You are here: Start

Organisation’s Expectations of Teams

The interaction pattern pattern of our example team is characterised by the fact that quick and unambiguous, explicit as well as implicit technical blunders are sanctioned and ‘cool’ solutions are responded to and strengthened with shining eyes and taps on the shoulder. Time delays or the non-adherence to the budget framework, on the other hand, are forgiven or not even taken notice of.

Furthermore, sanctions are used when team members, or the leader, are perceived as ‘quitters’, i.e. they agree to ‘lazy’ compromises in other committees or meetings or were unable to assert their good solutions. Even the interest about non-technical problems is regarded as suspicious: Those who speak to financiers, distributors or purchasers are regarded critically. Also, interfering in the expertise of another and engaging with critical questions in meetings is not seen in a good light. It is no coincidence that between two department leaders, of which one is the successor of the other, there is often conflict, because the predecessor cannot stop himself from questioning the solutions of his colleague. Everyone should allow the other to do his work. This also applies to the team leader, who is viewed as a type of foreign minister, who ought not interfere in technical matters too much. He should allocate a maximum budget and distribute it fairly, and that is that. More is not required from the boss.

Through these norms it becomes difficult for the team to work on interests and it infiltrates into the sustained, damaging conflict within the rest of the organisation, so that their (the teams’) concerns are always treated and must always be treated as of secondary importance. Thus, one sees oneself as a crew, because everyone does his own thing and does it well and, therefore, it is difficult to understand why such great dissatisfaction prevails on the outside.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.