reflection paper,
Chapter 3
Team Building Blocks: Norms, Goals, Roles, Communication, Leaders, and Members
Learning Objectives
1. Analyze how personal values and other motivating forces influence group process and development.
2. Differentiate personal and group needs.
3. Analyze the relationship between role assumption, group needs, and goal attainment.
4. Understand the relationship between communication and learning styles.
5. Match communication style to the needs of the listener.
6. Give and receive feedback.
Norms
Group norms are agreed-upon standards of behavior. Norms are the shared explicit or implicit rules that a group uses to identify standards of performance and distinguish appropriate from inappropriate behavior. When group norms are explicit or made explicit, they are commonly referred to as ground rules, agreements, group charters, conditions, or guidelines. However, not all norms are explicit, and the perceptions and concomitant behavior of individuals in groups is profoundly—and often unconsciously—affected by social influence (Sherif, 1936).
FIGURE 3-1
In many progressive organizations, errors are routinely considered teaching moments that can provide opportunities for open discussion, team-based problem solving and continuous organizational improvement. While similar normative responses to errors would elicit the same type of team and organization improvements in health care, the dire consequences of medical mistakes tend to discourage the very discussions that are necessary to prevent their occurrence (O’Daniel & Rosenstein, 2008). This tendency, in combination with differing professional identities, cultures, skills, domains of concern, differences in power, capacity, resources, goals, and accountability actually requires that more attention be paid to constructing organization-wide standards that encourage and reward interaction. In groups where intraprofessional and interprofessional conflict avoidance is the normative behavior, the ensuing misunderstandings and related mistrust tend to limit collaborative or cooperative behavior. Sustainable collaborative environments for interprofessional healthcare teams require a collectively constructed core of prescriptive (do’s) and proscriptive (don’ts) norms or ground rules that inform interaction at intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systems levels (Nash, 2008). Using normative structures that highlight the commonality of patient-centered care while acknowledging the existence of divergent organizational and personal priorities will help team members to understand that personal goals and wishes will often be subordinate to the goals of the group. The acceptance of professional differences and the proactive examination of errors help to create opportunities for increased communication, understanding, and trust and pave the way for collaborative endeavors between disciplines (Doucet, Larouche, & Melchin, 2001).
REFLECTION: Explicit and Implicit Norms in a Group
Identify the norms or rules of your work group.
Interview members of your group and ask them to identify the rules of your group.
How does your response differ from your coworkers? How is it the same?
How does the similarity/difference of perception affect the group’s functioning?
As team members come to expect and deliver full participation, and experience consistent adherence to norms associated with role assumption, communication, and authority, accountability is shared. Trust in each other’s expertise engenders a parity of participation and shared ownership of team outcomes (Ratcheva, 2009).
Goals
Group goals, like norms, are both explicit and implicit. Implicit goals address the developmental processes inherent to group maturation. Focusing on, defining, and committing to the explicit work-related goals of a group is a major key to success. Commonly held goals and the collective efficacy that the achievements of these goals engender are key contributors to group performance (Silver & Bufanio, 1996). Not surprisingly, the ease of goal attainment is related to the level of goal complexity.
In the current healthcare climate, team goals for professionals are complex and require problem solving using multiple types of data and a convergence of multiple areas of expertise and skill sets. To add to that complexity, interdisciplinary team members bring diverse professional values, individual personal goals, and goals influenced by multiple reporting relationships. It is essential that goals are not only clear but constantly revisited.
Groups that continually communicate and become more explicit with regard to the teams goals are more successful in performance. Regardless of the complexities of the team tasks and team membership, if group members are committed to the group goals, the team can succeed. If the commitment to the goals is low then there is little chance of success (Locke, Latham, & Erez, 1988).
Roles
The inherent diversity of teams makes team members’ interaction and relationships key factors in team effectiveness. Researchers have studied groups of people who have a variety of styles in order to ascertain whether a particular complement of individual member styles has any impact on group effectiveness, outcomes, and development. Lewin (1943) observed that behavior is a function of the person and the environment or B = ƒ (P, E). Role assumption in groups is a function of an individual’s preferred style or personality in the context of the complex system of group dynamics that comprises team behavior and effectiveness. Subsequent research examined functional roles in groups. These roles are not necessarily attached to any individual but affect the group’s developmental progress and productivity.
