I would like to discuss the team I was a part of at my internship at Zurich North America this past summer. I view this team as one of the most successful teams I have been a part of in my prior work experience. In order to protect my colleagues' identities, I will use pseudonyms when calling people by name. The team I was a part of was composed of fourteen people who served to support the many functions customer-facing insurance claims teams complete. This team comprised of two managers, and a team of ten analysts, a consultant, and an intern (me). Of the various structures of teams discussed in Bolman and Deal's Reframing Organizations, the team I was a part of had elements of multiple of these structures. Furthermore, as you follow the structure of this team from the top-down, three major structures can be found.
As previously stated, this team's management included two people: Jessica who oversaw all the operations of the team as a whole and Michele who was the middle manager who reported to Jessica and supervised the team directly. In this breakdown of management, the first identifiable structure of this team can be seen: a simple hierarchy (104). Following this structure, this allowed Jessica to focus on larger strategies and communicate with other top-level managers. Michele was able to provide us with direct advice and also directly observe our team's successes and failures. In this way, Michele could tailor the course of our work to our changing environments while still following Jessica's overall strategy therefore creating a more successful workspace.
Underneath this simple hierarchy, another Bolman and Deal structure could be found: a dual authority (104). Due to the many tasks my team was a part of, several analysts were named "subject-matter experts" (SMEs) to guide each task and report the progress of that task to Michele. In essence, these SMEs were another management level that could be found directly underneath Michele. Following the structure of a dual authority, this reduced Michele's need to communicate and direct each member which allowed time for her to focus on following Jessica's overall strategy.
Under the guidance of SMEs, tasks were completed in groups. Suppose there was a group of five members of the team: four analysts, one of them being the SME, and the intern, me. The way this group was structured followed Bolman and Deal's description of an all-channel, or star, network (105). Due to the complexity of some of the larger tasks, such as auditing the team's overall performance, multiple smaller tasks were required to complete the group's main objective. A great deal of autonomy was given to each member to complete their portion of the task at hand, and members would talk to each other on a regular basis to touch base on the progress of the overall task. Because of the complexity of the tasks, this structure made the group more successful than if there were, for example, a one-boss arrangement (103) in place.
This team also fit within Katzenbach and Smith's six characteristics of high-quality teams (111, 112). First, the team shaped its purpose in response to demands and opportunities placed by higher management. As a result of the simple hierarchy, Michele was able to guide our team in the direction of Jessica's overall strategic model and the miscellaneous demands or opportunities that Jessica might also put in place. Second, the team translated a common purpose into specific, measurable performance goals. These measurable goals were put in place across all levels of management; from Jessica down to SMEs. As I mentioned as well, groups audited the team's overall performance to see if our performance matched those goals set in place. Third, this team was of a manageable size; it fits Katzenbach and Smith's requirement of two to twenty-five people and strove to find the size of a group that would best fit a task. Fourth, the right mix of expertise was included within this team. Each team member was selected based upon their prior experiences, technical expertise, and overall previous performance. Moreover, Jessica and Michele sought to improve those skills and find other people to potentially become a member of the team. Fifth, through the use of responsibility charting, this team developed a common commitment to working relationships. SMEs were created to present a framework for responsibilities and to assign accountability to different groups and individuals. Finally, in conjunction with assigning accountability through the use of SMEs and following Jessica's overall strategy, this group was able to hold themselves collectively accountable.
As a disclaimer, while the team fit within the six characteristics defined by Katzenbach and Smith, problems did arise due to the complexity of the many tasks this team was a part of. In other words, this team was not perfect. Many tasks and structures are continually improved over time to adapt to changing environments and improve the team's overall performance. While this perhaps means that team falls out of a few of the characteristics described by Katzenbach and Smith, Bolman and Deal suggest that if leaders act accordingly, this can only make for an even more successful team (116).
Images of structures can be found at: Chapter 5 - Lee Bolman Powerpoint
You discussed structure in this post, which is good because that was the prompt. But you didn't talk about the activities of group members at all and as a result you don't really support your claims with evidence. As an intern you had your own stuff to work on in the team. How did you know about the stuff the other team members were doing and how did the pieces fit together? An example of this would have made this a much better essay. As it is now, there are many claims that you make but you don't substantiate them.
ReplyDeleteAs an intern, I did have my own projects to work on in the team itself. But most of these projects were a part of a much larger project. Specifically, the kinds of projects that were led by SMEs, as referenced in my essay. For example, I worked on an extensive project involving state-required forms. Following the structure of my essay, I will go through this project from the top of the food chain to the bottom. Jessica had the task to find out how accurate and how current the forms we had are. Jessica created another management level through assigning a SME, let's call her Karen, to oversee the specifics of this project and track overall progress while Jessica focused on managing many projects similar to this. Karen then assigned me an even more specific task. My specific task was to attempt to find those forms that differentiated from those on record and those forms that we did not have at all. You could say that I had the most technical task while the people above me had increasingly broader tasks, at least associated with this specific project.
ReplyDeleteDue to my involvement and observation of many other projects, I was able to determine that, generally speaking, this was the manner in which most projects were structurally handled.