Is establishing teamwork difficult in organizations
Table of Contents
3Chester Barnard Perspective
4Human Relations School
5Theory X vs. Theory Y
The organization environment determines the strategic direction because the internal and external factors influence the behavior of the employees and organization. Understanding the organizational organization is integral in making a decision. Other authors such as Chester Barnard and Follett Theory present approaches to understanding the challenges at the workplace, which are further associated with difficulty in creating teams. The human relations theory understands behaviors and attitudes shapes the employees and tends to seek measures to champion their respective individualism. A team is made of individuals and if individuals with different attitudes and behaviors are brought together, chances of conflict and misunderstanding increase, which is inappropriate for an effective team. Theory X and Theory Y also address the teamwork, and employees are taking a specific angle in either Theory X or Theory Y results in different organizational approach. Hence, to reduce the complications of conflicts and misunderstandings at the workplace, the solution is creating an inclusive and cohesive team that appreciates the strengths of each other while addressing the weaknesses.
Numerous studies have been done to understand the structure of an organization and the significance of teamwork in the operation. In addition, the studies aim to advance the role and responsibilities of the different workers in fulfilling their assigned duties and the efficiency of the entire process. The establishment of an effective team is integral to any organization, and each organization employs different strategies in creating an effective team. Based on the numerous studies and research including the theorists’’ perspective, the effectiveness of teamwork lies in balancing the needs and requirements of managers and employees. Nevertheless, collaboration and cooperation are important since it results in effective organization and organization structure.
This is the economic and external situational factors that any organization has to address. The outer elements can be seen as the broader economy or a specific market segment. In understanding organization environment, the microeconomic environment enables understanding the internal processes of an organization (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006). The internal environment influences the organization decision making and bringing together a team of workers with similar working cultures are appropriate since effectiveness can be improved. Employing individual with different expertise backgrounds may result in misunderstandings, which would affect the entire requirements of the organization. Macroeconomics affects the entire organization because they are the external forces.
In appreciating microeconomic, effective team members contribute to the success of the organization, but the managers are required to guide the processes and educate the team members on the appropriate strategies to achieve the goals (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006). The manager becomes a leader who leads the team members in fulfilling their respective requirements. Therefore, collaboration between the workers and managers becomes an integral component in organization management. Ford Motors is an example of an organization that capitalized in the structuring of processes. Each team or individual understood their respective roles and the position of their respective roles in the wider requirements of the organization (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006).
Chester Barnard Perspective
Barnard developed a managerial theory that explains organizations operate as corporate systems. The creation of an organization, according to Barnard is premised on the effectiveness of individuals to accomplished assigned duties on their own. The theorist sees an organization as an entity that aims to survive in an environment, which is hostile (McMahon & Carr, 1999). In addition, the organization does not operate alone but requires external resources and environment to support the internal processes and coordination is integral to the entire processes.
Barnard identified three organizational challenges, which are analyzing the executive functions, examining the external forces and making appropriate adjustments, and maintaining equilibrium. In accomplishing these requirements, people have to have three elements, which are communication, common purpose and willingness to cooperate. Teamwork is based on collaborate and supporting each other through effective communication (McMahon & Carr, 1999). Without effective communication, conflicts and misunderstandings occur that limits the efficiency of the organization.
Barnard further states that it is important to determine whether the organization is formal or informal. Information organizations require maintenance of cohesiveness, maintaining aspects of self-respect and communication should be appreciated (Novicevic et al. 2005). In a formal organization, communication and management channels should be understood, shorten the communication processes and appreciate the significance of formal authority. Some of these communication and engagement processes may create challenges but understanding the underlying component of objectives and teamwork is important (McMahon & Carr, 1999). Attitudes and conflicts may occur, which limits the effectiveness of the employees, and encouraging effective communication whether in formal or informal communication is integral to the success of team members. Without effective communication challenges, creating a successful team is a challenge.
The team members should recognize the importance of executive in the entire process and appreciate the requirements of authority. The team has to appreciate the communication order, create a connection between the communication and the organization, and ensure the implementation of the communication reflects the requirements of the organization (McMahon & Carr, 1999). Hence, the subordinates should continue consenting on authority because the executives have specific roles in addressing the requirements of the organization (Novicevic et al. 2005). A team should understand their place and position in the organization structure, and ensure the communication reflects their position and overall requirements of the organization. However, conflicts may occur if order and authority are not followed, and sometimes these problems exist in organizations because of interpersonal friction and vested interests, which makes a managerial decision on teams a challenge.
Follett champions group membership in finding the true self of individuals. The cohesiveness of the group is an integrative unity, which is important compared with individual parts that form the team. Follett states that group experiences are integral in greater scope that advances creative powers. Situation and principles are also important to the entire processes because the thinking of teams shifts from authority to knowledge (Boje & Rosile, 2001). Other reflected changes include coactive, working with the organization and power with rather than power over. Coactive and working with the organization is important for the teams to achieve defined expectations and goals, but conflicts may occur during the process (Rusch & Douglass Horsford, 2009). In a working environment, different situations occur, which requires instant mitigation measures, but some situations lack the appropriate resources to achieve the requirement. The ideology of the team members may be different and reflects situations different, but if the team members work as a team, a wider impact on the organization can be witnessed.