Wheelan (2005) identifies three primary roles that group members assume regardless of their personality types. Task roles are needed to facilitate a project from inception to completion. Socioemotional or maintenance roles contribute to positive atmosphere of the group and foster cohesion. Organizational roles like the leader, recorder or project manager keep the group organized. According to Benne & Sheats (1948), individual roles tend to disrupt group progress and weaken cohesion. Table 3-1 provides examples of each role.
TABLE 3-1 Benne & Sheats’s Group Member Roles
|
Task |
Socioemotional/Maintenance |
Individual |
|
Initiator/contributor |
Encourager |
Aggressor |
|
Information seeker/giver |
Harmonizer |
Blocker |
|
Coordinator |
Compromiser |
Disrupter |
|
Evaluator |
Includer |
Dominator |
|
Energizer |
Follower |
|
|
Procedural technician |
|
|
Data from: Benne, K. & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4(2), 41–49.
Belbin (2010) studied teamwork and observed that people in teams tend to assume various team roles, which alternate in their dominance depending upon the developmental stage of the group’s activities. The nine roles where categorized into the following three groups: Action oriented, people oriented, and thought oriented. The action-oriented group includes shaper (SH), implementer (IMP), and completer-finisher (CF) roles. The people-oriented group includes coordinator (CO), team worker (TW), and resource investigator (RI) roles. The thought-oriented group includes plant (PL), monitor-evaluator (ME), and specialist (SP) roles. Each team role is associated with typical behavioral and interpersonal strengths. Belbin also defined characteristic weaknesses that tend to accompany each team role. He called these the allowable weaknesses—areas to be aware of and potentially improve upon (see Table 3-2 ).
A group that is composed of members who assume only those roles related to job completion while ignoring the roles that engage and facilitate member participation runs the risk of diminished cohesion, unmanaged conflict, and apathy. All of these negatively affect the sustainability of good performance and successful outcomes. However, groups that are stymied in a quagmire of conflicting emotions or that are burdened with members who are myopically focused on their personal agenda will never get any work done. These scenarios can negatively impact healthcare teams who routinely deal with issues related to complex medical decision-making and the resultant interventions that will impact a patient’s lifestyle and quality of life. Throughout the life of every group of health professionals, leaders and members must be alert enough to recognize what roles need to be assumed and be flexible enough to assume the roles that will sustain optimum group functioning and consistently positive patient outcomes.
TABLE 3-2 Belbin’s Team Roles
|
Team Role |
Contribution |
Allowable Weakness |
|
Thought Oriented (TO) |
||
|
Plant |
• Creative, imaginative, unorthodox • Solves difficult problems |
• Ignores incidentals • Too preoccupied to communicate effectively |
|
Monitor Evaluator |
• Sober, strategic, and discerning • Sees all positions • Judges accurately |
• Lacks drive and ability to inspire others |
|
Specialist |
• Single minded, self-starting, dedicated • Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply |
• Contributes on only a narrow front • Dwells on technicalities |
|
Action Oriented (AO) |
||
|
Shaper |
• Challenging, dynamic • Thrives on pressure • Has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles |
• Prone to provocation • Offends people’s feelings |
|
Implementer |
• Disciplined, reliable, conservative, and efficient • Turns ideas into practical actions |
• Somewhat inflexible • Slow to respond to new possibilities |
|
Completer/Finisher |
• Painstaking, conscientious, anxious • Searches out errors and omissions • Polishes and perfects |
• Inclined to worry unduly • Reluctant to delegate |
|
People Oriented (PO) |
||
|
Team Worker |
• Cooperative, mild, perceptive, and diplomatic • Listens • Builds, averts friction |
• Indecisive in crunch situations |
|
Resource Investigator |
• Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative • Explores opportunities • Develops contacts |
• Overly optimistic • Loses interest once initial enthusiasm has passed |
|
Coordinator |
• Mature, confident; a good chairperson • Clarifies goals, promotes decision making • Delegates well |
• Can be seen as manipulative • Offloads personal work |
Reproduced with permission from: of Belbin Associates, www.belbin.com.
