A Releasing Your Unlimited Creativity discussion topic

Copyright 2009 by K. Ferlic,   All Rights Reserved

There are a variety of topic related to teams and the organization. Topics include such thing as the organization as a team, leaderless teams, management teams, team learning, and creating a responsive and/or an improvisational team. Many of the beliefs we have about teams and the organization and how an organization functions as a team are illusionary. Yet much an be gain in looking at the organization as a team or teams within an organization.

A core understanding

The concept of the team is frequently used as a way to describe an organization and as an analogy for how an organization should be structured. There are advantages and disadvantages to using such an analogy. The recommendation is to understand a team is a particular type and kind of organization structured for a particular type and kind of task. As such, a team does have attributes applicable to organizations in general but not necessarily applicable to any organization. Or, the team concept may be directly applicable to a part of an organization but not the organization overall.

One of the easier ways to see the relationship between teams and organizations is to look at a spectrum where the concept of the team and organization lie on either ends of the spectrum. At one end is the organization. An organization is something comprising elements with varied functions that contribute to the whole or it is a number of persons or groups having specified functions that contribute to the whole or to the collective function. At the other end is the team and the word team has two definitions both of which can be applicable to an organization. One definition is that of two or more beasts of burden harnessed together and often harness to a vehicle. The second definition is two or more workers or players competing together in a game.

What is most is interesting about the word team is its two definitions. Many managers and organization look to harness workers to a task much the way one would harness two or more beasts of burden to a cart or some other type of vehicle. However, most individuals use the concept of a team relative to an organization with the second definition that of players competing together in a game. Relative to whether a particular organization desires to harness employees as beast of burden or as players on a team, consideration should be given to the information in the topic, "Harnessing the energy of the individual" and "Why nurture the creative spirit in an organization."

The discussion here focuses on the issues relative to using the second definition of a team for an organization. The topic Organizational Creativity address why simply harnessing individuals to a task as beasts of burden may not be the wisest way approach to obtain quality, health and safety.

Returning to the "team - organization" spectrum, at one end of the spectrum is the team which, by definition, is about workers competing together in a game. Probably the use the word team in this context makes most individuals think of a sports team. Sports teams are workers competing together in a game. But, there are some things about sports competition that do not necessarily lend themselves well to an organization.

Here a very important realization needs to be made. Teams compete for the duration of a game which is normally controlled by either time or achieving a particular object. Once the game is over or the objective reached, the team is no longer needed unless there is a repeat performance as in baseball teams, football teams, soccer teams and the like. What is important here is the team only needs to function as the team for the duration of the game - usually only a few hours. Organization are not normally limited by a few hours. Organizations go on for years and maybe around the clock seven days a way. In more colloquial terms, many organizations function 24/7.

Here is the first major distinction between teams and organizations. Teams may practice together but they practice together for a performance of a few hours. Organization work together for continual and ongoing performance. An ongoing performance places different types and kinds of stress on the individuals as compared to practicing for a few hours performance. On this point, it is easy to see teams within an organization as functioning for a few hours for a performance for particular types and kind of task and projects. It is just overall, the mission and function of a team is different than an organizations.

Additionally, teams, especially sport teams, will have a manager, coaches and trainers. The role of manager, coach and trainer may be fulfilled by a single individual but usually there are separate individuals doing each of these takes. Coaches and trainers vital to the team are not managers. The management function is a different type and kind of function. Yet most organizations have manager and normally don’t have coaches and trainers as in a sport team. There will be trainers but the trainers are more associated with academic or apprentice type training to meet the qualifications of the job. So here again, teams do function differently than a typical organization. It is probably safe to say the most professional athletes have coaches and trainers. But few professionals have coaches and trainers as athletes. Most professionals, once they reach professional status, may have requalifications requirements but rarely ongoing input from coaches and trainers.

A third aspect where teams are different than many organization is that on a team, there are individual workers performing their individual task according to the position they play. Players on a team do not supervise or manger subordinates. They may help or assist other players but each players tends to be an independent entity working to a common goal within rather well defined rules of play.

As we move along the spectrum to the organization overall, the more the organization exist to perform a function like a team the more the team concept can be utilized. The more the organization does not have a function like the team, the best use of a team in the organization are for specific types and kinds of task and functions. But we should not fool ourselves thinking the concept of the team will work when the mission and function of the team and organization as substantially different.

Discussions on teams and organizations

The following discussion reflect some of the way teams are seen as applying to organizations. The recommendation is to eat and digest what is provided and take what is effective for your organizational needs.

The myth of leaderless teams: Over the years there was, and continues to be, a concept of leaderless teams, or their equivalent, within organizations. This type of concept tends to exist within a group of professional who all see themselves as equals and fully capable of doing whatever needs to be done without the need for being told what to do. However, there is no such thing as a leaderless team. Teams will have a manager or coach on the sideline looking, watching, observing and as necessary providing direction to the team. It is an illusion to think the team can be leaderless.

