You are here: Start

The Function of ExamplesExample of a Team Preservation PatternExample of a Team Parameter PatternExample of a Team Reflection PatternExample of a Goal Processing PatternExample of a Goal Setting PatternExample of an Interaction Pattern PatternDescription of Team-Dynamic PatternsGuiding Process Team ReflectionTeam Development

The Function of Examples

In the example team, how are team parameters regulated, i.e. included and excluded? He, who wishes to belong, must be a professional, must be calibrated to quality, must love the product and must be prepared to and want to spend hours talking shop about a wheel suspension. Otherwise, one is tolerated but ineffective. Nobody without distinctive impact can hold his own in a team at this hierarchical level. Therefore, in this team, all sorts of experts can be found, even lovers of their work. This is also very useful in a development team and, therefore, no coincidence.

What is interesting, though, is that the frequency of change in the area management function can be explained by this. This role cannot only be practiced on the technical level as authority but must also represent the concerns of the organisation in the team. In the pattern described above, this will, by necessity, lead to doubts about belonging or to feelings of isolation on the part of the respective area manager. Even the current one (manager) has sought our consultancy, amongst other things, as a result of such feelings, which are linked with the stress of unproductive sustained conflicts.

If a team parameter pattern is shaped in such a way that the leader is constantly on the edge of exclusion because of the aspects which lie in the function, then the team immunises itself against leadership and, with it, it usually slips into isolation within the organisation as well. To identify this as a pattern within team parameters can be important, because otherwise one can easily draw the conclusion that the respective team leader is incapable. It is also like that in this case: he is seen by the board as weak in leadership and assertiveness.