Leading through others

Essay question

Write a 2000 word essay on the following topic...

Introduction

I lead a team of interaction and service designers operating across various geographic locations. The team works with multiple competent authorities, each with differing levels of design and digital maturity. Each team member is embedded into a project team, often as the sole designer. Since 2020, the team has predominantly functioned in a remote working environment. My role is to grow the awareness and adoption of user-centred design principles. I also provide support, mentorship, and coaching to team members, as well as setting the standards for design and delivery across the organisation.

This paper will start with a critical analysis of literature and theories on teams, team leadership, and team effectiveness. The second part of the paper will reflect on how I have facilitated performance in my own team and how my practice has evolved as the team scaled. The final part of the paper will discuss learnings and make recommendations as to how I can enhance my team’s performance.

Analysis of literature

It is widely hypothesised that teams enhance decision-making processes by harnessing diverse knowledge and skills to enhance creativity and innovation (Un & Cuervo-Cazurra, 2004). This theory finds support in Ilgen's work (1999), who noted that the combined efforts of diverse team members outperform that of individuals. However, as cautioned by Guralnick (2014), a team's success hinges on an organisational culture that supports decision making at lower levels. Without this support, the potential benefits of teamwork cannot be realised. Amason et al. (1995) also highlight potential limitations, particularly regarding productivity, as the decision-making process may become protracted. “Too often they slow the decision-making process. Moreover, the resulting decisions are not much different from what the team leader might have concluded alone” (p.21).

Teamwork not only enhances decision-making but also boosts productivity and effectiveness by aligning team members around a shared goal (Bass, 1998). Guralnick (2014) defines teams as groups of interdependent individuals collaborating on independent tasks to achieve a common goal. This definition implies that team members rely on each other's actions, promoting greater awareness of others and adaptive behaviours (Stanford University, 2014). However, in some teams, such as profession-based teams, independence prevails, potentially leading to a focus on individual efforts and influence over others (Stanford University, 2014). Therefore, a more fitting description of teams is that of Roberts (2019), who characterises them as sets of individuals united by a collective aim, intensifying the importance of the common goal emphasised by Bass (1998).

This perspective aligns with various team leadership frameworks, including Morgeson et al.'s (2009) transitions phase leadership functions, which prioritise defining the team's mission as the initial leadership function following team formation. “The primary leadership task is to make sure that the team’s mission is clear, compelling, challenging, and shared among team members” (p. 13). However, a potential pitfall of this approach arises when team members, operating independently on projects, harbour separate or competing goals, potentially disconnecting them from the team's mission and hampering team performance. This is supported by Barry's research (1991) which indicates that a shared comprehension and belief in the mission holds greater significance than the mission itself. Problems can also emerge in large organisations with multiple sub-cultures that may not align with the team's values or mission. This disconnect erodes trust between the team and the organisation, a detrimental outcome noted by Turaga (2013) “there can be nothing more damaging than a lack of trust between the employees of an organisation” (p.4). This mistrust can create a hostile environment that can spread across teams (Turaga, 2013).

Interestingly, Lim and Ployhart (2004) argue that mission-oriented transformational leaders may inadvertently reduce productivity in teams. By fostering a shared purpose, these leaders unite individuals, encouraging them to subdue self-interest for the team's benefit. Amason et al. (1995) suggest that the benefits of team collaboration are only fully realised through conflict. “Conflict is central to team effectiveness because conflict is a natural part of the process that makes team decision making so effective in the first place” (p.21). So, if teams naturally align around ideas, the benefits of conflict and the performance improvements it can bring may be lost. The presence of conflict depends heavily on team diversity (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996) and the leader's ability to manage conflict positively. Mismanagement in this realm has the potential to disrupt team performance and undo previous trust-building efforts. The likelihood of introducing negative conflict may be higher in teams that work remotely, without the foundations of daily communication.

Alternatively, leaders can build trust and alignment to a shared mission by providing timely, accurate, and honest information (Thomas et al., 2009). However, the effectiveness of this trust-building method is heavily reliant on the leader's characteristics. In larger teams, a leader-follower relationship may become unsustainable, leading Boies et al. (2015) to suggest that leaders should instead focus on fostering trust among team members. This perspective aligns with Bidault & Castello's (2009) emphasis on building trusting relationships among team members for enhanced team performance. In design teams, where cooperation and trust are crucial for creativity and innovation (Bonet Fernandez & Jawadi, 2015), this approach becomes even more significant.

