2 discussions - due in 5 hours

39

2Group Development

Jupiterimages/Stockbyte/Thinkstock

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Discuss and evaluate Tuckman’s sequential stage theory.

• Contrast sequential stage theory with Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.

• Assess the practical implications of the team evaluation and maturation model.

• Identify critical elements in setting the stage for effective teamwork.

• Correlate commitment, attachment, and trust with shared leadership, meaningful and measurable perfor- mance goals, and mutual accountability.

• Describe five major sources of objections to group work and teamwork, as well as strategies for overcoming them.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 39 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Introduction

Pretest

1. Performing is the final stage in a group’s development. T/F 2. Teams should be as large as possible to maximize skill potential. T/F 3. Teams require support from organizational systems in order to function effectively. T/F 4. Team building is complete once members have been selected and resources have been

acquired. T/F 5. Lack of positive group or team experience can be a major obstacle to team

development. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Introduction As senior manager at a large marketing company, Tai has successfully overseen the development of several small groups into high-functioning teams. She was recently asked to form a new group that will create a marketing campaign for a struggling product line. Although past experience tells Tai that this will likely call for a team, she begins the team-building process by first confirming that a team best suits the project’s complexity. Once she does so, Tai determines that the structural parameters surrounding the team’s project, and the essential nature of what it is expected to do, call for a design team in which members with problem-solving experience and skills are particularly desirable. Tai meets with potential team leaders, both in-house and out-house, to discuss the resources they will need. They conclude that understanding and addressing the issues surrounding the product’s current market struggles will require the team to coordinate and exchange information with a knowledgeable individual or group within the client organization. They discuss potential team leader and member combinations that can skillfully accom- plish this.

The challenge is to keep the team small but represent enough KSA combinations so as to support an effective solution. Tai likes to keep teams as small as possible because she’s found that they work more quickly. Furthermore, her company is busy—wasting human resources is not an option. After a lively discussion on how various members might work together and complement each other’s KSAs, Tai selects a team leader—Maya—along with the other members. The discussion also helps clarify the major issues that need to be addressed to meet the team’s objective and which activities will support this. The process is helpful for Maya because she needs to explain the project to her new team.

Although Tai will continue to check in on Maya and the team’s progress, she knows her role in planning the team is, for the most part, over. Maya will take over ongoing resource planning and management and continue the process of team building. Tai knows that both Maya and her team members are experienced in this process and have worked together in many combinations before. In fact, some of the most difficult work of develop- ing the team is already done—the team has a sturdy foundation of commitment, attach- ment, and trust thanks to past work experiences, and their socioemotional interdepen- dencies are already strong. The team members trust Maya’s leadership and know the teamwork process well—she won’t be alone in developing her team.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 40 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

How Do Groups Form?

In Chapter 1 we explored the fundamental qualities of groups and teams, the reasons we form work groups and teams, and the practical differences between them. In Chap- ter 2, we examine group development and the concepts that support effective team building by addressing another set of fundamental questions: How do groups form? How do they develop over time? How can we build an effective team? And, why do some people avoid groups and teams?

Group development theorists have struggled to answer these questions ever since group dynamics emerged as a prominent field of study. We will seek to gain some understanding of these questions by exploring major theories of group development, methods for building effective groups and teams, and common obstacles to group development.

2.1 How Do Groups Form? We have looked at different types of groups and explored how their members can have varying degrees of relatedness, cohesiveness, and interdependence. We know that informal and for- mal groups have very different developmental contexts. Despite these differences, all groups have some significant elements in common. Groups are composed of people, and people relate and interact in specific ways. Group development theories seek to identify and describe recur- ring patterns of structural change and interactions throughout a group’s existence. Although the basic concepts may be loosely applied to any group, most developmental theories are cre- ated in reference to task groups and outline the group’s formation and progression through performance, goal attainment, and dissolution. Recall from Chapter 1 that task groups include most of the informal and formal groups found in the workplace, such as social clubs, interest groups, lunch buddies, boards, committees, work groups, and teams.

Task groups feature two synergistic elements that evolve over time (Seers & Woodruff, 1997):

1. The interpersonal dynamics between members as they develop into a cohesive group or team

2. The operational dynamics that describe the group’s progression toward its perfor- mance goals

Group development theories are numerous and varied. Some theorists choose to focus on the progression of interpersonal dynamics (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977); others on the operational dynamics (Gersick, 1988); and a growing number are coming to view the process as an integrated whole (Benefield & Utley, 2007; Morgan, Salas, & Glickman, 1993). The three theories presented in the following sections were selected because they represent each of these perspectives and because they are relevant to understanding and working in organizational groups and teams. The first of these, Tuckman’s sequential stage theory, is the most well known and represents a large body of accepted theories that outline group development as occurring in sequential stages. The second, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory, offers an alternate view of the developmental process as one that occurs in dramatic leaps at predictable intervals within the performance timeline. Finally, the team evaluation and maturation model integrates Tuckman’s and Gersick’s theories into a new and more com- prehensive whole. We will examine each of these theories in turn, beginning with the oldest and most influential.

Section 2.1

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 41 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group development follows a sequen- tial process in which group members enact a series of five developmental stages, known as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a period of conflict while adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group norms, proceed to perfor- mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group. Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s five stages of development and describes them by their outcome, associated activities, and primary interpersonal dynamic.

Mapping the Developmental Processes Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of interpersonal dynamics between group members. The five-stage model represents a simplified outline of the develop- mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence. By examining the essential nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion as the overarching metapro- cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the activities within the stages of forming, norming, storming, and performing.

When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs over a series of developmen- tal processes encompassing member identification and the emergence of group structure. In relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:

• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the forming stage, individ- uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group.

• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification. Represented by the storming stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes, status balancing, and role adjustments also occur.

• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage, members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good and develops procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing stage, members engage in cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal attainment.

When new members join an existing group, they follow a slightly different identification and integration process, and group cohesion begins with socialization. Broadly defined, social- ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge required to successfully participate as a member (Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal- vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely malleable and open to guidance; in effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to norming. However, as they emerge from this initial period of observation and assimilation and become more confident in their ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their identity and role within the group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement back into storming, followed by a relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The group as a whole can also expe- rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift roles (such as becoming team

Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Forming Individuals come together and acknowl- edge membership in a distinct group.

Task-orienting behav- iors: Identification of the group’s objective, structural parameters, primary task type, and method of interaction.

Uncertainty: Members try to understand the “ground rules” of belong- ing to the group, how to approach group process and performance, and what they need to do to achieve group goals.

Storming Members shift from I to we thinking; script clashes, status balanc- ing, and role adjustment occur.

Boundary testing and redefinition: There is con- flict between members, role emergence, and task designation.

Resistance: Members chafe against new constraints associated with the group context, assigned roles, script dif- ferences, and perceived status within the group.

Norming Members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good. They develop pro- cedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

Script unification: Assimi- lation and emergence of group norms.

Task and socioemo- tional interdependence increase.

Cooperation: Members accept the group and seek acceptance via observa- tion and open exchange of information, feedback, and norms.

Performing Members achieve positive interdependence and focus energies toward goal accomplishment.

Participation in task- oriented processes and activities: Behaviors and activities geared toward productivity and goal attainment.

Positive interdepen- dence: Members engage in cooperative action, group energy is chan- neled toward task work, and the group becomes a functional instrument for accomplishing its objective.

Adjourning Members physically and emotionally disengage from the group as mem- bership ends.

Physical and emotional closure: Task activi- ties and behaviors are terminated. Members prepare to resume pre- group duties and roles and disengage from their roles and relationships within the group. Mem- bers are recognized for their participation and achievement and achieve emotional closure.

Evaluation and reflec- tion: Members assess their participation and personal development within the group, group process, and performance outcome.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 42 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Tuckman’s Sequential Stage Theory Tuckman’s sequential stage theory assumes that group development follows a sequen- tial process in which group members enact a series of five developmental stages, known as forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen 1977). Within these stages, members enter a group, experience a period of conflict while adjusting to their new setting, establish shared scripts and group norms, proceed to perfor- mance and goal achieving, and eventually dissolve the group. Table 2.1 models Tuckman’s five stages of development and describes them by their outcome, associated activities, and primary interpersonal dynamic.

Mapping the Developmental Processes Tuckman’s sequential stage theory focuses on the progression of interpersonal dynamics between group members. The five-stage model represents a simplified outline of the develop- mental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence. By examining the essential nature of the first four process areas, we can identify cohesion as the overarching metapro- cess (Snowdon & Kawalek, 2003) that defines and guides the activities within the stages of forming, norming, storming, and performing.

When new groups come into existence, group cohesion occurs over a series of developmen- tal processes encompassing member identification and the emergence of group structure. In relation to Tuckman’s stages, cohesion entails:

• Social identification. Represented in Tuckman’s theory by the forming stage, individ- uals come together and acknowledge membership in a distinct group.

• Shared social identity, status, and role clarification. Represented by the storming stage, members shift from I to we thinking. Script clashes, status balancing, and role adjustments also occur.

• Entitativity and norms. Represented by the norming stage, members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good and develops procedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

• Positive interdependence. Represented by the performing stage, members engage in cooperative action that focuses on task work and goal attainment.

When new members join an existing group, they follow a slightly different identification and integration process, and group cohesion begins with socialization. Broadly defined, social- ization represents the process by which newcomers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge required to successfully participate as a member (Morrison, 1993; Ahuja & Gal- vin, 2003). During this time new members are extremely malleable and open to guidance; in effect they enter the group and go directly from forming to norming. However, as they emerge from this initial period of observation and assimilation and become more confident in their ability to assume membership, they may begin to question their identity and role within the group. Group process is then shaken by a brief devolvement back into storming, followed by a relatively rapid re-evolution to norming and performing. The group as a whole can also expe- rience this if one or more of the members dramatically shift roles (such as becoming team

Table 2.1: Tuckman’s five stages of development

Stage Outcome Activities Interpersonal dynamic

Forming Individuals come together and acknowl- edge membership in a distinct group.

Task-orienting behav- iors: Identification of the group’s objective, structural parameters, primary task type, and method of interaction.

Uncertainty: Members try to understand the “ground rules” of belong- ing to the group, how to approach group process and performance, and what they need to do to achieve group goals.

Storming Members shift from I to we thinking; script clashes, status balanc- ing, and role adjustment occur.

Boundary testing and redefinition: There is con- flict between members, role emergence, and task designation.

Resistance: Members chafe against new constraints associated with the group context, assigned roles, script dif- ferences, and perceived status within the group.

Norming Members acknowledge that the group works toward a coordinated objective or common good. They develop pro- cedural and behavioral norms that support this outcome.

Script unification: Assimi- lation and emergence of group norms.

Task and socioemo- tional interdependence increase.

