Many large companies follow the hierarchical responsibility system, wherein the manager is responsible to lead a team consisting of several people who report to him. He is responsible for the success of the project the team is undertaking. He takes credit if the project succeeds, or the blame if it does not. However, his team members are working as hard as him to get the job done. His job is to oversee them, coordinate, plan, police, monitor and do whatever it takes to ensure that things are getting done in time. He is the channel for reporting status upwards in the food chain. His head is on the line if things fail, and he gets the credit if everthing goes on well.
For some reason which I am trying to discover by writing this down, this model does not seem correct to me. It seems like my value system contradicts with what is being followed in such reporting models.
That one person take credit or blame for the entire team doesn't sit well with me. It is okay for one person to coordinate all the activities and communicate to ensure that the grand vision is clear and reachable, but I think that person is in no way superior or inferior to people who perform the tasks. If things happened beyond the coordinator's control, it is not fair to blame him. Nor can he take away all the credit for the team's work just because he coordinated it. It would be against the principles of good teamwork.
The thought of 'teamwork' makes me want to clarify what I think it is about before I go on any further. In my opinion, a great team is where every member
- respects and is respected at all times, especially when opinions differ
- brings their best to the table and seeks to bring out the best in others
- is committed to, feels responsible for and seeks to achieve the common team goal
The hierarchical responsibility structure seems to encourage control. Since only the manager's head is on the line for the entire project, he better be given the power to control everyone undertaking the tasks. Otherwise it won't work. This threat cascades into authoritative leadership styles which I have described in my
earlier post. The single-point-of-responsibility system subtly says "I am in charge here". Instead of also making the rest of the team feel responsible for the overall goal equally as him, this approach makes puppets out of them.
Perhaps it is true that only this model works best for large companies where alignment of vision across a large populous can be done only based on some degree of hierarchical control, and enforcement because coordination in this structure is much simpler.
Hmm... or is there a better way? This I am not sure now.
In small and medium sized organizations, self directed work teams is great. It promotes teamwork and collective responsibility. Companies like
Semco have adopted it and have proven that it works. They have eliminated several layers of management in the organization. Team members take turns in coordinating projects. This approach may relatively be more chaotic, may appear disorganized, may result in more conflicting opinions that need to be resolved, but I think all these are far easier and better problems to solve. Collective responsibility will result in better interactions between people. People will remind each other when tasks slip away. Unhealthy competition and rivalry is reduced. When reminded of common goals to achieve to which the entire team is committed, people will bring their conflicts to compromises sooner. The key here is collective responsibility for the grand vision, as well as collective rewards. I will think more about the latter and write about it soon.
