Establishing Teamwork in Organizations - Coursework Example

IS ESTABLISHING TEAM WORK DIFFICULT IN ORGANIZATIONS? By student Name Course Title Professor’s Name City and State Date Table of Contents Executive Summary Introduction Conclusion References Executive Summary All organizations are formed with the purpose of furthering individual goals shared among a group of people. However, despite the shared motive, there might be a significant level of difficulty that will have to be overcome before one realizes progress in any organization. The basic concept for the formation of the organization is tested with the degree of teamwork manifested by the individual members (Salas 2013, p.45). States have formed organizations and so have individuals and companies. Each member plays a primal role in the daily running of the body. Should one falter, the entire system is at risk of slowing down or amassing losses, some of which might be irrecoverable. This study analyses the possibilities of fostering teamwork and shared effort in organizations along these lines: individual and collaborative effort. With reference to principle contributors in the field of management, it will discuss the laws and theories postulated and related to management of organizations. One will also discover the basic ways of management and how it impacts the other worker cooperation. There has to be some level of understanding and communication between the management and the workers for there to be a sustainable level of teamwork. The conclusion shows that it is indeed difficult to cultivate and maintain teamwork in organizations. The individual intentions will have to be overlooked if one is to benefit the organization. One also sees that at the beginning, one attempts to define the organization through collective team effort but in the end, the organization defines one based on the co-ordination and collaborative input that each one put into the company, firm or organization. Key words include organization, management, theory, teamwork, co-ordination and collaboration. Introduction Organizations are built by the people who relate to it both directly and indirectly. States will form organizations with the purpose of evading or reducing the impact of some issue they might have detected at the present or anticipated in the near future. Those that participate actively and in unison achieve more than they had planned for (Salas 2013, p.45). They have managed to wade through difficult times of economic depression. They have managed to uplift the standards of the individual states to levels they only imagined. The same case applies to other types of organizations. It all relies on teamwork. Teamwork has the adjunctive effect on any organization (West 2012, p. 45). It also develops over time. There are different types of organizations, such as business firms, governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations and special needs organizations formed for different purposes. Despite their diversity in their goals, each one is similar to the other based on the fact that they will need to have a solid base on teamwork for them to succeed. This is among the most difficult of tasks. However, once it is established, the only limit to one’s progress is the imagination of the individuals. Companies have exponentially developed in their respective fields due to the grounding aspect of teamwork. Teamwork is the collective assembly of people to achieve a common goal. It is a decision arrived at after many an assessment of opinions, as later discussed. This essay will delve into the principles of organizational management in relation to teamwork, showing the relevance contributed by each person. It will also give some recommendations on the ways of improving the stage of developing teamwork based on the founding dictates given by persons such as Max Weber and Chester Barnard. The first theory is explained by Mary Follett, as she tries to explain how the interests of the many outweigh those of the few in the establishment of a team (Graham, Kanter & Drucker 2003, p.147). She explains that individual motives and purposes have to be set aside for the team to progress. The net effect should guide one into submission in the collection of team effort. She gives the example of Gestalt Theory (Graham, Kanter & Drucker 2003, p.147). This theory states how the collection of the sum of two or more parties in an organization is greater than the actual addition of the individual members. The end product is effort multiplied rather than added. To foster this type of cooperation, she adds, there has to be integration. This is the central management principle that she centres on. Integration was used since one can hypothesize the possible difference of opinions between and among people. To settle the differences, one would have to voluntarily submit, struggle and obtain victory, arrive at a compromise or integrate both strategies of two opposing sides (Dyer & Dyer 2013, p. 93). Each one of these approaches will have to eventually integrate some aspects from each party. It also aligns with the ‘Law of Situation’. This law proves all the more how difficult it is to establish teamwork in organization. There has to be acceptance of mistakes and errors, taking up or responsibilities and submission to authority. Not that many people are willing to do submit to these terms. The benefits of using this law is that authority is reduced, power distributed and people are coactive in developing solutions. The central hurdle that organizations have to deal with is general acceptance of being at fault.Individuals, because of their being and factors that surround personal decision making, are bound to disagree and diminish the efforts to establish teamwork. The principle of reciprocity is also not taken into account, discouraging persons from endorsing teamwork (Maxwell 2001, p.63). Chester Barnard introduced the next aspect of types of organization. To each type that he gives, the qualities that he uses to define the roles that each one contributes to the forming of the organization proves that the establishment of team work can be a difficult hurdle to overcome. He explains that there are two types of organizations: formal and informal type. In