Cooperation: Members accept the group and seek acceptance via observa- tion and open exchange of information, feedback, and norms.

Performing Members achieve positive interdependence and focus energies toward goal accomplishment.

Participation in task- oriented processes and activities: Behaviors and activities geared toward productivity and goal attainment.

Positive interdepen- dence: Members engage in cooperative action, group energy is chan- neled toward task work, and the group becomes a functional instrument for accomplishing its objective.

Adjourning Members physically and emotionally disengage from the group as mem- bership ends.

Physical and emotional closure: Task activi- ties and behaviors are terminated. Members prepare to resume pre- group duties and roles and disengage from their roles and relationships within the group. Mem- bers are recognized for their participation and achievement and achieve emotional closure.

Evaluation and reflec- tion: Members assess their participation and personal development within the group, group process, and performance outcome.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 43 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

leader or group facilitator) and everyone must resocialize to the new conditions (Moreland & Levine, 2002).

Examining Tuckman’s Fifth Stage Tuckman’s theory suggests that a group will dissipate after accomplishing its primary task or objective; however, many collective goals are only temporarily realized. Or, after achieving its initial goals, a group may face new goals. A professional baseball team’s ultimate goal is to win the World Series, and this goal carries over from season to season, regardless of whether they win or lose in any given year. Winning simply confirms the team’s existence. Although chronic losses can affect the team’s value and popularity, failure is more likely to cause changes in membership or leadership (such as changes in players or coaches) than total dissolution of the group. Likewise, an executive team’s primary goal is to enhance the productivity and via- bility of the organization as a whole. Measurable by the company’s quarterly and yearly bot- tom line, this goal simply “reboots” as the team turns its focus to supporting and enhancing that growth over the next fiscal year.

Groups like these may never adjourn. A sports team may change members, leadership, and even affiliation without losing its identity as a team. Similarly, top management, executive teams, and advisory boards continue to exist as long as their organization remains intact. Many manufacturing work groups and teams may for all intents and purposes do the same. Members of groups that do not adjourn may instead face a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization as new members join and assimilate and established mem- bers adjust to changing personalities, roles, expectations, and norms (Moreland & Levine, 1989; 2002).

Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral All groups have a starting point. Some, especially those in the workplace, never end. Compa- nies continually attract new hires, train them, help them fit in, and encourage them to grow with the organization. Socializing new group members can be difficult for both new and exist- ing members. As they work with new hires, existing employees may feel like they are reliving the stages of group development as they adjust to newcomers’ behaviors and beliefs and help them assimilate into the group, workplace environment, and organizational culture.

It can also be a struggle for new members to find their place in a group that already has estab- lished roles and norms. Newcomers have their own ideas on how things should be done, based on their previous experiences. They may hold attitudes or expectations formed by their expe- riences in other groups or conversely have no prior group experience and need to come to terms with their new role and identity. Existing members may forget that newcomers need time to assimilate to group norms and procedures and may thus view the socialization process as an unnecessary or annoying setback in their formerly smooth-running operation.

In ongoing groups in which membership fluctuates over time, each new member experiences a miniature spiral of forming, storming, norming, performing, and possibly adjourning. Tuck- man’s stages may seem to never stop. This is referred to as the Tuckman spiral. The average

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 44 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Practical Implications of Tuckman’s Theory Tuckman’s theory tends to view groups as composed of strangers coming together for a sin- gular purpose and dissolving after that objective is accomplished. Tuckman developed his theory based on a comprehensive synthesis of his own and 50 other empirical studies on group development, during a time when study groups tended to be either artificially com- posed or short term, chosen specifically so that they could be observed from beginning to end. While an organization that is establishing new groups and teams may do so from scratch, employees more typically join preexisting groups or form new groups in which some or all of the members have worked together before. In these situations, familiarity with other mem- bers and preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases. This does not mean that they skip these phases entirely, however.

When we enter a group, we bring with us our own personal scripts, or procedural and nor- mative templates for behavior and interaction within groups. Based on our past experiences and current expectations, scripts represent our view of how we and others should act in a given situation (Dennis, Garfield, & Reinicke, 2003). Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhausen & Murnighan, 1985). Within Tuckman’s model, script unification—the development or assimilation of shared scripts—occurs during the norm- ing phase. This is essentially what happens during the initial phase of socialization as well; however, once a new member becomes familiar with the group’s existing scripts, the person may compare them unfavorably to previously held scripts and attempt to insert these into the current group. This results in a renewed cycle of storming and norming. Although the storm- ing process can be eased in formal groups by preset organizational structure and guidelines, members may still chafe at unsatisfying or ill-fitting roles, and status balancing will occur as members establish informal hierarchies based on personal status within the group. While the

time from the start of socialization to full productivity of external new hires can range from 8 to 20 weeks for clerical positions and up to 26 weeks for executives (Williams, 2003). During this time, organizational group and team members must be prepared to support joining and adjourning members and the group’s evolving developmental needs.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Describe a time that you joined an existing group or were present in a group that took in

new members. Using your knowledge of Tuckman’s stages and theory, describe some of the socialization dynamics that occurred.

2. Did the group experience any of Tuckman’s stages with the incoming members? If so, which ones?

3. How did existing members treat the new members? In what ways did they address the competing needs for socialization and productivity?

4. Looking back on that situation with the knowledge you have now, what would you change if you could? What would you suggest group members in a similar situation do to help their group progress more effectively toward productive performance?

Reality Check: Socialization—the Tuckman Spiral (continued)

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 45 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

process areas represented by Tuckman’s sequential stages are all present within the social- ization process, they do not follow the rigid patterning envisioned in Tuckman’s theory.

Tuckman’s work thus has its limitations, but it remains a popular and useful developmental theory. Our modeling of the stages provides practical descriptors of the outcomes, activities, and dynamics inherent in the cohesion process and when group membership adjourns. Our exploration of these and related concepts also offer some useful takeaways:

• Incoming members bring procedural and normative scripts based on past experi- ences and current expectations (Dennis et al., 2003).

• Members with similar or shared scripts tend to progress easily through the initial developmental processes and move quickly into the performing phase (Bettenhau- sen & Murnighan, 1985).

• There will always be some degree of storming and norming as members work to generate or assimilate shared scripts.

• Storming is essentially a competition of personal status and scripts; when status balancing is complete, the group moves toward script unification, and the norming process begins.

• New members joining established groups could be initially set back if their personal scripts are misaligned with the established shared script.

• Established members could resent the apparent process and performance loss that results from incorporating new group members.

• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles can help formal groups shortcut through the forming, storming, and norming phases by speeding the evolution of shared scripts.

• Though not all groups dissolve after performance, adjourning remains a vital pro- cess, as even permanent groups lose established members and welcome new ones.

• The process of group socialization and resocialization can be continuous if the group outlasts its original membership.

What does this mean for group members and managers? Developing group cohesion is the core purpose behind the forming, storming, and norming stages, and script unification is their major outcome. Shared scripts become the primary tools by which group members effectively coordinate their performance toward a common purpose or goal. Support for group cohesion and script unification can include the following:

• Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles • Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive conflict, knowledge sharing, and

member feedback • Encouragement of new and established members to view socialization and resocial-

ization as an important part of the performance process and as an opportunity to reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group with new KSAs

• Acknowledgment of the importance of adjourning activities whether the entire group is dissolving or individual members are moving on

The labels and concepts in Tuckman’s theory are practical and easy to remember, making it perhaps the most popular and widely taught group developmental theory to date. How- ever, not everyone subscribes to the idea of steady progression over time. Focusing on task- oriented development, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory suggests that group devel- opment occurs as a sort of growth spurt, a dramatic evolution tied to a specific time in the group’s performance schedule.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 46 8/19/16 9:36 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

First Meeting

Objective Completion

Phase One

Crisis and Transition

Midpoint Phase Two

Performance Timeline

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Gersick’s Punctuated Equilibrium Theory Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory proposes that groups consistently experience two major phases in which working methods, interaction styles, and project direction remain relatively stable. These are separated by a crisis and transition at precisely the midpoint of the group’s official performance deadline (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory assigns critical value to key interactions at the group’s first meeting and midpoint transition.

Source: Based on Gray, C.F., & Larson, E.C. (2006). Project management (3rd ed., p. 346). New York: McGraw-Hill.

First Meeting

Objective Completion

Phase One

Crisis and Transition

Midpoint Phase Two

Performance Timeline

Phase one takes place during the first half of the performance timeline. Rather than experienc- ing the open-ended script comparison, testing, and unification suggested in the initial stages of most sequential theories, Gersick found that the group’s approach at their first meeting sets the script for group interaction and work through the timeline’s midpoint. Phase one work is not characterized by any particular process or even specific productive value; some groups work steadily toward a goal and on tasks determined in the first meeting, while others spend the entire first phase in an indecisive haze.

Midpoint transition occurs at the timeline’s midpoint. At this point, Gersick observed that groups consistently suffer a brief crisis in which members recognize time constraints and feel the urgency of approaching deadlines. During the midpoint transition, group members evalu- ate work completion and direction, reconnect with outside authorities or influences, reformu- late their shared scripts, and often abandon old patterns in favor of radical new perspectives.

Phase two occurs during the second half of the performance timeline. In this phase, groups undergo a period of productivity reminiscent of Tuckman’s performing stage, as they

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 47 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

implement the decisions made at the midpoint transition. The radical shifts in perspectives or performance agenda at transition may result in a shuffling of roles or a universal change of group interaction. As shown in Figure 2.1, phase two culminates in completing the perfor- mance objective.

Critical Analysis of Punctuated Equilibrium Whereas Tuckman’s theory represents group development as a graduated, linear process, Gersick’s theory assigns critical value to key interactions at two concrete points in the group’s timeline: first meeting and midpoint transition. Gersick observed that by the end of the group’s first meeting, members have naturally formed complete scripts for phase one interactions and group work. Rather than adopting a lengthy process of script exploration, testing, and unification, Gersick’s theory suggests that members quickly throw together a unique tempo- rary script that depends on unpredictable combinations of existing individual and organiza- tional scripts, situational conditions, and member dynamics. For example, Gersick observed that if one member tended to dominate and direct the discussion during the initial meeting, this pattern would continue throughout phase one interactions—although the dominating member was not always the same individual (Gersick, 1988). Unlike the sequential models, there is no proposed predictability for what member interactions might entail during the first meeting or the ensuing work phase. Some groups may begin by mapping out the overall work plan, spend the entire initial phase simply clarifying what they are trying to achieve, or jump right into task planning and assignation. Others may experience a period similar to storming in which they address perceived conflicts with project scripts, member roles, or task parameters.

