The 'Big 5' of Teamwork are:-
- team leadership
- mutual performance monitoring
- back-up-behaviour
- adaptability
- team orientation
Supported by 3 coordinating mechanisms:-
- shared mental models
- mutual trust
- closed-loop communication
Team Leadership – I’m surprised to see Kay et al define
this as the ability to ‘direct’ and ‘coordinate’ – these are very different
things. ‘Directing’ means ‘telling someone else what to do’ – that is needed in
some situations (e.g. “call a doctor!”). But it is
not needed in many situations – and not normally in professional,
creative environments. 'Coordination' is a different skill, and can be a role performed by anyone in a team without labelling them as 'leader'.
For example, in an architecture practice, the ethos is one of partnership and flat management structures. For sure, there is still often some sort of hierarchy, but the 'shared mental model' is that everyone is a professional, and if someone tries to 'direct' others without their buy-in, cooperation is withdrawn from that person (herding cats).
‘Coordination’ is valuable – and depending
on the context may be assigned to one person (who can be a ‘junior’ or a ‘senior’)
– but in some contexts there can be spontaneous coordination that is shared
amongst the team. This is typically where the external situation makes the team
goal obvious – neighbours fighting a fire will display a lot of spontaneous
coordination, with the coordinating role naturally shifting from one person to
another as required by the external situation. Our tutor group displayed a lot of spontaneous coordination in Activity 15, as others have commented.
How would I implement these guidelines in
my group?
- I think the key thing is to have a lot of regular communication/updates and clarity around agreed deadlines and agreement on how tasks will be shared amongst the team members.
- Is it necessary to have anyone to 'direct' others - in small groups of 4 can't we just discuss and agree amongst ourselves who will do what?
- And can't we all be responsible for updating each other and offering assistance where needed? (Or is the task ahead so complex that we will only be able to focus on one bit of it - in which case more of a 'big 5' approach may be needed?).
- I'm sure we'll need someone in a 'coordinating' role (although that coordinating role needn't be attached to the same person for 7 weeks, it could rotate) - I would drop the title 'team leader' as for me this is a bit loaded with an ethos of hierarchy/command-and-control, which feels wrong for a creative, voluntary endeavour.
- For sure, for things like synchronous calls it helps if someone 'owns' arranging the call, thinking in advance of the points to be covered on the call, and chairing the call - but that responsibility can also be shared if we want to - rotating a different person each week.
Patrick for a group of this size, with high individual motivation for participation and a chance of developing a strong group vision and gorup motivation, I think your approach may work well. The creative nature of this sort of team project may be a factor here and you are perhaps wise to emphasise that this might not respond well to 'commands'. If you adopt a rotating co-ordination role, if there is a dispute about direction, what mechanisms might you have for resolving these if one person doesn't have the responsibility/authority to make final decisions?
ReplyDeleteWell, I'd hope that the 4 of us would gather round a virtual table, probably synchronously, and talk it through. What we saw in Activity 15 was people preferring, often, to accept slightly different directions and 'go with the flow' when necessary, as this meant that the collegiate approach could be maintained.
ReplyDeleteBut you're right that in practice this may not always work smoothly - can we try and see what happens, and if there is a dispute we cross that bridge when we come to it?