Open debate on whether Autonomy and Teamwork systems are really feasible to implement in companies.
The question we propose to analyze is about the feasibility of implementing Teamwork and Autonomy systems within companies. For this, I consider it important to define the scope that we give to both concepts.
Teamwork involves a group of people working in a coordinated manner on the execution of a project. By Jon Katzenbach's definition, a team is a small number of people with complementary skills, who are committed to a common purpose, focus, and set of performance goals, for all of which they become mutually accountable. The team is responsible for the results obtained but is free to organize itself as it deems most convenient (autonomy). Within certain margins, the team will make its own decisions without having to constantly request authorization from higher levels.
Given these definitions, I consider it important to emphasize that it is not possible to hold an absolutely extremist position regarding this hypothesis, since unfortunately (or not) a totally pure system would not be implementable within an organization. Firstly, due to the type of business or the nature of the task. For example, in a heavily regulated market, such as banking, there are many tasks that cannot be deviated. Likewise, in an organization where the tasks involve high risk (as in an oil well) the control over them is very high due to the security they must involve. On the contrary, those tasks or positions with greater flexibility for their design, facilitate the space of autonomy. Second, because although teamwork entails self-control,Likewise, an external control is required to ensure the correct implementation of the critical points of the tasks.
My work experience allowed me to experience not only the feasibility of its implementation, but also the benefits of it. And that is why I defend the hypothesis raised.
Bajo esta visión no pretendo dejar de lado la inclusión de un sistema de gestión y control dentro de la organización. Sería confundir libertad con libertinaje. El control es probablemente nuestra principal herramienta (si no es la única) que nos permite asegurar la entrega de nuestro producto/servicio en tiempo y forma a nuestro cliente. Pero a pesar de ello, tampoco debemos transformar nuestra organización en una burocracia, porque de ese modo, cruzaríamos a la otra orilla. El autoritarismo o la autoridad centralizada son la antítesis del trabajo en equipo. Creo que la clave está en que el control no se base en la desconfianza por temor a perder el poder, sino por el contrario, que apuntale el aprendizaje y la seguridad de las personas.
Autonomy implies an effective delegation, accepting suggestions, making inquiries, involving the other, flexibility. A healthy company, where its people are committed to it and to their task, generates a high-performance space, with a high retention rate, which facilitates continuous learning, permanent training and which in turn produces greater employee satisfaction. which provides feedback to the company with greater commitment and performance. It is a virtuous circle where the quality of work life improves and creates an environment that counteracts part of the stress.
Additionally, one of the strongest obstacles that hinders teamwork is the situation of job instability. In general, the operating personnel have established a culture of obeying since their scarce training does not facilitate their job change. This causes people to just wait for orders and thus become even more discouraged. This is a prime example of a negative feedback loop. But despite the fact that the task induces a structured and monotonous work, I am convinced that in most cases, with creativity, a motivated employee is capable of enriching it by increasing their level of satisfaction and productivity.
Decisions must be made as close as possible to execution, or at least the information must be obtained first-hand since in this way, a two-way relationship is fostered where the executors obtain a global vision of the business and the managers, a global approach to homework. In any small organization it is easier to uphold these principles. A turning point from the perspective of participatory management, occurs when the organization grows, since the difficulties for the coordination of more people increase, which is why controls are increased.
I would also like to refer to communities of practice. According to Etienne Wenger, creator of this theory, “Communities of practice are groups of people who share a concern, or common problems, or passion for something they do and who deepen their knowledge and experience, interacting regularly to learn how to do it better. ”(McDERMOTT, R.; SNYDER, W; WENGER, E., 2002, p. 4). These communities are characterized by having a common domain, a topic that interests them in which they like to specialize, sharing experiences and practicing it.
These groups emerge naturally, they are self-generated. Therefore, we cannot speak of designing these groups in the traditional sense that we give to this term, since it implies the deliberate generation of a structure or a process for its implementation. These communities are autonomous and self-controlled. But for these communities to be generated within companies, it is necessary that they be accepted and sponsored by the corporate culture. In other words, they are a particular case of teamwork and autonomy, but an entire company cannot be a single community of practice.
Communities of practice exist because they add value to their members, to the community, and when aligned to the strategy, to the organization. The meetings with the highest added value are those that occur day by day, solving problems and satisfying the needs of its members. However, it is often difficult to evaluate the outcome of these meetings until several months have passed. Cultivating communities of practice within the organization can be considered by some as anti-cultural, since these groups usually set their own objectives, their own schedules, their work modality, etc. For this reason it is essential that they have the support of the same to have the necessary resources for their work, to make their tasks something productive and so that they find the space to generate themselves and stay alive.
Returning to the autonomy system defined above, its implementation is a decision made by the organization and implies a commitment that the company acquires towards its employees. This self-generated commitment of both managers and staff must be a value (and not a style) and therefore must define the configuration of the work system. At the same time there is a demand for more demanding profiles, less supervision and an orientation towards results. It must be supported by horizontal coordination and the creation of bonds of trust between levels. In short, we are talking about a company that learns.
Based on all the above, I consider it appropriate to reformulate the hypothesis defended: Teamwork and Autonomy systems are plausible to establish within companies based on a balanced combination of Autonomy and control and an attitude towards continuous learning. And its benefits are:
- Complement skills and capabilities among the members of the organization Share objectives (which already generates interdependence) Facilitate the continuity of the organization through improvement groups and high performance teams (supports a long-term vision of the company).Foster a normative base through implicit or explicit rules.Growth through mutual learning.
And finally, if for whatever reason the fundamental conditions are not met to implement these systems, applying individual leadership styles oriented to teamwork and autonomy are well worth it.
