Advertising
Advertising

6 Actions Successful Leaders Take To Enhance The Collaboration Of Their Teams

6 Actions Successful Leaders Take To Enhance The Collaboration Of Their Teams

Collaboration and teamwork is becoming more and more important in the modern workplace. Though each member of a team usually specializes in a single area, they all have to make sure they’re “on the same page” throughout every step of a project or process. As a leader, your job is to make sure all of your employees are striving toward a common goal. Here are some actions that successful leaders implement in order to make that happen.

1. Make your expectations known

Face it: the members of your team would be happy to sit in their cubicles all day, do the work that’s been assigned to them, and go on their way at five o’clock. It’s up to you to connect individual team members with each other at different stages in the process. Rather than having each member reporting directly to you if they face an issue, they should first be consulting with their colleagues to figure out a solution on their own. By expecting your employees to be autonomous, you’ll end up increasing the productivity of the office as a whole.

Advertising

2. Have a system

Luckily, we live in a time in which technology has made collaboration incredibly easy. Services such as Transpose allow team members to share information, schedules, and memos with the click of a button. These online databases streamline a company’s workflow by allowing team members to stay in constant communication with one another, regardless of their physical location. When each member of your team is on board with using these electronic means of collaboration, productivity will skyrocket.

3. Promote engagement

Of course, there will always be those who prefer to work alone, or who are averse to learning how to operate a new system. As their supervisor, you need to, again, make your expectations clear and show them the benefits of collaboration. Consistently promote the idea that, though they are individuals, they are a part of a much bigger whole, and without their buy-in, the team will suffer. Provide team-building seminars and exercises that will help those who struggle to collaborate see the value in effective communication and teamwork.

Advertising

4. Model flexibility

Of course, no team will go long without disagreements between individuals. However, this doesn’t have to be a bad thing. Disagreements happen, but it’s how they are dealt with that determines whether a team is pushed forward or held back. As a leader, you can model flexibility and compromise in a variety of ways. Show your team members it’s not about “getting their way,” but about finding a middle ground on which everyone is content.

5. Be a problem solver

If a disagreement gets too out of hand, you’ll need to step in and mediate the issue right away. When team members aren’t able to compromise on their own, it will be up to you to set each individual straight. Sometimes, this might mean they’ll both walk away unhappy. But they’re adults, and they’ll get over it. As the leader of a team, you need to be able to remove emotions from the playing field and see things from an objective perspective in order to know what’s best for the company.

Advertising

6. Be a participant

Most importantly, as a supervisor of a team, you’re still a member of the team. You can’t rule with an iron fist, or a “do as I say, not as I do” attitude. Doing so will only cause dissension among the ranks. As a leader, you should be the most active member of the group, constantly bouncing ideas off one another, promoting teamwork and collaboration whenever possible. By doing so, not only do you set the standard and act as a role model, but you also actively monitor the performance of your team in a much more positive way.

Featured photo credit: Collaboration / Chris Lott via farm1.staticflickr.com

Advertising

More by this author

20 Little Signs You’ve Found The One 8 Signs of a Man Who Will Never Ever Stop Loving You 8 Things To Remember When Dating Someone With A Guarded Heart 14 Signs You’re Not Drinking Enough Water Which Type of Visa Do You Need to Travel Abroad?

Trending in Leadership

110 Qualities of a Leader (Advanced Version for Leaders Who Aim High) 2Charismatic Leadership: The Definitive Guide to Influence People 3How to Avoid Micromanagement with Swarm Intelligence (Step-By-Step Guide ) 4How to Delegate Work (the Definitive Guide for Successful Leaders) 514 Powerful Leadership Traits (That All Great Leaders Have)

Read Next

Advertising
Advertising

The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

The Productivity Paradox: What Is It And How Can We Move Beyond It?

It’s a depressing adage we’ve all heard time and time again: An increase in technology does not necessarily translate to an increase in productivity.

Put another way by Robert Solow, a Nobel laureate in economics,

“You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.”

In other words, just because our computers are getting faster, that doesn’t mean that that we will have an equivalent leap in productivity. In fact, the opposite may be true!

New York Times writer Matt Richel wrote in an article for the paper back in 2008 that stated, “Statistical and anecdotal evidence mounts that the same technology tools that have led to improvements in productivity can be counterproductive if overused.”

There’s a strange paradox when it comes to productivity. Rather than an exponential curve, our productivity will eventually reach a plateau, even with advances in technology.

