outcomes from team leadership only occur when those lower in the hierarchy view those in higher ranks and or commanding officers as legitimate sources of power. In other words, if you don’t respect those ahead of the hierarchy, then team work cannot occur. Additionally, it is highly unlikely that every single member assigned to a commanding officer will enjoy their time together and furthermore it is unlikely that they will be able to act like a team. Particularly, due to the fact that higher ranked officers hold more power and therefore are able to dictate the outcomes of situations without the input of those ranked lower than them.
In conclusion, Northouse (2016) states that the ideas of team leadership are significantly different from the ideas placed within organizations with a vertical hierarchy. However, one concept that can be applied towards the military is that when there are positive interpersonal relationships between team members, then they able to get the job done and accomplish tasks effectively (Northouse, 2016). Even without a hierarchical system, it is imperative for team members to work together and communicate properly otherwise their chances of success are much slimmer. Additionally, when teams are productive and work effectively together than it is more likely that they will not fight amongst each other and not place blame on one another thus leading to more conflict and failure (Northouse, 2016). This is something that I have been curious about and I wonder how often military teams need to be altered in order to produce the best results.
References
Northouse, P. (2016). Trait approach. In Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Los Angeles, California: Sage Publications.