How Much Team Work is Good?

“All groups and organizations should function as teams in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. Giving one person central authority and responsibility for a project or task is not an effective way to get work done.”

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the opinion expressed above? Support your views with reasons and/or specific examples drawn from your own work or school experiences, your observations, or your reading.

I agree that it is ideal and good to have a team in which everyone makes decisions and shares responsibilities and duties. The idea appeals to the basic human , democratic and egalitarian sense. It echoes the view that everybody is equal and hence needs to play an equal role. However I am not so sure about the practical feasibility of this idea.

Before I am accused of being a totalitarian, I can assert in no uncertain terms that I absolutely support the central tenets of democracy and equality. However I am also a firm believer in meritocracy. Socialistic and communistic attitudes scare me as history shows a score of countries and institutions more often going down the path of self-destruction and mediocrity due to taking the so-called egalitarian inclusive route. Let's face it: we would like everybody to be equal but people are simply not equal. Every human being is unique in terms of thinking, personality, attitude, intentions and goals. One cast cannot fit all. It is ridiculous to expect everybody to display good leadership skills and display the willingness to take responsibility. Forcing it down somebody's throat or giving decision making power to somebody who simply does not care can be catastrophic. It may be useful to do so as a part of some social experiment is some college and then may be use the findings in the corporate culture. Replacing the current system of chain of command with an unproven system is not a risk I would be willing to take with my company.

The companies generally work on the principle of sharing responsibility. Good managers know how to delegate and not micro-manage. However key decisions are always best left to an expert or a panel of experts. A central authority can monitor the progress and keep things in check. This cuts down red-tapism and speeds up decisions. This, of course, brings in the age old cliche of "who shall guard the guards?". This can be achieved by a 360 degree feedback in which people are allowed to give feedback on the central authority and vice-versa. Periodical reviews and strong adherence to processes can cut down misuse of power and force people to be on their toes. It is not wise to replace a central authority with a group of people without taking into account their suitability for the job and the red- tapism it can bring in.

Concluding, an organization essentially works on the idea of sharing responsibilities and duties at a macro level. At a micro level, however, these need to be precise in order to avoid confusion. Every man's servant is often no man's servant. Responsibilities, duties and decision making powers need to be a function of personal drive, ability, track record, suitability and experience. Any other way would not be beneficial for the institution . Having a central authority responsible is not a bad idea if it can be backed by regular reviews, 360 feedback policies and strong processes.