At first glance, it may seem that the time for agile management has come for good, and thus for self-organizing teams, where decisions are made by the entire group, and problems are being resolved by a person from outside (Scrum Master, Coach).
The truth is often that, although the emphasis in different organizations is on different spheres of team functioning, the vast majority of people who manage the team are present, either explicitly or implicitly. And although companies are built by all employees, it is mainly about the managing member. Due to the approach of this group of people to the subject of organization, we can observe 3 generalized, popular models of functioning (according to Simon Western).
In the article you will learn about:
• selected three models of approach to leadership in an organization
• in which contexts they occur most often
Characteristics of patterns
Therapist – the belief that employees will provide the company with a certain performance if a certain level of their happiness is satisfied. Therefore, a separate human resources department is very often established, which deals with encouraging employees to develop, achieve their own goals and self-fulfillment. This model has one major drawback – we assume that our employees, more than a raise, value, for example, the possibility of taking part in training or workshops, or more days off. However, if this is the case, then such methods of personnel management as coaching or 360-degree evaluation will hit the bull’s eye and can provide a significant increase in work efficiency.
Controller – the larger the organization, the harder it is to escape from this perception of co-workers who are managed. This is where the negative connotation of the term “human resources” comes into play. In this model, it is believed that subordinates are only small components of a large, working machine – cogs that need to be trained, thrown into lots of tasks, and in the event of failure or poor operation, simply replaced with new ones. This method can often be observed in companies that deal with a certain repetitive scope of duties, but the flexible possibilities of such a solution outweigh the costs that would have to be incurred to automate the work process or meet the growing expectations of an employee.
Messiah – Centralized decision-making is in the hands of leaders, especially in the most difficult time. Idealization is the belief that these chosen ones, with their decisions, will lead us through a series of failures and give a track to every aspect of work: innovation, the structure of operational activities, conflict resolution, etc. This cult of the leader had its peak in the seventies, but a certain element of such thinking can be observed in every organization – it is related to the way people act. In difficult or uncertain times, we want someone to relieve us and take the burden of responsibility. Unfortunately, the big repercussion of such a model is killing creativity and suppressing courage, the key elements for personal development.
What does this mean in practice for people in the HR department?
Rather, the discourses mentioned above should be thought of as an approximate framework of thinking/management culture. The problem is that few companies fit into the rigid framework. Usually, organizations are a cluster of different approaches, and it is in the role of the HR team or consultants to understand the essence of such organization and operation, highlight the advantages, and minimize the consequences of the chosen approach.
In the following articles, we will discuss the approaches to the previously discussed models in various contexts. The “Controller” will be targeted first.
Author: Bartosz Stec
Student of the Wrocław University of Technology in the field of “Systems Engineering”. Involved in the development of science clubs and adept at the art of project management. Daily, he is a devoted fan of basketball and motorsport.