The paper "Problems in Managing People" is a great example of management coursework. Call centers are one of the areas where effective management of task requires team and teamwork. According to van den Broek, Callaghan and Thompson (2004, p. 197), the particular organizations working as call centers both in Australia and UK carry a common characteristic of individualistic work performance under the regulation of technology. Moreover, the interaction of services follows the company’ s guidelines interpreting to a lack of teamwork in these firms. Van den Broek et al. (2004, p.
198), explains that the presence of teams and their representation of the team leaders is merely for identification as part of, with no substantive function. The imperative is the effects of the absence of teamwork in people management. More importantly, the routine performance of tasks in an individualistic setting fails to compete favorably with an integrated system of collaboration through team working. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the extent of the problem posed through minimum team working especially regarding the management of the workforce. Specifically, the essay addresses the key issues in maximizing the benefits of both the team and teamwork to the organization and the employees.
The structure of the essay includes the topics of what are teams, teamwork, problems in managing people, and the benefits to the employees and organization. Teams In identifying and defining a team, it is important to consider the organizational behavior as one of the vital fields. However, Humphrey and Aime (2014, p. 445) disagree on the sole reliance on behavior mechanism to characterize a team. In their argument, it is important to consider other factors such as the personal difference in the group, dyadic level of relationship with the company, and social interaction.
It is from these multi-level complexities that a deeper understanding of a team occurs (Humphrey & Aime, 2014, p. 446). Nevertheless, a team defines a collection of interdependent persons carrying out responsibilities that correspond to the organization. The definition of a team by Humphrey and Aime (2014, p. 449) suggests it to be social functions, especially about the character of the interconnection of the task to produce a collective outcome. Specific characteristics of a team include having more than one individual, social interaction, the presence of more than a single shared goal, and a people brought together to perform relevant tasks of the enterprise (Humphrey & Aime, 2014, p.
449). In particular, defining characteristics that distinguish a team from a group include evidence of a need for the interdependency of duties in respect to the achievement of goals and result, and well-defined responsibilities as well as goals following their proper embedment to the organization structure and system (Humphrey & Aime, 2014, p.
449). It is important to consider the origin of team design. As discussed by Humphrey and Aime (2014, p. 449) prior identities of a team considered an external construction following the directive of the top management. Comparatively, current scholars provide a realization that a team may develop independently where the members self-select in its creation as well as in the assigning and performance of particular roles. An example of the dynamic creation of a team is the case of Fisher and Paykel (Mallon & Kearney, 2001, p. 93). The process considers the input of the management providing a set standard to observe by the concerned parties.
Contrastingly, with the progress in competition and rise of innovation as a factor in gaining a competitive advantage, the company saw the move to self-directed teams to realize teamwork (Mallon & Kearney, 2001, p. 96).
Humphrey, S. E. and Aime, F., 2014. Team microdynamics: Toward an organizing approach to teamwork. The Academy of Management Annals, vol.8, no. 1, pp. 443- 503.
Mallon, M. and Kearney, T., 2001. Team development at Fisher and Paykel: The introduction of 'Everyday Workplace Teams’. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 93-106.
Marks, A and Richards, J., 2012. Developing ideas and concepts in teamwork research: Where do we go from here?, Employee Relations, Special issue: Ideas and concepts in teamwork research, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 228–234.
Ryan, S., 2012. When is a team a team? ‘Teamworking’ and the reorganisation of work in commercial cleaning. Employee relations, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 255-270.
Townsend, K., 2007. Who has control in teams without teamworking?. Economic and Industrial Democracy, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 622-649.
van den Broek, D., Callaghan, G. and Thompson, P., 2004. Teams without Teamwork? Explaining the Call Centre Paradox. Economic and Industrial Democracy, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 197- 218.