Test

"Managing Contemporary Organizations / Why Teams Don't Work"

A law was made a distant moon ago here,

July and August cannot be too hot.

And there's a legal limit to the snow here in Camelot ...

ndeCamelot.. An historic example of team effort gone awry. In that legendary story, a few key events transformed Camelot from a utopian kingdom into a wasteland. This isn't just idle meandering. There are corporate Camelots, too, suggests Steven Rayner (6) -- those companies that started with such promise and fell victim to problems in their teamwork concepts. It is clear to see that team-based systems simply don't work; better control equals better management. An emphasis on separating workers into specifically defined jobs, having centralized management control, and maintaining a structured chain of command contributes to a much better and more effective workplace situation (Rayner 15). There are, writes Steven Rayner in Team Traps, "literally hundreds of traps" that can "open a gateway to team disaster" (15). It makes more sense, therefore, to stick to the traditional structures in the workplace.term papers and term papers, did I tell about term papers on, term papers in , term papers about , term paperson and also term papers in and term papers about

ebfefOne of the major problems presented in the team work approach is that people are not accustomed to "group problem-solving" (Harrington-Mackin 137). It is a practice that not only hasn't been learned, but is a difficult one to institute. In school, children are taught to rely on their own resources; to develop their individual capabilities. Deborah Harrington-Mackin cites the example of a fourth grader, who wouldn't be allowed to say, "Hey, Joe, you're good at word problems and I'm good at multiplication tables, so let's get together for this test" (137), yet the adult equivalent of this is seen in the workplace when teams are expected to come up with a group solution to a problem. This is an odd practice for most people, as well as the fact that trying to reach a consensus in a group of adults can frequently result in heated arguments, and no solution. Team decision-making can be frustrating. The team members have to take the time to listen to everyone's opinions -- a time-consuming process where the inclination is frequently to jump on the first answer given rather than go through the lengthy and frequently tedious process of hearing from everyone (Harrington-Mackin 138). term papers

qwrgIt seems that teams are being formed for every imaginable reason -- quality improvement teams, project teams, management teams, task force teams -- companies are quick to assume that increased employee involvement leads to improved productivity (Rees 7). But the problems that occur in trying to increase employee involvement outweigh the benefits. Many organizations that began traditionally are not accustomed to involving non-managerial employees in the procedures of planning, decision-making, and goal setting. These organizations have leaders who pass out information and answer questions, usually without requiring further involvement from subordinates.term papers

vqrgOrganizations have been "structured historically to reinforce authoritarian management styles" (Mosvick-Nelson 109). There is no easy way to facilitate a team-oriented decision making policy. The authoritarian organizational structure is still the type of management style most used in business (Mosvick-Nelson 109), and for a good reason. Many leaders don't know how to manage the participation of employees in these processes, even when a team is set up, and they frequently discourage participation (whether or not it's done intentionally) by their actions -- they may allow for minimal time for participation, interrupt people, or simply ignore what they hear. This is a good case for leaving the decision-making to the top leadership (Rees 10).term papers

vevevMany problems with teams result because there is no clear understanding about what is supposed to be accomplished. Team members and team leaders typically have problems defining their own roles, making it difficult to work toward results rather than busying themselves with the activities of the team (Fisher-Rayner-Belgard 6). It's far too easy to get caught up in day-to-day activities, in being a team, and forget the reason the team was formed in the first place. This lack of focus is a good reason to keep employees working on their own, in specific, well-defined jobs. Teams tend to become too inwardly-focused -- a sure sign they won't survive. term papers

Sometimes the manager of the team will discount not what his own team is trying to accomplish, but the efforts of others. A manager may insist that the success of other teams was nothing more than a "fluke" (Rayner 9), or they suggest any success was due to highly unique circumstances. This naturally leads to a lack of credibility, and suggests that employee involvement is irrelevant, yet it is an occurrence that's all too common. term papers

rfrgThe relationship between team leader and team members is often adversarial. When the team is first formed, it relies on the manager to transfer decision-making and problem-solving authority to the team members. But eventually, the team members rebel against the authority figure, which often results in a confusion over responsibilities and the roles each member is to take. It's not unusual for the team members to try to take on all managerial responsibilities and even question the value of the manager's role -- the team is ostensibly working effectively; why does it need a manager? The tendency for team members to rebel or resist the influence of the designated team leader is a situation that seems to occur in every newly-formed team operation (Rayner 133).term papers

veqgIn his book, Style of Management and Leadership, Manfred Davidmann reminds us that business experts have to work together to achieve their goals, and discord in one area can inconvenience many people (1). It is essential, therefore, that people cooperate with each other -- but this doesn't necessarily imply working on a team. Experience has shown that the larger the organization is the more difficult it is to achieve the necessary degree of cooperation. Larger organizations are usually much less effective using a ream approach, as people tend to work against each other rather than with each other (Davidmann 1). term papers

vqrvCooperation is essential to any team effort, and it's not something that can be easily achieved. Frustration with management, or the workplace itself,