|
Teams, in one form or the other, have permeated corporate America. Teams have even cropped up in the public and non-profit sectors. Team lingo is slung around hallways, staff meetings, work floors and executive offices. Managers enthusiastically instruct work forces to "Be a Team!" and staggering fees are paid to consultants to implement and monitor teams. Some even tout teams as the organizational vehicle that will usher us in the twenty-first century. If teams are so great and answer the problems brought about by downsizing, re-engineering, right-sizing, increased span of control and "doing more with less", then why are there so many de-railed, dysfunctional teams? Why do thousands, if not millions, of American workers hate the word "team?" Teams are tricky animals. As simple as the concept appears, it becomes intricate and complex in implementation and maintenance. When entering the combat zone of teams, one must be aware of ten potential land mines, or the ten top reasons teams become dysfunctional. When conducting interventions for dysfunctional teams, one must not focus on the explosion of the land mine, which is only the symptom. You must learn to seek out the land mines and destroy them before they explode. Let's walked through that team field together.
In my experience of conducting interventions for dysfunctional teams, I have found that executive management teams often fail to obtain a thorough education regarding the concept of teams. They don't seem to understand that a transition to teams far surpasses a mere organizational change. Team implementation demands that an organization completely transform their philosophy of business. Teams are not only a different way of doing business, but they represent an entirely different way of thinking about doing business. In order for teams to succeed, the executive management team must embrace this philosophical change. Because the implementation of teams requires a philosophical change in the way an organization conducts business, the restructuring process is long and painful. Resistance to this change is pervasive in all levels of the organization. Sabotage runs rampant, and employee morale hits bottom. The process is like riding out a hurricane in a small craft. There are times when all are convinced they will perish in the process. This type of upheaval requires strong and committed leadership. Commitment starts at the top, and the employees must know that there is no turning back. When the message is communicated that "teams are here to stay" employees have a decision to make. If the employee feels that he/she will never be a good team player, then they will often resign from the organization, and that is exactly what management should desire. This is the "get on or off of the bus" message that management must convey. When managers or employees attempt to sabotage the team's success, management should be prepared to take action through coaching or removal. If management permits this type of activity to continue without intervention, it communicates a strong message to the employees that destructive team behaviors are allowed, and that management is just experimenting with the team concept. Eventually, the destructive team behaviors will contaminate the entire team, and the team will become dysfunctional. The design, implementation and maturation process of teams usually is a lengthy commitment. Also, organizations fail to realize that there is a significant learning curve involved with teams. Production, morale, quality, efficiency, timeliness, etc. get worse before they improve. Many organizations are not able to withstand these declines or time requirements. Therefore, teams should probably not be implemented when an organization is on the brink of financial ruin. They do not work well as a Band-Aid or a "quick fix." Just as children need understanding and freedom to move through all stages of maturation at their own pace, the team maturation process requires the time and patience of executive management. It cannot be forced. Just as the growth stages of children differ, some teams will mature more
quickly than others. Just as parents vary in the degree of effective parenting abilities,
some team leaders and coaches are more adept than others are at facilitating this
maturation process. When team design, implementation, and maintenance is correctly executed it is a costly endeavor. Management and select employees must be taken away from their jobs in order to design and plan the rollout. Most organizations provide off-site educational trips and courses for the design team. Team members and coaches require extensive training in order to adopt basic knowledge of teams, new administrative, technical and "team player" skills. Down time and training time are extremely expensive for the organization. Again, this is one reason teams are rarely successful in a financially strapped organization, and should not be employed as a "last ditch" effort. In order to successfully implement teams, organizational restructuring is usually required. The organizational changes necessary to support the team concept are substantial. The vision, mission, values, titles, processes, systems, rewards, compensation, performance appraisals, hiring strategies, etc. must all align with the team concept. In other words, it is totally incongruent to ask employees to "be a team player" when their rewards and compensation are based upon the ability to be a self-starter and "lone wolf." It seems we have internalized and continue to reward the belief, "If you want a job done right, do it yourself." As long as this perspective is valued and rewarded, employees will not function as a team. The physical structure of the workplace must often be altered. Teams need a venue for meetings, and it is often necessary to remove walls and barriers in order to facilitate open communication among team members. Systems and processes must also change. Lines of communication, reporting structures, work flow processes, etc., should be analyzed and modified. Performance appraisal and hiring criteria need to align with team philosophies. Titles change and departments are reorganized. The organization is flattened; the span of control increases as each manager coaches more employees. The necessary organizational changes are broad and deep. This takes time, manpower, downtime, intense analysis, effort and commitment. However, anything that does not align with the team concept will eventually represent a barrier to team success. There is always resistance when teams are implemented, and if ommunication is avoided or handled in an insensitive or defensive manner, there will most assuredly be problems within the teams. Middle managers and front-line employees are rarely included in the decision to move to teams. The message is communicated "after the fact" or hand-in-hand with a downsizing announcement. Benefits to employees are not stressed, and it simply sounds as if there is going to be more work, longer hours, more responsibility, and no pay increase for the front-line employees. Because middle managers are told that the decision-making power will be given back to the teams, they become demoralized and afraid for their jobs. Too often the restructuring message is delivered in memo form, by a middle manager (who may feel negative about the team concept), or in a videotaped announcement. As a result, team members feel "put upon," devalued, and victimized. The transition is viewed as the "flavor of the month" corporate change, and hence, it is given little credence, enthusiasm, or commitment.