The midpoint transition is characterized by a sudden spike in concern for project deadlines, a use-it-or-lose-it practicality with respect to work completed thus far, and renewed awareness and acceptance of external influences, authority figures, and aid. At this point, the temporary script the group initially adopted is confirmed or adapted and made permanent or discarded for a new version. According to Gersick’s model, regardless of performance setting, project type, or speed with which members move from planning to implementation, groups consis- tently experience a crisis at the midlife transition point and thereafter follow modified tactics or project direction. Subsequent studies have indicated that while groups consistently experi- ence a performance pause and reevaluation at the temporal midpoint, radical revision is not a given. This suggests that the midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change but does not guarantee one (Okhuysen & Eisenhardt, 2002; Okhuysen & Waller, 2002).

Further testing of Gersick’s theory (Dennis et al., 2003; Seers & Woodruff, 1997) suggests that groups follow the punctuated equilibrium model when the rapid development of shared scripts is:

• facilitated (for example, in groups in which members have worked together before or that formed using preexisting organizational hierarchies, procedures, and norms); and

• required (for example, when groups are under a rigid and urgent timeline that forces immediate task orientation and action).

Groups in which members were neither under extreme scheduling and time demands nor aided by preexisting or previously shared scripts follow developmental patterns more akin to Tuckman’s stages (Dennis et al., 2003).

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 48 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Practical Implications of Gersick’s Theory Gersick’s observations offer significant practical value in understanding key points in a group’s performance. Using the two critical interaction points in Gersick’s timeline as guide- posts, group members and leaders can plan for certain types of behavior, interaction dynam- ics, and performance input.

1. The first meeting creates a template for phase one interactions. Group members and leaders should be prepared to set the tone for phase one interactions at the first meeting and to work on foundational tasks and issues that will foster a strong midpoint transition. This includes clarifying performance goals, facilitating effec- tive communication and conflict resolution among members, and settling issues of hierarchy and role differentiation within the group.

2. The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change. Gersick’s (1988) research suggests that the midpoint transition can be utilized as a specific and pre- dictable point in project performance when group members are most open to exter- nal influence and intervention. For this reason, she suggests that the midpoint tran- sition presents external leaders with a unique opportunity to influence changes in project direction or performance agenda and should be carefully considered, as once passed, the opportunity will not present itself again.

The main weakness in any practical application of the punctuated equilibrium model is the lack of clarity regarding what groups actually do during the two phases. Gersick’s focus on operational dynamics does not encompass the attention to detail typically found in sequential models. Tuckman’s sequential stage theory may not be a one-size-fits-all template, but the model remains popular in both education and management circles mainly because the stages provide a useful platform of practical knowledge about the member activities and dynamics that occur over the course of a group’s existence. Since Gersick and Tuckman each address an area the other leaves relatively untouched, the two theories are not incompatible. In fact, some contemporary schools of thought suggest that Gersick and Tuckman work best when we put them together.

Team Evaluation and Maturation Model The diverse and subjective nature of group interactions has long been an obstacle for researchers trying to uncover some scientific order and practical guidance for the group development process. Mid- to late-20th-century studies fixated on the sequential model, while Gersick’s 1988 model addressed the issue from a new perspective without truly con- tradicting or offering a holistically useful replacement of the older models. More recently, theorists have proposed a new vision in which Tuckman and Gersick’s theories combine to create a symbiotic and practical whole. Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) team evaluation and maturation model is a notable example of the current trend in group development theory.

In an effort to develop a more holistic understanding of team development, Morgan, Salas, and Glickman developed a model that integrated Tuckman and Gersick’s research and incor- porated minor concepts from others (Davis, Gaddy, & Turney, 1985; McGrath, 1991; Bowers, Morgan, & Salas, 1991). Using this new model, Morgan, Salas, and Glickman undertook a com- prehensive investigation into the development of Navy Command Information Center tactical decision-making teams during operational training. The results, published in Analysis of Team

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 49 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Convergence

Differentiation Task Work

Activities

Team Work

Activities

TEAM Model Developmental Processes and Dynamics

PRE-FORMING

FIRST MEETING

PHASE ONE

FORMING

STORMING

NORMING

PERFORMING I

MIDPOINT TRANSITION

PHASE TWO

COMPLETION

DE-FORMING

PERFORMING II

REFORMING

CONFORMING

Causal forces and interactions; the decision process leading to the commitment to form and use a team.

Rapid formation of initial scripts and performance agenda

Status determination, power balancing, and role acceptance

Developing shared interaction scripts; moving toward cohesion

Initial work period can be a time of a project exploration, conflict, or steadfast task work and implementation

Reevolution and potential transition at temporal midpoint

Refocusing and recommiting energies toward effective performance Checking completed performance products or solutions for confirmation to given parameters

Individual or group exit rituals and preparation to resume preteam statuses, loyalty commitments, and roles

Questioning: What should we do? How should we do it?

Divergence

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

Evolution and Maturation, suggest that while both Tuckman and Gersick offer significant frameworks for group developmental processes and dynamics, the path taken throughout group formation and development is more complex and variable than any single sequence of phases or developmental leaps (Morgan et al., 1993). Instead, they offer the team evaluation and maturation (TEAM) model, which postulates two phases, a midpoint transition, and nine sequential stages that can be repeated or recycled to address interaction failures, changes in environmental demands, or complex issues. The model is outlined in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: TEAM model of group development

The TEAM model combines elements of Tuckman’s and Gersick’s group development theories to create a holistic model of team development.

Source: Based on Morgan, B., Salas, E., & Glickman, A. S. (1993). An analysis of team evolution and maturation. Journal of General Psychology, 120(3), 277–291.

Convergence

Differentiation Task Work

Activities

Team Work

Activities

TEAM Model Developmental Processes and Dynamics

PRE-FORMING

FIRST MEETING

PHASE ONE

FORMING

STORMING

NORMING

PERFORMING I

MIDPOINT TRANSITION

PHASE TWO

COMPLETION

DE-FORMING

PERFORMING II

REFORMING

CONFORMING

Causal forces and interactions; the decision process leading to the commitment to form and use a team.

Rapid formation of initial scripts and performance agenda

Status determination, power balancing, and role acceptance

Developing shared interaction scripts; moving toward cohesion

Initial work period can be a time of a project exploration, conflict, or steadfast task work and implementation

Reevolution and potential transition at temporal midpoint

Refocusing and recommiting energies toward effective performance Checking completed performance products or solutions for confirmation to given parameters

Individual or group exit rituals and preparation to resume preteam statuses, loyalty commitments, and roles

Questioning: What should we do? How should we do it?

Divergence

As shown in Figure 2.2, the TEAM model directly addresses both interpersonal and opera- tional dynamics by proposing that group energies and interactions work along two distinct but simultaneous activity tracks that converge as performance progresses (Morgan et al., 1993):

1. Teamwork activities, or those that deal with the interpersonal functioning of the team (Davis et al., 1985). These include the interpersonal dynamics of group devel- opment and performance and consciously enacted person-to-person activities that support interpersonal communications, socioemotional interdependence, and posi- tive interaction patterns (Morgan et al., 1993).

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 50 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.1 How Do Groups Form?

2. Task work activities, or those that deal with the technical functioning of the team (Davis et al., 1985). These include activities and exercises pertaining to task require- ments and interdependence, technical skills, work procedure, in-task communication, and collective performance efforts.

During the first meeting and forming stage of group development, Morgan et al. (1993) observed that members were unclear as to what constitutes teamwork and task work, the differences between them, and the comparative importance of each. These tended to differ- entiate into meaningful concepts and activities over the course of phase one, as members learned how and how not to work together, generating shared scripts. The primary outcome of the midpoint transition was a conscious integration of teamwork and task work activi- ties, as team members acknowledged that effective performance is achieved when teamwork and task work converge. These activity tracks diverge after the completion stage, as members detach from task work activities and prepare to exit the group. This process is graphically represented in Figure 2.2.

Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s (1993) study of the TEAM model suggests that certain devel- opmental qualities remain consistent regardless of team setting, purpose, or operational requirements:

• Team members’ perceptions of performance processes and teamwork and task work activities change as the group moves through the initial developmental stages and performance.

• To achieve optimal performance, teamwork and task work activities must be differ- entiated; the skills associated with each must be separately enhanced and progres- sively focused. Then the two activity tracks must converge and integrate.

• Ultimately, effective performance depends on the convergence of teamwork and task work activities, so that these tracks work collaboratively in support of team develop- ment, viability, and performance.

The TEAM model represents a combination and extension of previous theories. As such, its practical implications can be combined with those in Tuckman’s sequential stage theory and Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory.

• The first meeting represents the initial opportunity to influence the group’s devel- opment. It is an opportune time to call attention to the significance of each of these activity tracks; establish any preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles; and initiate norms and scripts to openly accept and facilitate constructive conflict, effective communication, knowledge sharing, and feedback.

• Group members and managers can facilitate effective performance by sequentially guiding members’ ability to (a) differentiate between teamwork and task work activities, (b) enhance and focus their related skills, then (c) work toward conver- gence and integration of the two activity tracks.

• The midpoint transition represents the point of convergence for teamwork and task work activities. It also marks a specific and predictable point in project performance when group members are most open to external influence and intervention.

• Fortunately, this second opportunity to influence group development occurs just when it may be needed most. Group members and managers should keep abreast of

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 51 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

group development, any issues impeding group progress, and the need to converge teamwork and task work activities. This will facilitate relevant and supportive influ- ence at the midpoint transition.

The practical implications of developmental theories touch on concepts relevant to building an effective team. Section 2.2 examines the process of team building, outlining the steps for planning a team and the concepts and strategies supporting the team’s development.

2.2 Team Building There are countless pop strategies and motivational tools that advertise themselves as team- building exercises. These are not what we are addressing here. Team building—the practical process of putting together an effective team—is enacted in two major phases: planning and development. In the planning phase, the stage is set for effective teamwork: A team- worthy objective is identified, a team type is selected, membership is composed, and neces- sary resources are acquired. Simply rounding up suitable members, aiming them at an objec- tive, and giving them access to resources does not guarantee they will effectively collaborate as a team. The development phase focuses on enabling the transition from group to team and maximizing the team’s potential for effectiveness.

Planning the Team Planning a team is a multistep process that encompasses four essential activities:

1. Confirming that a team is the best option 2. Clarifying the basic team type and primary task type 3. Identifying and acquiring necessary resources 4. Managing team composition

The first step in planning an effective team is to confirm that a team is the best option for the situation. The guidelines for this process are outlined in Chapter 1. While we will not repeat them here, it is important to note that any team will have difficulty realizing its full potential if it is set up to work in a situation in which teams are not a good fit.

The second step is to clarify the basic team type and primary task type. This involves examin- ing the team’s major task or objective and:

1. identifying any structural parameters that dictate the fundamental nature of the team or how it will work, and

2. narrowing down the primary task type required for the team to realize its purpose.

