High-performing teams can be difficult to manage. By their very definition they take on lives of their own as they strive to achieve success.
They’re internally driven, and require the freedom to create their own processes and working relationships. To a large degree they can be self-sufficient. Even to the point where they begin to determine their own futures.
In this atmosphere it can be difficult to apply corporate structures or effect change within a group. And to a great deal successful teams are best left alone — why tamper? But teams can be victims of their own success. And management would not be doing its job if it left teams entirely to their own devices.
Teams can not be left unsupported. They will require resources, such as access to training and development opportunities or technology.
HR must be positioned to help teams when necessary. HR departments that are able to apply organizational effectiveness strategies must be able to identify and assist high-performing teams that, with others, form the basis for corporate success.
There may also be times when group dynamics can work against teams.
If a team becomes too cliquish it will be unable to build necessary relationships with other teams and departments, hampering corporate agendas such as knowledge sharing. And teams can become overconfident to the point of ignoring external input that could be of value.
They can also be delicate and HR must guard against losing too many key members or adding wrong members to the mix — be it from recruitment choices or internal reassignments. A disaffected team leader can bolt with the risk that the team will follow. Because of the cult of personality that can exist within team dynamics, it is easy for a team member who has found a spot with another organization to lure other members away. Depending on the nature of the job in question, HR may want to carefully examine non-competition clauses in employment contracts to ensure the organization isn’t handing a winning personnel formula over to the competition.
Ensuring a team isn’t turning sour on an organization’s management requires an investment in communications with team members. Employers need to understand a team’s needs and motivations. Communication is also key in achieving team buy-in for corporate initiatives or else resistance and failure are the result.
And HR and corporate policies need to be flexible to accommodate unique behaviours or requirements.
Providing both freedom to flourish and support to succeed requires a delicate balancing act. Of course, a high-achieving team is a nice problem to have. In the end it’s often wise to hire and reward the best and trust them to deliver.
They’re internally driven, and require the freedom to create their own processes and working relationships. To a large degree they can be self-sufficient. Even to the point where they begin to determine their own futures.
In this atmosphere it can be difficult to apply corporate structures or effect change within a group. And to a great deal successful teams are best left alone — why tamper? But teams can be victims of their own success. And management would not be doing its job if it left teams entirely to their own devices.
Teams can not be left unsupported. They will require resources, such as access to training and development opportunities or technology.
HR must be positioned to help teams when necessary. HR departments that are able to apply organizational effectiveness strategies must be able to identify and assist high-performing teams that, with others, form the basis for corporate success.
There may also be times when group dynamics can work against teams.
If a team becomes too cliquish it will be unable to build necessary relationships with other teams and departments, hampering corporate agendas such as knowledge sharing. And teams can become overconfident to the point of ignoring external input that could be of value.
They can also be delicate and HR must guard against losing too many key members or adding wrong members to the mix — be it from recruitment choices or internal reassignments. A disaffected team leader can bolt with the risk that the team will follow. Because of the cult of personality that can exist within team dynamics, it is easy for a team member who has found a spot with another organization to lure other members away. Depending on the nature of the job in question, HR may want to carefully examine non-competition clauses in employment contracts to ensure the organization isn’t handing a winning personnel formula over to the competition.
Ensuring a team isn’t turning sour on an organization’s management requires an investment in communications with team members. Employers need to understand a team’s needs and motivations. Communication is also key in achieving team buy-in for corporate initiatives or else resistance and failure are the result.
And HR and corporate policies need to be flexible to accommodate unique behaviours or requirements.
Providing both freedom to flourish and support to succeed requires a delicate balancing act. Of course, a high-achieving team is a nice problem to have. In the end it’s often wise to hire and reward the best and trust them to deliver.
