The challenge of a team

Over the years, the idea of bringing members of management together into one coherent team that share a common focus and vision to produce better results have seen different views and approaches of which some are for, and some are against the idea. There have been many successes and at the same time many failures of such attempts. This short paper will address key issues relating to the subject. Teams or groups; which one to use and why? Why do some team initiatives fail? The changing environment; does it necessitate the existence of teams? Why teams are of added-value? Why are teams so rare? And finally, the leaders’ role and what it takes to build a strong team?

Even though that teams sound as the ideal scenario, but at times, depending on the objective to be achieved, the required skills, length and size of project, groups might be the right choice. Leaders must fully understand what it means and what it takes to have a team before getting into the “deep-end”. Unlike groups, teams are appropriate for problems that require joint efforts, expertise skills the leader does not possess, common goal(s) among team members, non-routine tasks and a project life that extends beyond 6 months. It is important that leaders have the will and stamina to go all the way while being equipped with the required skills and are prepared to “pay the price”, otherwise the initiative will fail. Follow-up, dedication, counseling, accepting confrontation, sharing the leadership hat and much more, are only few key ingredients, if absent, teams will fail. During my current professional experience at Hsoft-Kuwait (A real organization but fake name), the toughest part of having to put a team together was the assertion that a team was needed. The new market situation resulting in a more complex matrix of decision making has forced leaders to bring more “brains” to the table during problem solving, not as advisors but as accountable members. However, still leaders need to have their hands on the steering wheel and pilot the business in a strategic manner. At Hsoft we had an excellent experience. In 2003, shortly after the Iraqi war, the market had lots of potential but business was very unstable. Being a center head at the time, I knew that I had to get my people involved and I did. During the 6 months to follow the Iraqi war, we achieved record high sales, numbers that were never achieved before even at the regional level.

Powerful teams are not easy to build but once in place, the leader can expect lots of added-value. One of the first benefits would be the superior decision making ability. Some will argue that disagreements will be prevalent in teams that have strong members. This is true and will necessitate that the leader ensures that disagreements are around the means and not the goal. Another benefit that would be realized is the quality of implementation due to the support of members to one another. However, with so much to gain, some leaders are still reluctant to go ahead with the idea. Katzenback and Smith argue that this due to the lack of important issues to “team around”. However, it all comes back to leadership. If leaders present the issue as a “common issue” and brings it to the table, which was the case in our early to mid years at Hsoft, then people would team around it. On the other hand, if leaders start to believe that they are more qualified and a “solo decision” is more appropriate, as is the recent case at Hsoft, then the view of Katzenback and Smith will hold. The results of such action were very clear at Hsoft, a complete failure.

Teams do not come “ready-made”. Once the leader realizes that a need for a team exists, then the overall vision, expectations, the need for a team and the leader’s commitment must be clear and precise so no ambiguity is caused among team members. It is like “rowing a boat”, destination must be clear and all must row together in harmony. Further, leaders must ensure that the team takes the time out to evaluate its status and to do any required bug fixing. To avoid being overwhelmed, leaders will have to ensure that the size of the team is just right. Five to nine members in a team is the right manageable size, while managers may get more resources involved, if needed, on consultancy basis. In addition, the leader will have to take charge at times and make the final call for the benefit of the business, especially in cases where there is a deadlock situation. Otherwise, teams become an obstacle that slows down decision making.

Finally, leaders must realize that teams are an entity. Teams will grow and develop through different phases. The promising thing is that leaders do not have to wait until the team reaches the advanced stage to start ripping the benefits. In fact if lead properly, teams can accrue benefits very shortly after formation. At the start, each team member will feel “What is in it for me” but as the team develops, it will move closer and closer to team members working together collectively and in collaboration.

Conclusion As presented, there are great benefits to gain by leaders adopting and executing the idea of teams. However, a lot depends on the leaders approach. Leaders who are true believers in teams for the sake of the business are usually prepared to go through the pain of team building. Leaders need to be able to realize when the situation necessitate the formation of a team and take all the required measures to gain the credibility of their team members before they can realize any benefits. Confrontation, challenges and conflict are only some of the pains that need to be overcome. On the other hand, those managers who try to use team building as a way to gain popularity and look “trendy” will neither have the stamina nor the perseverance to go all the way and will end usually with negative results. Finally, team maintenance is as important as team formation. Failing to continually develop and maintain the team, especially if leaders start to lose credibility, will usually result in failure as was the case with the Hsoft example presented.