For instance, a comprehensive study regarding an organization’s potential expansion into a foreign market (major objective) represents a unique one-time output that is time-sensitive but not urgent (team type—project team). It also requires delivery of expert advice (task type—advising others). Therefore, an advisory project team would be well suited to this

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 52 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

purpose. See Chapter 1 for a review of the basic team types, primary task types, and how they can be combined to describe the fundamental nature of a specific team, how that team is expected to work, and what it is expected to do.

Steps 3 and 4—identifying and acquiring necessary resources and managing team composi- tion—require more detailed explanation. The next two sections address these in turn.

Identifying and Acquiring Necessary Resources Team resources can be described as human, physical, organizational, and psychosocial ele- ments that satisfy four basic functions (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007):

1. Assist and support goal accomplishment. 2. Address specific performance demands. 3. Encourage cohesion and member well-being. 4. Support the team’s effective functioning.

Human resources meet the team’s compositional needs in terms of the size, diversity, and skill requirements suggested by its major objective, structural parameters, and primary task type. Skill and expertise pooling is foundational for a team’s strength, flexibility, and effective- ness as a unit of performance. Different projects or objectives will require different combi- nations of skilled personnel, and composing a team in which member experience and KSAs complement each other is a significant factor in supporting effective team performance. Solv- ing a complex design problem, for instance, often requires cross-functional membership that reflects a diverse range of expertise. Designing a vehicle like the Tesla required collabora- tion between members knowledgeable in the technical engineering of the unusual engine and battery components, auto body design and aerodynamics, marketing research (regarding aesthetics, style, and interior options), and so on.

Physical resources meet the team’s obvious material, technological, and operational needs as it acts within a given context and set of objectives. These can vary by team and task type and can change over the course of a team’s performance. For instance, a marketing team may ini- tially need only work space and access to data and basic computer technology. Later on, how- ever, marketing studies and product testing may require access to customers and resources with which to perform product trials and interviews. Effective teams continuously reevaluate their physical resource needs and make adjustments accordingly. Physical resources might include meeting and work spaces; computer hardware, software, data, and Internet access; office equipment and design tools; financial resources; raw production materials; and manu- facturing machinery.

Along with providing physical resources, all organizations develop systems, strategies, and norms within their infrastructure that support work processes and facilitate management, coordination, problem solving, and quality control (Mohrman, Cohen, & Mohrman, 1995). Aligning these organizational resources with team operation and performance is a criti- cal factor in organizational teams’ short- and long-term effectiveness (Beyerlein, Hall, Harris,

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 53 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

& Beyerlein, 1997; Mohrman & Tenkasi, 1997; Mohrman et al., 1995). These might include employee training, empowerment, and participation in organizational decision-making pro- cesses; organizational leadership philosophies; and managerial strategies and norms regard- ing communication, conflict, diversity, and performance errors or failure. Chapter 10 further explores the connection between organizational resources and team effectiveness.

Finally, psychosocial resources support team members’ psychological well-being and the team’s cohesiveness. At the most basic level, our psychological well-being revolves around three innate drives (Reeve, 2015): autonomy, or self-determination; efficacy, or sense of self- competence; and relatedness, or the strength of our associations with others. A functioning team supports each of these fundamental needs, as indicated in Table 2.2.

In the workplace, psychosocial resources include structural components and leadership strat- egies that can be established during the planning phase, (e.g., establishing comuunication and responsibility structures, adding a facilitator, or planning shared leadership roles). Valuable psychosocial resources also include the supportive interrelations between colleagues and organizational groups that can be initiated during the development phase (e.g., establishing norms for information and viewpoint sharing, goal-setting activities) and continue to evolve over time.

As a work model, an effective team balances human and organizational needs, which in turn generates an organizational effectiveness that both supports and depends on employees’ psy- chological well-being (Richter, Dawson, & West, 2011). While human and physical resources are obvious focal points for resource management, effective team performance depends just as heavily on organizational and psychosocial resources (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Richter et al., 2011). Teams require support from organizational systems, and they must also develop and maintain member relations and interdependencies that support teamwork, member well-being, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances (Harris & Beyerlein, 2008).

Table 2.2: Supporting psychological well-being through teamwork

Fundamental need Method of support in a team

Autonomy The collaborative nature of teamwork ensures that members have some degree of influence over their overriding purpose and agenda, as well as in their decisions and actions. Collabora- tive goal setting plays an important role in establishing member participation, autonomy, and buy-in from the beginning of team performance.

Efficacy Teamwork practices that support entitativity, value skill and knowledge diversity, and facilitate learning from errors boost member confidence and esteem while maximizing the potential for success.

Relatedness Positive interdependencies and interrelations develop between members, which fosters cohesiveness and supports teamwork.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 54 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

Managing Team Composition The team’s major objective, structural parameters, and primary task type help identify the basic compositional requirements for team size, diversity, and task-specific expertise. The basic formula for selecting team members is short and sweet: Minimize team size and maxi- mize skill potential. To perform effectively, team members must have or develop the KSAs required to accomplish the team’s purpose and goals. Team builders must therefore iden- tify what expertise is required by a particular performance challenge, as well as the degree and type of diversity that best supports the desired outcome. A final screening should assess potential members’ capacity to develop further KSAs, based on their willingness and ability to learn. Though hard to measure, this potential can be assessed on the basis of past perfor- mance, personal interviews, recommendations by colleagues and managers, and testing for personality factors that indicate knowledge sharing, openness to learning, cooperativeness, and conscientiousness. Once the basic combination of expertise, diversity, and potential for development has been identified, it must then be squeezed into the smallest team possible (see Figure 2.3).

Why minimize team size? For several reasons:

• Smart use of human resources: Organizations have a limited number of employees, and most streamline their employee base to keep operation costs low. Minimizing team size makes the most of the available human resources without wasting any by tying them up in superfluous positions.

• Simplicity of coordination: Team members must coordinate internally with each other and externally with managers, other organizational groups, and satellite members and other teams (on complex problem-solving or production processes). The more people involved in a situation, the more complex and comprehensive their coordination needs become.

• Process effectiveness: Teams must be large enough that members are not overbur- dened by responsibilities or workloads, and they must possess the diversity to sup- port the team’s creative scope and adaptability. However, having too many members limits the team’s ability to effectively function within performance and time con- straints. Although there is no perfect size, teams typically function best with 5 to 10 members.

Maximizing skill potential within a small team requires action in both phases of team building:

• Planning: Select members on the basis of their relevant KSAs, their potential for expanding these, and their ability to complement other members.

• Development: Balance the benefits of diversity with its potentially negative issues, and foster members’ development of useful KSAs.

As with team size, member skill and diversity requirements will depend largely on expected performance parameters, the type of team being assembled, and what it is expected to do. It is important to select members whose skills specifically apply to expected perfor- mance demands and whose combined skill set encompasses what team-building experts call the right mix. People are often good at many things but have true expertise in only one or

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 55 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Skills

Diversity

Developmental Potential

Team Composition

Section 2.2 Team Building

Figure 2.3: Best practices for team

composition

Teams should feature members who have complementary KSAs and the ability to develop more. This helps pack a wide range of expertise into a team that is also small and functional.

Skills

Diversity

Developmental Potential

Team Composition

two areas. The beauty of teamwork is that no single member is required to have all the skills necessary to get the job done. By collaborating, members with comple- mentary KSAs work together to achieve more than they could alone. While project and performance needs vary, team skills generally fall into four basic categories: hard, soft, critical thinking, and creative problem solving. Table 2.3 outlines these basic categories.

Developing the Team Our group is gathered and the stage is set for effective teamwork. But how do we turn our group into a team? Group per- formance represents a state of positive interdependence in which members work cooperatively toward a mutually benefi- cial outcome. Positive interdependence refers to the constructive interrelations between members that support the group’s existence and enable cooperative action. In work groups, positive interde- pendence is achieved through coordina- tion of individual motivation, effort, and accountability. Rather than engaging in

joint effort, work group members act alone, following the direction of the group leader, and it is only through the group leader that their efforts are connected at all. In teams, positive interdependence is reflected in the basic elements of collaborative performance: high cohe- siveness, common purpose, mutual accountability, shared fate, and common reward. These elements are irrevocably tied together; each supports the existence of the others.

Team members go beyond simple cooperation or coordination of efforts. They engage in a continuous teamwork process. Even when members handle their tasks alone, they are work- ing toward a shared fate and common reward. Members are accountable to each other, and individual success or failure is tied to the team’s performance as whole. The team’s success becomes each member’s common purpose, and high cohesiveness is simultaneously an out- come of these other factors—the glue that binds them together—and the means by which team members support collaborative performance. Let’s take a closer look at team cohesion.

Team Cohesion Team cohesion can be divided into three dimensions (Mullen & Copper, 1994): task cohesion, interpersonal cohesion, and team pride. Task cohesion reflects the team’s shared valuation and commitment to tasks, task work activities, and goals (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Kozlowski

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 56 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

Table 2.3: Basic team skill categories

Skill category Description Examples

Hard sklls Also referred to as technical skills, these encompass skills that enhance one’s ability to perform specific tasks or functions. In building a specific team, there will be some hard skills that all members should have to some degree.

In all cases, teams will require that all members have some base-level hard skills and that some members have specific hard skill expertise. On a team of architects, for example:

• All members should have a certain level of proficiency with design and computer aided-drafting, shared terminology, and both physical and digital model making.

• Certain members may have particular areas of expertise, such as LEED certification for sustainable building design.

Soft skills Also referred to as teamwork skills, these encompass the knowledge and use of teamwork values, communication and other interpersonal skills, and leadership and management skills.

The most commonly desired soft skills fall into several categories that deal with:

• Interaction, including communicating effectively, working cooperatively, and other interpersonal skills

• Facilitation, including coaching, mentoring, teaching, and acting as a group facilitator

• Direction, including coordinating and managing people and processes, leading, self-directing, and sharing power

• Mediation, including negotiating, compromising, and resolving conflict.

Critical- thinking skills

Encompass those processes that facilitate logical problem solving and decision making to help teams:

• Identify critical questions and problems

• Gather, interpret, and assess relevant information

• Clarify solution needs and expectations

• Recognize biases, assumptions, and logical fallacies

• Test the practical implications and consequences of potential solutions against thoughtfully determined standards and criteria

Also known as critical analysis, critical thinking includes a wide range of investigative and evalu- ative skills generally associated with convergent thinking, including:

• Researching and gathering information • Analyzing and defining problems • Identifying and testing assumptions and

fallacies • Identifying and assessing idea or solution

viability, including pros and cons • Being able to acknowledge and accept

personal ignorance or fallibility • Interpreting and correlating informative data • Comparing and contrasting processes • Identifying root causes of problems or errors

Creative problem- solving skills

Encompass those processes that facilitate solutions that require more than logic, where innovation and inven- tion are key determinants in effective performance.

Also known as creative solutioning, creative problem solving includes a wide range of skills generally associated with creativity and conver- gent thinking, including:

• Framing and reframing problems • Associating normally unrelated concepts • Using specific group ideation activities,

such as brainstorming, paradigm shift, and 180-degree thinking

• Improvising new procedures or processes • Thinking outside the box

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 57 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

& Bell, 2003). Interpersonal cohesion refers to the level of attachment and camaraderie between team members (Evans & Jarvis, 1980; Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003). Finally, team pride represents a combination of team potency, efficacy, and morale that syner- gistically combine to describe the general sense of usefulness and value attached to the group and to holding membership in it. The elements of team pride represent different dimensions of trust within the team.

Team potency reflects a collective trust in the team’s power to exist as a relatively stable and cohesive entity and to perform collaboratively until it succeeds—or fails—as a whole. Where potency is, in effect, the team’s collective sense of self, efficacy centers on the sense of self- competence. Team efficacy represents members’ collective belief in their ability to accom- plish tasks and goals, overcome obstacles, resolve conflicts, and perform effectively (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002). Team morale is more than just an average of individual morale levels within the group. It represents a shared sense of well- being, satisfaction, and trust that the general quality and tone of group interactions will main- tain these conditions (Peterson, Park, & Sweeney, 2008).

To support the development of team cohesion, team builders must foster its three founda- tional elements: commitment, attachment, and trust. Let’s examine these elements and their integral value within team development.

Commitment, Attachment, and Trust Chapter 1 described identification as a process that involves both our thoughts and emotions. In an organizational setting, social identification is imposed on team members when they are assigned to a team. While this takes care of the intellectual side of things, our emotions are not so easily ordered into place. We can be told to approach group work with an all for one and one for all mentality, but developing the commitment, attachment, and trust that inspires us to truly believe and follow through on this sentiment is a bit more complex.

In the context of teamwork, commitment represents the extent to which team members acknowledge the significance of the team’s purpose and accept the proposed agenda and approach for accomplishing it. It also represents how strongly they intend to cooperate throughout the performance process (Korsgaard, Schweiger, & Sapienza, 1995). Commit- ment to a common purpose motivates and focuses team performance. It provides a support- ive framework and rallying point for strategic planning and for setting tasks, agendas, and goals. It also helps guide member decisions and actions during performance. By collectively maintaining the standard that every decision and action should support the common pur- pose, team members can police the balance of individual and collective interests, trusting each other to make choices and contributions that support the success of the team.

Attachment is an integral component of group cohesiveness. It represents members’ socio- emotional identification with the team and their feelings about other members. It encom- passes the extent to which members feel they are part of the team, included in team activities and processes, and look forward to working with other members. Attachment is a significant factor in a team’s ability to cooperate and perform effectively over the long term. When mem- bers feel detached, ignored, or excluded from team activities and processes, they sense their contributions are not valued, have little impact, or lack meaning (Korsgaard, Brodt, & Sapi- enza, 2003). We all have a basic desire to be valued as individuals and to feel that our efforts

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 58 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

are meaningful (Kelly Global Workforce Index, 2013; Wrzesniewski, 2003). Although the premise of teams is that no one individual is a “star,” the flip side of this is that each member is considered a valuable and meaningful contributor to team outcomes. This helps inspire and maintain member commitment and trust. Therefore, when attachment is high, team mem- bers work more cooperatively and diligently toward team goals (Korsgaard et al., 1995).

Trust reflects team members’ intention and ability to be vulnerable to each other and to the group. It is founded on the expectation without guarantee that all members will act in support of the team and treat each other considerately and benevolently (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998; Whitener, Brodt, Korsgaard, & Werner, 1998; Williams, 2001; Korsgaard et al., 2003). In a sense, trust represents a buy-in to the team, from which cooperative attitudes and behaviors naturally follow. Team members work collaboratively, which means that member interdependence is high across all dimensions of interaction. Such interdependence requires trust in other members’ capacity to support the team through their contributions and in their willingness to work cooperatively and take responsibility for both their own actions and those of the team as a whole. But where does this trust come from?

Like most good things, trust is developed over time. However, commitment, attachment, and trust are initiated by specific elements of team interaction:

• Owning team actions • Unifying team purpose • Upholding mutual accountability • Building team efficacy

Let’s examine the interplay between these factors and their role in developing and maintain- ing commitment, attachment, and trust within the team.

Owning Team Actions All teams engage in some degree of shared leadership. Owning team actions through partici- pation in team strategy and decision making is integral to developing attachment, trust, and commitment to a common purpose (Korsgaard et al., 2003). Team members play an active role in shaping and directing their team when they work cooperatively across a range of task work and teamwork processes. Collaborative agenda and goal setting are key activities in developing a sense of:

• working toward a mutually beneficial common purpose, • trusting that everyone on the team is aware of and supports team activities and

goals, • being included and valued in team process, and • owning team decisions, actions, and purpose.

Setting specific and meaningful performance goals also works to guide and unify team mem- bers’ motivations and expectations for performance.

Unifying Team Purpose To activate and sustain commitment, team members must feel their efforts are meaning- ful and that they are making measurable progress toward a clear and common purpose.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 59 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

Performance goals provide a shared vision to unify member motivations and expectations. They offer rallying points around which members can develop commitment and enthusiasm, and they act as tangible milestones that mark team progress and setbacks. Locke and Latham’s (1990, 2002, 2006) goal-setting studies suggest that the best performance outcomes evolve from teams that are committed to goals that members perceive as:

• clear and nonconflicting, • specific and challenging, and • achievable along a given agenda.

Agreeing on specific performance goals puts everybody on the same page, unifying team pur- pose so that team members can effectively work together. By helping create such goals, team members accept ownership over them. They also acknowledge understanding of their role in accomplishing the team’s purpose and become independently accountable for their own con- tributions and collectively accountable for the team’s performance as a whole. In Chapter 1 this was identified as mutual accountability.

Upholding Mutual Accountability The need for mutual accountability is most easily observed in a team sport. In football, a quarterback throws the ball to a halfback, who runs it down the field under the protection of blocking fullbacks. Each player depends on the others to carry out their role-related tasks to the best of their ability. When one falters, the ball comes to stop or is lost to the opposing team. For any team to succeed, all members must make significant contributions, carry out their individual and collective responsibilities, and support each other’s ability to do so.

Procedural justice theory asserts that members attach most strongly to groups in which individual worth and status are validated by fair treatment (Korsgaard et al., 2003). This sug- gests that in regard to social exchanges within our groups, we primarily fear rejection and lack of reciprocity (Lind, 2001; Tyler & Blader, 2003). Our desire to be perceived as valuable and to avoid rejection can strongly motivate us to make positive contributions to the group via proactive, voluntary teamwork (Tyler & Blader, 2003). However, we need to believe that teammates will accept and reciprocate our efforts; otherwise, we may not see any compelling reason to cooperate (Kramer, Brewer, & Hanna, 1996). In practice, mutual accountability rep- resents being committed to having a fair exchange, contributing and valuing other’s contribu- tions, and fostering a supportive climate within which team members can engage (Korsgaard et al., 2003). Fostering a climate of cooperation among team members means encouraging members to:

• share knowledge and viewpoints, including contrary opinions or concerns; • engage in collaborative problem solving and conflict resolution; • offer constructive feedback and discuss mistakes and failures; and • view failure and mistakes as opportunities to learn and improve.

Building Team Efficacy A climate of cooperation generates a working environment in which team members are sup- portive of and supported by each other, and the success of one is felt as success for all. Coop- eration enhances team members’ sense of individual and team efficacy. Team efficacy levels

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 60 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

influence motivation and performance across the board, significantly impacting individual members’ output and effort on collective endeavors and whether to persevere or give up when faced with adversity, opposition, or a failure to garner “quick results” (Bandura, 1997). The initial framework on which team efficacy rests—self-confidence within the team setting, respect for each other’s abilities, trust in our ability to work collaboratively—is built when the team first develops its agenda of tasks and goals and its approach for accomplishing them. This brings us full circle to participating in team strategy and decision making.

Practical Implications for Team Builders, Managers, and Leaders Translating the team’s purpose into specific and meaningful performance goals is often the first team effort in which members engage. Collaborative goal setting provides the basic foundation for team efficacy and ownership of team purpose, agenda, and activities. It also provides clear and tangible progress markers the team can rally around. The shared scripts generated in this process help unify performance motivation and expectations, including expectations of fairness and mutual accountability. Meanwhile, clarifying the team’s pur- pose—which stems from collaborative decision making and “making sure everyone’s on the same page”—fosters the development of a shared mental model that encompasses the team’s primary purpose and how to achieve it. A mental model is an internally held conceptual model that allows people to describe, understand, and explain phenomena; recognize compo- nent relationships; draw inferences; and predict behavior and events (Rouse & Morris, 1986; Johnson-Laird, 1989. Developing a shared mental model dramatically enhances a team’s abil- ity to coordinate performance, discuss task-related issues, problem solve, and make decisions that support its effectiveness.

So how do we facilitate collaborative goal setting? Peter Drucker (1954) first addressed this question in his now classic book, The Practice of Management. In 1981 George Doran built on Drucker’s “management by objectives” system to introduce the concept of SMART goals, which stands for goals that are specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time related. Doran’s SMART goals inspired various interpretations and expansions on the idea, includ- ing the START model (Johnson & Johnson, 2013, which suggests that goals should be spe- cific, trackable, achievable, relevant, and transferrable; and Yemm’s (2013) SMARTER model, which replaces Doran’s assignable with achievable/attainable and adds evaluate and review/ revise. All are useful guides for developing effective performance goals, and the specific terms are typically adjusted to best fit given performance needs. Here, we discuss Yemm’s SMARTER goal setting guidelines and how they help create the sense of common purpose that is crucial to a team.

Specific Goals should be specific so all members clearly understand them. An effective manager knows that poorly understood goals are less likely to be achieved. Breaking down the team’s overall purpose and performance challenge into specific performance goals serves several purposes:

• It provides an immediate framework for the initial norming, role-selection, information-processing, and problem-solving phases.

• It helps develop meaningful common purpose and cohesion by opening communica- tion and constructive conflict, as members collectively determine clear and specific goals and reexamine these as per the team purpose.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 61 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.2 Team Building

• It establishes an accessible jumping-off point to develop team goals, strategies, and agendas that are related to yet distinct from the organizational directives that origi- nally led to the team’s initiation.

Measurable Goals that are measurable, or trackable, provide tangible evidence of progress. Quantifying or measuring goals also helps maintain focus by allowing the group to see what has been accom- plished and what remains to be done. A clear gauge of progress is critical to avoid ambiguity over whether the team has achieved its objectives. It also reminds members that they are both individually and mutually accountable for the team’s performance outcome.

