Finally, an easy to follow, real world, and practical application of leadership. I am referring to team leadership with this statement. Team leadership has also become one of the most popular and rapidly growing areas of leadership theory and research (Northouse, 2013). Personally, and this is not to suggest any one theory is wrong, but I have found that leadership theories tend to focus on hind sight observation or aspects of leadership training. What we do not see is an abundant focus on the team involved and the goal to be accomplished. After all, how often do we hear the phrase, there is no I in team when we are trying to get something done. Basically, I have found that leadership theories strive to train leaders, answer questions based on how to identify a good leader, determine what leader best fits certain situations, and even determine how leaders can improve follower interaction, or channel motivation. With the team approach we see a focus on what needs to be done and how to get it done, not necessarily on who the boss is. Team leadership makes good sense because it doesn’t only address what decisions should be made, but it also outlines what action should be taken to stay on track.
With team leadership, no per se leadership training is necessary outside of the scope of the model being followed and the leadership present can even be shared. By shared I mean distributed leadership which involves the sharing of influence by team members who step forward when situations warrant providing the leadership necessary and then who in turn step back to allow others to lead (Northouse, 2013). Additionally, teams can be comprised of individuals of the same rank and the leader can be picked from within. By picking a leader from within it seems natural that the leader would be more likely to have the respect of the followers. This is one aspect we may not always find with a position that has been officially bestowed through rank or appointment. I translate all of this to mean that team leadership occurs at the functioning level where it belongs. After all, who can say they enjoy taking orders from the leader who simply delegates and spends most of their time absent or on the golf course.
When I consider the concept of team leadership, I am reminded of the KISS acronym which came about from the U.S. Navy as a design principle and is short for Keep It Simple Stupid (Dalzell & Victor, 2007). In contrast to the keeping it simple concept of team leadership, the psychodynamic approach to leadership comes to mind. The psychodynamic approach involves in depth analysis of a leaders rooted personality which once diagnosed cannot be easily changed anyway. Who has time for psychoanalysis when the demands of life are happening in the now? Don’t get me wrong, it is certainly advisable to learn about why we act the way we do, or to put it another way, what makes us tick and it certainly doesn’t hurt to analyze leaders as part of history so we can learn from their mistakes.
As a naysayer, one could point out how team leadership does not provide for any of the skills training a member could need due to potential changes in the leader-follower dynamics. But are these leadership skills really needed with a team leadership model that provides such clear and concise frame work to follow. With Kogler-Hill’s (2013) team leadership model, specific frame work is provided to take the guess work out of whatever leadership dilemma the team is facing. It is this mental road map that helps the leader (or any team member who is providing leadership) diagnose team problems and take appropriate action to correct the problem (Northouse, 2013).
Additionally, I am well aware that such collaborative relationships do not thrive in autocratic environments where creative group thinking is frowned upon. So no, I do not see team leadership thriving in North Korea but does anyone reading this really enjoy being part of that kind of work environment anyway. Where I do see team leadership thriving however, is in business town America where there appears to be a trend toward work teams on a culturally diverse and global basis. Another reason I feel good about the idea of team leadership is that of partnership. When everyone in the team takes stock in the project they are all naturally concerned about the outcome and want to achieve the goal. Additionally, research has suggested that the use of teams has led to greater productivity, a more effective use of resources, better decisions and problem solving, better-quality products and services, and greater innovations and creativity (Parker, 1990). What more do you need in support of team leadership than that? I will even go as far as challenging anyone reading this to support another theory that can be so universally applied and at the same time reports such positive findings.
References:
Dalzell, T., Victor, T. (2007). The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. Taylor & Francis.
Kogler-Hill, S. (2013). Team Leadership. In P. G. Northouse (2013), Leadership: Theory and practice (6th ed., pp. 287–318). Los Angeles: Sage Publications
Northhouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
Parker, G. M. (1990). Team players and teamwork. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass.