SSS Yet To Be Done.
Collective Impact
The Leadership Steering Team is composed of those who have pledged their commitment to the Grand Challenge. These leaders develop the strategy, but their work doesn’t stop there. They seize opportunities and address challenges as they arise, making sure that all of the work comes to fruition. Participation on the team is typically at the CEO level.
The Backbone Organization provides the administrative functions that undergird the strategy and hold fast the vision for a Grand Challenge. The Backbone Organization convenes the Leadership Steering Team and coordinates activities and channels communication among the collaborators. If money is an issue, it provides tangible support to the fundraising working group. These are crucial roles, so let’s take a closer look.
For a Backbone Organization to manage a Grand Challenge, it requires its own dedicated staff, separate from the participating organizations. There must be obvious alignment between the mission of the Backbone Organization, its brand in the public sphere, and the framing of the Grand Challenge itself. Without that alignment, allies will not understand why this particular organization at this time is doing this work. Participation will suffer greatly.
For an example, consider the Inteleos Ultrasound Grand Challenge, which I facilitated. Who better than Inteleos, the premier certification organization for medical ultrasound practitioners, to take on the Grand Challenge of making sure everyone in the world who is using a medical ultrasound device knows what they are doing?
The types of organizations that take on the Backbone role vary widely in size and structure, but they have in common the ability to assign budget, staff, and other resources to support the Leadership Steering Team and the other working groups. Every collaborator must be invested in achieving the vision for social change and the plan of work to address it. I have learned through experience that different groups will be invested in the Common Agenda for different reasons.
Members of the Backbone Organization, because of their deep involvement in all aspects of the Grand Challenge, have specialized knowledge of the initiative that includes all they learn from interacting with their partner organizations and activists. But that doesn’t mean they do the work. The tactical activities happen in working groups.
In my experience, four key working groups are necessary to support a Grand Challenge:
- Equity: Embedding equity practices in the Grand Challenges work is essential. This working group ensures the work of the Grand Challenge will achieve fairness and justice for groups and populations that suffer under structural constraints. This group maintains equity accountability as the work progresses.
- Fundraising Strategies: Finding resources to advance the Grand Challenge is key to sustainability. Some Grand Challenges go directly to their constituents who will benefit from the Common Agenda for funding. Others build brain trusts of funding experts who identify philanthropic sources and help partners to approach them. And still others rely on grants and traditional fundraising techniques.
- Metrics: This group grounds the work in data and context; it pursues answers to the question, “How will we know if we are succeeding?” This group recognizes the need for a shared measurement system across the ecosystem of collaborators and stakeholders.. The quality and credibility of data help all participants trust each other’s results. Metrics provide much-needed feedback to the Leadership Team steering the Grand Challenge.
- Communication and Outreach: This group holds responsibility for developing messaging to enroll new partners and reach different audiences such as donors, the general public, or members of a particular profession. They also devise methods of continuous communication to keep all parties abreast of progress, and design methods for reaching key stakeholders.
Collective Impact’s Key Elements
John Kania and Mark Kramer’s research showed that successful Collective Impact initiatives typically have five conditions or key elements that, together, produce the deep alignment that leads to powerful results. The Common Agenda, that describes the future state all collaborators are invested in and the strategies for achieving it, is foundational. It is what gives direction to the other four elements:
- Backbone Organization: Committed and resourced to provide ongoing support to everyone pursuing the Common Agenda.
- Shared Measurement: Agreed-on ways to measure, evaluate, and report success.
- Mutually Reinforcing Activities: Synergistic planned actions by collaborating partners.
- Continuous Communication: Executed to build trust, encourage ongoing learning, and bring to light when plans need to adapt to changing circumstances.
The Collective Impact Model can seem overwhelming until you see it in action, but it is a proven method for committed people to change society. Like Christina Economos’s Ten Key Elements for Social Change, Collective Impact inspires my approach to facilitating Grand Challenges.
Solving social problems is inherently SOCIAL–it happens in community. I’m looking for researchers, academicians, and those on the front lines who are battling overwhelming issues. The community will include leaders in all aspects of society: nonprofits, corporations, government agencies, independent agents, and thought leaders. If you’re into Grand Challenges or would like to be, visit my Medium account, where I am publishing on Grand Challenges. Let’s work together to address these sticky, systemic, complex, and wicked issues once and for all, for the sake of future generations of life on Earth.
Successful implementation of self-managing teams
Implementation of selfmanaging teams
Self-managing team
Most self-managing team members are satisfied with the task division by means of portfolios. Dividing all the management tasks as a self-managing team took place during the coaching trajectory. Hackman (1986) mentioned that in a self-managing team, all the work tasks are under the control of the team members. This is confirmed by the current research in which it is clear for the team members about who has to do what. Furthermore, it showed people also like the task they do, as the task division was based on preference. In light of the implementation process, the translation of the change initiative into effective tasks makes the required skill level concrete on an individual level (Ten Have et al., 2015). To strengthen execution, everyone in the organisation needs to have a “good idea of the decisions and actions for which he or she is responsible” (Neilson et al., 2008). Therefore, the task portfolio division is regarded as a success factor for the implementation process.
In most cases, evaluations are executed within the self-managing team by performance interviews and giving feedback. This helped to exchange valuable information and develop the team. Evaluation and feedback refer to the effect of the change (Ten Have et al., 2015). In this, the desired and the undesired consequences of the change, and also feelings and perceptions can be discussed which seemed valuable for most team members. By reflecting on how the team is doing and being aware of the progress, action can be taken such as developing individuals, increasing the budget or prioritising activities, which strengthens the team’s change capacity (Ten Have et al., 2015). Therefore, spending time to reflect on performance and giving feedback can improve the performance of a self-managing team, in the implementation process and when the team is already operational. Resources, as part of the element energy, also have an impact on the change capacity of the organisation. Cohen et al. (1996) argue that employee involvement can be enhanced by giving power to employees to make decisions and to make the required information and resources available. For example, a non-functioning organisation lacks, among other things, the necessary resources (time, money and authorities) to play a meaningful role during the change (Ten Have et al., 2015). Implementing a self-managing team costs time and money and organisations who wish to develop towards, need to take care of sufficient resources to provide the change.
Employees
Both teams find the influence they have in a self-managing team exciting and they feel appreciated. They like the influence and freedom, though it can be busier than before. This is in-line with Hackman and Oldham (1976), who concluded that working in a self-managing team had a motivational influence on the team members. Working in a self-managing team satisfies the needs of the employees for responsible autonomy over a meaningful task. It confirms that members of a self-managing team showed higher levels of social needs satisfaction, for example (Cohen and Ledford, 1994). Therefore, the employees’ needs can be a valuable and appealing reason for the implementation of a self-managing structure in an organisation, as part of the rationale (Ten Have et al., 2015). Throughout time, the team members learned to be more independent, set limits, ask for help and be open. By doing so, they felt stronger and got more energy from their work. This is acknowledged by Levi and Slem (1995, p. 31), who stated that “an individual’s skills should improve by working on a team”. For example, the self-managing team members can learn from each other’s expertise. With regard to leadership, the individual employee’s responsibility is strengthened because each member now executes leadership tasks next to their normal work (Manz and Sims, 1980). On the other hand, Levi and Slem (1995) stated that some leadership functions, such as personnel issues and external relations, are hard to displace.
The learning experience of members in a self-managing team is stimulated and could therefore be another valuable and appealing reason for the implementation of this concept, as part of the rationale (Ten Have et al., 2015). Katzenbach and Smith (1993) previously mentioned improvement on social and interpersonal skills, as well as broadening the perspective of other disciplines. Based on the outcomes of the current study, it is important to keep in mind that employees could be enthusiastic, but also have their doubts when implementing a self-managing structure. Pearson (1992) acknowledged this in his study that most of the members appreciate the new work structure, although some members were sceptic. Discussing this scepticism can be helpful to overcome it. Support and continual development is needed and adequate communication is crucial (Wilson and Whittington, 2001). Good relationships enhanced the motivation within the self-managing teams. Therefore, they were motivated and committed to each other and their work. Levi and Slem (1995) stated that selecting good employees is the most important human resources factor related to team work. In this research, providing a coaching trajectory helped in building relationships. Besides, the people (mostly) like each other, which might be fostered by their shared religious identity. Good relationships in a self-managing team are an important success factor, especially when there is intense collaboration as in a self-managing team.