Achievable Goals should be challenging, but achievable. The group’s level of aspiration constantly adjusts to prior successes or failures. If a group continually aspires to an unattainably high stan- dard, they will lose morale and become disillusioned. However, if the goal is not challeng- ing enough, members will become bored or dissatisfied, engage in side conversations, or put forth little effort. Group members must be aware of these constraints to ensure they avoid either extreme.

Interestingly, initially failing to achieve a challenging, specific objective does not necessarily hurt performance. Collectively overcoming performance obstacles is one of the best ways to encourage collaborative teamwork and further develop the group as a team. Collective chal- lenges also tend to level members’ perceptions of each other’s external characteristics (for example, their gender, ethnicity, pay grade, or extraneous titles), allowing teammates to focus on each other’s real strengths and weaknesses. Characteristics that do not immediately affect the activities at hand become less relevant—and therefore less detrimental to team cohesion and performance.

Relevant The group must recognize that its goals and the work related to achieving them are relevant and aligned with the organization’s strategy. Specific performance goals must be directly related to the team’s performance challenge and its common purpose. Most people lose inter- est if they do not see a reason for doing something; this directly opposes the need to feel like one’s efforts are meaningful. Irrelevant goals and busywork will decrease group focus and commitment and, consequently, its effectiveness and productivity. The most effective teams periodically check in with their purpose throughout their work. This is an ongoing purposing activity that helps members gauge and adjust the direction of their performance, the efficacy of their roles and tasks, and the strategic implications of their actions.

Time Related Goals should be time related. Setting a specific timeline and limit in which to achieve goals keeps team members focused on attaining them. It also acts as a checkpoint for progress and mitigates team members’ tendency to overthink or overprocess a problem or solution.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 62 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

Evaluate Teams should be able to evaluate their progress toward goals. Effective teams do not sim- ply set an initial agenda and approach and then follow these no matter what. Goals that are measurable provide a clear gauge of progress toward the team’s purpose. Likewise, periodic assessments of member contributions and process dynamics, and the degree to which perfor- mance products or solutions satisfy the team’s purpose, are critical for maintaining growth and adaptability.

Review/Revise Teams should review and revise their processes and goals when necessary. Once the team has evaluated its progress, process, and performance outcomes, it may (or may not) be necessary to review and revise its overall agenda, expectations, strategies, and proposed goals. Keeping this process alive throughout the team’s performance increases the quality and effectiveness of its final outcome.

Team building is not a finite process. Although individual steps—such as selecting a team type and choosing members—may come up just once, certain areas require ongoing moni- toring and management. For example, a team’s resource needs can continue to evolve over the course of its work; likewise, developing the team is a continuous process. The different phases and steps of team building are not necessarily handled by one person or even by one group. A manager or management group may engage in the initial planning phase but hand off the development phase and ongoing resource management to a team leader or empower the team to manage these duties internally. Regardless of who or how many people are involved, both the planning and development phases must be executed to build a working team, and ongoing processes must be continuously managed to make sure the team stays effective. Next, we’ll look at apprehension toward groups and teams that can affect our ability to effectively work together and even cause some people to avidly avoid group and team situations.

2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams Whether we acknowledge them or not, groups and teams touch nearly every facet of our lives. We see evidence of successful groups and teams in business, sports, politics, technology, and science. Yet some people simply do not buy into the idea that groups and teams really work; in particular, they doubt that teams can be more effective than any other group or individual. Working as a team means depending on others. We relinquish sole control over our own suc- cess or failure and take responsibility for these qualities in our teammates. The potential benefits of group work and teamwork are compelling, but it can be equally daunting to feel a loss of individual autonomy; trust others; and learn new methods of coordinating informa- tion, people, tasks, and activities. Intellectually, we may see the value of working together, but when it comes to actually joining a group or team, several objections are frequently raised:

• “I’m not comfortable in groups, so I end up just being quiet and going along.” Or, “I guess I’m just a loner—I work better alone.”

• “Nobody in a group knows what they are doing, so I have to take control.” Or, “I end up doing all the work—I might as well have worked alone.”

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 63 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

• “Working in groups and teams is too much work, and the interactions are a waste of time.” Or, “I am more efficient and effective on my own.”

• “Teams are just a motivational concept; they are no different from any other group.” Or, “I’ve been in groups and teams—call it what you want, they’re the same thing.”

Statements like these are typically connected to several core conditions that affect our per- ception of and experience with group work and teamwork. In this section, we explore four root causes for apprehension and avoidance of groups and teams: (a) member attachment styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team experience, and (d) underdevel- oped soft skills. As we address each of these in turn, we will also discuss how they can be mitigated or overcome.

Member Attachment Styles As social beings, people have an innate need for a certain degree of relatedness. From birth, we are instinctually driven to establish and maintain attachments to the people around us (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Building on seminal works by psychiatrist John Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1982), adult attachment theory proposes that individuals have inherently different attachment styles that are founded on behavioral expectations and scripts generated by early attachment experiences (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Attachment styles vary along two significant dimensions (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999): attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Individuals can be tracked on a sliding scale in each of these dimensions, from high to low.

• Anxiety: High attachment anxiety is characterized by a sense of unworthiness as a group member, excessive worry over acceptance, and fear of rejection. On the flip side, low attachment anxiety is characterized by the expectation of acceptance and approval from the group.

• Avoidance: High attachment avoidance is characterized by a tendency to view group relationships, intimacy, and dependence on others as unnecessary or undesirable. On the other hand, low attachment avoidance is characterized by the view that group relationships, intimacy, and interdependence are positive.

Our personal attachment style, or characteristic behavioral, cognitive, and affective orienta- tion towards social interactions, can be found by correlating our high/low levels of attach- ment anxiety and avoidance on a double-axis graph (see Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Group member attachment styles

Attachment styles contribute to the extent to which an individual is willing to participate in a group or team.

Conformist: Tends to prioritize pleasing other group members and fitting in over expressing own thoughts, needs, and desires.

Socially Anxious: Feels unable to make valuable or effective contributions; characterized by low participation and engagement.

Secure: Feels capable and worthy of group membership, and perceives groups as generally valuable and accepting.

Loner: Tends to prioritize extreme independance, reject others, and engage in aloof or standoffish behavior.

High Attachment Anxiety

Low Attachment Anxiety

High Attachment AvoidanceLow Attachment Avoidance

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 64 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Conformist: Tends to prioritize pleasing other group members and fitting in over expressing own thoughts, needs, and desires.

Socially Anxious: Feels unable to make valuable or effective contributions; characterized by low participation and engagement.

Secure: Feels capable and worthy of group membership, and perceives groups as generally valuable and accepting.

Loner: Tends to prioritize extreme independance, reject others, and engage in aloof or standoffish behavior.

High Attachment Anxiety

Low Attachment Anxiety

High Attachment AvoidanceLow Attachment Avoidance

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

• “Working in groups and teams is too much work, and the interactions are a waste of time.” Or, “I am more efficient and effective on my own.”

• “Teams are just a motivational concept; they are no different from any other group.” Or, “I’ve been in groups and teams—call it what you want, they’re the same thing.”

Statements like these are typically connected to several core conditions that affect our per- ception of and experience with group work and teamwork. In this section, we explore four root causes for apprehension and avoidance of groups and teams: (a) member attachment styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team experience, and (d) underdevel- oped soft skills. As we address each of these in turn, we will also discuss how they can be mitigated or overcome.

Member Attachment Styles As social beings, people have an innate need for a certain degree of relatedness. From birth, we are instinctually driven to establish and maintain attachments to the people around us (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Building on seminal works by psychiatrist John Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1982), adult attachment theory proposes that individuals have inherently different attachment styles that are founded on behavioral expectations and scripts generated by early attachment experiences (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Attachment styles vary along two significant dimensions (Brennan & Shaver, 1995; Smith, Murphy, & Coats, 1999): attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance. Individuals can be tracked on a sliding scale in each of these dimensions, from high to low.

• Anxiety: High attachment anxiety is characterized by a sense of unworthiness as a group member, excessive worry over acceptance, and fear of rejection. On the flip side, low attachment anxiety is characterized by the expectation of acceptance and approval from the group.

• Avoidance: High attachment avoidance is characterized by a tendency to view group relationships, intimacy, and dependence on others as unnecessary or undesirable. On the other hand, low attachment avoidance is characterized by the view that group relationships, intimacy, and interdependence are positive.

Our personal attachment style, or characteristic behavioral, cognitive, and affective orienta- tion towards social interactions, can be found by correlating our high/low levels of attach- ment anxiety and avoidance on a double-axis graph (see Figure 2.4).

Figure 2.4: Group member attachment styles

Attachment styles contribute to the extent to which an individual is willing to participate in a group or team.

Conformist: Tends to prioritize pleasing other group members and fitting in over expressing own thoughts, needs, and desires.

Socially Anxious: Feels unable to make valuable or effective contributions; characterized by low participation and engagement.

Secure: Feels capable and worthy of group membership, and perceives groups as generally valuable and accepting.

Loner: Tends to prioritize extreme independance, reject others, and engage in aloof or standoffish behavior.

High Attachment Anxiety

Low Attachment Anxiety

High Attachment AvoidanceLow Attachment Avoidance

As shown in Figure 2.4, individuals may be classified into four personal attachment style cat- egories—conformist, socially anxious, secure, or loner—depending on where they fall along the two corresponding scales.

• Loners (high attachment avoidance/low attachment anxiety) tend to refuse collabo- ration and work individually, undermining efforts to include them in group and team work.

• Socially anxious (high attachment avoidance/high attachment anxiety) members tend to avoid participation and engagement, assuming that their contributions are neither valuable nor necessary.

• Conformists (low attachment avoidance/high attachment anxiety) attempt to fit in and please others by parroting or supporting popular thoughts and opinions within the group or team.

• Secure (low attachment avoidance/low attachment anxiety) members assume that their participation and contributions are valuable to the group or team—and they are right.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 65 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

True loners are rare, but if an individual sincerely refuses to work with others, it may be best to simply leave him or her alone. True loners are typically not an issue, as most are attracted to jobs or fields in which they can work alone. More often, individuals develop loner tenden- cies based on previous bad experiences working in pairs, groups, or teams. If these individu- als have more positive experiences, over time, more positive attachment styles may emerge.

Members with either conformist or socially anxious styles tend to undermine teamwork by not offering their own thoughts and opinions or by not participating in a truly collaborative way. In effect, they cut their own KSAs out of the collective pool, becoming nothing more than another pair of hands. These members need to be motivated to see their own contributions as uniquely valuable. Ideally, effective group and team members should be secure, as this style has the optimal potential for developing commitment, attachment, and trust between mem- bers and for motivating real and valuable contributions to group and team efforts.

