Leading_the_Project_Team

Topic: Leading The Project Team Topic Preview The literature covering the issues of both team and leadership contains a wide range of perspectives. This topic presents a summary of the key theories supporting both of these issues. The perspective is very much one of presenting a number of theories, rather than selecting a single ‘correct’ theory. One benefit of this approach is that it allows project managers the opportunity to widen their awareness of different approaches to the problems of staffing teams and the subsequent leadership of them. In this manner, the possibilities for application of these theories are introduced at a basic level. Topic Content Groups and Teams Walker (1996) provides an overview of two types of thinking that clearly illustrate differences between groups and teams. These are termed, quite appropriately, Teamthink and Groupthink. These perspectives on teams and groups were initially identified by researchers in the area of effective working (Manz, Neck, 1995), but have since gradually moved into the area of project management. Nonetheless, for some organisations these concepts are still not regarded as being main-stream. The key differences between the two types of thinking are illustrated in Table 1. Leaders may find it difficult to determine if project personnel are working as a team or as a group. However, Maylor (1996) suggests 3 criteria by which the existence of a team can be identified. 1. The output of a team is greater than the sum of the outputs of the individuals within the team. 2. A greater range of options can be considered by exploiting differences in individual thought processes. 3. Decision-making by the team is more effective. Each of these agree with characteristics identified by Manz and Neck with regard to teamthink and groupthink. The presence of teams is therefore a desirable situation to achieve in terms of their general effectiveness when compared to groups. Maylor (1996) however identifies 3 further reasons why it is of value to study the operation and development of teams within a project management context. 1. To help the project manager in the design and selection of a workgroup (which will then work towards becoming a team) 2. To aid in monitoring how effectively that team then works (what stage in its development lifecycle is it at') 3. To provide feedback to the team so as to help it develop to the more effective phases of its lifecycle and then to remain there as long as possible. A further point to consider is that in many instances the project team may well be inherited as one project manager takes over from a previous one. It is also possible that a project manager may be responsible for several projects at the same time – a situation that adds further complexity to the team management process. GROUPTHINK TEAMTHINK Members try to agree with each other Members manage internal dialogue, assumptions and beliefs No adequate discussion of alternatives Synergistic thinking Mentally screen out external information Recognise member’s uniqueness and views outside the group Social pressure against divergent views, with apparent unanimity Encouragement of divergent views Self-censorship Awareness of limitations Collective efforts to rationalise Expression of concerns Illusion of morality Recognise ethical and moral aspects of divisions Defective decision-making Effective decision-making Table 1: Groupthink and Teamthink Characteristics. (Source: Summarised from Walker, 1996; Manz, Neck, 1995) Team Lifecycle Teams have their own lifecycle (which is different from that of a group). A typical model of this lifecycle has 6 stages or phases, each of which the team will have to pass through. By seeking to aid the team in working through the early, unproductive stages of the lifecycle, the project manager will help them get to the middle, highly productive stages earlier and to stay there longer (if the project requires this). Maylor (1996, p123) suggests a team lifecycle model that can be summarised as having the following stages: Collection: Bringing together a group with a problem to solve. Initially uncertain, but then becoming enthusiastic. Entrenchment: Entrenched ideas prevent group from agreeing on best actions. Resolution: Disagreements start to be resolved. Team productivity increases. Synergy: 2+2 = 5. Peak of team effectiveness. Decline: Some event causes decline of effectiveness. Break-up: May occur before project is finished During the development of the team, the project manager should understand and manage the group dynamics. Various researchers have identified a range of team-member types, along with their strengths and weaknesses. Maylor (1996, p126) presented a model, initially developed by Belbin (1993) that contained 9 member types: Plant, Resource Investigator, Coordinator, Shaper, Monitor Evaluator, Teamworker, Implementer, Completer, and Specialist. The Leadership Role Leadership can be defined as: ….ABILITY TO LEAD A GROUP TOWARD THE ACHIEVEMENT OF GOALS. (Robbins, 1992) …PROCESS WHEREBY ONE PERSON INFLUENCES OTHER MEMBERS TOWARDS A GOAL. (Hellreigel et al, 1992) A related issue is to consider the nature of power, in that some theories emphasise the issue of power within leadership. Power can be defined as: …A CAPACITY THAT ‘A’ HAS TO INFLUENCE THE BEHAVIOUR OF ‘B’, SO THAT ‘B’ DOES SOMETHING HE OR SHE WOULD NOT OTHERWISE DO. (Robbins, 1992) …CAPACITY TO INFLUENCE THE BEHAVIOUR OR OTHERWISE. (Hellreigel et al, 1992) The two (leadership and power) are therefore intertwined, but are not the same thing, with the major difference being that whereas there must be some compatibility between the goals of a leader who chooses not to make use of the various ‘formal’ sources of power, and their