Skip to main content

Self-managing teams

 

Having watched the video by Insead (2008), it is clear to me that I’ve evolved from a traditional top-down leader and more so into one that is flexible, forgiving and allows high-performers to do their jobs. Previously, I had been more of a tactical leader with my nose to the ground so that I didn’t miss anything and could report back with all the information. But watching this video and learning more about operating outside of my comfort zone, I believe I can conduct myself in a way that promotes others to own their own destiny and deliver in an efficient way. With self-managed teams (SMT), it is less about me telling others what to do, but rather us doing it together. Management by objectives (MBO) may be defined as a system of management set up to help in planning, organizing problem solving, motivating and other important managerial activities (Brown, 2011, p. 324). This approach sets the stage for allowing the communication to flow freely, as everyone in the group is on the same level.

The major benefits of SMT is that they can be much more effective and efficient in accomplishing their tasks. Rather than a traditional leader orchestrating from a polyarchy position, the team is flatten and this allows more focus to be put on the work instead of the rules. The SMT are knowledge based and allow high performers to do their job with little input from the leader. As long as the leader has coordinated the proper boundaries and shown restraint from stepping in to solve problems, the team will model their behavior in such a way that continues to keep the focus on the work and tasks, rather than the outlining procedures.

Drawbacks of SMT is that it won’t work without the right type of leader. The SMT leader needs to step aside and allow the team to do their jobs without much intervention and to let the process unfold. The right type of leader will know when to step in to set boundaries, parameters and to offer coaching. If the leader is not capable of these elements, the team will most likely fail.

The right competencies will allow the leader to be effective in this setting. Those competencies, as I’ve mentioned previously, are to let the team police itself. The leader must understand the roles of each member, but should also operate in a less direct manner, be flexible and let the team decide what is important. The leader should use less traditional leadership and instead offer feedback to guide the team, rather than direct it.

I believe I would operate well within an SMT because I’ve learned that allowing high performers to do their jobs is the most effective way to be a leader and still produce the best results. The more tactical and micromanaging occurs, the less effective the team will be. I consider myself more of an inspiring visionary type of leader, and has Insead (2008) points out, this is what fits best with the SMT.  

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An Experimental Approach to Organization Development. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.

Insead. (2008, September 22). Self-managing teams: debunking the leadership paradox. [Video file]. Retrieved https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM&feature=emb_logo

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Marques

  Dear Marques, You’ve continued to gain a lot more knowledge of leadership, the foundational approaches using different aspects from the elements of theories, and a profound appreciation for senior leaders. The question before you today is – what will you do to get back to the mountain top? Your Personal Vision You’ve stated that your personal vision is “to be happy as much as possible” (Thomey, 2021, p. 2). We both know that you were at your best when you were happiest. Whether on the mountain top or not, you brought out the best in yourself when you were happy. You need to find a way to get back to that place so everything else can fall into place. Three Learning Goals In order to accomplish your personal vision, you must establish three learning goals with milestones so that you have a plan and a pathway for getting this done. Your first goal should be to reengage with the Dale Carnegie group for continuing education classes. I know you found this group to have a tra...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consequentialism vs Deontology

  Consequentialism vs Deontology Is it a glass half-empty or a glass half-full? It appears to me that what separates consequentialism and deontology is perspective. LaFollette (2007) writes that consequentialists must explain which consequences we should count, how much weight or consideration we should give those that do count, and how we should use these considerations when deliberating (p. 25). However, deontology is usually regarded as a foil to consequentialism ( Heinzelmann, 2018, p. 5201). What I find as the takeaway from this situation is that consequentialism isn’t necessarily grounded in morality, whereas deontology finds itself in a set of negative rules. As LaFollette points out with consequentialism, we must look at and use several dimensions to understand and consider what are the consequences of a situation. Deontology doesn’t require this additional gate check, but instead relies on our experience learning right and wrong from the negative perspective. Much like a...
Post a Comment
Read more