the formal type of organization, he explains that the individual members should be deliberate, conscious and purposeful in attaining the goals of the organization. He further explains that in this type of organization, the three primary goals are: maintaining equilibrium; examining the external forces and adjusting accordingly and; analysing the function of the executives at all levels in the system. Achieving all these goals requires understanding of individual goals in a system and the impact it has in the overall attainment of these goals (Barrett, Gifford, Morey, Risser & Salisbury 2001, p. 65). The interaction of departmental roles will create the necessary teamwork to achieve these objectives (Morey, Simon, Jay, Wears, Salisbury, Dukes & Berns 2002, p. 1560). Despite this knowledge, the interplay of factors that surround an individual can at times, and very often, cloud the judgement of people. It will make them choose the primal choice hardwired into the system of all living beings, the basic instinct to survive (Dube & Robey 2009, p.23). Ulterior motives can also affect one’s decisions. The same aspect applies to the informal type of organization. The informal dwells on communication, cohesiveness and a sense of self-respect. As a more flexible type of organization, it allows for a particular degree of independence but at the same time limiting one’s actions on the basis of respect and social cohesion (Lecioni 2012, p.20; Llorens Montes, Ruiz Moreno & Garcia Morales 2005, p.1162). It gives ground for the formation and development of a sense of team spirit. In spite of this, the same challenges of a formal organization befalls this type too. The wiliness to cooperation might not be in a person (West, Tjosvold, Smith 2003, p.395). One might also have a problem communication with others. At this level, this is perhaps one of the biggest problems in teamwork establishment of an organization. A measurement of satisfaction of the individuals determines the efficacy of the system. It will also detect whether there needs to be an evaluation of teamwork evolvement and re-strategizing. There is also the aspect of leadership at different levels. Leadership and management will determine the status of a team, if there one already existent, or the presence and maintenance of teamwork in an organization. Each leader has their strategies with which they lead the members of the organization (Dyer & Dyer 2013, p. 93). The culture of an organization also plays a significant role in the evaluation of teamwork in a system. In fact, there are notable personalities who claim that culture will always trump strategy in various situations. John Adair talks of functional leadership, which focuses on how leadership occurs, not the leader (Adair 2011, p.12; Adair & Thomas 2004, p.6). Using leadership as a reference point, one can view teamwork into three circles. The first tier is the individual level. Each individual will be called to lead at some point in the organization’s life, however trivial the task might be. The individual will have to inspire people to perform a task rather than orchestrate his authority on people. The force that drives a team and the strength of the teamwork will have to depend on the level of influence of the leader. The downside of it is that people always mistake leadership with the exercising of authority through wrongful use of one’s powers. The previous leaders have done a poor job in inculcating the ideal values in individuals who have a leadership role to play (Yukl 2002, p.21). It is also difficult to convince someone to change this type of leadership when it is the only one he has been exposed to. The second circle is the team. The team can lead in its very respect. It depends primarily on the goals that they intend to achieve. It is also inclined on the incentives that they are subjected to. A team that focuses on individual gain through collective cooperation will leave each member better than the previous time. The final circle is the task. Evaluation of all the circumstances of the task can make, break or develop a team and consequently teamwork. All these three circles are always viewed in the assessment of teamwork either consciously or subconsciously, but each presents its own set of challenges. The individual will look at the personal gains, the team will evaluate the strategy and mode of interaction and the task might be too daunting as to scare others away from forming a team. Management, although a quality of leadership, affects for establishment of teamwork in a variety of ways. Management involves the use of technical skills, conceptual and social skills, relations within an organization and externally, exercising of power, theorizing, evidence and degree of experience. Each of these factors can positively or negatively impact the team spirit and teamwork evidence in an organization. For instance, division of power by forming a board of governors can be interpreted to mean that the leadership recognize the importance of limiting the authority and delegation of duty. It could also be interpreted as willingness to trust others with responsibilities. The relationship between the management will determine the degree of loyalty and trust shared between the managers and the employees (Tjosvold & Leung 2004, p.111). A diverse network of people that rely and trust the management creates in them team a sense of confidence in their activities (Rothwell, Stavros, Sullivan &Sullivan 2009, p.71). They will unite and attempt to assist each other in their daily routine. Focusing on the alternative outcome is a management team that abuse their power or one that does not have a positive relationship with its workers (Shore, Coyle-Shapiro & Tetrck 2012, p.27). Such an organization will diminish the tendency of establishing teamwork from the members at the top of the hierarchy. While the workers might try to help each other when they discover that none is forthcoming from the management, they will eventually give in, for instance, since resources have to be allocated by the management. Henry Fayol divides the roles of the management into five ways that when properly executed, will result in sustenance and development (Singh 2009, p. 57). These are