Understanding the basic attachment styles can help project managers or team leaders select their team members, and identify and mitigate potential problems during performance. Being aware of member attachment styles—either through observation or personality testing—is critical for adopting strategies to deal with less desirable styles when composing groups or teams, or when managing those that already exist.

When composing groups or teams, use knowledge of member attachment styles to:

• screen out individuals who exhibit loner tendencies, conformists, or the socially anxious; and

• support loner, conformist, or socially anxious members with others who are aware of their tendencies and willing to foster their inclusion within the group or team.

For existing groups and teams, use knowledge of member attachment styles to:

• build awareness of individual attachment styles and how these can affect our per- ception of and participation in group or team interactions;

• notice when and how members are not fully contributing; and • encourage undercontributing members to improve by facilitating and rewarding

desired behavioral, cognitive, and affective responses.

Next we examine social value orientation, another area in which the way we think about and perceive interactions can affect our intentions within (and attraction to) group and team work.

Social Value Orientation How people prioritize individual accomplishment and accountability at home or in the work- place plays a role in how they feel about group and team work. Individuals’ national and fam- ily culture, worldview, and experience interacting both cooperatively and competitively with others over time generates their social value orientation toward either an individualistic or a prosocial mindset (De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000). Someone with an individualis- tic mindset values personal recognition and gain. In a sports team, this is the player who is always showboating, or passing up opportunities to work cooperatively in favor of personally making the score. On the other hand, someone with a prosocial mindset values working

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 66 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

cooperatively, offering concern and support for others’ well-being, and maximizing positive outcomes for all (De Dreu et al., 2000). Even Michael Jordan, recognized by the NBA as “the greatest basketball player of all time” (“Michael Jordan,” 2016, para. 1), noted that when play- ers are unwilling to prioritize the team’s success over their own, it only makes individual goals and accolades more difficult to achieve (Favale, 2013).

However, transitioning from I to we in perspective, expectation, and goal setting is not easy when someone is used to working alone. While the fields of social psychology, organizational behavior, and business have long recognized the value of work groups and teams, most people have very little practical experience with collective coordination, group process, and mutual accountability until well into college or when they start their career. Coordinating group effort can require detailed organization of time and effort, as well as the ability to understand other people’s values and needs. When we focus only on our own accomplishment and account- ability, there is no need for comprehensive script unification. When we are not used to work- ing with others, it can be difficult to acknowledge value in other viewpoints or ways of doing things and to be flexible with our own. With little or no positive team experience, it can be hard to accept the idea that we must take responsibility for others’ actions and accomplish- ments—or lack thereof. The effort it takes to develop and maintain commitment, attachment, and trust in teams can be seen as an additional and needless burden that interferes with an individual’s time, energy, and ability to perform.

How can we address this problem? If members are having trouble transitioning from an indi- vidualistic to prosocial mentality, managers can help them by doing the following:

• Foster an organizational climate that values cooperation and teamwork. • Create small-scale opportunities for employees to have positive experiences with

interdependence and teamwork. • Limit individual rewards to verbal approval of prosocial attitudes and behaviors

during group interactions, and acknowledge a member’s special contributions or skill in a private moment outside team processes. This will model appreciation for prosocial attitudes and behaviors and help team members feel individually valued and appreciated, while not creating a situation where personal praise motivates destructive competition.

• Establish desirable group rewards and tie individual motivation to these by letting members know that working effectively as a team raises their value as individual employees.

Next we look at how past negative experience with groups and teams can influence our under- standing of how they work, our expectations for productive outcomes, and our desire to join them.

Lack of Positive Team Experience We all have a unique patchwork of experiences that drive our emotional and psychological expectations for future activities and interactions. In fact, an individual’s past experiences with groups and teams can be one of the most persistent obstacles to team development. Many negative opinions of and objections to group work and teamwork are supported by

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 67 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 2.3 Apprehension Toward Groups and Teams

previous experiences that were poor, unrewarding, or unproductive, in which the outcome failed to meet expectations. Teams are particularly vulnerable to judgments based on bad experiences because inexperienced team members or team builders are often misinformed about what constitutes a true team, the processes that support or impair team development and functioning, and the need to continuously monitor and manage these processes.

Becoming a real team is a complex process that cannot be completely defined or controlled by a simple formula. It depends on generating enough commitment, attachment, and trust to fuel willing and active participation, collaboration, and belief in the team itself. Socioemo- tional interdependence can be encouraged by facilitating certain activities and processes, but it is not guaranteed and cannot be forced. If we have never experienced a team that func- tions effectively, teams may seem to offer nothing more than unnecessary and unproductive interactions or meaningless motivational labels. Unaware that these were failed teams, these experiences can rewrite our concept of and expectations for teams and teamwork. Even posi- tive group or work group experiences can seem to support this outlook, since the term team is often misapplied to groups or group activities.

Lack of positive team experience is a major obstacle to team development. If an individual resists or refuses to join a team, managers can retrain his or her expectations by doing the following:

• Foster a climate of cooperation. Like teamwork, a climate of cooperation and the val- ues that contribute to it are not exclusive to teams. Many managers are finding that a working environment based in the values of teamwork is conducive to employee satisfaction, motivation, and effectiveness, whether they are working individually, in groups, or in teams.

• Create opportunities for small, temporary interdependence and teamwork. People learn from experience. Whether team members lack positive team experience because they have no experience working in teams or because of previous negative experience, setting up conditions for creating new and positive experience can be an effective way to retrain expectations.

Fostering a climate of cooperation and creating opportunities for small, temporary interde- pendence and teamwork can facilitate employee commitment, attachment, and trust within the organization, with managers, and between fellow employees. Small cooperative or col- laborative interactions can also help employees develop soft skills that enhance interpersonal relations and teamwork. Underdeveloped soft skills, which we discuss next, are another source of group or team apprehension.

Underdeveloped Soft Skills Repetition and practice helps us get better at working effectively with others, just as main- taining a weight-lifting routine can increase muscle tone and mass over time. When we con- sistently interact and work with others, we flex and build our existing soft skills. Ironically, soft skills are often far more difficult to learn and strategically apply than their harder coun- terparts. Discomfort with group interactions and the tendency to either withdraw or domi- nate can be related to individual personality and attachment styles; however, these reactions are often caused by a lack of well-developed soft skills in group interactions and a lack of

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 68 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

experience with functioning groups and teams. These are both common results of growing up in an environment that stressed individual rewards and accountability. Given the prevalence of groups and teams in the workplace, as well as group interactions in our own lives and in the world at large, group- and team-oriented soft skills are critical to achieving and sustaining a satisfying and successful life.

Lacking soft skills tends to cause or exacerbate misunderstanding, conflict, and dysfunctional dynamics between team members. Shyness or discomfort in groups can often be overcome through conscious practice and positive interactions. Some team members have a tendency to take control and perceive themselves as solely responsible for keeping the team on track and accomplishing its work—even if it means working alone. Dominating the team in this fashion is just as indicative of a lack of team experience and soft skills as is the tendency to submit and withdraw. Neither behavior contributes to the formation of an actual team. However, one does not need to perfect one’s soft skills prior to joining a team.

A functioning team is more likely to emerge when its members have experience in teamwork and possess interpersonal skills. However, few teams are composed of members with all of the necessary soft (or hard) skills for collaborative performance (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Most team members grow together and learn along the way. Team process and performance both requires and supports the development of relevant soft skills such as effective communi- cation, viewpoint sharing, constructive conflict and criticism, active listening, power sharing, self-management, negotiation, and compromise. As long as some soft skills exist within the team, these skills and others will continue to develop with each team activity. Managers can avoid having a team with underdeveloped soft skills by carefully considering both hard and soft skills when selecting members.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

Organizational groups and teams do not just materialize as effective work units—their development must be carefully planned and coordinated. Cohesion, its related elements, and their effects on interpersonal and operational dynamics have been a common thread throughout our discussion of group development and team building, and will continue to be important throughout this text. As we’ve seen, cohesion depends on many factors within the team. Members bring certain expectations and qualities into the team setting, and these profoundly affect their ability to interact and effectively work together. Much depends upon how members interrelate and integrate their diverse experience, perspectives, and KSAs. Chapter 3 examines this vital aspect of group and team work, with a focus on interpersonal skills and communication.

Chapter Summary

• Developing group cohesion and shared scripts is the core purpose of the forming, storming, and norming stages. Group members and managers should therefore focus on supporting these processes before initiating the performing stage.

• Support for group cohesion and shared scripts can include the following: • Preexisting organizational frameworks for group hierarchy, procedure, and roles

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 69 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

• Open acceptance and facilitation of constructive conflict, knowledge sharing, and member feedback

• Acknowledging the importance of adjourning activities whether the entire group is dissolving or individual members are moving on

• Encouraging new and established members to view socialization and resocial- ization as an important part of the performance process and as an opportunity to reinvestigate existing scripts and norms, invigorating the group with new KSAs

• Using the two critical interaction points in Gersick’s timeline as guideposts, group members and leaders can plan for certain types of behavior, interaction dynamics, and performance input. • The first meeting creates a template for phase one interactions. • The midpoint transition represents an opportunity for change.

• Practical implications of the TEAM model represent the combined knowledge and implications of Morgan, Salas, and Glickman’s study and the theories contributing to their model of group development.

• Team building consists of two parts: planning and developing the team. • Team skills generally fall into four basic categories: hard, soft, critical thinking, and

creative problem solving. • Team resources include human, physical, organizational, and psychosocial elements

that satisfy four basic functions: 1. Assist and support goal accomplishment. 2. Address specific performance demands. 3. Encourage cohesion and member well-being. 4. Support the team’s effective functioning.

• Psychological well-being depends on the satisfaction of three innate needs: auton- omy, efficacy, and relatedness.

• The basic guidelines for selecting team membership suggest minimizing team size while maximizing skill potential by selecting members with relevant and comple- mentary skills.

• Maximizing skill potential requires: • selecting members based on relevant KSAs and members’ potential for expand-

ing these and developing new KSAs, and • balancing the benefits of diversity with its potentially negative issues and foster-

ing members’ development of useful KSAs. • Developing a team involves facilitating the development of cohesion by fostering

commitment, attachment, and trust. • Collective input into the team’s tasks and goals, and the approach for accomplish-

ing them, is integral to developing attachment, trust, and commitment to a common purpose.

• SMARTER goals are useful for developing effective performance goals and enhancing team performance.

• Team members are defined by: • their participation in team activities and processes; • their input into team strategy, problem solving, and decision making; and • the value they place on contributing and supporting the contributions of others.

