As jobs become more complex and firms go global, firms are faced with an increased need for effective work teams. According to Lencioni (2002), “teamwork is the ultimate competitive advantage, because it is so powerful and so rare.” This implies that teamwork is more popular today, and as such becoming a vital tool through which firms attain business growth and development. As a result of this, all the major firms, especially the Fortune 500, utilize teams for a variety of tasks, with the aim of increasing firm’s output (De Meuse, 2009). However, as indicated by Barron (2003) firms do not always achieve desired results from teamwork. Actually, the rate at which teamwork fails to achieve desired results is worryingly high, and can be attributed to a number of reasons.
There are numerous context based reasons why teams fail. According to De Meuse (2009) most teams fail due to an ever-present disconnect between a firm’s need for teamwork and the prevailing employee functions. Despite needing effective team to achieve set goals, most firms have individualized employee functions. This implies that rather than creating and fostering teamwork, most firms naturally create individualized employee functions. This creates problems of effective individuals in non- effective teams and implies that structurally, firms are ill equipped to utilize teams.
The assertions made above allude to poor team strategies by modern day managers. Kennedy (2002) agrees with this and adds that teams fail to achieve desired results owing to the poor behavior of team members. Today, human resource practitioners, with the help of psychologists and career development experts, have intensified employee behavior modification. This not withstanding, maladaptive behavior by employees seems to pervade most firms. As a result of this, most firms have shifted their focus from professional development, to behavior modification. This implies that rather than working towards enhancing teamwork, most firms are involved in developing individual employees. This curtails opportunities for growth of teams in modern day firms.
Other than the reasons mentioned above, Kennedy (2002) also identifies poor team dynamics as another major reason why teams fail to achieve desired results. Today, one of the most common problems facing many firms is how to organize teams to effectively perform team tasks. Poor team dynamics are not essentially technical. Most of the problems involving poor team dynamics concern the major functions of the teams, and include a lack of understanding of the roles of individual team members.
In most firms, team members fail to understand their individual roles and how each role contributes towards the achievement of desired objectives. Such a problem is further compounded when team leaders fail to understand and execute their duties effectively. In addition to this, poor team dynamics also include a lack of necessary knowledge and skills, as well as how to apply (facilitation) the knowledge and skills effectively for the attainment of team objectives. This problem is further compounded by the existence of numerous team leadership and facilitation models, most of which are ineffective. But as Kennedy (2002) suggests, only a few of these models, such as the Six Sigma Model, seem to be effective.
The existence of teams within firms is not a guarantee that such teams will be effective. As indicated herein, there are reasons which render teams ineffective. For teams to be effective, team leaders ought to understand such challenges as well as identify effective solutions.
Reference List
Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3). Web.
De Meuse, K. (2009). A comparative analysis of the Korn/Ferry t7 model with other popular team models. Web.
Kennedy, J. (2002). Six sigma team dynamics. Web.
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team. New York: Wiley Publishers.