Team building is a relatively new term in the field of personnel management.
And are team building events good for business?
Whatever they say and writeManagement of personnel, the creation of a team entirely depends on the personality of the leader. A good example is the Manchester United football team. One of the best teams in the world has sharply lowered its champion level with the departure of the legendary coach - Sir Alex Ferguson. It would seem that there is everything - super-players, team spirit (to play in the great MU - the dream of any football player), the distribution of roles, the worked out interaction, motivation (oh yes, the motivation motivated by HR-specialists). And the results with the new trainers are not the same. Why? Yes, one ingredient is missing - the magic of Ferguson.
The word "teambuilding" came into the sphere ofManagement of personnel from the sport. Sport, like business, is a tough thing. Only in sports the result is manifested more quickly. Twice for 45 minutes in football - and you either lost or won (even tied results are often perceived by the parties as a loss or vice versa). In business, the result of actions is not immediately apparent, leaving room for unnecessary manipulation.
For example, for "team-building activities". This is one of the most dreadful terms. A combination of Soviet show-off with specialized pathos. And still - somehow densely entered into office vocabulary word "corporate" (abbreviated from "corporate", apparently). Even if there are less than a dozen employees in a corporation, it is still a joint celebration of the holiday, which is proud of this word.
I pay attention to the words, because behind themShould be certain things. And things should lead to the result. If your organization enthusiastically promotes corporate culture, conducts corporate events, hosts team building exercises, builds team spirit, and at the same time a frenzied turnover of staff at all levels - stop taking nonsense and spend on it company funds.
At the head of the corner of business is the goal. To achieve the goal, a collective (organization, department, department, department, etc.) is formed, capable of performing certain functions and achieving results. The work of the team is directed by the head. From him, in the first place, the result is required. He forms the team. How?
Each leader collects a team for himself, inAccordance with their views on the conduct of the case. Even if the initial selection of employees is carried out by the HR manager, the last word remains, as a rule, behind the leader. He distributes functions in accordance with the posts, he also sees a portrait of the ideal performer of these functions. And it will somehow achieve the maximum closeness of employees to the ideal he has drawn. On the other hand, employees also assess whether they want to work under such guidance. Every person is a person, with his cockroaches in his head. Who knows what makes up or does not develop relationships. Collect (and save) a team of only two people - the family - and then oh, how difficult. And here - a workable team!
In any case, when building relationshipsIn the organization, the parties assess two characteristics - professional skills and personal qualities. Which of them is more important, it is difficult to say. Rather, their combination is important. At the same time, if professionalism can be improved (through training, mentoring), then the nature of an adult person is usually not subject to change. Is it possible to build personal relationships through trainings? I doubt it. Hence, the manager primarily focuses on the functional. Its task is to distribute well-defined functions among employees so that it only remains to add local results to get the whole. The main thing is the certainty of each individual's responsibilities and dependence on the overall result.
Note the principal difference: The head must achieve the goal of the team, and employees have the right to work or not work under such guidance. Folk wisdom - you can not be forced by force.
Suppose the manager still hasNecessary for the cause of specialists. Not the fact that this will be a team. Inside the collective there will necessarily be contradictions. There is no ideal collective where everyone can not live without each other and are constantly illuminated by Western smiles. You can, of course, try to establish internal relationships with the help of trainings and joint events, spending on this or personal time employees, or working. Which option is painless for the case? Working hours of employees - for the performance of duties. The whole team, by the way. Do we need to separate them from the joint business in order to teach them to carry out the work together? Personal time - to relax from work problems and from the professional environment too. It is unlikely that the obligation to be with the team even in non-working hours contributes to the strengthening of the team. A family, for example, how? And in general, the opportunity to have a personal time (otium) determined in the times of Ancient Rome the difference between a free man and a slave. Hence, personal problems in the interaction of staff must be resolved in the course of work.
So it turns out that the formation of the teamTeam depends entirely on the leader. First, it determines the composition of the staff according to their ability to perform certain tasks. Secondly, by all available methods (organization of work, personal influence), it prevents conflict situations that can hamper the fulfillment of tasks. Third, it leads to the achievement of goals.
In my opinion (and I act asLeader for 25 years), if there is an idea of team building, then the leader must look first at himself. Do not teach people to be a team, but to learn how to manage your own team so that you can say about it (team) - the team. Is it difficult to manage on your own? Then, perhaps, the best option - the presence of the head of a personal coach (coach). Ideally, the task of the business coach is to help build the work so that the team performs its functions independently, without the direct involvement of the manager, perceiving it (and this is very important!) As an ideological leader. And this is the team. So in sports. So in business.