RE: Teams Leaders what are they, and do we need them? - Extension from Re: [xpAdopti

Glen,

> > > We have a traditional hierarchy with VP's, Directors, and Managers.
> Our
> > > senior management team "acts" as a collective with each providing
> > > specific roles and capabilities. This team is lead by the CIO, BUT
> there
> > > is not a single "leader" on this team. It functions by sharing the
> > > leadership roles. Only the tough (legal, regulation, high dollar)
> > > decisions get close scrutiny of the single "leader." Otherwise no
> work
> > > would get done.
> > 
> > You seem to be saying there is no one person who tells the team what
> > to do or approves all the decisions. I wouldn't call this not having
> > a "leader" and I don't think it reflects what others have seemed to
> > mean when talking about leadership skills.
> 
> [>] You're somewhat correct, there is no "one" person except when there
> needs to be. We each manage vertical areas and have our clear and
> concise objectives through Balanced Scorecard (BSC) so there are few
> opportunities to get confused about the outcome.
> 
> I can't emphasize this enough that with up front goals and objectives
> that turn into initiatives, them projects, then down to tasks all that
> "group decision" stuff is made clear and concise and most of the
> directing actions of management go away on a day to day basis.

Yes.
 
> > [Of course, you can mean what you mean by the word while I'll keep on
> > meaning what I mean, but I think it might help us to recognize that
> > even though two people may distinguish between "management" and
> > "leadership"  they may not be making the same distinction.]
> 
> [>] Uh?? Try to find the HBR Leadership book. Most mainstream book
> stores have the HBR series. It really is worth the effort, since it will
> establish an independent context for leadership and management.

I'm actually somewhat familiar with it. However, I took you to be saying
that your team had no leader because no member was telling the others 
what to do. I appear to have misunderstood.

I'm not that happy with the usual distinctions between leadership and 
management in a lot of the literature and - in spite of your suggestion -
I haven't found that citations of literature help me to be understood
by many people. In this case, I was talking about leadership as it arises
in non-management contexts - as among a group of developers. I think this
sort of "pure" leadership has a lot to teach us. It can arise out of the
situation without any particular authority having been vested in the 
person who is exercising it. In some cases, there is a sort of permanence
associated with the leader, but in others different people take the 
lead at different times.

I don't think this is unconnected with your situation. Even though the
members of your team have management responsibilities, it sounds as if
they function pretty much the same way as any other team.

> > Not knowing your situation, I'd have to assume that as specific issues
> > arise, the appropriate leader - in my meaning of the term - steps
> forward
> > to make the team function, without anyone telling them to do so. I
> believe
> > the same thing happens quite naturally at lower levels in the
> organization
> > but that management often thwarts this behavior by trying to appoint
> the
> > "leaders."
> 
> [>] Agreed in principle. The problem is who is the designated leader? If
> everyone steps forward with conflicting ideas in your world how are they
> resolved with the minimum of effort and the maximum of benefit? We have
> decision making processes that are very formal when it comes to spending
> money, safety (nuclear safety), security, and regulatory compliance. On
> the other hand if these domains don't enter into the discussion than
> local (private) decision processes can be made by a local "leader."\

I wouldn't suggest that we simply assume that a leader will arise. It's 
management's job to watch to see that goals are being met. My point is
that leaders cannot really be designated, only recognized. Sometimes this
is done by observation of past behavior in other situations. In that case,
we're saying: you were able to assume a leadership role very well in past
similar projects, so we are asking you to do it here.

In this point, I don't think my world is any different from yours. Leaders
get appointed and sometimes are able to lead, sometimes not. What I'd like
to see is a world where management took advantage of the leaders who
arise, when they arise, rather than putting mechanisms in place to thwart
the natural process.

I suspect we won't be able to agree on this totally. Your description of
a leader's role - if I understand it - seems to lean heavily on the idea
that the leader knows the way to go and gets people to go that way. I 
see it as resolving a set of - possibly conflicting - forces so that the
team ends up /willingly/ going in a common direction. But perhaps I have
misunderstood you again...

Charlie Poole
[email protected]
www.pooleconsulting.com
www.charliepoole.org




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FpY02D/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/nhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/