How I facilitate the right environment

When taking up the role of head of design my aim was to grow the influence of design across the organisation. To achieve this, I needed to scale the design team and increase collaboration allowing us to operate more efficiently and effectively at scale.

To unify a geographically dispersed, remote team and foster a shared sense of purpose, I created a mission centred on a common passion. This approach aligns with Kriek (2019), who wrote “The leader has to help the team devise a clear, compelling and challenging mission, and ensure that all members have a common understanding thereof” (p.387), and Boies et al. (2015), who stress the importance of collective action around a shared mission for team motivation. This mission-driven focus led to enhanced innovation, creativity, and overall team performance (Bass, 1998). It bolstered team cohesion, facilitating effective collaboration and problem-solving. Over three years, our team grew from 10 to over 60 members, significantly amplifying our impact on digital delivery.

As the team expanded and ventured into new organisational areas, situations arose where I needed to be more pragmatic. Team members may have interpreted this shift as a lack of belief in our mission, potentially eroding trust, and performance. As warned by Guralnick (2014) the team leader must build trust by demonstrating principled leadership, showing that they are committed to the team’s goals and values. To address this, I could have harnessed the team's passion to align with the broader organisational objectives. A strategic perspective, emphasising long-term goals, would have made it easier to explain the value in smaller more tactical approaches. This strategic alignment concept is supported by Nanus (1992), who highlights the role of strategic leaders in setting organisational direction and ensuring team alignment with the mission, and by Tichy and Ulrich (1984), who highlight the importance of aligning teams with broader organisational goals.

To enhance team collaboration, I organised regular community events to build relationships. Some sessions followed a structure, while others were informal sessions, aimed at replicating face-to-face conversations and fostering social connections among team members. This social exchange should enable the team to assess their behaviours and build shared norms. (Bonet Fernandez & Jawadi, 2015). High levels of trust often begin with social interactions (Snellman, 2014). I also introduced daily updates through our team's Slack channel to promote awareness of cross-team activities. This was important because effective collaboration is vital for team success (Guralnick, 2014). Fostering collaboration requires building trusting relationships characterised by honesty, openness, consistency, and respect (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). By establishing regular communication channels, a leader can increase trust between team members “Trust is fundamentally established via communication” (Raisinghani et al., 2010, p.4).

These initiatives led to improved collaboration as team members gained awareness of each other's expertise, cross-functional opportunities, and idea-sharing. This is backed up by Bonet Fernandez and Jawadi (2015) who concluded that cooperation and trust enhance creativity and innovation among team members. However, as the team expanded, the purpose of daily updates became less clear, which in hindsight could have given the impression team members were being checked up on, potentially diminishing trust. The impact of social interactions may also have been hindered by the use of remote communication (Felstead, 2022).

In hindsight a more effective way to enhance communication and trust would have been through face-to-face team events (Purvanova & Bono, 2009). Face-to-face communication maximises social presence and involvement (Hinds & Bailey, 2003), reinforcing social bonds and shared values (Felstead, 2022). Face-to-face meetings can also start to remove the reliance on leader behaviour and direct one-to-one communication instead stimulating communication and trust between team members (Boies et al., 2015). Incorporating shared leadership could have further promoted effective collaboration and performance (Drescher & Garbers, 2016).

How my practice might change

In a smaller team, I adopted a hands-on, interpersonal approach, aligned with Bass (1998) who emphasised the significance of leader characteristics in transformational leadership. However, as the team expanded, maintaining this approach became challenging (Zhuo, 2019). To address this, I implemented a leadership structure, introducing multiple team leader roles, each responsible for distinct portfolio areas. Shared leadership has become essential in modern organisations to enhance responsiveness to complex issues (Morgeson et al., 2009), with studies consistently highlighting its positive impact on team outcomes (Barnett & Weidenfeller, 2016), particularly in virtual teams (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014).

This restructured leadership approach allowed me to sustain the trust established within the smaller team. Team leaders became familiar with team members' daily tasks and projects, eliminating the need to juggle multiple portfolios and reducing context switching that reduces proactive action (Zhuo, 2019). This is backed up by (Bergman et al., 2012) who concluded that teams with shared leadership have less conflict, more consensus, more trust, and more cohesion than teams that do not. Empowering more people in the team to own and make decisions also helped the team to operate successfully at scale and supported team members by allowing them to have a leader who understood the details of their work.

