Team Dynamics

Team Dynamics

Introduction

By definition, team dynamics is "the unseen forces that operate in a team between different groups of people," (Team Dynamics, 2005). Throughout the world, teams have shown, once precisely and properly managed, to form a dynamic force to be reckoned with in terms of achieving specific goals and objectives. Theoretically, and at first glance, the mere thought of joining a group of people and designating them with a specific goal to be reached in a specified amount of time, might appear not only as quite "straight forward", but as a basic way of allowing equally shared workloads, resulting in both positive and beneficial accomplishments. Realistically, forming a group of people to work synergistically in achieving a specific goal may be one of the most complicated and frustrating encounters, unless efficient and thorough research and planning is first done. Because of the enormous amount of everyday issues teams are faced with, we have sought to focus on three main and very important issues that tend to form and bring negative effects within teams.

Leadership Styles

According to a study completed by Kurt Lewin and his colleagues in 1939, there are three major leadership styles: a) autocratic, b) democratic, and c) laissez-faire (Straker, 2004). Although each style has distinctive benefits and downfalls, the study indicated one style to be more frequently successful.

Since 1939, numerous studies have been conducted to further understand leadership styles. The majority of these studies have suggested a variety of leadership styles, most of which fall on a continuum from autocratic leadership to laissez-faire leadership, and generally find democratic leadership in the middle (Nicolaou-Smokoviti, 2004). This paper will discuss the strengths and shortcomings of each style, as well as their placement on this continuum.

Autocratic Leadership

The most classic of Lewin's leadership styles is autocratic leadership. In this leadership model, the leader of the team has all decision-making power. The team is included to complete the work; however, the leader does not consult the team for ideas, and the team does not to provide any input. Leaders expect team members follow directions without receiving explanations (Styles of Leadership, 2002).

In certain situations, including areas of training, limited timeframes, and coordination with other teams or organizations, autocratic leadership can be extremely effective. Poorly managed and disorganized teams benefit highly from this type of leadership. If employees have not responded well to other types of leadership before, or if a team member has challenged the leader's power, autocracy may be the answer (Styles of Leadership, 2002).

However, if employees require personal motivation, autocratic leadership will not produce positive results. Having a sense of partnership and importance is sometimes vital to success within teams. This type of leadership sometimes leads to a high turnover rate in businesses as well as low team morale and work stoppage if team members do not feel included (Styles of Leadership, 2002).

On the leadership continuum, autocratic leadership is one extreme. The team is denied any input and the leader makes all decisions, without any discussion. The leader accepts full responsibility for all decisions because they are their sole discretion.

Democratic Leadership

The center of the leadership continuum is democratic leadership. Often referred to as "participative leadership," team members are encouraged to take part in decision making. The leader's position is to coach and encourage the others to participate, but has the final decision-making power (Styles of Leadership, 2002). Employing democratic leadership is a sign of strength that commands respect (Clark, 2005).

Democracy works best when tackling large projects that require a great deal of input. It is necessary to have a well-informed team, as well as full trust in team members for democratic leadership to function properly. This leadership style is useful in boosting team morale and allowing team members to learn more about the inner workings of the organization. Democracy allows for personal growth, and maintains potential for self-satisfaction (Styles of Leadership, 2002).

Diversity within a democratic team assists in spreading knowledge throughout the group. By creating a diverse team, members have confidence in their personal expertise, and have the opportunity to expand their horizons by working with various disciplines. Diverse democratic teams, however, need careful monitoring. If a team becomes too diverse, there will be an overabundance of opinions, and no way of arriving at a common decision. Without the ability to arrive at a common decision, democracy falls apart. The leader's position is sometimes compromised because of extreme diversity, if the leader lacks the proper knowledge to pull together the information provided by each team member.

Another problem that commonly arises from the use of democracy in a team is lost time. Because a single person does not make the decision, much conversation and debate is likely to ensue. Precious time can be lost while discussing ideas and options (Styles of Leadership, 2002).

Laissez-Faire Leadership

At the opposite end of the leadership continuum from autocracy is laissez-faire leadership. In this type of leadership, the leader actually takes little, if any, part in the decision-making process. The members of the team are encouraged to take an extremely active position in making decisions.

Laissez-faire is most effective when team members are highly educated and skilled. Fiercely driven team members excel under this type of leadership, hence it is often coined "free-reign leadership," (Clark, 2005). By handing over all responsibility for decision-making to the team, excessive amounts of knowledge can be channeled between large groups or organizations of people.

Laissez-faire leadership fails when the team leaders are incapable of providing constructive feedback to team members. These types of leaders must be capable of delegating work, while retaining responsibility for the output. Effective laissez-faire leaders are not looking for the "easy way out," rather they are able to trust the team members to make intelligent decisions based on their knowledge. Leaders who are unable to produce praise and thanks to the team for a job well done will not be effective laissez-faire leaders (Styles of Leadership, 2002).

Team