"All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. Giving one person central authority and responsibility for a project or task is not an effective way to get work done."
There are many schools of thought regarding the best way for organizations and companies to operate - one school of thought is that teamwork and consensus is most important, while another school of through asserts that strong leadership is more important to quality work. The author here asserts that groups and organizations should operate as teams, and no one person should be given central authority because it's not an effective way to get work done. This argument is flawed for many reasons including the lack of accountability of teams without central authority figures, the slow decision-making process by consensus, and the unorganized information and communication flow. Therefore, it's to the benefit of an organization to create teams with appointed leaders to work most effectively.
In reality, most teams elect a de facto leader who unifies all members, regardless of whether or not the person was specifically chosen to lead the team. This organic process is evidence that a strong leader is necessary for many reasons, not the least of which is unify his or her team. A team without a leader can quickly splinter with members working in silos, eschewing collaboration to work independently. Unfortunately, this may lead to all members losing sight of their ultimate goal: the most effective process to complete their assigned project.
In addition to a loss of unity, a lack of team leadership can slow the decision-making process. Decision-making by consensus is a slow and laborious task, and some team members may absolutely refuse to budge on their position. A team leader can break the stalemate and efficiently decide the next course of action for the team.
Common to teams without leaders is the lack of organization when attempting to relay and receive messages from those outside of the team. Supervisors and outside clients often look to one person as their main point of contact, as a sole contact is reliable and reassuring. If identified, the leader of a team, acting as the point of contact for supervisors, clients or anyone outside the team, becomes the go-to person for all those outside of the team, as well as for the members. An effective process flow where one person - the team leader - communicates with all stakeholders then distributes the information to fellow team members is both effective and efficient.
It can be argued that appointing a central authority figure can lead to a dictatorial person who ignores the input of his or her teammates. However, this situation is easily avoided through organic team dynamics. This dictator is outnumbered by teammates who can and most likely will argue their point of view until the authority figure at least compromises if not folds. Very few people appreciate a dictator who ignores their contributions, especially if they believe their leader is guiding the team in the wrong direction.
In short, the argument that groups and organizations are more effective when a central authority figure is not appointed is flawed in many respects. While some leaders may reveal themselves as dictators, a central leader benefits the team and the organization due to their ability to unify the efforts of the team, their authority to break stalemates when making decisions, and their role as the central point of contact for the team members and the organization as a whole. Therefore, groups and organizations are best served when teams have a clear leader.
____________________
I welcome your input. Thanks in advance!
There are many schools of thought regarding the best way for organizations and companies to operate - one school of thought is that teamwork and consensus is most important, while another school of through asserts that strong leadership is more important to quality work. The author here asserts that groups and organizations should operate as teams, and no one person should be given central authority because it's not an effective way to get work done. This argument is flawed for many reasons including the lack of accountability of teams without central authority figures, the slow decision-making process by consensus, and the unorganized information and communication flow. Therefore, it's to the benefit of an organization to create teams with appointed leaders to work most effectively.
In reality, most teams elect a de facto leader who unifies all members, regardless of whether or not the person was specifically chosen to lead the team. This organic process is evidence that a strong leader is necessary for many reasons, not the least of which is unify his or her team. A team without a leader can quickly splinter with members working in silos, eschewing collaboration to work independently. Unfortunately, this may lead to all members losing sight of their ultimate goal: the most effective process to complete their assigned project.
In addition to a loss of unity, a lack of team leadership can slow the decision-making process. Decision-making by consensus is a slow and laborious task, and some team members may absolutely refuse to budge on their position. A team leader can break the stalemate and efficiently decide the next course of action for the team.
Common to teams without leaders is the lack of organization when attempting to relay and receive messages from those outside of the team. Supervisors and outside clients often look to one person as their main point of contact, as a sole contact is reliable and reassuring. If identified, the leader of a team, acting as the point of contact for supervisors, clients or anyone outside the team, becomes the go-to person for all those outside of the team, as well as for the members. An effective process flow where one person - the team leader - communicates with all stakeholders then distributes the information to fellow team members is both effective and efficient.
It can be argued that appointing a central authority figure can lead to a dictatorial person who ignores the input of his or her teammates. However, this situation is easily avoided through organic team dynamics. This dictator is outnumbered by teammates who can and most likely will argue their point of view until the authority figure at least compromises if not folds. Very few people appreciate a dictator who ignores their contributions, especially if they believe their leader is guiding the team in the wrong direction.
In short, the argument that groups and organizations are more effective when a central authority figure is not appointed is flawed in many respects. While some leaders may reveal themselves as dictators, a central leader benefits the team and the organization due to their ability to unify the efforts of the team, their authority to break stalemates when making decisions, and their role as the central point of contact for the team members and the organization as a whole. Therefore, groups and organizations are best served when teams have a clear leader.
____________________
I welcome your input. Thanks in advance!
