Self-Managing Team Organizational Paradigm Paper
Self-managing Team Organizational Paradigm
XXX
University of Phoenix
Self-managing Team Organizational Design Paradigm
The Self-managing Team Organizational Paradigm (SMTOP) is a leadership and organizational structure that embraces emotional intelligence and individuals ' work preferences. The model was developed with a combination of several existing models (Compound Model) and is a type of hybrid structure. With guiding principles from the Boundaryless Organizational Design, the Simple Structure Organizational Design, and Congregations model, this model is a Communications Paradigm that serves to bring out the best in the organization by investing time up front in exchange for future efficiencies. The model 's design, the basis for …show more content…
the model, implications for leaders and followers, literature review and gaps, and the ethical considerations will be discussed below.
Model Design
The SMTOP model is a Compound Communications model that exploits the benefits of several organizational paradigms and theories.
The model uses self-managed teams who are comprised of meticulously selected team members. Similar to the fundamentals of the Congregations model, the members are grouped together based upon personality, emotional intelligence, and individual 's work preferences.
SMTOP teams do not have formal, hierarchical structures but rather share the responsibility for governing the team and managing the work. The organization has a facilitator who is the senior organizational leader but this individual does not directly control the group, nor does he or she rate the members. The team 's governance and control remains with the team members, who develop the rules of engagement and rate each other. Employees are motivated to perform in this environment because they have more equity in the processes and outcome.
The Business Unit Organizational Design is the base for the SMTOP. This is where subject matter experts (SME) in a particular area are brought together to work in the area of their expertise. The SMEs work in the most productive manner because they are extremely well versed in the work. Little to no on-the-job training is needed for the team …show more content…
members.
In addition to having a base that is comprised of subject matter experts, the team contains individuals who have similar personalities and work preferences based upon their Meyers Briggs Personality Assessment results. The assessment examines primary aspects of personality, increases self-understanding and explaining how others differ from oneself (Varvel, Adams, Pridie, & Ruiz, 2004). Understanding an individual 's preferences then grouping them together with others who have the same preferences tends to create more effective teams.
Existing Paradigms
Business Unit Organizational Design
The Business Unit Organizational Design utilizes SMEs in a particular area to work in the area of their expertise. The work is completed in a highly productive manner because they are experts in their field and require little to no on-the-job training.
Boundaryless Organizational Design
The Boundaryless Organizational Design is not defined by, or limited to, the horizontal, vertical, or external boundaries imposed by a predefined, hierarchical structure. It is more flexible in the way work is accomplished and is less rigid than the traditional designs (Hirschhorn, L. and Gilmore, T. (1992).
Simple Structure
The Simple Structure Organization is flat. The employees tend to work as a large team any everyone reports to one person. The advantages are efficiency and flexibility, and the job responsibilities are usually clear. The main disadvantage is that this structure can stunt growth when the company gets so big where the senior leader (CEO and so forth) cannot continue to make all the decisions (Mind Tools, 2013).
Congregations
Congregations are groups of individuals who have joined together into a flat, non-hierarchical organization. Unlike other paradigms, congregations are developed to be long-term solutions rather than having a single specific goal in mind. The congregations are formed with individuals who have similar or complementary characteristics to facilitate the work process (2005, p. 1).
Implications for Leaders and Followers
Nikless believes that bosses are becoming obsolete in many organizations (Nikless, 2013). Additionally, she holds that hierarchical management systems can be slow and static. Self-managing teams on the other hand are non-hierarchical groups that are developed to execute specific tasks. "The benefit is gathering individuals with different but complementary skill sets and giving them more autonomy. This reduces absenteeism and improves innovation and performance" (2013, p. 1.).
Developing teams based upon personality, emotional intelligence, and work preferences can raise morale and increase productivity. Employees will be happier because they are working with like-minded teammates and are doing work that they enjoy. The happy employee tends to work harder, which in turn, increases productivity.
A downside for leaders is that developing the teams can initially be time consuming and possibly expensive. The positive side is that the team members should work together in a more efficient and harmonious manner because they are working with others who share the same types of preferences and values. Reducing the amount of disaccord and floundering that can occur in organizations in itself creates a more efficient workplace.
Similar Designs
The model 's construction is similar to University of Phoenix 's Learning Teams. The teams are put together to perform certain functions; in this case, to collaborate on and produce different projects for the class. The teams are self-managing but have the instructor as the facilitator. The instructor does not get involved in the team 's processes or functions but is there to provide guidance when needed and to provide the final approval of the work via the grade.
The difference between the Learning Teams and the newly developed SMTOP model is that the Learning Teams are comprised of random team members, whereas the SMTOP model uses meticulously selected members for the team. The distinction is that the SMTOP teams are developed around personalities and emotional intelligence. The SMTOP teams should in theory work better together and should share common values and motivations.
