Post #4- Team Structure

In the National Football League every coach has their own style of organizing their team. Many coaches are referred to as "player's coaches" meaning that they allow for significantly more player input, and put the needs of their players before their own. Others have a slightly more authoritarian approach towards organizing their team, and, for the most part, have complete control over the day-to-day operations of the team. Both styles of coaching have led to success. Both styles of coaching have led to utter failure. On the surface this may appear that the organizational structure has no significant impact on the success of the organization, but this does not factor in the many other aspects of the organization that determine whether that specific structure will work effectively. This is an example of how structure in organizations is often arbitrary, but can lead to success, or failure, depending on many other aspects of the organization such as field of work, characteristics of the subordinate labor force, characteristics of the organizational leadership, and many others. One experience that I had working in a successful team was an aquatics camp counselor for a summer camp at a beach on Lake Michigan, located just north of Chicago. We had such a successful summer that the following summer, enrollment in the camp nearly doubled, and reviews from campers, and parents, were extremely positive. 

The camp was a part of the park district in the town where the beach was located. The camp was 12 weeks long, with about 50-60 campers in the morning session, from 10-1230 am,  and 40-50 campers in the afternoon session, from 1-230 pm. The camp involved mainly aquatic activities such as kayaking, paddle boarding, and playing organized games on the rafts on the lake. There were 10 camp counselors, one assistant supervisor, and one supervisor. There were two counselors that worked together to supervise groups of roughly 10 campers.

The organizational structure of the camp most directly resembled the simple hierarchy model, with slight differences.  In the simple hierarchy model, the structure is described as a top-down, chain of command-like, organization. At this camp the supervisor was at the top, but the assistant supervisor was not directly under the supervisor. Most communication to the camp counselors, came directly from the supervisor, and any communication from the assistant supervisor was usually not because of direct orders from the supervisor. I provided a diagram below to better describe this structure. 

The team functioned well under this structure because of the somewhat "laissez-faire" atmosphere that is obviously associated with a beach summer camp. It allowed communication to flow easily from the counselors to the supervisor, which lead to efficient work from the camp counselors because we did not need to constantly work under orders from the supervisor, and felt a sense of trust in each of us to do our job effectively.

This team functioned extremely well, and displayed aspects of all of the distinguishing characteristics of high-functioning teams. One of these characteristics that was noticeably present was "High - performing teams shape purpose in response to a demand or an opportunity placed in their path, usually by higher management" (Bolman and Deal, 129). It was well understood that high performance in the position of camp counselor was rewarded with the opportunity to be promoted to the position of assistant supervisor, along with higher pay. High performance in the assistant supervisor position was also rewarded with a promotion to supervisor, and even higher pay. This incentivized our work and influenced a noticeable motivation to do outstanding work. Another extremely noticeable characteristic that was displayed by this team was "High - performing teams are of manageable size" (129). The breaking up of counselors into pairs, with small groups of campers allowed for each pair of counselors to, A. hold each other accountable for the others work, and B. maintain better supervision of the campers by breaking down the larger group into smaller groups. These smaller groups allowed for better accountability of campers and better attentiveness to the needs of individual campers. The third characteristic this team displayed particularly well was "High - performing teams develop a common commitment to working relationships" (130). Every couple of weeks the entire beach staff would get together for drinks, and play softball in the park. These games built great working relationships, and gave the work atmosphere a positive boost.

While the structure of the camp was an obvious contributing factor to the success of the team, individual efforts by each counselor to be a good teammate was arguably just as important to our success. Unselfishness, and a willingness to go the extra mile, for the good of the camp, was the two most noticeable traits in the camp counselor staff. This choice to provide a better work ethic made the job of the supervisor easier, and allowed them to focus on bigger picture aspects of the camp, rather than micromanaging, that would have led to inefficiencies from overlooked issues.