The attempt to carry out functional group roles, as described, is further complicated by the many other personal and professional roles that are held by members of healthcare teams. While a primary challenge for all team members is to separate personal needs and roles from the team needs and roles, healthcare professionals must also juggle team and discipline-related roles that often conflict at the intraprofessional and interprofessional levels. Perceived roles and responsibilities may diverge based on variations in professional socialization, experience, and organizational expectations. Some professionals—often from the same discipline—may see themselves as primarily responsible for the physiology of care while others believe they need to incorporate the contextual aspects of the illness experience in their treatment planning (Doucet et al., 2001). When faced with budget restrictions in a rehabilitation department, does the physical therapist on the team focus her energy on advocating for the physical therapy equipment budget or facilitating a group discussion regarding prioritizing the needs of the department? The answer depends on how group, member, and contextual issues are negotiated. Each member of the healthcare team is faced with similar decisions about role choices. These choices will affect the culture, development, and performance of the team and ultimately determine the nature of patient outcomes (Freshman, Rubino, & Chassiakos, 2010).
Communication Patterns
In spite of the role differentiation that exists among the disciplines, holistic approaches to health care can engender role overlap, ambiguity, and boundary management challenges (Gray, 2008; Klein, 2010; Nash, 2008). Teams that leverage common ground as well as disciplinary differences through well-constructed and maintained communication strategies are likely to demonstrate sustained high performance and achieve positive patient outcomes (Drinka & Clark, 2000; Gittel, 2009).
The first step in productive communication is to get the attention of the person with whom one is trying to communicate. Team members who understand that communication styles often reflect learning styles and professional orientation will be most successful if they take the time to adjust their communication style to complement the styles of the people with whom they are communicating. People who are action oriented are interested and tend to talk about objectives, results, performance, and productivity. Strategies, organization, and facts tend to pique the attention of those who are process oriented. People who are idea oriented are interested in concept development and innovation, while those with a people orientation focus their communication on values, beliefs, and relationship building (Youker, 1996).
While the previous examples give an indication of how communication is carried out and received, the following model provides some insight into what is communicated. Conscious attention to how and what is communicated allows for more mindful, strategic, and effective communication in teams.
CASE STUDY: Communication Style Match
Members of the interprofessional team on a geriatric unit (physician, nurse, physical therapist, occupational therapist, and social worker) are meeting to discuss patient safety on the unit. During the previous quarter, falls increased by 10%. Analysis of the incident reports indicates that an examination of the fall prevention program that is offered jointly by nursing, physical therapy, and occupational therapy is indicated. The team is meeting with the goal of designing a revised fall prevention program for the unit. The proposed program will need to be based in the most current evidence, ensure the safety of the patients, and be cost effective. All four styles of communication noted previously in this chapter—action oriented (physician and physical therapist), process oriented (occupational therapist), people oriented (social worker), and idea oriented (nurse)—are represented. The leader (in this case, it is the physical therapist) is an identified action-oriented communicator. In preparation for the first meeting, she reviews strategies for adjusting her communication style to the team members and prepares her opening remarks. Her remarks might vary depending on how she perceives the other members of the group. She lists pointers for addressing the others based on their communication styles, along with alternate statements for each type.
COMMUNICATING WITH AN ACTION-ORIENTED PERSON:
Focus on the results first.
State your best recommendation.
Emphasize the practicality of your idea.
At the first meeting, if the other members are action oriented, the physical therapist might say, “The purpose of this group is to address the increased number of falls on the unit this last quarter. We need to revise the fall prevention program that is currently offered. I recommend that we construct a program around the three components that have been identified in the literature. Developing a fall prevention program that includes exercise, fall prevention, and environmental components is the most effective focus.”
COMMUNICATING WITH A PROCESS-ORIENTED PERSON:
State the facts.
Present your thoughts in a logical manner.
Include options with pros and cons.
Do not rush the person.
If the other members are process oriented, the physical therapist might say, “The purpose of this group is to address the increased number of falls on the unit this last quarter. We need to revise the fall prevention program that is currently offered. One option that we may choose to pursue is to do a literature review on the efficacy of fall prevention and develop a custom program for our unit. We may also explore the option of purchasing existing modules. What are your thoughts?”
COMMUNICATING WITH A PEOPLE-ORIENTED PERSON:
Allow for small talk at the beginning of a session.
Stress the relationship between the proposal and the people concerned.
Show how the idea worked well in the past.
Show respect for people.
The physical therapist might say to such a group, “The purpose of this group is to address the increased number of falls on the unit this last quarter. Each of you has been chosen for this team because of your demonstrated commitment to patient safety. You are the experts in the day-to-day care of our patients. One area that we may need to consider is a revision of the fall prevention program that we currently offer. Institutions that are similar to ours have reported great success in reducing patient falls using a combination of exercise, addressing fear of falling, and modifying the environment.”