Implementation
As mentioned before, the reason for the change towards self-managing teams was unclear to almost all members. It was guessed to be because of cost savings, to reduce management layers in the organisation and to stimulate autonomy in the teams. The starting point of a change must be logical and appealing, and not only to the organisation but also for individual employees and specific groups it is important to see and “feel” the reason to change (Ten Have et al., 2015). Otherwise,
- cynicism,
- lack of understanding,
- counterproductivity and
- self-interest
can occur.
In this case, lack of understanding and sometimes cynicism occurred, but to an extent that did not result to any negative behaviour. The members just accepted it and they liked their freedom. The goal of implementing selfmanaging teams is unclear to most of the members. In this case, the rationale of the change was less relevant because the employees were satisfied with the freedom they experienced. They simply perceived the change as an improvement, nonetheless the higher goal of the change. During the coaching trajectory, tasks were divided into a portfolio division based on preference. This has a link with the element focus. In the coaching trajectory, there was specific attention for the past and together they looked back at the history. Ten Have et al. (2015) refer to this as a form of empathy of the organisation. They argue that empathy means that the higher management understands that change is difficult and appreciate the difficulties that employees may experience in letting go their old certainties and routines. This takes place by identifying and sharing individual problems in the process of the change. In-line with this, coaching facilitates willingness to speak up openly in the team and “to communicate with others in the organization about the changes”; this brought about a multifaceted team learning process that facilitated a successful implementation (Edmondson, 2003, p. 1446). In Edmondson’s study, teams lacking these practices did not succeed in their implementation efforts, which affirms our research findings on the relevance of coaching.
Interestingly, the coaching trajectory suits the principles of the change initiative, as division of tasks by the team is a form of self-management. This might have helped in building understanding and skills to become a self-managing team. Wilson and Whittington (2001) state that support and continual development are relevant in any change implementation, and that this also applies to self-managing teams. Therefore, the coaching trajectory is a success factor in the implementation process. This is linked to the connection element of the Change Competence Model. Cohen et al. (1996) also argued that to increase the employee involvement, training can be useful. So when considering the change towards selfmanaging teams, a coaching trajectory can be very helpful, especially when a negative change history forms the starting point.
Limitations
Some limitations of this research should be mentioned. First, the interview data were collected in The Netherlands, which makes the outcomes generalizable for this specific country for self-managing teams with a strong shared identity. The team members of this research can be seen as a homogeneous group regarding their function and (religious) norms and values, which makes them strongly connected to each other. A heterogeneous team might have more discussions owing to their different viewpoints, whereby conflicts could arise more easily. Therefore, the research results might not be generalizable to more heterogeneous teams in (mental health-care) organisations. With regard to other countries, the results might only be generalizable if comparable policy and health-care systems exist in that country (public insurance-based health care). Lastly, applicability to other sectors than the (mental) health care is possible if the team members performs a practical job, are of a comparable group size and provide a service. Higher educated employees might be more sensitive for the reason of change and delivering a service asks for other task portfolios than making a product. Next to this a limitation can be found in the data sample (the two self-managing teams) of the case study, which has been selected by the regional manager of the organisation. This could have the risk that he has chosen teams where the experiences are quite neutral or positive. As a consequence, the findings could be more focused on strengths than on weaknesses of the concept. This might give another direction to the research, although both sides can deliver important insights for the implementation of a self-managing team. The selection by the regional manager could also have the risk that the employees gave social desirable answers. Owing to the elaborate conversations and the openness of the interviewees, the researchers did not have this impression.
