Many people talk about teamwork. Of frequent issue is the importance of creating teamwork in an organization. Of normal consensus is the notion that good teamwork is a determinant in the successful attempts of an organization in its endeavors. In fact, in practice, 'lacking in teamwork' has become an ever ready explanation to account for unsuccessful or ineffective organizational performance. And so, I find it an interesting and crucial a matter to provide my own 'critical' insights on how teamwork should be described and how it should appropriately be situated within a larger organizational 'context'.
It is interesting to point out how, during one of our routine morning prayer, a colleague of mine, analogously related the meaning of teamwork to one that resembles a 'swan-flying-formation'. According to him, the swans, in the quest to find a new place to live, fly as a group on this mission. This is of course, mostly due to the great challenges and obstacles (e.g. strong winds) that they have anticipated to encounter along the way as they embark on this journey. He further elaborated that each and every swan in the group knows how to function effectively as a group without having 'to be told' by any particular swan of how they should fly. Finally, he summed up by stressing on the importance of teamwork in the organization to ensure successful organizational performance in future endeavors.
In general, I am of a similar opinion as everybody else that teamwork is undoubtedly an important factor in determining the success of an organization. However, I strongly advocate that we need to 'contextually' situate the meaning of this term to avoid from falling into a rigid, stationary-kind of thinking that will only 'cloud' our understanding of how actually should we effectively perform and function in our organization.
For a start, let me raise some fundamental issues regarding the 'swan'-analogy of teamwork as described earlier, which is to be taken as the determining factor to the success of an organization. Clearly, in such an endeavor as attempted by the group of swan (i.e the formation of 'collective' flying), the vision that initiates such an 'attempt' is undoubtedly, vivid. It is not mistakenly, a clear vision provided by the leader of the group. However, to ensure that the group could function effectively as individuals joined together by a collective aim, the leader needs to foresee the challenges and obstacles that the group will encounter as they 'fly' on the mission.
Upon reflection, the leader will then need to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each individual in the group and to position them accordingly so that 'greater impact' of obstacles or challenges faced during the mission will be countered by the most strong, reliable and competent individuals, while the weaker ones, who are still fundamental to the success of the 'whole formation', will be protected and 'scaffolded'. Hence, the leader has to constantly observe the progression of the group and appropriately 'set the pace' and to critically assess the current situation with the performance of the group. Should there be any setbacks, the leader thus, need to be able to come up with contingencies to ensure that the group could sustain until they achieve the final aim.
Well, in an organization, this calls for a hierarchical structure. It still stresses on the importance of the leader as a vision builder and performance choreographer. This view strongly defines the need for every leader to enhance his or her individual capacity in order to capably perform within a larger organizational context. However, another important point I want to highlight is the significance of the role that each individual in the group plays. As indicated through this organizational structure, each individual has distinct role and perform differently but in harmony with the other members in the group towards the achievement of a collective aim.
Yet, relying on one's niche area alone invites a 'danger' to one's meaningful 'existence' in the long run. Obviously, a great endeavor through a collective effort is not a daily 'enterprise'. Rather, it is an occurrence which is carefully planned to achieve a set target and to be materialized within a specific time-frame using vital resources strategically. Therefore, if we consider our roles as 'mere' team-members who only function when there is a great organizational aim to achieve, we will reduce our 'significance' as a member of the organization should our 'expertise' becomes obsolete when the organization ceases to embark on a large-scale task. Should this happen, totally relying on our 'specific' expertise will gradually and eventually turn us from a knowledge worker into a 'manual' worker, who could easily be substituted by others or become 'obsolete' or 'insignificant'.
As an 'independent' knowledge worker, it is crucial therefore, for us to enhance our individual 'competency' so as to sustain our 'relevancy' and significance in our organization. This will provide us with the 'autonomy' to decide and determine our own task and to set our own course of action and direction as part of our contribution to the organization viz-a-vis individual achievement. As a matter of fact, if each and everyone of us is able to upgrade his or her individual capacity and capability, the organization would be able to 'flex' its structure into a 'flatter' one. Consequently, this will allow more collective organizational endeavors to be materialized by the individuals themselves, on their own accord, since they independently know how to accommodate their own knowledge with the knowledge of the others to attain the organizational aims; i.e a practice of distributed leadership.
In sum, an organization thrives through both individual achievement and collective success. Thus, teamwork is best realized when the individuals in the organization are both fully competent in their 'specific' area of expertise as well as in their ability to perform effectively as 'parts' of a collective unit.
No comments:
Post a Comment