Just as with the Learning Teams, the SMTOP teams practice the SLP model. The individuals bring their previous knowledge and experience to the group and share it with the others. Each member learns from the next and they all practice what they learn every day. This continuous collaboration and development makes the group stronger as time goes on.
Literature Review and Gaps
The literature review revealed that there is no one type of organization that is suitable for all situations, nor is there one model that fits all organizations (Horling & Lessor, 2005). Organizations can use a combination of the models and can vary their use based upon what the organization needs at the moment, or upon the current state of the organization or its operations. The models are organizational preferences, but do not bind the organizations to them, never to be varied from.
As noted, not all organizational structures fit neatly into a particular paradigm, and some may include characteristics of several different styles. Organizations might contain several paradigms with each supporting a different aspect of the organization. There might be one for overall organizational control, another for communications, a third for production, and so on (2005). The proper mixture of paradigms and their use is critical to organizational success.
Horling and Lessor believe that "the organizational design employed by an agent system can have a significant, quantitative effect on its performance characteristics" (2005, p.
1). The qualitative aspects could be affected as well. The choice for the overall organizational structure can determine the tone within the organization and can positively or negatively affect its productivity. The leaders or owners, which ever may be the case, need to take a careful look at the organization and its mission, vision, and goals to determine which structure best fits.
According to Kates, "The reliance on downward communication that most organizations exhibit inevitably leaves mid- and lower-level staff feeling disconnected. The different messages they hear from their leaders undermine their own ability to work together across organizational boundaries, which presents a challenge" (Kates, n.d., p. 29). The SMTOP model reduces the problems that arise with downward communication because most direction comes laterally and collaboratively. The teams are communicating daily and share information as a
group.
What appears to be lacking in literature and research is how employees view organizations that are developed based upon on paradigm or another. A wide variety of articles and research papers exist that discuss the different models, but there does not seem to me any qualitative studies dealing with employee views or preferences.
Ethical Considerations
As with any business or leadership model, there must be ethical considerations taken into account. With the SMTOP model, the biggest potential issues regarding ethics would be related to the employees ' personalities. The team members ' personalities, the same ones that can make this model effective, can destroy the effectiveness of the model if not monitored and managed.
One personality-based ethical consideration would be regarding the opportunity for favoritism. Not surprising is that people can like or dislike others and whether he or she likes the person will determine his or her attitude toward the person. Additionally, sub-groups can form with in larger groups. The members of the subgroups can create attitudes and patterns of behavior that can show favoritism toward other members. The favoritism can give certain privileges to the "chosen few" that others do not get. The rest of the group may feel slighted because of the behavior and morale may be affected.
Another personality-based ethical issue may come in the form of an uneven workload. This is where job assignments and amount of work are not evenly distributed among the members. The uneven distribution can be caused by individuals taking advantage of the freedom-based structure or can be based upon the favoritism as previously explained.
The last potential ethical problem is with group regulation and policies. This can occur anytime an organization can self-monitor. The lack of formal structure can introduce the possibility of a "lawless" environment where employees can go rogue because they believe there is no one around to hold them accountable.
The damage caused by ethical dilemmas can be managed and reversed if need be. The organizational developers need to take the time and effort to properly set up the organization to ensure the chosen members are committed to the process and have the emotional intelligence and maturity to make the process work. Any employee who proves to be unable or unwilling to fully embrace the process must be terminated.
Conclusion
The SMTOP embraces the concepts of several existing organizational paradigms. The hybrid model focuses on meticulously structured groups who are comprised of like-minded individuals with similar goals. The theory behind the model is that grouping the employees based upon personality and work preferences creates a more efficient organization with increased morale. Unfortunately, research and literature in the effectiveness in this type of design is lacking. Future studies relating to employees’ feedback on the structure as well as other organizational design structures would be useful.
References
Hirschhorn, L. & Gilmore, T. (1992). The New Boundaries of the 'Boundaryless ' Company. Harvard Business Review, 70: 104-115.
Horling, B. and Lessor, V. (2005). A Survey of Multi-Agent Organizational Paradigms. Retrieved from ftp://shelob.cs.umass.edu/pub/bhorling/horling-paradigms.pdf.
Kates, A. (n.d.). Human Resource Planning, 29.2, Designing the HR Organization.
Mind Tools. (2013). Organization Design Aligning Organizational Structure with Business Goals. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_95.htm#sthash.NRHvoegY.dpuf
Nikless, R. (2013) Financial Review. Making the most of a bossless office. Retrieved from http://www.afr.com/p/national/work_space/managing_performance_in_the_bossless_BkAyYoJiJdDIVg6lt3aGIP.
Varvel, T., Adams, S. G., Pridie, S. J., & Ruiz Ulloa, B. C. (2004). Team Effectiveness and Individual Myers-Briggs Personality Dimensions. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(4), 141-146. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:4(141).