There is a closely related concept that provides what many desire in leaderless team and it is the improvisational organization that functions more like an improvisational jazz ensemble. However, such a concept is not appropriate for many organizational functions. What needs to be understood, is that there is always an intention for the team held by someone, somewhere that is the focus of the team effort. That intention functions as the lead even if the who holds that intention is not involved with the group of individuals or organization in question at any particular or moment in time.

The actual person who leads any effort may change or a team may be self managed without a particular person leading the team giving the illusion of being leaderless, but the effort itself, the reason why the organization or team exists, is lead by an intention. This intention must be clear and embraced at some level by all the participants in the effort if the maximum potential of the effort is to be obtained and the group functions like a leaderless team. There needs to be a desire within each individual to manifest the intention and a desire to keep the cohesion of the group.

Both the desire to manifest the intention and the desire to keep the cohesion of the group are essential if that team is going to function without a strong leader. What happens in many organizations that have been in existence for a time is that the original intention that cast the form of the existing organization is forgotten. Yet it is still embedded within the organizational structure. This original intention then conflicts with the current intention in very subtle ways and efficiency and effectiveness is lost and problems develops.

The probable myth of the management team: It is said the probably myth of the management team because team players are not managers. Normally they are individual workers performing their individuals tasks based on the position they play on a the team. If the managers manage a function with no subordinates, then the concept of a team may be very appropriate. However, the managers are going to supervise and oversee workers, the structures does not fit the concept of a team.

Another more subtle or maybe not so subtle issue of the concept of a management team is that as managers, many look to move up into the organization. Many see management success and managing more and more individuals, more and more resources and more and more impact on the organization by the decisions they make. In this regard, team players normally do not look to replace players in other positions. Many managers routinely look to replace other managers if that means having greater organizational power and/or command a greater percentage of organizational resources. Too often mangers spend time positioning themselves, maybe fighting for turf, and the like. If this is present in any way, the individual will be unable to truly function as a team no matter how good an image is presented they are a team.

Teams also work to play together on important plays. They back each other up or assist if another players is having difficulty. To many mangers to require a back up, to call for a back up, to need assistance is seen as a failure of some type in that they can’t do what is necessary with what resources they have. It is as though they can’t do the job. To many that means they will be subject to being replaced by another more capable individual.

Unfortunately, the way many organizations are run, managers look to protect themselves and always look good. They don’t wish to show or reveal their weakness or weakness in those whom they supervise. They want to be seen as doing everything correct and organizational problems are because of some other manager’s section.

These types and kind of things tend to keep managers from forming relationship and a way of doing business characteristic of a well functioning team. However, this need not be the case. There are responsive teams and improvisational team. To create such teams managers must learn to see their jobs and functions differently. Rather than "being in charge" they have to learn to give responsibility to the lowest levels and develop the decision making process at the lowest level local to the problem. Individuals need to be given the freedom to act as necessary to try out their own ideas at producing the required results. As necessary they will need to education and train subordinates to make those decision. In this read, the manager will see their role more as a coach, trainer, orchestrator and most importantly, one who creates the space for those whom they oversee to be successful. Also the manager may find it necessary to create the space for an individual to exercise their new found freedom. It is to understand the limits and boundaries imposed by the workspace such as the design base or safety envelop on an operation so that the needs of the workplace are met without significant consequences to mistakes in learning to exercise their freedom.

The need for system thinking: To use the concept of a team within an organization there is need for the individuals to embrace what is called systems thinking. System thinking is about seeing how the parts integrate to make the whole and see wholeness rather than pieces, fragments and parts. Systems thinking provides an understanding, framework or perspective for seeing the interrelationships and interconnectedness of the parts to create the whole. It allows for seeing patterns and looking beyond becoming fixated on events. Seeing the interrelationships between the parts allows for seeing problems and issues in an new way with much more powerful insights as to how to solve them.

We tend to experience reality in a rather linear process. We experience event after event after event. Usually we see them as isolated events. We fail to see the interconnection between events and more importantly we fail to see ourselves and our organization as a creative living process. Events are not isolated. Rather they are more like a star where several or multiple difference influences come together to create the experience we have. For each of these influences we can pull the string as to what cause that influence to exist and each of the influences has a story as to how and why it exists as it does. In seeing the influences we no longer react to the event as such or what we perceive as the single cause. We being to look for the pattern. We may react to the cause but we also see how we need to address the influences which also bears a responsibility for what we experience.