COMMUNICATING WITH AN IDEA-ORIENTED PERSON:
Allow enough time for discussion.
Do not get impatient when they go off on tangents.
Be broad and conceptual in your opening.
The physical therapist could address this type of group by saying, “As key staff members on this geriatric unit, you have demonstrated your commitment to patient safety. I have asked each of you to be a member of this team because we have yet another safety concern. The purpose of this group is to address the increased number of falls on the unit this last quarter. We need to revise the fall prevention program that is currently offered. Yes, the plan for tornado drills has been effective. Is there anything that we learned during the development and implementation of the tornado drill policy that we can bring to the creation of a fall prevention program?”
By acknowledging the presence of a variety of communication styles and adjusting her approach, this leader has demonstrated respect for team members and hopefully avoided potential problems in team communication at the beginning of this important project.
The Johari window (Luft & Ingham, 1950) is a classic model for identifying and improving an individual’s relationship with a group and/or a group’s relationships with other groups. While the discussion that follows addresses the model from an individual perspective, the concepts are applicable to groups as individual entities within organizations, where others refers to other groups.
The model is represented as a square that is divided into four window panes or perspectives as shown in Figure 3-2 and is arranged as follows:
FIGURE 3-2 The Johari window.
Adapted from: Luft, J., Ingham, H. (1950). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development (Los Angeles: UCLA).
Quadrant 1: Open/free area—what is known by the individual person and also known by others.
Quadrant 2: Blind area—what is known by others but unknown to the individual.
Quadrant 3: Hidden area—what is known by the individual and consciously hidden from others.
Quadrant 4: Unknown area—what is unknown to both the individual and others.
The panes/areas expand and contract to reflect the proportion of individual or group knowledge about an area. In newly formed groups, for instance, the open area is small since newly assembled groups of people know relatively little about one another. As groups mature, the open area increases as more information is shared and more cooperation and collaboration ensue. If open areas remain diminished, the group may be vulnerable to misunderstanding, mistrust, and confusion and delay progress toward maturity. The ultimate goal for team members is to increase the size of the open area and decrease the size of the other areas through positive communication (see Figure 3-2). The blind area is also known as the “bad breath area” because an individual is unaware of something that is known by everyone else. In the case of an individual, this could be a habit such as constantly glancing at a cell phone during a meeting—unaware that the other members of the group perceive this as disrespectful. Asking for and providing constructive feedback reduce this area.
While it is appropriate to use discretion when disclosing personal or private information, feelings and information related to work proves only be helpful if they are allowed into the open area. The process of disclosure—exposing relevant information and feelings—reduces the hidden area and further expands the open area. So a group member might disclose that he/she feels disrespected when someone is checking a cell phone during a meeting or conversation. The unknown area contains information such as unconscious needs, motivations, or inherent abilities that are unrecognized by the individual or the group. By examining the unknown area, individuals begin to understand that perceptions of present situations may be rooted in our past and the insecurity or anger that may have been experienced during a difficult childhood may be a hot button that is easily triggered by a difficult interaction in the present.
With the realization that our perceptions of present situations are formed through the lens of our own life experiences, we begin to seek information from others in order to construct a more complete picture. The ability to separate our perceptions from actuality allows us to become emotionally independent, no longer bound by automatic negative responses to triggers or hot buttons and better able to make strategic choices regarding our actions and reactions.
If the unknown area is not reduced, the group runs the risk of not being able to leverage all of an individual’s talents. In addition, the individual runs the risk of not realizing his/her true potential—bound by old ways of knowing and reacting and reducing the chances of self-actualization and motivation to become engaged in the group’s work. This type of awareness can be sparked through self-discovery, observations by others, and methods of inquiry that encourage mutual discovery. Leaders and members who use positive communication to facilitate self-discovery, solicit and provide constructive feedback, and foster the free flow of information create a psychologically safe environment that engenders creativity, productivity, and sustained high performance.
FIGURE 3-3 Detail of the steps involved in a working Johari window.
Data from: Luft, J., Ingham, H. (1950). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development (Los Angeles: UCLA).
Leavitt (1951) described graphic configurations of the most common communication networks in small groups such as the wheel and circle. An important aspect of communication networks is how information is processed and distributed. Simple tasks that require the processing of limited amounts of information are most efficiently carried out in centralized networks like the wheel where one person serves as the hub for information exchange, while more complex tasks, which require the processing of large amounts of complex information, are most efficiently handled by decentralized networks of communication such as the circle, where there is a free flowing information exchange among all participants.
