Theories and Practices of Teamwork
A Combined Approach to Effective Team Management
Types of Teams
Teams are groups of people with a common goal or shared interest. Due to their geographic proportions between team members, platform, and role, they can be forged by type.
Several examples can be virtual, workplace teams like portfolio governing teams, cross-functional teams, and global teams.
Leaders need to distinguish between different teams and how each unit functions and negotiates its unique challenges because it can help determine which leadership style, approach, and priorities matter most to their organizations and their team.
Cross-Functional Teams
Cross-Functional Teams are teams formed with specialized teams to tackle a project together (Tabrizi, 2015). For example, an IT company may be concerned with their customer satisfaction, serviceability, and present products available on the market.
They may even consider redesigning a new project but gather department reps from marketing, sales, customer service, product design, and software engineers to tackle the problem (Tabrizi, 2015). Each representative behaves as a subject matter expert from their respective departments and collaborates with their project teammates to resolve their company’s concerns.
Cross-functional teams are successful and productive when supported by a single high-level executive champion of their organization, such as a project manager or lead (Tabrizi, 2015). The collection of team members of various backgrounds and expertise drives innovative solutions.
However, most cross-functional teams are 75% dysfunctional because they lack communication with management or contact with their teammates (Tabrizi, 2015). Additionally, most cross-functional teams are managed by high-level cross-functional managers who fail to prioritize their project goals and desired end states (Tabrizi, 2015).
A Caveat…
When leaders introduce different subject matter experts (SMEs), they also present different cultures, language barriers, and working methods to include problem-solving (Tabrizi, 2015).
A lack of organizational priorities, objectives, and goals for cross-functional teams encourages unfavorable work conditions such as withdrawal from engagement, lack of trust, and little to no productivity.
By establishing governing portfolio teams (PGTs) composed of high-level leaders, leaders can combat these effects. PGTs make complex decisions and focus on projects only within their portfolio. With PGTs in place, end-to-end accountability can be maintained, creating a mirror-to-mirror effect with task delegation. High-level leaders like department heads can task out objectives that align with the PGT’s goals (Tabrizi, 2015).
Working with a task delegation effect can streamline productivity more effectively with intentional deadlines and meaningful goals while continuously evaluating the projects to which the PGT dedicates time and resources.
Virtual Teams
Another type of team is a virtual team, where all the team’s performance and productivity output are populated and created online (Maljkovi, n.d.). Working online enables team members to collaborate and hone their talents and expertise to the task at hand (Maljkovi, n.d.).
Working online also requires different ways of working than what working would be like “in real life” or IRL. For example, the face-to-face time between members is highly valued compared to daily face-to-face interactions people may experience in IRL work settings (Maljkovi, n.d.). Working online will require more time on the computer and less time outside or in physical locations.
Additionally, accessibility to the internet, varying skillsets for software use and tools will be challenges virtual teams face internally and externally (Maljkovi, n.d.).
Virtual teams perform better when they are motivated, feel a sense of belonging based on their individual performance, are engaged and present online, have trust in those they work with, and have access to reliable information on their projects (Dube, 2016).
Socializing online will be much different from IRL, but most commonly accepted behaviors will be used virtually with few exceptions. For example, virtual teams will need to identify the type of communication that appropriately aligns with their objectives. Would email be for formal correspondence? Would chat rooms be for unstructured, informal, and rapid creative bursts on ideas (Maljkovi, n.d.)?
This section on “Virtual Teams” was written before the pandemic in 2019. An expanded version will address the effects of teleworking and virtual leadership on virtual teams later.
Global Teams
However, global teams face their own challenges. They can experience the weight of their dysfunctional impact as much as its widespread influence. For example, geographic locations can have a proportional psychological effect on team members’ perception of inclusion (Neeley, 2015).
A team in Shanghai may have to wait on the input of their colleagues in London. They may feel their opinion doesn’t matter anyway given the unique differences in European markets compared to the United States, where the Boston headquarters team is located.
The communication disparity, the perception of power within the team, and the waiting game can damage team cohesion significantly and devastate a team’s overall productivity (Neeley, 2015).
This section on “Global Teams” was written before the pandemic in 2019. An expanded version will later address the pandemic’s effects on global teams.
Team Individuals
Teams are individuals who share a common interest or goal and perform together with shared trust and understanding (Dahlke, 2017b). A team can go through seasons of growth and change because of the varying composition amongst its members (Dahkle, 2017b). This includes their frame of reference, differing points of view, and values (Dahlke, 2014b). Several characteristics can overcome competing aspects of team dynamics without compromising their success.
Successful Teammates who exercise awareness can do the same for others, especially with their framing or point of reference (Dahkle, 2014). For example, reinforced daily feedback from the work a team does, say police work, can distort their frame of reference over time compared to another person’s “emergency” (Dahkle, 2014).
Their team can be exposed to more emergencies in a single shift compared to what a person experiences in their lifetime. Like wearing protective gear when playing contact sports, teammates acknowledge the damaging aspects of their work. They create ways to protect themselves and each other without compromising the team’s productivity and point of view.
