Modern and prudent organizations realize that the best way to achieving business goals, effectively and efficiently, is to organize work in definable units by pulling together various talents and skills. In fact, Ian Brook (2003) confirms that no one can be the best at everything, however when all of us combine our talents, we can be the best at virtually everything. Palmer, A. (2004) adds that such benefits, like improved customer service, increased staff motivation, low turnover, low absenteeism, improved and increased quality of output cannot be gained if organizations stick to traditional ways of production and …show more content…
Leadership style also factors into the teams' effectiveness. At team level, there are similarities in leadership styles at both companies. MSC appoints a team leader from outside the teams (Yourdon, E. 1996).Similarly, TMC team leaders are selected by management within the teams (Beecroft,G.D. et al 2003). In essence, both companies impose leaders on their teams leading to the creation of authoritarian kind of leadership. According to Mullins, L.J. (2005), effective teams are led by coaches who are selected from and by the same team members. The likelihood that team leaders are going to face resistance is higher at MSC than at TMC. Further, team leaders at MSC stay longer in their positions (Deminors, et al1997) unlike those at TMC, where leadership rotates at an hourly basis (Morita, M. 2001). Note that permanent leadership in teams work against team effectiveness because members start worshiping the leader as a superior to them. Permanency of leadership also brings fear of close supervision on the part of other members who in turn start developing self resistance.
e) Team members expertise and effectiveness.
Effective teams are the ones that have its human resource well trained, oriented and blended in such a way that they form a system that encourages both individual and team support (Mullins, J. 2005). Both companies have strived to attract the best human resource which is