Team Case a Leader Among

Team Case

A Leader Among Equals

Finding a leader in a group of founding partners that all considers themselves to be on equal footing and to have an equal stake in the venture is not going to be an easy task no matter how it is gone about. There will almost certainly be multiple individuals that feel they are the most qualified for and/or most capable of moving the company forward and making the proper decisions, and no matter how a leader is chosen or emerges factionalism and discontent is likely to be a result. The development and selection of various methods through which to choose a leader should be guided by the principle of minimizing discord following leadership selection, and though this might not be entirely accomplishable it can certainly be achieved to some degree.

Potential Leadership Selection Methods

Continuing the venture without some sort of hierarchy and leadership is untenable and out of the question, therefore some form of leadership selection model must be implemented. The simplest method and the one most likely to yield a positive outcome viewed favorably by the largest number of people in the group would be if a clear leader emerged from ongoing meetings and discussions held between the team members. Natural leadership is a rare quality but a highly effective unifier and motivator in real-world settings, and it would be simplest is a member of the group emerged as such a leader and was able to gain the support of a majority of the group (Peshawaria, 2011). Unfortunately, if this was going to occur it probably would have at this point, and from the case details it does not appear that any natural leaders are going to emerge from this scenario without a little more prodding and a little more conscious effort on the part of the team members, and thus this solution might not be able to be implemented.

A straightforward and simple vote for the leader could also be considered as an option for determining who should make final decisions to guide the team and the venture forward. This would be a way of explicitly maintaining broad empowerment amongst the group, which can be essential to overall group functioning and performance (Boyle, 2011). At the same time as a simple democratic vote might be the most broadly empowering means of selecting a leader, though, it could also end up fracturing the group still further, especially if each member of the group simply votes for themselves as the leader -- the group will be no further along than it is now. If a simple plurality is used to determine the leader, than this solution could cause even greater friction; if one person manages to amass only one or two votes for themselves outside of their own vote, they would be the leader of the group despite lacking a broad consensus or vote of confidence in this leader's capabilities or appropriateness. While the group members would all be expected to abide by the results of any such vote, the distrust and potentially grudging acceptance of a slimly elected leader would not be conducive to an effective work environment, and the divisions or factions that could potentially emerge within the group following such a vote could lead to an erosion of overall group efficacy and specifically of the power or authority of the elected leader.

The most advantageous way forward for the group at this time would be length discussion that narrowed the plan forward down to two basic directions with more concrete plans, and the nomination or selection of a leader to carry out each plan. Team members would then select which plan they felt would be most advantageous to their venture and vote accordingly, with the winning plan thus determining the group leader as the pre-selected plan leader. This would not entirely solve the factionalism problem, but the lack of vision and clear objectives currently affecting the group is the primary problem with the lack of leadership and is something that needs to be addressed; these are the problems that are preventing the group from moving forward in an effective and efficient way, and are the fundamental reasons behind the need for more defined and concrete leadership (Myatt, 2012). Once this leadership is established with a broader consensus about the direction the venture should be heading, those members of the team who disagree with the outcome will be more encouraged to renew their commitment to the team and maintain the right attitude in their efforts by the prevention of more extreme splintering or more disparate and numerous ideas that might be the result of a more straightforward and immediate vote for a leader.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the group members have a meeting where two basic and divergent plans for the venture are outlined and described through discussion and consensus. A leader for each plan will then be nominated, and the positions for and reasoning behind each plan clarified. A vote should then be held for the plan/leader that the group feels will be more successful, with everyone agreeing at the outset that the outcome of the vote will be adhered to and that everyone will work willingly and properly on the project regardless. Cementing this commitment to the team and to other team members prior to the discussion and the voting will help to make the discussion more honest and fruitful and will also help to ensure that factionalism is mitigated if not prevented in the final outcome of the vote and the continued efforts of the group as it takes its business forward.