<\/p>\n
Strategic Leadership Team<\/strong><\/p>\n I have worked in several teams in my professional life, and some have been very successful, and others have not been. One team in particular was very effective and exciting to work on as we used all the leadership perspectives<\/strong> represented on the team. The team was effective because we had a daily huddle, sharing the workload and concerns. We received direction from the CEO of the company every day, and we worked together to find ways to move things forward. The team was made up of people with compatible skill sets and different backgrounds, both in terms of nationality and professional experience. The group was comprised of low, middle and upper management. These individuals were the continuity in a company that had a high turn-over rate. These individuals had a long-term perspective and were experienced in their fields. The group worked well together because of the shared vision for the team (Hughes, Colarelli-Beatty and Dinwoodie, 2014) and for the organization as a whole. As we began working together, we began to see the power we held as a team. We saw that we could do more together than apart. This was the flow or resonance that Northouse (2013) described as energizing and life-giving. It gave us a high that pushed us harder and there was a harmony in the team that helped to overcome conflicts that would sometimes arise.<\/p>\n This harmony added to the sense of ownership and involvement<\/strong> in the team. It was a safe working environment, where people could be themselves and could take risks but knew they would be respected. Lepsinger (2010) credits expectations as increasing involvement; seeing protentional in each other in the team, raised our expectations of one another and this fed into our performance. Successes led us to expect more and produce more. Both Hughes et al. (2014) and Lepsinger (2010) also state that recognition by senior leadership fuels involvement. In our case, the senior leadership protected us against intruders against our section and recognized our efforts. There were so many unhealthy rivalries that attempted to thwart our work and seek recognition for our successes.<\/p>\n Despite all of our successes, we were unable to establish a sustainable protocol for our group, and this was a limiting factor<\/strong> in our success. The company made numerous exceptions to allow us to reach our goals but they never changed the protocols to incorporate our programs into the company\u2019s constitution. Hughes et al. (2014) discuss how a public endorsement does not always translate into action or support for the team. This was the case for us. We would get the CEO\u2019s endorsement, but those under him did not always carry out the orders of his endorsements. Not having the endorsement left us in an awkward position of gaining success but being limited in our future successes because we did not receive the support we needed for them. We were not limited by our team members, as our team was a safe environment (Hughes at al., 2014), but those outside of us did not always support us.\u00a0 Another limitation was the size of the team; we were six members attending twelve or thirteen working groups per week, working long hours every day for several months. We were a crises management section, and the stress of the world took its toll on us as well as we advised on mitigate and navigate high-stakes crises.<\/p>\n We were unable to address these two limitations (of manpower and outside support), but we solved numerous other issues<\/strong> inside the team through effective communication; everyone\u2019s voices were heard, and they felt valued. There was a collective sense of humility in the group, which created a safe sense of belonging, as each person was valued. The intellectual humility (Hughes at al., 2014) present in the group allowed for a great deal of creativity as we did not need to impress or save face in the group. This group was indeed a group to remember. The successes we experienced were remarkable, and the harmony in the group was unusual.<\/p>\n There is some overlap between Hughes at al. (2014) and Gailbraith\u2019s (2014) description of effective teams and design choices<\/strong>. Both mention the composition of the team as crucial to its success. My past work team was a complex team because it was interdependent and occasionally in conflict with other groups (Gailbraith, 2014). The course team I am in is more of a simple structure team because we are less dependent on other teams, and the team \u201ccontrols most of the factors that influence its performance outcomes\u201d (Gailbraith, 2014). We control most of the factors that help us succeed in the course \u2013 for example, access to information about assignments, the effort we put into our team assignments and the final Pressbooks book. Because the \u201cfinal product\u201d is the Pressbooks book, we as a team are somewhat interdependent on other groups to contribute to the book. In my past workgroup, we had the authority to make decisions, and in the course team we also have authority to make decisions on how we function.\u00a0 In my work team, it could become more effective by being given more authority to create and produce its work. My course team could improve if we had clearer protocols to follow and if we had more time together. As this is only week 3, we have not had much time to solidify our group.<\/p>\n I suggest that an effective Strategic Leadership Team<\/strong> must begin with a shared purpose, just like Hughes at al., (2014) stated. Morale depends largely on rewards (Ungerer, 2016 and Gailbraith 2014) and recognition (Lepsinger, 2014) and team environment. My present team environment would be enhanced by these factors and by maintaining an agile posture (Ungerer, 2016). I am very interested in change management in this VUCA world and have seen how leaders who can effectively manage and lead change have the most success.\u00a0 Being able to manage change also means being effective at transformation, which positions my team and me to be transformational leaders.<\/p>\n A challenge in an SLT<\/strong> is bringing together the individual people on the team because we come to the team with our own philosophies, backgrounds, religious and cultural beliefs and principles. To bring diverse groups together, extensive communication is required to understand each other\u2019s values and the purpose for coming together. In my work environments, there is usually a reason the particular group members have been chosen, and making these reasons clear helps the members to appreciate and respect one another. This is an opportunity to practice intellectual humility (Hughes et al., 2014) to bring the group together and create a safe and secure environment where people do their best work and are willing to take risks for the goals of the group. I would deal with this and other challenges in an SLT by keeping a long-term perspective and recognizing that the strength of the group is greater than the strength of the individual.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Galbraith, J. R. (2014) Designing Organizations: strategy, structure, and process at the business unit and enterprise levels. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n Hughes R., Colarelli-Beatty K. & Dinwoodie\u00a0 D. (2014) Becoming a Strategic Leader<\/em>. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Second Edition.<\/p>\n Lepsinger\u00a0 R. (2010) Closing the Execution Gap. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.<\/p>\n Northouse, P. G. (2013).\u00a0Leadership: Theory and practice<\/em>\u00a0(6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.<\/p>\n Ungerer, M., Ungerer, G., & Herholdt, J. (2016). Navigating Strategic Possibilities: Strategy Formulation and Execution Practices to Flourish<\/em>. Randburg: KR Publishing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"