Often the CEO, executive management team, and middle mangers don't truly relinquish the decision making power to the teams. They give the responsibility away, without the authority to make decisions. According to Abraham and Spencer1, 1998, "Teams must not be dominated by the employer: no scheduling for the team's meeting, no establishing their agenda, no selecting specific employees to attend the meetings. If a supervisor is on the team, he (she) should not be team leader. Empowerment means empowerment; the team has the responsibility to make the changes by taking its own action rather than asking permission of management. The team may keep management informed of its actions, but management must not hold veto power over those actions." Middle managers resist the concept of servant leadership because they have worked years to attain a certain level of control within the organization. They are not prepared to have the power return to the front line employees, and they often sabotage the team in order to maintain authority.
8. Lack of purpose Teams have been implemented in many organizations because teams are a popular organizational concept. Departments are abolished and employees are grouped together and referred to as a team. They are instructed to "start teaming!" in a rah-rah fashion. Basically, there are few changes made beyond names. Team members continue to be individually responsible for the specific work they did prior to team implementation. However, they are now required to waste an inordinate amount of time attending "team meetings." Team members don't understand why teams were implemented, they don't know the rationale behind the groupings, and they don't know what is expected of them. In other words, they lack a clear, specific purpose.
9. Lack of training Successful team implementation requires a three to four stage training process, depending on the types of teams being implemented. The first stage of training that should be attended by everyone in the organization is Team Awareness. This is a basic educational course that explains the concept of teams, the required changes in the organization, the stages of team maturation, and how this will benefit team members, coaches and the organization. The second stage of team training involves teaching "team player" skills, e.g., interpersonal communication, decision making, problem solving, assertion, negotiation, conflict management, change management, etc. Also, supervisors and managers often don't know how to lead teams. Managers are taught to solve problems and make decisions. A coach (the new paradigm of a team leader) creates an environment in which team members can solve their own problems and make their own decisions. It is a fallacy to think that the change of a title changes leadership skills. Again, a philosophical change regarding the concept of leadership is necessary. The third stage teaches technical and administrative skills. Most teams take on duties that were previously performed by management, such as administrative tasks. Also, teams eventually are accountable for more functions, and it is necessary to learn technical skills. The fourth stage of team training is optional and depends on whether the teams will be cross-trained. If so, team members are trained to perform each other's functions in order to maintain high performance in the face of changes in the team and work place. All of this training costs hard dollars and down time for the organization. When teams are correctly implemented, training is the number one cost to the organization.
10. The buck stops in the ivory tower The problems teams experience are like gossamer threads that often lead to the ivory tower where upper management resides. Teams can be set up to succeed or fail, and all too often, teams are doomed before the first team member is chosen. Teams rarely fail; executive leadership usually fails teams. Based upon my research and personal experience, I know that successful teams can improve organizational communication, productivity, quality, efficiency, timeliness, customer service, employee morale, and innovation. At the same time, they reduce operating costs, turnover, absenteeism and theft. Teams can work in just about any type of organization. Teams are really quite flexible. In other words, there is no way around it. It all comes back to leadership. Most often, teams succeed or become dysfunctional because of leadership. As Paul Hersey stated, "The successful organization has one major attribute that sets it apart from unsuccessful organizations: dynamic and effective leadership." |