Teammates who exercise open-mindedness can distinguish between operating from past, future outcomes compared to learning from the past. Individuals, for example, may work very hard for their team and the work they do because they are driven with a desire to prevent a repeating painful history.
This can close their minds to other ways of doing things because they are grounded firmly on “doing things the right way” (Dahlke, 2015b). Teammates who honor their differences and acknowledge these drives can collaboratively produce innovative ideas because they have considered more interpretations of the problem itself (Dahlke, 2017a).
Emotional Discernment is Powerful
Effective Teammates exercise emotional discernment and avoid polarized thinking traps.
Swinging from one extreme to another is unproductive and dangerous when viewing things as they are (Dahkle, 2017a). For example, one negative thought then invites another. Soon, a person can think they have the worst job in the history of working.
The same can be correct for co-workers who may not personally enjoy being around or working with (Lattimer, 2015). If, for instance, someone passes judgment on another, an attitude is formed for the next interaction. The approach can then distort anything the person says or does, which can be strongly biased to what they do is either right or wrong (Lattimer, 2015).
Neutrality is the Best Policy
Remaining emotionally neutral by founding themselves on the facts and creating win/win outcomes is what successful teammates do to overcome polarized thinking.
Team Dynamics
Each means of communication between people is a transaction (Dahlke, 2017). Respectful transactional dialogue between adult ego states that focus on conveying facts can defuse tension between people and encourage a healthy conflict of ideas instead of with people.
Communication, consistent engagement between team members, and leadership drive motivation and the emotional investment of feeling part of the team.
Trust can only be built in a safe environment and enables colleagues to feel confident in themselves (Dahlke, 2015).
On the other hand, Malfunctioning teams are composed of unaligned people with cross-purposes between one another (Dahlke, 2015).
Malfunctioning organizations create climates of fear which stimulate defensiveness between colleagues. Empowering others can show trust in their performance ability while encouraging others to do the same for each other (Dahlke, 2017e).
The Dark Side of Teamwork
Teams who function cohesively well may stagnant and develop complacent behaviors often involving Groupthink and conformity among its members.
Factors contributing to conformity increase when more people are present, and the majority of the task becomes more complicated. People turn to others for more information to consider before committing to a decision (Cherry, 2018). Conformity also increases when other group members are of higher social status or of perceived value.
More on Groupthink…
On the other hand, groupthink thrives in environments of team cohesion and strong leadership when they isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints.
Team members also see themselves as invulnerable, which may lead to extreme risk tasking due to overly optimistic introspections.
Ironically, team members will self-censor themselves from group consensus despite their venerated image. They’ll minimize the importance of their own doubts and counterarguments (Dahlke, 2017c). The group ignores ethical or moral consequences of their decision and actions and discount warnings which could lead them and their team to challenge their assumptions. Incorporating outside resources can encourage innovative problem-solving.
Controlling the size of the group, educating team members, and ensuring impartial leadership is strategies to combat groupthink.
Groupthink can be countered with different approaches to challenge assumptions by educating team members, instilling impartial leadership throughout manageably sized teams (Dahlke, 2017c).
Team Formation
Being in a team also means experiencing mutual respect and courtesy (Dahlke, 2014). Therefore, if there are barriers within the group and their leadership, it will not cultivate an environment that sustains being in a team.
Operating in an organization requires a structure to work as a team (Dahlke, 2017d). There is disagreement, confusion, and competing interpretations of the team’s purpose without it.
A structure gives every individual a chance to contribute to their team’s efforts without undermining individuality. Every team member has something unique, which makes the team successful. In fact, their personality is critical to the team’s livelihood (Dahlke, 2017a).
One person’s weakness can be another complementary strength. Someone who has charisma and is extroverted in nature may appreciate someone more attentive to details and reserved thought analysis. Together they work brilliantly balanced rather than left to work apart.
Communicating the team’s mission is critical for every member to know. It’s useless to plan something if the people who will be effective are omitted (Dahlke, 2017b). Suppose you’re a manager planning a delegated action. In that case, the person or people doing the tasks need to understand what is asked.
When forming teams, many can have their unique interpretation of their team’s mission, but that only leaves everyone committed to assuming their work (Dahlke, 2017b).
Having a bottom-up approach can be helpful when translated from each level of the organization. This is critical because it gives everyone a consensus and enables communication as a way of doing things instead of the agreed purpose of their team.
We Learn from Others
People learn from each other, and teammates learn by watching another because of their shared trust and understanding (Dahlke, 2017b). Whether a behavior aligns with your team’s mission or not, it’s essential to communicate it daily because it becomes a healthy discussion.
The discussion revisits the purpose of the team’s work and checks to see if the behavior edifies or undermines it. Someone’s part determines their responsibilities. Their responsibilities, however, may not communicate what exactly their position is (Dahlke, 2017b). Having a shared understanding of who does what to include what their responsible for ensures the work done will not be doubled, neglected, or a chore for everyone.
What managers do is different from employees, and vice versa. Communicating whether someone is taking on too much or too little is essential to the team’s dynamics as a functioning unit.