XXX
University of Phoenix
Self-managing Team Organizational Design Paradigm
The Self-managing Team Organizational Paradigm (SMTOP) is a leadership and organizational structure that embraces emotional intelligence and individuals ' work preferences. The model was developed with a combination of several existing models (Compound Model) and is a type of hybrid structure. With guiding principles from the Boundaryless Organizational Design, the Simple Structure Organizational Design, and Congregations model, this model is a Communications Paradigm that serves to bring out the best in the organization by investing time up front in exchange for future efficiencies. The model 's design, the basis for …show more content…
the model, implications for leaders and followers, literature review and gaps, and the ethical considerations will be discussed below.
Model Design
The SMTOP model is a Compound Communications model that exploits the benefits of several organizational paradigms and theories.
The model uses self-managed teams who are comprised of meticulously selected team members. Similar to the fundamentals of the Congregations model, the members are grouped together based upon personality, emotional intelligence, and individual 's work preferences.
SMTOP teams do not have formal, hierarchical structures but rather share the responsibility for governing the team and managing the work. The organization has a facilitator who is the senior organizational leader but this individual does not directly control the group, nor does he or she rate the members. The team 's governance and control remains with the team members, who develop the rules of engagement and rate each other. Employees are motivated to perform in this environment because they have more equity in the processes and outcome.
The Business Unit Organizational Design is the base for the SMTOP. This is where subject matter experts (SME) in a particular area are brought together to work in the area of their expertise. The SMEs work in the most productive manner because they are extremely well versed in the work. Little to no on-the-job training is needed for the team …show more content…
members.
In addition to having a base that is comprised of subject matter experts, the team contains individuals who have similar personalities and work preferences based upon their Meyers Briggs Personality Assessment results. The assessment examines primary aspects of personality, increases self-understanding and explaining how others differ from oneself (Varvel, Adams, Pridie, & Ruiz, 2004). Understanding an individual 's preferences then grouping them together with others who have the same preferences tends to create more effective teams.
Existing Paradigms
Business Unit Organizational Design
The Business Unit Organizational Design utilizes SMEs in a particular area to work in the area of their expertise. The work is completed in a highly productive manner because they are experts in their field and require little to no on-the-job training.
Boundaryless Organizational Design
The Boundaryless Organizational Design is not defined by, or limited to, the horizontal, vertical, or external boundaries imposed by a predefined, hierarchical structure. It is more flexible in the way work is accomplished and is less rigid than the traditional designs (Hirschhorn, L. and Gilmore, T. (1992).
Simple Structure
The Simple Structure Organization is flat. The employees tend to work as a large team any everyone reports to one person. The advantages are efficiency and flexibility, and the job responsibilities are usually clear. The main disadvantage is that this structure can stunt growth when the company gets so big where the senior leader (CEO and so forth) cannot continue to make all the decisions (Mind Tools, 2013).
Congregations
Congregations are groups of individuals who have joined together into a flat, non-hierarchical organization. Unlike other paradigms, congregations are developed to be long-term solutions rather than having a single specific goal in mind. The congregations are formed with individuals who have similar or complementary characteristics to facilitate the work process (2005, p. 1).
Implications for Leaders and Followers
Nikless believes that bosses are becoming obsolete in many organizations (Nikless, 2013). Additionally, she holds that hierarchical management systems can be slow and static. Self-managing teams on the other hand are non-hierarchical groups that are developed to execute specific tasks. "The benefit is gathering individuals with different but complementary skill sets and giving them more autonomy. This reduces absenteeism and improves innovation and performance" (2013, p. 1.).
Developing teams based upon personality, emotional intelligence, and work preferences can raise morale and increase productivity. Employees will be happier because they are working with like-minded teammates and are doing work that they enjoy. The happy employee tends to work harder, which in turn, increases productivity.
A downside for leaders is that developing the teams can initially be time consuming and possibly expensive. The positive side is that the team members should work together in a more efficient and harmonious manner because they are working with others who share the same types of preferences and values. Reducing the amount of disaccord and floundering that can occur in organizations in itself creates a more efficient workplace.
Similar Designs
The model 's construction is similar to University of Phoenix 's Learning Teams. The teams are put together to perform certain functions; in this case, to collaborate on and produce different projects for the class. The teams are self-managing but have the instructor as the facilitator. The instructor does not get involved in the team 's processes or functions but is there to provide guidance when needed and to provide the final approval of the work via the grade.
The difference between the Learning Teams and the newly developed SMTOP model is that the Learning Teams are comprised of random team members, whereas the SMTOP model uses meticulously selected members for the team. The distinction is that the SMTOP teams are developed around personalities and emotional intelligence. The SMTOP teams should in theory work better together and should share common values and motivations.
