David H. Sherrod wrote:
>> J.B. suggested:
>> * A team must not have a designated leader. If everyone on the team
is
>> not a "supervisor" for the team, the team will break down into a
>> traditional hierarchy.
> I'd like to offer another alternative. This is what we're doing for
> quality improvement teams at the State of Ohio. I'm sharing this
> because
> the employees have used this structure for other teams, not only those
> chartered for quality improvement purposes.
David, thanks for your alternatives. I have a few observations regarding
them.
* It seems to me that you have assigned titles to the responsibilities of
any team, but I'm not clear what purpose these titles serve. In the team
on which I work all of these tasks are completed. Most of them, such as
the responsibilities of your Scribe and Team Leader, are rotated monthly,
and the person that last served that role is responsible for making sure
the rotation occurs. To me, entitling these roles imposes unnecessary
walls between the team members. Without titles we still manage to
accomplish the same work quite efficiently. But when, for instance, the
"team leader" (if we had one) is absent we don't panic. Someone else
quite naturally and without prodding always manages to take on the same
role.
* It seems as if the majority of your titles revolve around meetings. My
concern is that the activities of the team do not focus upon meetings,
which far too often does happen. Meetings are necessary, but when they
become the focus of team structure, I'm afraid they'll take a precedence
that will stagnate the actual productivity of the team. I like to think
of meetings as facilitative, not goals.
* The Facilitator position that you mention is the only unusual person in
that this person is not a part of the team. I do like this. It "feels"
right. I'd have to think on this one a little more. If you have more
insights or information regarding the Facilitator, let me know.
* It seems that the freedoms I suggested are to a large degree present in
your teams. The develop their own objectives and their own evaluations.
That's solid.
* Basically, I can't help from feeling that you have a half-developed team
atmosphere. I hope that doesn't sound like a strong criticism. I'm still
interested in further dialog. I just feel like our team without titles
does the same things and that titles -- if they can be avoided -- are
unnecessarily restrictive.
* I notice that we're neighbors! I am in Columbus also. I work at
Chemical Abstracts.
J.B.
--"Bryant, J B" <jbryant@cas.org>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>