
WHEN A TEAM IS NOT |THE ANSWER
For a long time now, my people have been working in teams as the nature of their work calls for such a form of engagement. The results are encouraging and their production every year is satisfactory. The people are more or less united and there are few conflicts. I guess they are used to meeting up to share their plans and discuss how they want to move forward together. I am thinking of not just stopping here, but expanding this mode of working to other departments as well. However, I am not sure whether it is wise to replicate this in all departments? What is your view on this?
Team Fever
It is really important that you have a good reason as to why you want to extend this when things are going well in the other departments even though they may not be in formal work teams. Breaking this and putting them in formal work teams with no good reason can spell trouble.
What works in one place does not automatically mean that it will be the same for another. It amounts to rocking the boat when you "force" people who have set ways or diverse personalities to work together. Remember that in formal work teams, people have to change for the common good, modify individual working styles, give up their individual for group goal and so forth. All this can be frightening for those who do not like the group way but much prefer the individual one.
Bottom Line: Here are some considerations to take into account to see if formal work teams are healthy for your organisation:
When decisions need to be made on the spot by experienced people;
When everyone can do the same job;
When information needs to be shared;
When problems need to be solved together;
When issues need to be raised together; and
When decisions need to be made in a business-like manner as they can have a huge impact on the organisation.
Powerful Questions: What is the compelling reason behind you wanting to make everyone part of a formal team? What similarities does the current formal team have with others? What ways do they differ? What is the worst that can happen if you leave them the way they are?
MEASURING WHAT |MATTERS MOST
It is perplexing to discover that in our organisational survey, there appears to be no connection between staff morale and performance results of the organisation. Most departments met their KPIs, with the exception of a few. But the shocking thing is the survey results on morale are well below expectation. To put it simply, members of staff are not happy with their superiors but are achieving the results the organisation wants! This is a classic case of one plus one does not equal two! Can you enlighten me on this?
Illogical
When a survey tries to go into too much detail to measure every "nick and corner" it usually ends up measuring nothing. It is the same with our lives; some parts are more important than others. So we do not want to pay much attention to them.
Every area carries different levels of importance. For instance, if leadership style and a manager’s ability to keep his room clean are given the same weight, you will get a confusing result if the manager gets an ‘A’ for good leadership style and an ‘E’ for cleanliness. I think this is what has happened in your situation.
The Bottom Line: If the survey is to really measure the manager’s effectiveness as a leader, then you need to confine the survey to a few important areas that have a huge impact on morale, relationship and performance. The areas could be: practice what they preach; clarity of expectations; support provided; and effort made to develop staff. This will ensure that you measure what matters most.
Powerful Questions: What is your vision of an ideal leader? What do you want others to see them doing? How can you communicate these to the managers in advance? How can you support them for a good showing of results?
Corporate Coach Academy provides certification for leaders of all backgrounds to become manager-coaches or professional certified coaches in this region. Visit www.corporate-coachacademy.com or e-mail [email protected] for details.