The modern, effective team leader is much different than the concept of giving orders and simply making directives. The concepts of trust, communication, psychological safety, and even shared leadership are all present. An effective leader knows their team, listens to their team, influences the team, and gets the highest level of achievement from each team member (Levi, 2015). By empowering team members, creating a high level of employee satisfaction, and mentoring the group to maintain high standards, a leader can be truly effective (Sosik & Jung, 2010). With all these responsibilities, the modern, effective team leader must truly know their employees.
It is not enough to simply know the family names of a subordinate, or what hobbies they like. The modern, effective leader must understand how teams interact. From the formation stage of the team, where the team comes together to learn about other members, the leader must be involved to ensure success (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). As the group grows through each of the stages, the leader must understand the social roles, task roles, and even dysfunctional roles that damage a team (Benne & Sheats, 1948). Quick recognition of someone as a coordinator, energizer, or recorder will help an effective leader position that member to aid in the team’s goals. And it’s just as important to recognize the interference caused by the disrupter, dominator, or aggressor will harm the team. So, of these traits, which one is more important for the effective leader to possess?
Effective leaders must first and foremost be adaptable. The old maxim, “my way or the highway,” has no place in modern effective leadership. Leaders must, occasionally, adapt job roles to meet employees’ needs, and at times, change employees to meet the job (Yukl, 2009). The leader must be comfortable in mentoring, developing, and empowering employees to succeed (Sosik & Jung, 2010). The idea that the modern leader is one specific “type” is simply not what makes them effective. They may choose to lead exclusively or share their position in the team.
So, what about sharing leadership?
The concept of shared leadership exists, but typically in the highest of collaborative teams (Northouse, 2013). The concept that a group can exist by sharing leadership occurs when the group themselves have highly developed, psychologically safe environments (Levi, 2015). There has been a trust developed among members, as well as a high degree of communication (Levi, 2015). The key to making shared leadership work is that the team itself must have the authority to effect change (Lindsay, Day, & Halpin, 2011).
It is possible for shared leadership to exist; however, it is unlikely in its purist form. Most organizations have a much more formal structure of leadership with little ability to give up so much to subordinates. It is much more common to see a self-managed team, where there is still a single leader (Pearce & Conger, 2003). These teams are typically goal-specific and exercise some authority over a specific area. True shared leadership is rare and has many obstacles prior to the level of trust and communication needed to make it work (Pearce & Conger, 2003). Each member must have a specific role which moves the team’s goals forward.
Are roles important?
Leaders would be well-served to understand the various roles that come with teams. While not every team fills every roll, the more likely scenario is that there will be generalized categories such as task, social, and dysfunctional role players (Benne & Sheats, 1948). It is important to further understand that people exhibit different traits from different roles, depending on situation, other group members, or even emotional responses. As stated, leaders must be familiar, and more importantly, adapt to the concept that an employee is exhibiting different traits at a particular time. By properly positioning the proper role player in a team with the most complimentary people and skill set, leaders are able to elicit the best job satisfaction from their people (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). In reverse, a leader can place the wrong role player, or wrong skill set employee in the wrong job and create havoc.
The most glaring example in history of this is Benedict Arnold. He was a tactician and warrior with a proven track record of failed, bankrupted businesses, questionable, unethical business decisions, and a lack of competent record keeping (History.Com Staff, 2009). So, why did Washington send Arnold to be the Governor of Philadelphia at a time when Arnold had won Saratoga, been a masterful leader at Ticonderoga, and taken Fort Stanwix in Western New York? The basic premise is that a leader can set a subordinate up for failure by misinterpreting the situation, taking away the employee’s feeling of self-empowerment, and losing trust in the employee (Brusman, 2014). Arnold was at a high in his career and was overlooked as a leader at Saratoga by his superior, General Gates. Gates claimed the credit (Discerning History Staff, 2013). Again, Washington misread the situation and thought he was doing Arnold a favor by sending him to be Governor of Philadelphia — a highly coveted position in the eyes of Washington and most of his aristocratic team. Yet, Arnold was not from “old money” and not driven by title as much as by ego among the commoner (Discerning History Staff, 2013). As such, Arnold’s job satisfaction plummeted, and he gave in to temptations that ultimately led to his downfall. Knowing what we know now, it is very likely that Arnold’s legacy would be different if handled by a team leader who recognized Arnold’s traits and used him more advantageously. Assigning the correct person to a group role is extremely important for leaders to understand so they can provide the essential elements for a functioning team.
Why would leaders want teams?
If you have ever been a part of a team. it is certainly a joy to study the workings and dynamics that accompany it. Trust between members, a psychologically safe work environment, and mutual support is all observed among members (Levi, 2015). Teams are formed to be complimentary of one another, and leaders carefully develop their team members to forward the goals set forth. Teams are much more autonomous than a simple group, even though the terms are often used interchangeably. Groups tend to be for specific tasks and still fall under a single leader — they are much less autonomous and are usually in conflict at some level (Levi, 2015). Strong leaders will desire to have teams of strong role players who can forward the organizational goal. Working to develop a team will reap large rewards for any leader. Having teams that are versatile and autonomous make for increased development (Levi, 2015).
References
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional Roles of Group Members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 1-49.
Brusman, D. M. (2014). Creating a Climate for Innovation. Retrieved from WorkingResources.com: http://www.workingresources.com/professionaleffectivenessarticles/creating-a-climate-for-innovation.html
Discerning History Staff. (2013, May 8). The Treason of Benedict Arnold. Retrieved from Discerning History: http://discerninghistory.com/2013/05/the-treason-of-benedict-arnold/
History.Com Staff. (2009). Benedict Arnold. Retrieved from History .com: http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/benedict-arnold
Kullman, D. (2015). He was a Benedict Arnold: Did he have to be? State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Kullman, D. (2015). Personal Leadership Development Plan: Daren Kullman. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University.
Levi, D. (2015). Group dynamics for teams (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lindsay, D., Day, D., & Halpin, S. (2011). Shared leadership in the military: Reality, possibility, or pipedream? Special issues on Military Leadership: Past Present and Considerations for the Future. Military Psychology, 23, 58-549.
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice 6th ed. Los Angeles/ London/New Delhi/ Singapore/Washongton D.C.: Sage.
Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (2003). Shared Leadership:reframing the hows and whys of leadership? Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Sosik, J., & Jung, D. I. (2010). Full Range Leadership Development: Pathways for people, profit, and planet. New York: Routledge.
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427.
Yukl, G. (2009). Leadership in Organizations 2nd edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