In ensuring the creation of an effective team, organization control is important. Coordination is integral to any team, and each stakeholder within the team should understand their respective roles and create modalities to achieve their roles and team roles. The coordination should not be done in the absence of other team members because the coordination should be reciprocal in nature (Boje & Rosile, 2001). Furthermore, an effective team is supposed to start coordination in the early stages, which results in continued development processes. It means that coordination should evolve with the team to ensure each stage problems are addressed before proceeding to the next stage (Rusch & Douglass Horsford, 2009). Team members who do not coordinate and complement each other create integral challenges that may affect the efficiency of the organization and team. Hence, championing coordination is integral to the efficiency of the organization, and may negate the numerous benefits of teamwork.
Human Relations School
According to the human relations school, employees are essential individuals within an organization and individual attitudes influence the behavior of the employees. In improving organizational performance, trust between the workers and managers is integral (O’Connor, 1999). In addition, money should not be viewed as a sole motivator and numerous motivational components should be employed in engaging the employees (Fox & Stallworth, 2010). Moreover, the informal and formal organization influences the behavior of the employees in different ways, and it is important to acknowledge these different strategies.
The human relations school of thought is integral in assessing the team behavior and team relations. A team is made of individuals, and the individuals come with different behaviors and attitudes. Some of the attitudes may not be appropriate based on the situation and circumstances, and may create numerous challenges and complications (O’Connor, 1999). The solution is addressing the attitudes and behaviors of the different individuals in understanding their respective roles and expectations in advancing the teamwork requirements (Fox & Stallworth, 2010). Sometimes it becomes a challenge to balance the diverse attitudes-behavior of the employees, which may result in the ineffective team. Based on the human relations theory, it becomes difficult to create an effective team especially when the attitudes and behaviors of individuals cannot persevere and understand other employees.
Theory X vs. Theory Y
Theory X and Theory Y present different perspectives when it comes to engaging the employees to accomplish their respective duties. According to Theory X, people are lazy, people dislike working, must be supervised, and coercive leadership is integral. Conversely, Theory Y proposes that people are motivated easily, the people are satisfied with the work; the people will do the right thing for the organization, and the leadership strategy is participative (Whetten, 2009). Therefore, Theory X is autocratic (control) while Theory Y is participative (support). It is evident that these theories present a different perspective when it comes to the workplace. For example, the employees need different motivator while the view of employees on work is also different (Griffin, 2015). From the analysis, Theory Y employee is easier to work with because of the motivation from work and also the supportive nature that does not require external supervision. Hence, employing people viewed from these two different theories may create complications and misunderstanding at the workplace (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006). The solution is creating and educating the employees on the importance of teamwork and supporting each other in accomplishing organizational requirements and aims.
The management style is also different because of attitudes. The Theory Y attitudes expect others to succeed, accepts and acknowledges positive feedback, and gives freedom in working while the Theory X attitudes are critical, pushy, bossy, impatient and autocratic (Koontz & Weihrich, 2006). In a negative perspective, Theory Y attitudes are associated with unassertive, self-blaming and afraid to make decisions while Theory X attitudes are pessimistic and promote hopelessness (Whetten, 2009). Such employees with divergent attitudes and behaviors may create misunderstanding and conflicts during team work. For example, the Theory X employees create a negative environment of hopelessness, which affects the overall working conditions (Griffin, 2015). In deciding on a team, it becomes difficult to manage and lead the employees having these different attitudes on the same team. Therefore, it becomes difficult for a team to be effective because of attitudes, behaviors and perception of teams and work.
Is establishing teamwork difficult for an organization? Yes. There are numerous challenges associated with creating teams especially on behaviors, attitudes, perceptions, motivators among other variables. In an effective team, the team members have to appreciate a specific approach to accomplishing tasks and combine different people with different ideological perspective inhibits the effectiveness of the team and the organization. The leaders and managers within the organization should understand the diverse complications associated with divergent teams and employees. Through reviewing the attitudes, behaviors and perceptions of the different employees, it enables understanding the correct position within the organization that an individual should be positioned. Without appreciating the diversity and uniqueness of the different employees, it becomes a challenge to create a cohesive and supportive team in fulfilling the organizational requirements. Hence, understanding the weaknesses and strengths of the employees is crucial in determining the strategic objective and direction. Without such approaches, further difficulties occurs which makes establishing teamwork difficult for an organization.
Boje, D. M., & Rosile, G. A. (2001). Where’s the power in empowerment? Answers from Follett and Clegg. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(1), 90-117.
Fox, S., & Stallworth, L. E. (2010). The battered apple: An application of stressor-emotion-control/support theory to teachers’ experience of violence and bullying. Human Relations, 63(7), 927-954.
Griffin, R. (2015). Fundamentals of management, 8th Ed. London: Cengage Learning.
Koontz, H., & Weihrich, H. (2006). Essentials of management. Jakarta: Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
McMahon, D., & Carr, J. C. (1999). The contributions of Chester Barnard to strategic management theory. Journal of Management History, 5(5), 228-240.
Novicevic, M. M., Davis, W., Dorn, F., Buckley, M. R., & Brown, J. A. (2005). Barnard on conflicts of responsibility: Implications for today’s perspectives on transformational and authentic leadership. Management Decision, 43(10), 1396-1409.
O’Connor, E. S. (1999). The politics of management thought: A case study of the Harvard Business School and the Human Relations School. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 117-131.
Rusch, E. A., & Douglass Horsford, S. (2009). Changing hearts and minds: The quest for open talk about race in educational leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(4), 302-313.
Whetten, D. A. (2009). An examination of the interface between context and theory applied to the study of Chinese organizations. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 29-55.