Are self-organizing teams better or the same as self-managing teams? What about self-directing teams? Working with teams can be challenging due to change and complexity. So, the idea that we could have self-organizing teams or self-managing teams can sound valuable, scary, or both!
What do these terms mean, and where can they be confusing? Let’s dig into each one.
Scaling an agile transformation beyond a few teams requires engaging middle management. Yet a common issue arises: agile coaches sideline middle management in agile transformations and tell them to simply trust the teams. Managers are not clear about their role in the transformation or how to do their jobs.
Have you ever been in a situation where your organization suddenly faces an urgent, high-priority task? If so, you’ve probably heard someone suggest forming a “Tiger Team” to tackle it. It sounds great in theory, right? “A special team of top performers laser-focused on solving the big problem.” But here’s the thing – Tiger Teams often create more problems than they solve. Let’s dive into why this approach can be problematic and explore better alternatives.
Have you ever thought, “If only we had more people, we could get everything done?” If so, you’re not alone. I’ve been getting this question a lot lately, and I’ve got to tell you, it always makes me laugh a bit. Why? Because it’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how work actually gets done.
Prioritization of work is key if you want to deliver anything. Have you ever been stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic, inching forward at a snail’s pace? It’s frustrating, right? Now, imagine if I told you that many organizations manage their work in a way that’s just as inefficient. Sounds absurd, doesn’t it? But stick with me, and I’ll show you why this analogy isn’t as far-fetched as you might think.
Most companies use some version of an annual review to provide performance feedback to employees. One of people’s biggest frustrations with the feedback they get – right behind “Why did my manager wait until my review to tell me this?” – is, “This feedback isn’t actionable.”
Delegation isn’t a “fire and forget” activity. As a manager, you can delegate decision-making to your direct reports, but you can’t delegate away your accountability for the outcome. The key is delegating without micromanaging. Effective managers monitor and guide the progress of delegated work – and they do it in a way that doesn’t feel like micromanagement.
Managers rely on others to get work done, making delegation an essential skill. When they delegate poorly, it can lead to accusations of micromanagement. For people and in some organizations, the threat of being thought of as a micromanager is terrifying. At the same time, managers who don’t delegate or fail at setting clear expectations are unlikely to achieve what their organization needs. Good delegation requires careful navigation through treacherous waters, and a few principles can help managers do it well.
Authority is a defining feature of a manager. By definition, managers can do things that others can’t do simply by virtue of their role. This power is neither good nor bad on its own. Unfortunately, many managers are ambivalent about their positional power. This unease hinders their ability to use it well. As a manager, owning your authority means you must come to terms with it.
Effective managers exercise their positional power without overusing or neglecting it. They invoke it when needed and use it to help necessary things get done. As a manager, acknowledging four things about your authority can help you own it so it doesn’t own you.
Delegation is an essential practice for managers. In any organization, one of the vital functions of management is to distribute and coordinate work among the group. However, delegating well requires understanding what delegation is and isn’t. Here are three common delegation myths that effective managers don’t fall prey to.