Conclusion
With this research paper the academic literature on the implementation process of selfmanaging teams in the specific context of the mental health-care sector in the Netherlands is enhanced with a qualitative case study. Previous research has mainly focused about the effectiveness of self-managing teams, but limited research is conducted about the importance of the implementation. Furthermore, the Change Competence Model is elaborated by using it as a framework for implementing self-managing teams (Ten Have et al., 2015). Self-managing teams as a concept could have effective outcomes, but the implementation process seems to be of crucial impact. Because the teams subject to this research successfully made the transition from a more traditional management structure towards a shared leadership structure with self-managing teams, several valuable insights occurred. The contribution of this research puts together three success factors which support a successful implementation of self-managing teams in the mental health-care sector.
First, when an organisation experiences a negative change history, the importance of the implementation process becomes visible. By having a successful coaching trajectory with attention for the past, the change history could turn positive and the coaching trajectory reinforces the transition to an effective self-managing team.
Making a clear task division based on preference is another success factor. A portfolio division of tasks, which can be made during a coaching trajectory, helps in being operational as a self-managing team. Dividing tasks together as a team already suits the implications of the change: being self-managing. In-line with this, it is important to make the self-managing team capable to perform the tasks and trust the team members in this. Keeping control on some important tasks on a management level has implications for shared leadership and can lead to doubts within the teams. However, if the employees’ motivation and enthusiasm are high, the teams will positively continue as they did before. Good relationships in a self-managing team is a third success factor. Owing to the intense collaboration in daily work-life, this is important in being self-managing. Motivation and enthusiasm because of good relationships positively affect the self-managing team’s performance. A coaching trajectory can be supportive for relationship-building, but it is helpful if people simply like each other. Regarding the Change Competence Model, it can be concluded that stimulating the
change capacity of the self-managing team in particular is crucial to achieve sustainable results. For stimulating the change capacity that is needed, it is emphasised that a portfolio division of labour is made, good relationships within the team are stimulated and a coaching trajectory with attention for a possible negative past is provided. These three conditions together are crucial for being a successful self-managing team. Taking into account these success factors as an organisation, the transition to a successful implementation of a selfmanaging team can be made.
Practical implications and future research Some practical implications follow this research. Self-managing teams with delegated responsibility and greater autonomy are important in terms of their possible effects on health-care quality and effectiveness. Quality and effectiveness could be influenced as the team’s attention might be more on managing the team than on giving care to the clients sometimes. Next to this, a practical implication is related to new employees who join the self-managing team after the implementation process. These new team members might have impact on the good relationships within the team. Moreover, new employees miss a part of the team’s history, the coaching trajectory and the process of task portfolio division. It is important to inform new employees and discuss these crucial factors with them. Future studies should focus on the implementation of self-managing teams in other countries and in other contexts than the mental health-care sector of this research, to compare the findings and check if the lessons for successful implementation apply elsewhere. For example, there are important policy implications that can be explored in other health-care contexts. Policy implications differ by country, depending on whether they use insurance-based, private or public health systems. Because the coaching trajectory was an important success factor of the implementation of self-managing teams, more research about the successful design of a coaching trajectory would be valuable. Next to this, the Implementation of selfmanaging teams
teams of this research can be called successful, but it could be also valuable to study a less successful implementation to see if the same success factors apply. Also, other characteristics could be tested, for example, these teams were practically educated but the results might be different for higher educated people that might be more interested in reasons behind a change. Additionally, quantitative research could focus on testing the found success factors with questionnaires for a higher number of self-managing teams, to see if more general claims can be made.
Links
.....
See Also
.....
Subcategories``ёёё]]]
.....
`0-9`A`B`C
`D`E`F`G`H`I`J`K`L`M`N`O`P`Q`R`S`T`U`V`W`X`Y`Z
Index``ёёё]]]
.....
``0-9``A``B``C``D``E``F``G``H``I``J``K``L``M``N``O``P``Q``R``S``T``U``V``W``X``Y``Z
Pages in Other Languages
Forking
Categories:
.....
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.