However, this shift resulted in more separation between me and team members, reducing my involvement in day-to-day activities and the personal connections crucial for trust-building (Snellman, 2014). To preserve alignment, foster trust, and enhance collaboration, I will need to maintain visibility by regularly updating the team on progress, goals, and relevant changes. Boies et al. (2015) advocate that individuals trust leaders who share information with them. Additionally, shared leadership may introduce the risk of divergence and confusion regarding the team's mission, “Decisions will be made without your input, and things will be done differently than how you might personally do them” (Zhuo, 2019, p.2). In fact, Locke (2003) argued that leaders cannot fully share responsibilities such as setting direction or establishing values without creating inefficiency, or confusion. Furthermore, the portfolio-based leadership structure introduced silos and divisions, potentially hampering inter-portfolio collaboration, and fostering competitiveness among sub-teams, ultimately diminishing overall team effectiveness.

In future I will need to take on a more strategic role moving away from day-to-day operations to long-term goals and organisational strategy. I will need to ensure alignment between different portfolios, making sure we continue to operate as one cohesive design team. I will do this by keeping regular contact with the entire team, taking advantage of remote communication tools. I will also use in person events to maintain personal relationships within the team. I will also need to adapt as the needs of the team evolve “Leaders need multiple perspectives to get a complete picture. Effective leaders zoom in and zoom out” (Kanter, 2011).

Conclusion and recommendations

Leading a dispersed design team involves aligning team members around shared goals, embracing diversity, and fostering trust between team members. Through this approach, I increased the size of my team and improved efficiency through shared working. The literature analysis highlights the importance of open communication as well as the need to mitigate challenges like conflicting goals, organisational differences, and an over reliance on leader characteristics.

Effective leadership of teams involves creating empowered and diverse teams who come together and build trust through a shared understanding of team goals. The ability to harness conflict so that the benefits of team working can be realised is key especially in remote work settings. To achieve this, I have focussed on building social connections between team members creating a safe environment for constructive challenge and collaboration. For the team to continue to be effective I implemented a shared leadership structure ensuring team members are supported by leaders who understand the context of their work.

In future I will need to distribute responsibilities effectively without creating divergence in the team and maintain visibility by sharing information regularly. I will also need to better utilise face-to-face events to enhance social interactions and trust-building within the team. Looking forward, I will need to shift towards a more strategic role ensuring my team is aligned with wider organisational objectives. A holistic perspective is key to the effective leadership of a large team, with the flexibility to move into the detail when required (Kanter, 2011).

References

Amason, A. C., Thompson, K. R., Hochwarter, W. A., & Harrison, A. W. (1995). Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(95)90069-1

Barnett, R. C., & Weidenfeller, N. K. (2016). Shared Leadership and Team Performance. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 18(3), 336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1523422316645885

Barry, D. (1991). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 20(1), 31.

Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industrial, military, and educational impact. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The shared leadership process in decision-making teams. Journal of Social Psychology, 152(1), 17-42.

Bidault, F., & Castello, A. (2008). Trust and creativity: Identifying the role of trust in creativity-oriented joint-developments. ESMT Research Working Papers, ESMT-08-010. ESMT European School of Management and Technology.

Boies, K., Fiset, J., & Gill, H. (2015). Communication and trust are key: Unlocking the relationship between leadership and team performance and creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1080-1094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.07.007

Bonet Fernandez, D., & Jawadi, N. (2015). Virtual R&D Project Teams: From E-Leadership To Performance. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 31(5), 1693-1708.

Drescher, G., & Garbers, Y. (2016). Shared leadership and commonality: A policy-capturing study. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 200-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.002

Felstead, A. (2022). Remote Working and the Employer. In Remote Working (1st Edition, pp. 20). Routledge. eBook ISBN: 9781003247050. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003247050-4

Guralnick, S. (2014). Competency 6. Provide leadership skills that enhance team functioning, the learning environment, and/or the health care delivery system/environment with the ultimate intent of improving care of patients. 14(2), S92-S93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2013.11.051

Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in Organizations: Recent Research on Performance and Effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307-338. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307

Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of Sight, Out of Sync: Understanding Conflict in Distributed Teams. Organization Science, 14(6), 615. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872

Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading Virtual Teams: Hierarchical Leadership, Structural Supports, and Shared Team Leadership. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390-403.

