Five Questions on Managing Teams with: A former CPA

With this week’s readings dealing primarily with managing teams and the team dynamic, I decided to interview a former CPA with over 25 years of experience in management positions to get his thoughts on his experiences in dealing with teams of workers.  Since this person is not retired and still working in a lesser role in his current organization, I have removed his name for privacy purposes and have designated his comments with an ‘XX’.

AM:  Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me, XX.  I just have a few short questions for you regarding the team dynamic, and how to effectively manage it in an organization.  First, one of our readings for this week states young managers make the mistake of ‘managing the individual vs. managing the team’, and go as far as to attempt to solve team-related problems by talking to each individual rather then the group (Hill, page 2). Is this something you struggled with as a young manager?

XX:  Definitely.  When you are first put in a management position, it’s only human nature for you to want everyone to like you.  That will cause you to try to appeal to every member of your team in some way, so they can relate to you.  When I started, I thought this would be the best way to get everyone rowing in the same direction, but it wasn’t.  It’s important to understand each individual as a person, but you must take that information and use it to manage the entire group.  Understand how those attributes affect the group, and use that to create a better team environment.  That’s what worked for me.

AM:  The same article outlines three criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of a team:  Its output, contribution to personal well-being and development of its members, and how much it enhances the capabilities of its members to work together in the future (page 3).  Which of these do you think is the most important aspect of a team’s effectiveness, based on your experiences?

XX:  Well, obviously a team’s output is the bottom line, so your group is always going to be judged on that.  Based on my experiences, there was never really much talk about how whether or not the group made its members better as people.  It was strictly more of a work-related thing:  You had to work together because you were coworkers, so as long as the job got done in time, everyone was happy.  Looking back on it, we probably could have gotten better results in certain cases if we had taken areas such as personal development into account.  But unfortunately, when you are so concerned with the bottom line and meeting the goal, it doesn’t really yield too much time for that.  So, I’d have to regrettably say that the team’s output was the most important measuring stick.

AM:  Being a manager, did you welcome criticism and feedback on the direction of the group or the organization as a whole from the team members you managed?  Do you feel welcoming that feedback made the employees more engaged?  And how do you think their level of engagement based on how much you allowed feedback contribute to the direction of the team?

XX:  I always welcomed constructive feedback.  I always thought it was important for people to know I genuinely took their opinions and concerns into consideration, because it motivated them to keep the ideas coming.  Every once in a while I would bend on something or change something they had suggested, just so they knew I was sincere when I listened.  This caused our workers to spend time talking as a team, discussing the current issues of the day when they didn’t have to.  They bonded over it on numerous occasions, which led to a stronger team.  As a manager, I think it’s important to let everyone know you care about what they have to say, and while you’re the guy in charge and have the final say, it’s not a dictatorship.  This is the easiest way to have people relate to you.

AM:  What types of teams did you manage?  The aforementioned reading outlines teams that resemble a baseball team, football team, or mixed-doubles tennis team (p. 5).  Which one would best describe your teams, and how do you think that dynamic made your teams fare in terms of productivity?

XX:  I would have to say the majority of teams I supervised would be like a baseball team.  They all had their individual responsibilities, which in turn helped them form a team to reach the common goal.  It worked for the type of work we were doing, but it might not have worked in other lines of work.  I think that requires a lot of accountability on the part of the individuals, and it’s tougher to manage because you really have to make sure each individual is doing what they’re supposed to be doing.  It can lead to micro-managing, which is something I never liked to do.  It’s one of the main drawbacks, in my opinion, to that type of team.

AM:  Lastly, how often did you have to adapt your teams in terms of their policies, in order to keep productivity up?

XX:  All the time.  There are always little tweaks that have to be made, and sometimes the people you manage won’t like them.  But that’s why you are the manager, to make the decisions that need to be made and get everyone to follow them.  It takes constant communication between you and the people you manage, and they have to be able to ask you the tough questions if you really want them to get behind the changes.  But if you can do that, and show them you genuinely take their considerations into account, they will roll with the punches. 

References:

Hill, L. (1995). Managing Your Team. Harvard Business School, p. 1-22.