Managers empower employees by leading a project or a particular assignment within their role of the group. They allow everyone to have a chance to test their team’s performance to meet their mission (Dahlke, 2017b).
Like geese flying in formation, each rotates as the lead. At the same time, the others continue flying and cheering each other on without compromising their distance or flight.
Team Leadership
Leadership styles vary in design, and they can overlap or be polarizing. Identifying each can benefit any leader’s development and understanding of their leadership approach. Some forms of leadership involve a leader’s interpretation of control and how much power they are willing to give to others (Johannsen, 2017).
A leader’s decision of how much or how little control they exhibit can drastically change the dynamics of their team’s experience and performance. This can also include how much power and influence others can have over the organization compared to their leadership (Johannsen, 2017).
Governments, for example, can view themselves as an institution designing policies for their citizens from life throughout death and in-between circumstances but disengage entirely from private business matters (Johannsen, 2017). A leader’s goals can determine their focus on the future for their following and organization (Johannsen, 2017). Regardless, it brings light to how leaders view leadership and its role with people.
Team leaders do not have firing or hiring power, and they are considered facilitators for their team and organization, respectively (Lucas, 2017). Facilitating actions as a team leader can be tricky. For example, the expectation to operate fairly is universally understood but misconstrued when trying to work reasonably (Lucas, 2017).
Leading by example, standing up for your teammates, and leading with your group members to do the unpleasant tasks can communicate your value in fairness. A leader’s presence shows you’re involved in the way your teammates work, too, including obeying the law and your organization’s policies (Lucas, 2017).
Managers who empower their teammates, encourage working independence, and set attainable goals for themselves and others extinguish the temptations of micromanagement (Vesella, 2016).
Team Dysfunction — The Classic Micromanager
Micromanaging is merely leading by insisting things be done your way causing work interference and encouraging workplace hostility (Vesella, 2016).
Micromanaging kills trust because it is a form of control that lowers productivity and increases worker dependence on their manager’s input on everything (Vessella, 2016). Over time managers become burnt out from working this way, and employees feel discouraged to work or find innovative solutions to problems. Teams experience malfunction instead of cohesion.
When others are encouraged to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback and input on what and where the team is going, the success of a team’s collaboration is shared.
Excellent team leadership requires being a strong communicator, an active goal setter, and a believer in transparency (Vasella, 2016).
References
Cherry, K. (2018, March 12). The Asch Conformity Experiments: Asch’s seminal experiments demonstrated the power of conformity. Retrieved from verywellmind: https://www.verywellmind.com/the-asch-conformity-experiments-2794996
Dahlke, A. (2014). It’s Team Being, Not Team Building: Lessons from an Old Jazz Musician It’s Time to Stop Building Teams and Start Being Teams.
Dahlke, A. (2014b). Manage the Windows in Your Head. Retrieved from. Retrieved from Dahlke_2014_Manage_The_Windows_in_Your_Head.pdf
Dahlke, A. (2015). Building A Positive Team Climate.
Dahlke, A. (2015b, January). Excising Our Communication Demons. Retrieved from http://www.arniedahlke.com/
Dahlke, A. (2017). Transactional Communication.
Dahlke, A. (2017a). Avoid Polarized Thinking. Retrieved from Dahlke_2017_Avoid_Polarized_Thinking.pdf
Dahlke, A. (2017b). Beliefs, Self-Awareness, And Teamwork. Retrieved from Dahlke_2017_Beliefs_Self-Awareness_&_Teamwork.pdf
Dahlke, A. (2017c). Groupthink: The Dark Side of Teamwork.
Dahlke, A. (2017d). Teams, Geese, And Mission Statement. Retrieved from Dahlke_2017b_Teams_Geese_And_Mission Statement.pdf
Dahlke, A. (2017e). You Are What You Speak.
Dube, S. &. (2016). A conceptual model to improve performance in virtual teams. South African Journal of Information Management. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v18i1.674.
Johannsen, M. (2017). A Quick Guide to 12 Leadership Styles Useful in Influnce. Retrieved from Legacee: https://www.legacee.com/types-of-leadership-styles/
Lattimer, C. (2015). Transform Your Team, 5 emotionally intelligent practices. HR.com. doi:Retrieved from ProQuest multi-search database.
Lucas, S. (2017). 8 Tips for Success as a Team Leader. Retrieved from The Balance: https://www.thebalance.com/tips-for-success-as-a-team-leader-1919252
Maljkovi, N. (n.d.). Virtual Team Quick Guide Activity . Retrieved from Transition Network : https://transitionnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Virtual-Teams-Guide.pdf
Neeley, T. (2015, October ). Global Teams That Work. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review : https://hbr.org/2015/10/global-teams-that-work
Tabrizi, B. (2015, June 23). 75% of Cross-Functional Teams Are Dysfunctional. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review : https://hbr.org/2015/06/75-of-cross-functional-teams-are-dysfunctional
Vessala, V. (2016). Team Leadership: Avoid Micromanagement. Retrieved from Repsly — Blog: https://www.repsly.com/blog/field-team-management/team-leadership-avoiding-micromanagement
