The article in question dwells upon the functioning of top management teams. Katzenbach (1997) stresses that, in the vast majority of cases, top management teams are unnatural and can be harmful to any company’s performance. The author provides several reasons for that. The major reason for the inefficacy of top management teams is that they are constituted by executives who have remarkable leadership skills and often lack skills necessary for working in the team.
Executives are used to relying on themselves and controlling processes (Katzenbach, 1997). It is necessary to note that this quality is one of the major reasons executives get their posts, as this is what expected from an efficient top manager. More so, Katzenbach (1997) also argues that teams should be constituted by employees who have different skills in certain areas while in top management teams executives often have similar skills. Hence, these teams are unable to come up with effective solutions and reveal new perspectives.
At the same time, Katzenbach (1997) adds that top management teams may be effective in certain situations. These situations involve mergers and acquisitions as well as periods of dramatic and urgent changes. Those are conditions necessary for the efficient functioning of a top management team, as executives have specific goals that are tangible and they have no time to spare. Importantly, the author provides the “litmus tests” that can help identify the effectiveness of the top management team (Katzenbach, 1997, p. 88).
An effective top management team should concentrate on developing collective work-products that have particular value. Team members should know how to shift leadership roles. Finally, the team members should be “mutually accountable for the group’s results” (Katzenbach, 1997, p. 88).
It is necessary to note that the author provides quite a detailed analysis of the functioning of top management teams. The arguments are persuasive. It is necessary to note that many people understand that top management teams are inefficient.
However, these people usually focus on only one or two factors affecting the efficacy of these teams. The author explains all major reasons for the inefficient functioning of such teams. More importantly, Katzenbach (1997) identifies situations when top management teams can function effectively. This is one of the most valuable findings revealed in the article.
At the same time, the author fails to provide the necessary number of examples. He only names a few companies that had certain issues and where top management teams operated. However, the author fails to provide more details on the way those top management teams functioned. Admittedly, the article would benefit from having a detailed description of the functioning of at least one top management team. The author also ignores such areas as peculiarities of industries and psychological aspects.
For instance, it is unclear whether top management teams can be effective in all industries. It is also quite unclear whether certain features of the character of team members may jeopardize the effectiveness of such teams. These three areas need particular attention of researchers and top managers.
In conclusion, it is possible to note that the article provides a detailed analysis of the functioning of top management teams. The author considers the reasons why top management teams are mainly inefficient. The author also depicts conditions when such teams can be effective. However, the article lacks real-life examples. The author also ignores the peculiarities of industries and team members’ characters that can have a significant impact on the top management team functioning.
Reference List
Katzenbach, J. R. (1997). The myth of the top management team. Harvard Business Review, 83-91.