My last post was about the interesting story that Jason Zweig published in the Wall Street Journal on how to run groups so that they do the most good — and least harm — when making financial decisions. As I said in that post, Harvard's J. Richard Hackman is arguably the world's expert on group and team effectiveness. Richard's dissertation was on group effectivness and he has been chipping away at the problem for over 40 years. This current Harvard Business Review has a great interview with Richard called Why Teams Don't Work. It cannot capture all the nuances of his book Leading Teams, but it is the best single compact summary I know of what Richard has learned and come to believe during his impressive career — it is in simple language with clear guidelines, and the stories and evidence are good, but the part that can't be made clear in such a short interview are the literally thousands of studies (by Richard and many others) and thousands of experiences in groups and teams Richard has had that underpin this interview. It is as great example of profound simplicity in the management world– the holy grail for wise researchers and leaders. It looks like you have to pay to read the whole thing. But it sure is good.
Fantastic Interview on Group Dynamics and Effectiveness With J. Richard Hackman
Comments
2 responses to “Fantastic Interview on Group Dynamics and Effectiveness With J. Richard Hackman”
-
As to the issue “Why teams don’t work,” I think it can be explained in terms of an organization’s culture dimensions; among them, “Power distance” and “Uncertainty avoidance” aspects might be the most crucial. Based in Hofstede’s survey of national culture, “Power distance (PD)” dimension specifies how members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. In High power distance countries, less powerful accept power relations that are more autocratic and paternalistic. “Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI)” reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty.
Societies of high power distance and uncertainty avoidence index are highly rule-oriented with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty, while inequalities of power and wealth are allowed to grow. If narrowing into “team” scope, high PD and UAI may incur members dare to say as they perceive the leader’s direction with much more significant power than theirs. Meanwhile, they may become hesitate to do things in order to minimize uncertainty. The two acts will produce the final result—teams don’t work. -
As to the issue “Why teams don’t work,” I think it can be explained in terms of an organization’s culture dimensions; among them, “Power distance” and “Uncertainty avoidance” aspects might be the most crucial. Based in Hofstede’s survey of national culture, “Power distance (PD)” dimension specifies how members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. In High power distance countries, less powerful accept power relations that are more autocratic and paternalistic. “Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI)” reflects the extent to which members of a society attempt to cope with anxiety by minimizing uncertainty.
Societies of high power distance and uncertainty avoidence index are highly rule-oriented with laws, rules, regulations, and controls in order to reduce the amount of uncertainty, while inequalities of power and wealth are allowed to grow. If narrowing into “team” scope, high PD and UAI may incur members dare to say as they perceive the leader’s direction with much more significant power than theirs. Meanwhile, they may become hesitate to do things in order to minimize uncertainty. The two acts will produce the final result—teams don’t work.
Leave a Reply