Teams that Lead: A Matter of Market Strategy, Leadership Skills and Executive Strength

• Published in: Canadian psychology = Psychologie canadienne 2003, Vol.44 (4), p.428
• Main Author: Tivendell, John
• Format: Review
• Language: English
• Subjects: Executive ability; Leadership; Market strategy
• ISSN: 0708-5591; 1878-7304
• DOI: 10.1037/h0086965

Next, in Part I per se, the author leads us directly to Tracey and Weirsema's three options or market strategies. Essentially, these are derived from Michael Porter's alternatives, to choose a product or a customer focus, and from the traditional management focus on developing efficient processes. This is half of her two-concept model. As in each of the book's three parts, there is also a section in which the author reviews some literature underlying what is being discussed. However, in each case this review is incomplete and usually unimpressive. This will certainly irk those with academic pretensions who are looking for underlying scientific theories, valid measures, and references to empirical data testing these concepts. However, given a target audience of professionals who are probably familiar with many of these writings, this may not be a bad approach. Finally, there are two things in this first part that actually got me to like this book: the implementation of each focus or market strategy in terms of a set of relevant elements, which I could eventually represent in the form of a grid, and her use of a system's approach to identify and define these elements. The literature review section was more substantial than in Part I but there was still no mention of people like Belbin, Myers or Margerison (at Cranfield). There is only a passing or indirect reference to the works of Bass and Fiedler and nothing about McGill's Rabindra Kanungo. I understand that the mention of some of these classics could bring up theoretical and methodological debates inappropriate for this type of book. However, simply citing Hackman's taxonomy of teams, the existence of a stage theory of team maturity, a study questioning the impact of a leader on team performance, and a personal cross-literature count of 71 different team roles, cannot convince all readers of the validity her own model's taxonomy. Moreover, although her taxonomy (manager, coach or facilitator) is in fact logical and operationally convenient, her arguing its possible link to Tracey and Wiersema's taxonomy is unconvincing and ads a tautological element. To paraphrase Kurt Lewin, we need a good theory not a set of gurus. Finally, the rest of Part II presents in turn each of the three types of leader: first justifying its existence in terms of certain organizational needs, then listing various roles he or she needs to play, and finally presenting a number of case studies for each type. There are certain argume