COMMUNICATION NETWORKS
Simple tasks, like stocking supply closets in the therapy gyms, requires the processing of limited amounts of information and can be most efficiently carried out in a centralized network like the wheel. A supervisor (hub of the wheel) might send out a directive to the therapy aides. More complex tasks, like developing a comprehensive patient discharge plan, requires the processing of large amounts of complex information and might be most efficiently handled by decentralized networks of communication between the physician, nurse, therapists, and social worker.
FIGURE 3-4A
FIGURE 3-4B
Systematic observation of communication and attraction patterns provides insight into morale and levels of satisfaction flow of information, power and influence, cohesiveness, and effectiveness within teams. Communication patterns tend to parallel role, status, and attraction patterns with higher interaction rates being associated with higher status individuals. Lower status individuals are less likely to express their thoughts and feelings in groups with people of higher status. According to the Institutes of Medicine (2003), hierarchical communication patterns are partially responsible for many medical errors. Additional challenges to communication may exist along gender and generational lines (Spector, 2010). However, in teams that continually employ collaborative processes characterized by directness, mutual understanding, and parity of participation, a climate of psychological safety is created along with an effective and efficient exchange of information among all members of the team (Meads & Ashcroft, 2005; Nembhard & Edmondson, 2006.
Healthcare organizations are composed of a diverse network of health professionals, patients, and caregivers who must leverage each other’s expertise by coordinating the exchange and flow of highly complex data. High-quality feedback among interdependent team members yields high levels of cohesion, satisfaction, and performance in teams (Garman, 2010; Gittell, 2009; Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002). To this end, conscious effort must be applied to developing information exchange strategies that distribute leadership and facilitate accountability and engagement of every member of the team (Gray, 2008; Hammick, Freeth, Copperman, & Goodsman, 2009). Attention to the analysis of social networks and information exchange is crucial to understanding the interpersonal aspects of collaboration around a task, goal, or function (Gray, 2008). Social and interpersonal processes, including team members’ collaborative styles, communication networks, and conflict management and negotiation strategies that emphasize excellence and convey clear goals and expectations are hallmarks of high-functioning teams (Stokols, Hall, Tylor, & Moser, 2008).
The fast-paced healthcare environment places time at a premium. Managers and practitioners find it difficult to justify taking time away from direct patient care in order to attend meetings. However, recent healthcare reforms have linked reimbursement to patient outcomes such as length of stay, readmission rates, and patient satisfaction rather than the number of procedures and services provided. High-functioning healthcare teams have been associated with positive patient outcomes and high retention rates for health professionals. While one could argue that the time spent in meetings is not reimbursable, it would be hard to deny that the improvements in team communication and performance positively affect team sustainability and patient outcomes. Institutions that invest in the development of relationships through formal structures that support frequent and consistent time allocation for team interaction—face-to-face and electronic—will find that gains in patient outcomes will mirror gains in social capital (Drinka & Clark, 2000; Ghaye, 2005; Gittell, 2009; IOM, 2003; Lawrence, 2002; Ratcheva, 2009).
CASE STORY: Check Your Ego at the Door
Any complicated problem lends itself to an interprofessional approach. When we have to do any project we have groups where there are 12 people in different areas on the team (eg: graphics, engineering, administration, nursing) and they talk about the project. Then we break the team into smaller groups of 3 and they all have to come back with their proposed designs and talk about the process of coming to that conclusion. The group, as a whole, reviews all the alternative proposals and pulls them together for their final decision. No one person has the final say—it is not hierarchical. This fosters the idea that everyone has something to contribute. Everyone understands that you have to check your ego at the door. It is not about you. The final decision reflects the goals of the program, not individual goals.
This approach is neither intuitive or the individualistic “American way.” There should be some kind of training so that people learn how to separate their work performance from their own personal needs and work as a team.
—Karen J. Nichols, Chief Medical Officer, University of Pennsylvania LIFE (Living Independently for Elders) Program
REFLECTION: Recognizing and Respecting Diversity
How do you demonstrate respect of diversity in the healthcare team?
How might you use conflict as a path to creative problem solving in the healthcare team?
How do you find shared ground?
How do you influence others on your team?
How do they influence you?