Oftentimes, the type of leadership will determine what type of productivity, management will receive out of their subordinates.

Managers must work towards motivating their subordinates to strive for excellent levels of achievements. Team members and/or subordinates must feel appreciated. For example, if a manager is the type of person that coerces their subordinates to get the job done rather than reward them for their accomplishments, then in most cases, the subordinate would rather leave the organization for another organization that appreciates their overall contributions.

Another reason that could be problematic for most managers is if the task being assigned is not appropriately compensated meaning, the pay scale does not match the level of difficulty involved in task completion.

When developing strategies for self-directed high performance teams (Wellins, 2009) it is always good to take into account what is motivating your team to stay with the organization? What is the contributing factor that lures your subordinates or team member to give 110% to the task?

In essence, it is a fair assessment to state that the managers who have acquired adequate results was as a result of having a vision how successful they desire to be. The only difference between a successful manager and an unsuccessful manager is the fact that the successful manager already knows in their mind where they are going,

they have a general idea of how they will get there and what they will need along the way to fulfill their main objective. Many teams begin by jumping into the fire and then trying to figure out what to do. Planning strategies to complete projects before starting will result in a direct approach, which will produce a better and more complete project in less time. (Wellins, 2009).

The causes of failure have been widely researched and can vary considerably. Some causes will be external to the organization and outside its influence of control. Others will be internal and ultimately within the control of the organization. Internal causes of failure can be divided into causes associated with the cultural infrastructure and causes associated with the process itself. Failure in the cultural infrastructure varies between organizations but the following are common across all organizations at some stage in their life cycle. Self-directed teams from this perspective succeeds from strategic structures that engage the teams to the organization’s benefit. Self-directed teams pivot on intrinsically motivated individuals, within a supportive culture, informed by a broad sense of the future. (O’Sullivan, D., 2002).

In an article from the Harvard Business Review, we learn of issues that decreases employee morale as it relates to how they are being treated by managers. Below is an excerpt of a high performance team that develops a tumultuous attitude as a result of betrayal from management:

The team that operated the Nut Island sewage treatment plant in Quincy, Massachusetts, was every manager’s dream. Members of the group performed difficult, dangerous work without complaint. They needed little supervision. They improvised their way around operational difficulties and budgetary constraints. They were dedicated to the organization’s mission. But their hard work led to catastrophic failure. How could such a good team go so wrong? In this article, the author tells the story of the Nut Island plant and identifies a common, yet destructive organizational dynamic that can strike any business.

The Nut Island effect begins with a deeply committed team that is isolated from a company’s mainstream activities. Pitted against this team is its senior management. Preoccupied with high-visibility problems, management assigns the team a vital but behind-the-scenes task. Allowed considerable autonomy, team members become adept at managing themselves. Management takes the team’s self-sufficiency for granted and ignores team members when they ask for help. When trouble strikes and management is unresponsive, team members feel betrayed and develop an us-against-the-world mentality. They stay out of management’s line of sight, hiding problems. The team begins to make up its own rules, which mask grave problems in its operations. Management, disinclined in the first place to focus on the team’s work, is easily misled by team members’ skillful disguising of its performance deficiencies. The resulting stalemate typically can be broken only by an external event. The Nut Island story serves as a warning to managers who concentrate their efforts on their organization’s most visible shortcomings: sometimes the most debilitating problems are the ones we can’t see. (Levy, 2001).