followers, power itself does not require this. The ability of ‘A’ to control ‘B’ depends upon the capacity of ‘A’s power source and ‘B’s perception of the importance of that source. There is an element of power within any leader and follower relationship. However, that element may be extremely subtle in nature and not easy to define (as per the psychological contract). More explicit and less subtle uses of power can be identified in the ways that some leaders exercise over their followers in order to achieve compliance. Explicit sources of power include: Reward – provision of praise, recognition (consider these in terms of the psychological contract), money, time off, etc. in return for compliance with the leader. Coercive – application of fear, threat of undesirable outcomes (punishments, etc), or withholding of privileges. Legitimate – flows from the leader’s position in the group or hierarchy of the organisation. Referent – results from a perception of ‘attractiveness’, personal characteristics, reputation and so on. Expert – influence flows from perception of the leader’s skills, talent, maturity (consider also sapiential authority) When a leader seeks to apply power in the relationship with their ‘followers’, a number of possible reactions may be exhibited. Commitment – followers share the leaders view enthusiastically, and carry out instructions without significant hesitation. Usually the reaction to referent or expert power. Compliance – followers will obey instructions with little or no enthusiasm. Usually the reaction to legitimate or reward power. Resistance – followers will deliberately try to avoid carrying out leader’s instructions and attempt to disobey orders. Usually the reaction to coercive power. Approaches to the development of leadership Most of the early work on leadership concentrated on examining the actions of leaders and trying to identify common behaviours of successful leaders. Over 100 traits have been identified. Many of these overlap or even contradict each other. Successful traits in one situation cannot predict success in a different situation. However, several groups of traits can be associated with leadership. Drive – high(ish) desire for achievement. Show initiative, ambition and persistence in their activities. Desire to lead – leaders want to be leaders, but not all those who want to lead will make good leaders! Demonstrate a willingness to accept responsibility. Honesty and integrity – followers respond to leaders who are truthful, and show high consistency between word and deed. Self-confidence – this is needed to convince followers of the rightness of goals and decisions. Intelligence – leaders need to be intelligent enough to gather, synthesise and interpret large amounts of information so as to be able to make good decisions, solve problems, and create visions. Job-relevant knowledge – effective leaders tend to have a high degree of knowledge about the company, industry and technical matters. This is not always explicit in the form of recognised qualifications. Activity 1: return to ‘Content’ and select the Activity Workbook for this Topic Trait theory has been refined to form the so-called charismatic leadership theory. Charismatic leadership theory This suggests that followers attribute heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when they observe certain characteristics. Studies have identified some key personal characteristics of charismatic leaders. Self-confidence in their own judgement and ability. Vision of an idealised goal that can be expressed in clear terms to followers. Strong conviction in the vision, resulting in a perception amongst their followers that they are willing to take high personal risks, and engage in self-sacrifice to achieve the vision. Extraordinary behaviour exhibited which is perceived as novel, unconventional, and counter to ‘normal’ behaviour. This evokes admiration when they are successful in achieving the vision. Perceived as agents of radical change rather than as caretakers of the status quo. Environmentally sensitive. This is not about ‘green’ issues, but is an ability to make realistic assessments of relevant environmental constraints and the resources need to achieve change (don’t forget – projects are solely about achieving some desired change). Behavioural theories The failure of trait theory research to identify coherent and exclusive traits of good leaders caused emphasis to be placed on identifying leadership styles. These are more generic than leadership traits and can be summed up as being one of three types. Autocratic. The focus of power is with the manager who alone undertakes decision-making and has sole authority in respect of policy, procedures, work tasks, rewards, and punishments. This type is very similar to the transactional or Newtonian leadership style. Democratic. Power is focused more on the group as a whole, with group members having a greater say in decision-making, determination of policy and systems, and procedures for implementing work. This type is very similar to the transformational or Einsteinian leadership style. Laissez-faire. The focus of power is delegated almost entirely to followers (or at least group members – respect for the leader may be almost non-existent in some forms of this type), as the manager (not always regarded as a leader) gives subordinates (not always acting as followers) substantial independence in the way they organise work to achieve objectives. Three major studies examined behavioural styles of leaders. These were the so-called Ohio State and University of Michigan studies, along with the Managerial grid by Blake and Boulton. The grid provided a two-dimensional perspective on leadership in the relationship between the leader’s concern for production (emphasis on achieving tasks in hand, high level of production and profits) and their concern for people (emphasis on subordinates and colleagues and their expectations and needs – as per the psychological contract). Of the 81 possible positions on the grid, 5 are regarded as being most significant. 