Just as with the Learning Teams, the SMTOP teams practice the SLP model. The individuals bring their previous knowledge and experience to the group and share it with the others. Each member learns from the next and they all practice what they learn every day. This continuous collaboration and development makes the group stronger as time goes on.
Literature Review and Gaps
The literature review revealed that there is no one type of organization that is suitable for all situations, nor is there one model that fits all organizations (Horling & Lessor, 2005). Organizations can use a combination of the models and can vary their use based upon what the organization needs at the moment, or upon the current state of the organization or its operations. The models are organizational preferences, but do not bind the organizations to them, never to be varied from.
As noted, not all organizational structures fit neatly into a particular paradigm, and some may include characteristics of several different styles. Organizations might contain several paradigms with each supporting a different aspect of the organization. There might be one for overall organizational control, another for communications, a third for production, and so on (2005). The proper mixture of paradigms and their use is critical to organizational success.
Horling and Lessor believe that "the organizational design employed by an agent system can have a significant, quantitative effect on its performance characteristics" (2005, p.
1). The qualitative aspects could be affected as well. The choice for the overall organizational structure can determine the tone within the organization and can positively or negatively affect its productivity. The leaders or owners, which ever may be the case, need to take a careful look at the organization and its mission, vision, and goals to determine which structure best fits.
According to Kates, "The reliance on downward communication that most organizations exhibit inevitably leaves mid- and lower-level staff feeling disconnected. The different messages they hear from their leaders undermine their own ability to work together across organizational boundaries, which presents a challenge" (Kates, n.d., p. 29). The SMTOP model reduces the problems that arise with downward communication because most direction comes laterally and collaboratively. The teams are communicating daily and share information as a
group.
What appears to be lacking in literature and research is how employees view organizations that are developed based upon on paradigm or another. A wide variety of articles and research papers exist that discuss the different models, but there does not seem to me any qualitative studies dealing with employee views or preferences.
Ethical Considerations
As with any business or leadership model, there must be ethical considerations taken into account. With the SMTOP model, the biggest potential issues regarding ethics would be related to the employees ' personalities. The team members ' personalities, the same ones that can make this model effective, can destroy the effectiveness of the model if not monitored and managed.
One personality-based ethical consideration would be regarding the opportunity for favoritism. Not surprising is that people can like or dislike others and whether he or she likes the person will determine his or her attitude toward the person. Additionally, sub-groups can form with in larger groups. The members of the subgroups can create attitudes and patterns of behavior that can show favoritism toward other members. The favoritism can give certain privileges to the "chosen few" that others do not get. The rest of the group may feel slighted because of the behavior and morale may be affected.
Another personality-based ethical issue may come in the form of an uneven workload. This is where job assignments and amount of work are not evenly distributed among the members. The uneven distribution can be caused by individuals taking advantage of the freedom-based structure or can be based upon the favoritism as previously explained.
The last potential ethical problem is with group regulation and policies. This can occur anytime an organization can self-monitor. The lack of formal structure can introduce the possibility of a "lawless" environment where employees can go rogue because they believe there is no one around to hold them accountable.
The damage caused by ethical dilemmas can be managed and reversed if need be. The organizational developers need to take the time and effort to properly set up the organization to ensure the chosen members are committed to the process and have the emotional intelligence and maturity to make the process work. Any employee who proves to be unable or unwilling to fully embrace the process must be terminated.
Conclusion
The SMTOP embraces the concepts of several existing organizational paradigms. The hybrid model focuses on meticulously structured groups who are comprised of like-minded individuals with similar goals. The theory behind the model is that grouping the employees based upon personality and work preferences creates a more efficient organization with increased morale. Unfortunately, research and literature in the effectiveness in this type of design is lacking. Future studies relating to employees’ feedback on the structure as well as other organizational design structures would be useful.
References
Hirschhorn, L. & Gilmore, T. (1992). The New Boundaries of the 'Boundaryless ' Company. Harvard Business Review, 70: 104-115.
Horling, B. and Lessor, V. (2005). A Survey of Multi-Agent Organizational Paradigms. Retrieved from ftp://shelob.cs.umass.edu/pub/bhorling/horling-paradigms.pdf.
Kates, A. (n.d.). Human Resource Planning, 29.2, Designing the HR Organization.
Mind Tools. (2013). Organization Design Aligning Organizational Structure with Business Goals. Retrieved from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_95.htm#sthash.NRHvoegY.dpuf
Nikless, R. (2013) Financial Review. Making the most of a bossless office. Retrieved from http://www.afr.com/p/national/work_space/managing_performance_in_the_bossless_BkAyYoJiJdDIVg6lt3aGIP.
Varvel, T., Adams, S. G., Pridie, S. J., & Ruiz Ulloa, B. C. (2004). Team Effectiveness and Individual Myers-Briggs Personality Dimensions. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(4), 141-146. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2004)20:4(141).