• Major sources of objections to group work and teamwork include: (a) member attachment styles, (b) social value orientation, (c) lack of positive team experience, and (d) underdeveloped soft skills.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 70 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

Posttest

1. Which of the following are NOT associated with task work activities? a. discussing work procedure b. developing technical skills c. coordinating member activities d. resolving member conflict

2. Which of the following is NOT one of the four basic functions team resources are intended to meet? a. assist and support goal accomplishment b. define positive interdependencies within the team c. address specific performance demands d. encourage cohesion and member well-being

3. Team members who have a socially anxious attachment style tend to avoid participa- tion and engagement because they __________. a. place a high priority on pleasing others b. attempt to fit in through conformity c. assume their contributions are not valuable d. feel worthy, capable, and accepted as a team member

4. Which of the following correctly describes the order of stages in Tuckman’s sequen- tial stage theory? a. forming, storming, conforming, performing, de-forming b. forming, storming, norming, re-forming, and performing c. forming, storming, norming, performing, adjourning d. forming, re-forming, conforming, performing, and adjourning

5. Groups that never adjourn may face __________. a. high attachment anxiety and seek acceptance through conformity b. a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization c. all five stages of the Tuckman sequence d. greater stability because membership never changes

6. Which of the following is NOT recommended as a method for helping individuals overcome opposition to group work and teamwork? a. Establish high-profile individual rewards. b. Consider potential members’ hard and soft skills before assigning them to a

group or team. c. Create small-scale opportunities for employees to have positive experiences with

interdependence and teamwork. d. Create a climate of cooperation that values teamwork.

7. Which of the following is a critical interaction point in Gersick’s punctuated equilib- rium theory? a. script unification b. the midpoint transition c. storming d. phase two

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 71 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

8. Which of the following does NOT contribute to opposition to group work and teamwork? a. negative past experiences with teams b. high attachment anxiety c. an individualistic mindset d. status balancing

9. Hard skills represent __________. a. skill areas that are particularly difficult to learn or pass on to other team

members b. teamwork skills, including the knowledge and use of teamwork values, interper-

sonal relations, and communication skills c. technical skills or skills that enhance one’s ability to perform specific tasks or

functions d. processes that facilitate solutions requiring more than logic, where innovation

and invention are key

10. A team’s physical resources __________. a. meet obvious material, technological, and operational needs b. support members’ psychological well-being and cohesion c. represent organizational systems, strategies, and norms d. are irrelevant to geographically dispersed virtual teams

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Consider some of the groups you have belonged to. Using either Tuckman’s sequen- tial stage theory, Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium theory, or the TEAM model, describe your own experience with the group development process.

2. Both Chapters 1 and 2 correlate teams with collaborative performance. Clearly this is a definitive point. Using what you learned from Chapter 2, explain the significance of collaborative performance on team development. Relate this to critical develop- mental factors such as commitment, attachment, and trust, and explain how it helps avoid major obstacles to team development.

3. Using the SMARTER goal attributes, explain why the following statement is true: “Performance goals provide a vision with which to motivate members and act as tan- gible milestones that mark team progress and setbacks. They also provide rallying points around which members can develop commitment and enthusiasm.”

Additional Resources Links

• Five Easy Ways to Kill Your Team’s Motivation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/02/25/ five-easy-ways-to-kill-your-teams-motivation/#5d6a5ee85c15

• Building High-Performance Teams Takes More Than Talent: http://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscancialosi/2015/05/11/ building-high-performance-teams-takes-more-than-talent/#4d708c553c33

Answers: d, b, c, c, b, a, b, d, c, a

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 72 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

• Three Management Strategies You Can Use Today for Higher Team Performance: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinready/2016/02/02/three-management-strate- gies-you-can-use-today-for-higher-team-performance/#5101c533570e

• 12 Leadership Behaviors That Build Team Trust: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ekaterinawalter/2015/12/01/12-leadership-behav- iors-that-build-team-trust/#4914377f5220

• A Dozen Team-Building Tips Inspired by a Great War Film: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngreathouse/2014/03/03/a-dozen-team-build- ing-tips-inspired-by-a-great-war-film/#76a629bd68ec

• Why Your Team Is Not the Same as Teamwork: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffboss/2016/03/03/ why-your-team-is-not-the-same-as-teamwork/#7dd803692c5c

Videos

• Build a Tower, Build a Team: http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. No group lasts forever. At some point all groups finish their activities and disband in a final developmental stage called adjourning.

2. False. The basic guidelines for selecting team membership suggest minimizing team size while maximizing skill potential by selecting members with rel- evant and complementary skills.

3. True. Aligning organizational systems with team operation and performance is critical for organizational teams’ short- and long-term effectiveness.

4. False. Team building consists of two parts: planning and developing the team. Once all of the components of the planning process—including resource acquisi- tion and member selection—are complete, the group must still be developed in order to transition from group to team.

5. True. People learn from experience. Whether team members have no or only nega- tive experience working in groups and teams, this is a root cause of appre- hension toward group and team work, and resistance to developing func- tional levels of commitment, attachment, and trust within prospective teams.

Rejoinders to Posttest

1. Resolving member conflict is part of maintaining positive member relations and con- structive interaction patterns between members. Dealing with interpersonal issues and dynamics are teamwork activities.

2. Team resources represent human, physical, organizational, and psychosocial ele- ments that (a) assist and support goal accomplishment, (b) address specific perfor- mance demands, (c) encourage cohesion and member well-being, and (d) support the team’s effective functioning.

3. A socially anxious attachment style is characterized by not feeling worthy enough to make effective contributions. These team members tend to avoid participation and engagement because they assume that their contributions are either not valuable or unnecessary.

4. According to Tuckman’s sequential stage theory, the order of basic developmental processes that occur over the course of a group’s existence is forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 73 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

5. Members of groups that do not adjourn may face a continuing sequence of group socialization and resocialization as new members come in and assimilate and estab- lished members adjust to changing personalities, roles, and evolving scripts.

6. Individual rewards foster an individualistic mindset that values personal—rather than collective—accomplishment, recognition, and gain. An individualistic mindset is not conducive to group and teamwork, which require that one adopts a more pro- social attitude toward collective effort and reward.

7. Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium model assigns critical value to key interactions at two concrete points in the group’s timeline: first meeting and midpoint transition. Gersick observed that group members naturally formed complete scripts for phase one interactions and work by the end of the first group meeting and reevaluated and revised group work and scripts at the temporal midpoint of the group’s timeline.

8. Status balancing occurs toward the end of the storming stage as members overcome their resistance to group work and establish informal hierarchies.

9. Hard skills represent technical skills, or skills that enhance our ability to perform specific tasks or functions.

10. Physical resources meet the obvious material, technological, and operational needs of the team acting within a given context and set of objectives. These include connec- tivity technology and software used by virtual teams.

Key Terms

adult attachment theory A theory that proposes that individuals have inherently different attachment styles founded on behavioral expectations and scripts gener- ated by early attachment experiences.

attachment Represents a combination of members’ socioemotional identification with the team and their feelings about other members. This encompasses the extent to which members feel they are part of the team, are included in team activities and processes, and look forward to working with other members.

climate of cooperation A working environ- ment in which team members are supportive of and supported by each other, in which the success of one is felt as a success for all.

commitment The extent to which team members acknowledge the significance of the team’s purpose and accept the proposed agenda and approach for accomplishing it. It also represents how strongly they intend to cooperate throughout the performance process.

Gersick’s punctuated equilibrium the- ory A theory that proposes that groups consistently experience two major phases of general stability, separated by a crisis and transition at precisely the midpoint of the group’s official performance deadline.

human resources Resources that meet the team’s compositional needs in terms of size, diversity, and skills required by its major objective, structural parameters, and pri- mary task type.

individualistic mindset A social value orientation in which the pursuit of personal recognition and gain are core tenets.

interpersonal cohesion Refers to the level of attachment and camaraderie between team members.

mental model An internally held concep- tual model that allows people to describe, understand, and explain phenomena; recog- nize component relationships; draw infer- ences; and predict behavior and events.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 74 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

organizational resources The organi- zational systems, strategies, and norms that support teamwork processes and facilitate effective team management and performance.

performance goals Goals that provide a vision with which to motivate members and act as tangible milestones that mark team progress and setbacks.

personal attachment style Our charac- teristic behavioral, cognitive, and affective orientation towards social interactions.

physical resources Resources that meet the team’s obvious material, technological, and compositional needs within a given operational setting and set of objectives.

positive interdependence Refers to the constructive interrelations between mem- bers that support the group’s existence and enable cooperative action.

procedural justice theory A theory that asserts that members attach most strongly to groups in which individual worth and sta- tus are validated by fair treatment, suggest- ing that in regard to social exchanges within our groups, we primarily fear rejection and lack of reciprocity.

prosocial mindset A social value orienta- tion in which working cooperatively, offering concern and support for others’ well-being, and maximizing positive outcomes for all are core tenets.

psychosocial resources Resources that support the psychological well-being of team members and the team’s cohesiveness.

script unification The development or assimilation of shared scripts.

scripts Procedural and normative tem- plates for behavior and interaction within groups.

SMART goals An acronym that stands for specific, measurable, assignable, realis- tic, and time related. It was introduced by George Doran in 1981 to help leaders and team members develop effective perfor- mance goals.

social value orientation Developed by a person’s national and family culture, world- view, and experience interacting both coop- eratively and competitively with others over time. Results in either an individualistic or a prosocial mindset.

socialization The process in which new- comers assimilate the attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge required to successfully par- ticipate as a group or organization member.

status balancing A process in which mem- bers establish informal hierarchies based on personal status within the group.

task cohesion Reflects the team’s shared commitment and attraction to tasks, task work activities, and goals.

team efficacy Team members’ collective belief in their ability to accomplish tasks and goals, overcome obstacles, resolve conflicts, and perform effectively.

team evaluation and maturation (TEAM) model A group development model that integrates research literature from Tuckman, Gersick, and other developmental theorists. It postulates two phases, a midpoint transi- tion, and nine sequential stages that can be repeated or recycled to address interaction failures, changes in environmental demands, or complex issues.

team morale Represents a shared sense well-being and satisfaction with the group and the general quality and tone of its interactions.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 75 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Chapter 2 Summary and Resources

team potency Reflects a general sense of the team’s power to exist as a relatively stable and cohesive entity and to perform collaboratively until it succeeds—or fails— as a whole.

team resources Human, physical, orga- nizational, and psychosocial elements that satisfy four basic functions: (a) assist and support goal accomplishment, (b) address specific performance demands, (c) encour- age cohesion and member well-being, and (d) support the team’s effective functioning.

trust Team members’ intention and ability to be vulnerable to each other and the group, founded on the expectation without guaran- tee that all members will act in support of the team and treat each other considerately and benevolently.

Tuckman’s sequential stage theory A group development model that proposes that group members enact a series of five developmental stages, which include form- ing, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning.

cog81769_02_c02_039-076.indd 76 8/19/16 9:37 AM

© 2017 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.