1,1 – Impoverished. Low concern for everything. Leader exerts minimum effort to get the job done. 9,1 – Authority compliance. High concern for production and low concern for people. Leader concentrates on task efficiency. 5,5 – Middle of the road. Moderate concern for production and people. Leader maintains adequate task efficiency and morale. 1,9 – Country club. High concern for people. 9,9 – Team. High concern for production and people. The managerial grid theory suggests that the most effective style of leadership in all situations is the Team (9,9) style. It is important to note, however, that the grid only deals with dominating factors relevant to leadership – NOT results! Contingency theories These theories focus on situational factors relating leadership styles with job performance. There are 4 key theories in this area. Fiedler Hersey-Blanchard House path-goal Leader-participation model The first of these theories to be formulated, by Fiedler, postulated that group performance is dependant upon the leader’s style of interacting with subordinates and the degree to which a particular situation gives control and influence (power) to the leader. This is quite a subtle argument in that it could appear to be simply the situation that gives power to a leader (congruent with the general concept of contingency). However, there is also an element of skill or ability on the part of the leader in extracting power from a situation and Fiedler’s theory therefore has elements of the behavioural theories about it. Fiedler developed a questionnaire (least preferred co-worker, or LPC) aimed at extracting a leader’s description of what would characterise their least preferred co-worker. A high score indicates a relationship oriented leadership style can be expected, whereas a low score indicates a task oriented leadership style can be expected. Fiedler then suggested that work-groups can be classified as being in one of these situations and that effective leaders can manipulate their style to match that situation. A task oriented leader performs better in highly favourable or highly unfavourable situations, whereas a relationship oriented leader performs better in situations that are moderately unfavourable. Leadership participation model Proposed by Vroom and Yetton, this relates leadership behaviour and participation to decision-making. It proposes that leadership structure must adjust to reflect the task structure. The argument is that leadership style is influenced by the quality of the decision to be made, the time available for decision-making, and that the subordinates acceptance of the decision will influence their level of commitment to its implementation (no point making a decision if it cannot be implemented!). The model provides a set of rules to guide the extent of subordinate involvement in decision-making, with five scenarios being suggested as possible. A1 - Leader solves all problems and makes decisions alone, using only the information in their possession at the time. A2 - Leader obtains information from subordinates, but makes decision alone. C1 - Leader shares problem with relevant subordinates individually, and then makes a decision which may or may not reflect their input. C2 – Leader shares problem with most or all subordinates as a group and then makes a decision which may or may not reflect their input. G2 – Leader shares problem with the group of subordinates so as to generate and evaluate alternative decisions together, and attempt to reach a group consensus on the decision to be implemented. Vroom and Yetton also provided a series of questions to guide the leader in selecting the most appropriate leadership style. This considered factors such as the level of information available to support decision-making, criticality of subordinates’ acceptance of the decision, extent of conflict amongst subordinates that a decision is likely to invoke, and the importance of the quality of implementation to the decision’s success. Activity 2: return to ‘Content’ and select the Activity Workbook for this Topic Further Reading Return to ‘Content’ and select ‘Further Reading’ for this topic. References Reference List BELBIN, M. 1993. Team Roles at Work. Butterworth Heinemann. MAYLOR, H. (1996) Project Management. London: Pitman Publishing. HELLREIGEL, D. et al, 1992. Organizational behaviour. 6th Ed. St Paul: weat Inc.. MANZ, NECK, 1995. Teamthink: beyond the groupthink syndrome in self-managing work teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 10, 7-15. MAYLOR, H. (1996) Project Management. London: Pitman Publishing. MOORE, D.R., DAINTY, A.R.J., CHENG, M. (2003) What Makes a Superior Management Performer: The Identification of Key Behaviours in Superior Construction Managers. Construction Information Quarterly. 5, 2, 6-9. Chartered Institute of Building, Ascot. Winning Paper, CIOB Research Papers competition. REISS, G. 1993. Project Management Demystified. London: E&F N Spon. ROBBINS, S. (1992) Essentials of organisational behaviour. 3rd Ed. New York: Prentice Hall Inc. WALKER, A. 1996. Project Management in Construction (3rd.ed.) Oxford: Blackwell Science. Topic Review The topic has presented introductory information on the most commonly considered team role and leadership theories. Particular points of emphasis are: The need to be aware of groupthink and teamthink. The impact of the team lifecycle. The range of leadership theories in the literature.