When we see the system and interconnection of events we find we can pull the string and find the cause of what we experience or look forward with a new understanding about the future. We can begin to understand how important what we do now is and the need to become impeccable in our actions. We also see we cannot place blame as we once did and everyone shares some responsibility for what is created by any system and if we go deeper, for Creation itself. If we look carefully we can also begin to understand individuals are doing the best they can with they have. If they truly understood something different, they would ad differently.

As a creative living process we are constantly recreating ourselves based on the experiences we have. What we experience feeds back into all that we think and believe and the experiences we have had to either reinforce the past or open ourselves up to new options. But once we have an experience we are forever changed by the feedback loop. In becoming different because of the experiences we have we also see the experience differently than when we first experienced it. Similarly when we begin to see the interconnect of events and influences, we begin to reevaluate all that we have experienced in this new understanding. We literally begin to see differently. We have new insights about the past, the future and what is possible in any situation we face.

It needs to be remembered that on a team each individual member understands the roles and responsibilities of the other team members and the overall objective of the game. Many team member can play in other positions if necessary because they have this overall understanding of the game and each position. System thinking allows for a similar ability within an organization.

If there is the desire for an organizational component to function as a team, there will be the need for this systems thinking. Each member will need to learn to think differently and perceive themselves and other with whom they work differently. They will need to learn to understand the roles and responsibilities of the other and how all the individual roles and responsibilities integrate to make the whole and achieve the overall objective. In understanding all the roles, each understands what cannot happen if they fail to do their job and how they are dependent on the others to achieve the overall objective. Each individual is acutely aware of the need for the other. Systems thinking makes it easier for the individual member to adopt the same model or paradigm as to how the system should work. Sharing the same model or paradigm allows for building truly shared intentions, shared missions, and shared objectives.

To create any team, there is the need for each individual to understand the roles of each player and how the game is play and each depends on the other. Otherwise, the individuals will be unable to play as a team.

Team learning: Team learning is about a team, all the individuals on the team, learning a new way of doing business and playing the game. Team learning develops the knowledge, skills and ability of a group of individuals committed to functioning as a team. Team learning is not about intellectually learning some information. It is about experientially performing the application of that learning with the function of the team. A single individual on the team learning the new knowledge, skill or ability does nothing for the team. The team as a whole must achieve the learning and then apply it in their performance as a team. In many ways team learning is a skill the team must learn to develop. The team must learn how to learn together and in an integrated way.

Teams need to be open to questioning and understanding. They know each others roles and positions and what one is and is not responsible for doing. They also know their role and responsibility in backing another team member up. Each must fully understand how each of the responsibilities do or do not change. If individual are not free to ask their question and have their question answered, the required learning will not happen. Given the number of member on a team and the possible different opinion, views, concerns and the like, it would be tremendously unusually to not have questions. If question do not arise there should be concern that the group is developing a mind set or tunnel vision that is blinding the team and setting the team up for failure. In some way or another the responsible manager should ensure some type and kind of devil’s advocate is present or the devils’ advocacy occurs to keep the team honest in looking at all options and both sides of a question. On this point, the issues and concerns raised by the devil’s advocate should not be summarily dismissed. They should be evaluated to ensure that adequate evaluation is performed.

Truth telling: For a team to function there will need to be a commitment for truth telling both about what is happening internally and externally to the team. To see the truth of what is we must become aware of our biases and the truth of what is what each and every individual sees without their bias. To deny a view is to deny part of the truth. The challenge if for each individual to see and speak clearly without bias. Hard to do yet a goal worth seeking.

Truth telling requires openness. Individuals must feel safe to tell the truth and not suffer consequences for how they see the truth. It should be recognized that each individual has a different role and how they see what is occurring may not be like another. Each must feel free to express whatever needs to be expressed. In this regard, it may be useful to use something like a truth telling ceremony for important decision to ensure all points of view are offered without fear of retribution in any way. Everyone needs to understand the team needs to do what is right and not what any individual or group of individual wants to do.

Yet, each individual must be open to have their own beliefs and understanding challenged. But, more importantly, each must be open to challenge their own thinking. Only the individual can change what they believe and how they think. All the evidence in the world will not convince someone to change what they believe. They have to choose to change their beliefs.

Moving past self interest: For a team to function as a team, the individual must move past self interest. In this regard, a well function team is a delicate balance act. One cannot always give. Yet for the team to function the individual must give to the team. But here the team must realize it needs to give to the individual. Many members of teams are not recognized for what they contribute, but if they were not needed, they would not be on the team. All positions, all individuals must be appropriated recognized and honored. Similar each individual must be willing to give at the team and the expense of their own notoriety or importance.

Related topics
Orchestrating the Organization

The Password Protected Area provides access to all currently posted (click for current loading) Releasing Your Unlimited Creativity related discussion files and applications.

Top

   RYUC Home   Why free?    Contact    Links     Programs     Services      Contributions