Ilgen, D. (1999). Teams embedded in organizations – some implications. American Psychologist, 54(2), 129–139.

Kanter, R. M. (2011). Managing Yourself: Zoom In, Zoom Out. Harvard Business Review, 89(3). Boston: Harvard Business Review.

Kriek, D. (2019). Team Leadership: Theories, Tools, and Techniques. Randburg: KR Publishing.

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What Must Go Right, What Can Go Wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

Lim, B.-C., & Ployhart, R. E. (2004). Transformational Leadership: Relations to the Five-Factor Model and Team Performance in Typical and Maximum Contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 610-621. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 271-284). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., & Karam, E. P. (2009). Leadership in Teams: A Functional Approach to Understanding Leadership Structures and Processes. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390-403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309347376

Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary Leadership: Creating a Compelling Sense of Direction for Your Organization. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 20, 237.

Purvanova, R. K., & Bono, J. E. (2009). Transformational leadership in context: Face-to-face and virtual teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 343-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.03.004

Raisinghani, M., Arora, A., Baylor, E., Brown-Philips, S., Coleman, C., & Craig, K. (2010). Virtual Project Management Of Globally Outsourced IT Projects. International Journal of Management & Information Systems, 14(5), 1. Littleton: The Clute Institute. https://doi.org/10.19030/ijmis.v14i5.7

Roberts, V. Z. (2019). The Organization of Work: Contributions from Open Systems Theory (2nd Edition). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351104166-5

Snellman, C. L. (2014). Virtual Teams: Opportunities and Challenges for e-Leaders. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 110, 1251-1261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.972

Stanford University. (2014). Clash of independence and interdependence creates conflict, fuels gender inequality | The Clayman Institute for Gender Research. https://gender.stanford.edu/news/clash-independence-and-interdependence-creates-conflict-fuels-gender-inequality

Thomas, G. F., Zolin, R., & Hartman, J. L. (2009). The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 46(3), 287-310. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943609333522

Tichy, N. M., & Ulrich, D. O. (1984). SMR Forum: The Leadership Challenge - A Call for the Transformational Leader. Sloan Management Review, 26(1), 59-68. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Turaga, R. (2013). Building Trust in Teams: A Leader's Role. IUP Journal of Soft Skills, 7(2), 13-31. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1434052413

Un, C. A., & Cuervo-Cazurra, A. (2004). Strategies for Knowledge Creation in Firms. British Journal of Management, 15(S1), 27-41. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Zhuo, J. (2019, March 13). Leading Teams: As Your Team Gets Bigger, Your Leadership Style Has to Adapt.

Bibliography

Berson, Y., & Linton, J. D. (2005). An examination of the relationships between leadership style, quality, and employee satisfaction in R&D versus administrative environments. R & D Management, 35(1), 51-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00371.x

Fay, D., Shipton, H., West, M. A., & Patterson, M. (2014). Teamwork and Organizational Innovation: The Moderating Role of the HRM Context. Journal of Management, 40(2), 508-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12100

Glassop, L. I. (2002). The organizational benefits of teams. Human Relations, 55(2), 225-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726702055002184

Hakanen, M., & Soudunsaari, A. (2012). Building trust in high-performing teams. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(6), 38-41.

Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2007). Creativity in Innovative Projects: How Teamwork Matters. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(1), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12100

Isik, M., Timuroglu, K., & Aliyev, Y. (2015). The relationship between teamwork and organizational trust. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), 4(1), 113-132. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v4i1.33

Kitson, A., Harvey, G., & McCormack, B. (1998). Enabling the implementation of evidence-based practice: A conceptual framework. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 7(3), 149-158. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.7.3.149

Lin, C., Liu, C., Joe, S., Chen, K., & Tsai, C. (2022). Modelling leadership and team performance: The moderation of politics and leadership self-efficacy. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 33(1-2), 73-91. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2020.1794804

McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Parker, D., Holesgrove, M., & Pathak, R. (2015). Improving productivity with self-organized teams and agile leadership. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 64(1), 112-128. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2013-0178

Zhang, X., Cao, Q., & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Linking transformational leadership and team performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1586-1611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00974.x

Share on Twitter