Richard
My experience is that 6-12 is still a manageable size for a team - but
it depends on what you are defining as a team? Are you talking about the
entire workgroup (your 75 assembly line workers for example) or are you
talking about the number that make up the sub-teams (both official and
unofficial sub-teams)?
If we look at, say, a sports team as an example. While no-one could
argue that they are probably the most successful in terms of teamwork
and achievement of unity in purpose, the team can be made up of many
hundreds of people (thousands if one includes the fans as being part of
the team - and no smart coach would deny that they are just as customers
are part of an organisational team). But, these numbers are generally
broken down into smaller teams until we get down to those who are
actually on the field - and even then we have the 'defensive team' and
the 'offensive team', the 'forwards' and the 'backs', all led by a
sub-team leader (if only another team member in a better position to
take the lead at the time).
The military, probably one of the greatest proponents of team work and
leadership, maintain that a 'manageable size' is no more than 10. In
fact, in the army the person who has the greatest direct control over
the largest number of soldiers is a section or squad leader. He/she will
have up to 10 people under direct control (and usually with the
assistance of a 2/IC) which is more than the Chief of Staff who has only
about 4-5 under direct command. In business this is exactly the same -
the further the manager is up the tree the fewer people he/she has under
direct control - the workshop supervisor will usually have many more
people he/she has responsibility to and for.
While I have had up to 300 people for whom I was directly responsible I
would never, in a million years, try to be the direct leader for them
all. Sub-groups appear under the (sometimes very informal) leadership of
their elected (or natural) representative, while other groups have to be
nominated. Sub-leaders are appointed either for the duration or for
specific tasks. All the while the magical number of 6-10 team members
proved to be the most efficient, the most cooperative, and the most
self-disciplined when it came to achieving team goals and objectives.
Me? Well, I seek to motivate people at all levels while leading only
those directly below me - and these never numbered more than 4-5. Their
role is to support the overall motivation while leading only those below
them and so on.
I think much of this debate (especially that regarding the peer team
development and review) has come about in order to seek an ideal team
model based on an educative rather than an experiential platform. Hence
we have such ideals as the 'flatter organisation' or self-directed
workteams. However, in my opinion, and despite all their rhetoric, the
proponents of a 'flatter hierarchical world' haven't yet figured out how
to lead and motivate the enormous number of people left over once middle
management has been destroyed. This is why (official and unofficial)
project teams have sprung up to fill the gap left by the wiping out of
whole layers of management.
Like others I've noticed throughout this debate a number of references
used to support various arguments and must say that there has been no
talk at all about where this team and peer review/evaluation has not
worked. For a closer look at where such processes have gone wrong one
only needs to look at Red China and North Korea where peer selection and
critique have been in vogue for nearly 50 years. Culturally it may work
in these countries but can we transplant such an ideal onto our own
culture and expect it to be as effective? Somehow I think that to try is
to court disaster.
Merry Xmas and peace in the New Year
PHIL RUTHERFORD
robnphil@ozemail.com.au
RICHARD CORCORAN wrote:
>
> Dear List,
>
> I read the message from Fred Nickols regarding Katzenbach and
> Smith's Team Elements. Although K&S have mapped out 6 aspects, I
> am wondering what are the more particulars behind those aspects
> and how do you measure them?
>
> One that I am really interested in is MANAGEABLE SIZE. The average
> size team at our facility is 25 people. I have worked at other
> facilities within our company with 75 people (3 shift assembly
> lines). We also have some special project teams of 5 people.
>
> Way back in my early training, I had read that team size should
> never be more than 8 - 12 people. I used to have a major paradigm
> about this and it was predetermined in my mind that more would
> never work.
>
> After Facilitation training and times where economic factors
> prevented me from changing team size...I lost that opinion. I can
> say that I see little difference in team size....granted we aren't
> talking multitudes...but the definition above says
> manageable...what is that?
>
> Thanks,RC