This week’s MSLD 631 blog is about something very close to me and
something I am very passionate about, self-managed teams. The reason why this
is a topic dear to me is that I am a lead on such a team and the passion and
drive to lead my team to success is a primary reason why the MSLD program is
currently a large part of my life. The short video, Self-managing
teams: debunking the leadership paradox, provides some helpful insight into
self-managing teams that supplements our Brown (2011) text. As I watched the
video for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd times I picked
up on some things that help me better understand my current situation as a team
lead of a self-managed team.
Benefits of Self-Managed Teams
Brown (2011) states that
a self-managed work team “is an autonomous group whose members decide how to
handle their task” (p. 349). While Brown (2011) does not point to specific
concrete advantages of self-managed teams (very few completed studies of them),
self-managed teams bring a level of freedom to act (agility) to the decision making
process that is an invaluable contribution to the larger organization. An
organization broken into multiple self-managed teams can be a very powerful
system. If viewed as a system broken down into self-managed teams, an
organization can be much more agile, adaptable, and innovative; all qualities
that forward thinking companies like Google, Cisco and Boeing Defense and Space
to name a few crave. The key, which Brown (2011) does clearly identify, is careful
implementation “To be successful, the teams need to be carefully implemented.” (p.
353).
Sound
Implementation Required
When I first read Brown
(2011) assertion (that is very sound by the way) that implementation of
self-managed teams need to be done carefully, I began to reflect upon my team.
My team does not completely represent the Brown (2011) text of what the
characteristics of a self-managed team are. For one, we do not have any direct
control over budget. I have a trip planned this week to Toronto Canada to visit
a vendor and Senior Director Approval (Senior Director for international
travel) was needed. Granted, all that I had to do was ask my external leader
and he immediately pushed it up the leadership chain two levels (Director,
Senior Director) and within 24 hours I had a ticket to go to Toronto without
any of the typical grilling. When it came to budget planning for 2016, I did participate
by providing a list of training, scheduled trips to Toronto, and a few other
team expenses. I do know that ordering a roll-away laptop bag is not within my
authority, but all things considered I have much more control over the team
environment than ever before. This was the first year that I was asked for budget
input, so maybe the budget role will continue to increase.
There
are several Brown (2011) self-managed teams characteristics that I struggle to
identify when considering my team. The first one is that Brown (2011) paints a
picture that self-managed teams are holding hands with external leadership and
singing around a campfire “There is a strong partnership between team members
and management” (p. 350). While my relationship with my manager is very good
and open, relationships beyond my manager are seem tense and very traditional
in the sense of feeling like being in a stuffy oligarchic medieval cathedral
for confession when addressing senior leadership.
As
words for this blog were being drafted, and thoughts of my team not fitting
Brown (2011) self-managed team characteristics were being analyzed, the words
of Paul Tesluk (2008) resonated with me that the characteristics
that Brown (2011) lists are characteristics of self-managed teams in
organizations that are not in a traditional oligarchic system. “Leadership
style is much different for self-managing teams from one that is led by a
directive style”. (Tesluk, 2008).
This
revelation help me to see my team situation in a new frame. My manager has
implemented self-managed teams that represents a change from the traditional
oligarchic and directive ways to organize and manage processes. Senior management
is still holding on to traditional and more directive ways to manage. Prior to
watching the Tesluk (2008) video, the frame that encapsulated my self-managed
team was that it was poorly implemented. Now I can see a new view, one that is
more realistic to the situation. The reason it is more realistic is that our
company operates a very traditional oligarchic management system and to expect
all of the characteristics of Brown’s (2011) self-managed teams (in a more
modern management system) to be present in our self-managed team is just not
realistic.
Summary
The exercise of watching
the video and writing this blog has helped me to see that my self-managed team
is something not to think of as “poorly implemented” like it is barely hanging
on by a thread. No, my self-managed team is being smothered a bit by the weight
of the oligarchic system that literally hangs directly above our team. I am
thankful I have a manager who sees the value in my self-managed team and
supports us.
References:
Brown,
R. D, (2011). An experiential approach to
organization development (Eighth edition.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Tesluk, Paul. (2008,
Sep). Self-managing teams: Debunking the
leadership paradox [Video file],Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM&feature=youtu.be
