Last week my teams Mikes Bikes rollover was extremely successful. We grew our shareholder value from fifth place in our region, to first place in the region. We were the only team in our region to increase our shareholder values, every other teams decreased. I believe my team works well together at the meetings, we all put in equal amounts of effort and all get along well. If I was asked last week, I would have said that is part of the reason we had been doing well, as I believe it contributed to our success. Because my team all work so well together and contribute to decisions, there is no one person leading our group and making all the decisions, instead as we all make decisions together as on our team’s strategy is based on a decentralised structure (Knights & Wilmott, 2012). However, this week, nothing had changed in terms of our team dynamics, but our results have definitely taken a turn for the worst. Just as we were getting into the swing of things and believed we were making some good progress with our bike company, we had a decrease in our shareholder value after this roll over. Maybe our decentralised structure wasn’t so effective after all? Were the issues we faced this week because of our informal team dynamics? Or were the results we obtained inevitable regardless of the structure of our team? I am beginning to believe that my team may be falling into the trap of being made up entirely of people whom have traits of a follower because my team is so decentralised with its structure, this may be preventing us from stepping up and become more successful as individuals in our roles assigned within the group.
According to Katz (1955) I will be able to develop and train myself in order to become an effective marketer in my group. Because the team dynamics have in effect created a group of followers with no true leaders, I was beginning to think I would not be able to fulfil my designated role as a marker as effectively as I could have with a different management structure in place within the group. Katz (1955) explains that there are three main skills I can develop to become more effective within the group. These skills are technical skills (knowledge and skills), human skills (social skills) and conceptual skills (abstract thinking and thinking outside the box). Becoming an effective administrator in my opinion is very similar to becoming an effective leader. I believe this because I believe they are almost the same thing but I still question my own ability to become an effective leader within the group. Does my personality meet the requirements set by theorists (Collin, 2005; Katz, 1955) in regards to becoming a good manager?
Although I am unsure if it will work out, I am still vowing to strive to become a more effective leader within my group. However I would ideally like to achieve this whilst retaining my follower aspects of my character.
Collins, J. C. (2005). Level 5 leadership: the triumph of humility and fierce resolve. Harvard Business Review, 83(7/8), 136--146
Katz, R. L. (1955). Skills of an effective administrator. Harvard Business Review, 33(1), 33--42.
Knights, D., & Wilmott, H. (2012). Introducing Organisational Behaviour and Management. (2nd edition). London: Thomson Learning.