planning, co-ordinating, organizing, commanding and controlling. Poor resource allocation strategies falls in poor type of planning. The customer base and the workers are not bound to work as a team with the manager in such a scenario. These simple approaches outlaid by Fayol can be simple keys to developing the necessary social bonds at work and the maintenance of teamwork (Singh 2009, p. 57). There are three facets that get affected by the type of management displayed by the managers. These are the social, economic and political, which are vital to the maintenance of a high degree of teamwork. The social facet deals with the relations that one has with the workers and even the customers. The customers, albeit not workers, are every bit as important as the members of the organization. Poor communication between the organizational management, its workers and clients severs the ties of trust and loyalty between these parties. The economical facet is dependent on social relations. Trust in any form of transaction will determine the economic outcome. The political implications affect all the other facets, as policy dictates the duties of the organization. A management team that does not have a broad look of its impact can end up affecting the teamwork expressed by its individual members. However, identifying and promptly addressing this issue will result in earning or respect and trust that fosters heard work and collaborative effort in an organization. The management will also influence the technological, legal and environmental aspects relating to an organization (Bagley 2012, p.103). The method with which management is run can assist in postulating the kind of outcome that one should expect. In a world that is constantly shifting, it would be retrogressive to use traditional methods of management. Embracing change and a difference of opinion integrated into the routine system will go a long way in adapting the organization to the continuous shifting base in the area that if focuses on. Conclusion In conclusion, various parties such as Henry Fayol and Mary Follett contributed immensely in understanding management. Their laws, theories, principles and simple deductions of an organization have been pivotal in the development and downfall of many. It also satellites around teamwork. The reason why it is called an organization is based on the collective and collaborative pulling of hands to achieve purposeful demands. It is not an organization if the members do not display a sense of team spirit. A divided organization is destined to fall. The fact that there were individuals who showed that management can be studied proved that teamwork can also be controlled. In spite of this knowledge, it establishing it still remains a challenge. References Adair, J, 2011, The John Adair Lexicon of Leadership the Definitive Guide to Leadership Skills and Knowledge, London, Kogan Page. http://www.123library.org/book_details/?id=98949. Adair, J, E, & Thomas, N, 2004, The John Adair handbook of management and leadership. London, Thorogood. http://www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?isbn=1854180045. Baker, D, Day, R & Salas, E, 2006, Teamwork as an Essential Component of High-Reliability Organizations, Health Serv Res, vol. 41 no. 4p2, pp.1576-1598. Bagley, C, E, 2012, Managers and the legal environment: Strategies for the 21st century, [s.l.], Cengage learning custom p. Barrett, J, Gifford, C, Morey, J, Risser, D, & Salisbury, M, 2001, Enhancing patient safety through teamwork training. J of Healthcare Risk Mgmt, vol. 21, no. 4, pp.61-69. Dube, L & Robey, D, 2009, Surviving the paradoxes of virtual teamwork, Information Systems Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, pp.3-30. Dyer, W. G & Dyer, J, H, 2013, Team building: proven strategies for improving team performance, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass. Graham, P, Kanter, R, M, & Drucker, P, F, 2003, Mary Parker Follett, Washington, Beard Books. Maxwell, J, C, 2001, The 17 indisputable laws of teamwork embrace them and empower your team, Nashville, T. Nelson. http://www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?bookid=37714. Morey, J, Simon, R, Jay, G, Wears, R, Salisbury, M, Dukes, K & Berns, S, 2002, Error Reduction and Performance Improvement in the Emergency Department through Formal Teamwork Training: Evaluation Results of the MedTeams Project, Health Serv Res, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1553-1581. Lencioni, P, 2012, The advantage: why organizational health trumps everything else in business. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Llorens Montes, F, Ruiz Moreno, A & Garcı́a Morales, V, 2005, Influence of support leadership and teamwork cohesion on organizational learning, innovation and performance: an empirical examination, Technovation, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1159-1172. Rothwell, W, J, Stavros, J. M, Sullivan, R, L, & Sullivan, A, 2009, Practicing Organization Development A Guide for Leading Change, New York, NY, Wiley, J. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-201408084062. Salas, E, 2013, Developing and enhancing teamwork in organizations: evidence-based best practices and guidelines, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass. Shore, L, M, Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M, & Tetrick, L, E, 2012, The employee-organization relationship: applications for the 21st century. New York, Routledge. Singh, M, K, 2009,Industrial Economics And Principles Of Management, New Age International. http://www.myilibrary.com?id=238569. Tjosvold, D, & Leung, K, 2004, Leading in high growth Asia managing relationship for teamwork and change. [River Edge] New Jersey, World Scientific. http://www.books24x7.com/marc.asp?bookid=11323. West, M, A., Tjosvold, D, & Smith, K, G, 2003, International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working, Chichester, West Sussex, Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470696712. West, M. A., 2012, Effective teamwork: practical lessons from organizational research, Chichester, West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons. Yukl, G, A., 2002, Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall. Read More