Advertising

So what does that mean for our personal levels of productivity? And what does this mean for our economy as a whole? Here’s what you should know about the productivity paradox, its causes, and what possible solutions we may have to combat it.

What is the productivity paradox?

There is a discrepancy between the investment in IT growth and the national level of productivity and productive output. The term “productivity paradox” became popularized after being used in the title of a 1993 paper by MIT’s Erik Brynjolfsson, a Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management, and the Director of the MIT Center for Digital Business.

In his paper, Brynjolfsson argued that while there doesn’t seem to be a direct, measurable correlation between improvements in IT and improvements in output, this might be more of a reflection on how productive output is measured and tracked.[1]

He wrote in his conclusion:

“Intangibles such as better responsiveness to customers and increased coordination with suppliers do not always increase the amount or even intrinsic quality of output, but they do help make sure it arrives at the right time, at the right place, with the right attributes for each customer.

Just as managers look beyond “productivity” for some of the benefits of IT, so must researchers be prepared to look beyond conventional productivity measurement techniques.”

How do we measure productivity anyway?

And this brings up a good point. How exactly is productivity measured?

In the case of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity gain is measured as the percentage change in gross domestic product per hour of labor.

But other publications such as US Today, argue that this is not the best way to track productivity, and instead use something called Total Factor Productivity (TFP). According to US Today, TFP “examines revenue per employee after subtracting productivity improvements that result from increases in capital assets, under the assumption that an investment in modern plants, equipment and technology automatically improves productivity.”[2]

In other words, this method weighs productivity changes by how much improvement there is since the last time productivity stats were gathered.

But if we can’t even agree on the best way to track productivity, then how can we know for certain if we’ve entered the productivity paradox?

Possible causes of the productivity paradox

Brynjolfsson argued that there are four probable causes for the paradox:

Advertising

  • Mis-measurement – The gains are real but our current measures miss them.
  • Redistribution – There are private gains, but they come at the expense of other firms and individuals, leaving little net gain.
  • Time lags – The gains take a long time to show up.
  • Mismanagement – There are no gains because of the unusual difficulties in managing IT or information itself.

There seems to be some evidence to support the mis-measurement theory as shown above. Another promising candidate is the time lag, which is supported by the work of Paul David, an economist at Oxford University.

According to an article in The Economist, his research has shown that productivity growth did not accelerate until 40 years after the introduction of electric power in the early 1880s.[3] This was partly because it took until 1920 for at least half of American industrial machinery to be powered by electricity.”

Therefore, he argues, we won’t see major leaps in productivity until both the US and major global powers have all reached at least a 50% penetration rate for computer use. The US only hit that mark a decade ago, and many other countries are far behind that level of growth.

The paradox and the recession

The productivity paradox has another effect on the recession economy. According to Neil Irwin,[4]

“Sky-high productivity has meant that business output has barely declined, making it less necessary to hire back laid-off workers…businesses are producing only 3 percent fewer goods and services than they were at the end of 2007, yet Americans are working nearly 10 percent fewer hours because of a mix of layoffs and cutbacks in the workweek.”

This means that more and more companies are trying to do less with more, and that means squeezing two or three people’s worth of work from a single employee in some cases.

Advertising

According to Irwin, “workers, frightened for their job security, squeezed more productivity out of every hour [in 2010].”

Looking forward

A recent article on Slate puts it all into perspective with one succinct observation:

“Perhaps the Internet is just not as revolutionary as we think it is. Sure, people might derive endless pleasure from it—its tendency to improve people’s quality of life is undeniable. And sure, it might have revolutionized how we find, buy, and sell goods and services. But that still does not necessarily mean it is as transformative of an economy as, say, railroads were.”

Still, Brynjolfsson argues that mismeasurement of productivity can really skew the results of people studying the paradox, perhaps more than any other factor.

“Because you and I stopped buying CDs, the music industry has shrunk, according to revenues and GDP. But we’re not listening to less music. There’s more music consumed than before.

On paper, the way GDP is calculated, the music industry is disappearing, but in reality it’s not disappearing. It is disappearing in revenue. It is not disappearing in terms of what you should care about, which is music.”

Perhaps the paradox isn’t a death sentence for our productivity after all. Only time (and perhaps improved measuring techniques) will tell.

Featured photo credit: Pexels via pexels.com

Reference

Read Next