WD5

jery.b

09CH_Youssef_IO_2e.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >WD5

257

9Groups and Teams

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

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

• Compare and contrast organizational groups and teams.

• Identify the characteristics of effective teams.

• Describe various types of teams.

• Apply the stages of team development.

• Determine when to use teams.

• Explain the process for and challenges of team decision making.

• Explain the contagion effects of positivity in teams.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 257 4/20/17 5:36 PM

258

Section 9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams

9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams The use of groups and teams has become increasingly common not only in organizational settings but also in education, public policy, and international relations. However, groups and teams can present significant challenges in terms of their design and implementation. Con- sider the following example.

A large agricultural manufacturing company decides to update its GPS- enabled precision farming products with a revolutionary new color touch- screen display, a significant advancement over its unwieldy, now obsolete monochrome version. To thwart possible competitors, the company quickly assembles a team comprising members from across the company, includ- ing sales, marketing, product quality, engineering, and supply management, and sets a 6-month project timeline. At first, team members embrace their assignment with energy and conviction. However, as challenges arise and the original excitement begins to wane, the team begins to experience conflict. Never having worked together prior to this assignment and not having estab- lished trust before beginning the project, team members start to turn work disagreements into personal attacks. Soon team members stop attending meetings and begin completing assignments individually, meeting only when absolutely necessary.

As the project’s due date nears, the team members realize they have made critical errors due to lack of communication on certain design elements. The project is delayed and delayed again. Eventually, the team delivers the final product—nearly a year behind schedule and $1 million over budget.

Although unfortunate, the above scenario is relatively common. In fact, one survey of IT teams found that nearly 75% of them failed to meet one or more important project milestones (Bull Survey, 1998). This statistic becomes even more alarming when you consider that organiza- tions often use teams as an attempt to increase work productivity. Are all teams doomed to failure? Is teamwork an impractical notion? Thankfully, the answer to both questions is no.

Consider This: Working in Teams Recall several situations in which you worked with a team to complete a task or achieve a goal.

Questions to Consider

1. To what extent did you enjoy your team experiences? What were some of the charac- teristics of each of these teams, tasks, and environments that you believe contributed to your positive (or negative) experience?

2. Which of the above tasks or projects do you believe would have been better completed individually? Why?

3. Which of the above tasks or projects do you believe were better suited to be completed in teams? Why?

4. In which of the above tasks or projects do you believe that working in teams or individu- ally would have made no difference? Explain.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 258 4/20/17 5:36 PM

259

Section 9.1 The Importance of Groups and Teams

Research shows that with careful planning, hard work, and commitment, organizations can create effective teams. However, given scenarios like the one above, is it worth it to do so? In other words, do effective teams produce spectacularly better results than individually run projects? Based on research findings, the answer is that it depends on the team and the tasks assigned to it. I/O psychologists help organizations make practical decisions that allow them to design, maintain, and leverage effective teams.

Comparing Groups and Teams The terms group and team are often used interchangeably to describe a collection of people who work together to achieve a common goal. Even though a work team is a type of work group, it is very different from basic work groups both in terms of processes and outcomes. In this section, we describe the similarities and differences between work groups and work teams.

A work group consists of two or more individuals who interact and share ideas in order to achieve a common goal. Most people have experienced working in a dependent work group, such as the traditional departmental group led by a strong manager. Workers in this type of group depend largely on the manager to set goals, assign tasks, and resolve conflicts. In inde- pendent work groups, on the other hand, workers tend to complete tasks and assignments with little direct managerial supervision and only basic direction. Think of teachers who work at the same school: As a group, all wish to pro- mote the success of the school and its students, and most will work together from time to time, especially when dealing with changes or chal- lenges. However, the principal does not tell every teacher every day how to teach a subject, develop curriculum, or motivate students.

Beyond dependent and independent work groups, some groups can develop into true work teams. Interdependence is the key: Members of work teams are truly unable to achieve their goals by themselves and must rely on the skills, expertise, information, and resources of other team members. Teams exist to accomplish goals that require collective responsibility. In other words, success and failure are attributable to the team as a whole, not just to one person. Instead of having one supervisor to dictate members’ every move, teams have the authority to decide how to interact, function, and make decisions. Whereas other types of work groups are more inclusive and can thus be quite large, work teams tend to include only a few members that possess complementary skills (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Finally, work teams function within the broader organizational context, with and alongside other teams.

To return to the example of a school and its teachers, an instance of a team within a school would be a Student Assistance Team, which is formed when a student experiences significant performance difficulties within the general classroom. The student’s classroom teacher or

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Although the terms group and team are often used interchangeably, they are not the same. Teams require interdependence, relying on the skills, expertise, knowledge, and resources of each member to achieve a shared goal.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 259 4/20/17 5:36 PM

260

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

teachers, school professionals (counselor, nurse, psychologist, etc.), one or more administra- tors, and other specialists as needed work together to devise a specific plan to promote the student’s future success. The Student Assistance Team meets regularly to assess progress and make revisions to and recommendations for the student’s Individual Education Plan. The team is interdependent, and members must trust each other, communicate extensively, col- laborate when challenges arise, and share responsibility in order to meet the student’s needs and promote the student’s highest level of success.

Although all types of groups can be organizationally useful, this chapter focuses mainly on teams and their place within and significance to the organization. Teams have become increas- ingly important to organizations and have been estimated to be used by over 80% of U.S. companies (Blanchard, 2006). Why? Quite simply, employees who work as teams are better able to solve problems than employees who work alone. However, as much as management might wish to make use of this problem-solving resource, one cannot simply throw people together and call them a team. The synergy and positive group dynamics created within a true team are not instant; teams are built only through careful thought and hard work. Further- more, creating teams can be costly and time consuming. The challenge is how best to enable organizations to improve their chances of creating effective teams without wasting valuable resources. To address this challenge, it is important for I/O psychologists to understand how teams work, how to create and make them successful, and finally, when not to use them.

Find Out for Yourself: The Use of Groups and Teams Browse the websites of the most recognized organizations in your current or desired field of employment—or of 10 organizations you are interested in for various reasons (e.g., for employment, as an investment, because it provides a regularly purchased product or service). Look for the organizations’ values as well as statements and information about their structure, culture, and processes.

What Did You Learn?

1. Which of these organizations mention teams and teamwork as one of the strategies they use to accomplish their goals? As a goal in and of itself ? As a critical success factor?

2. In your opinion, which statements on the websites ring true, and which statements seem to be there for marketing or public relations purposes?

3. How many of those organizations present specific, quantifiable evidence for how impor- tant teams are to the success of their operations?

9.2 Developing Teams Organizations use teams for all sorts of reasons—to solve problems, make decisions, design products, implement services, and manage projects. Selecting the right type of team for the task is critical to achieving the desired goals. However, assigning a group of individuals to a task does not automatically make them function as a team. In addition to being the right type, teams must also be developed in order to be functional and productive.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 260 4/20/17 5:36 PM

261

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

Types of Teams Different types of teams are better suited to working on different types of tasks. Five com- mon types of work teams are self-managed teams, manager-led teams, cross-functional teams, project teams, and virtual teams.

Self-Managed Teams A self-managed work team (SMWT) is a group of people who work together to accomplish a goal by managing their own work. Together, members make decisions, assign tasks, plan and schedule work processes, and solve work problems. A central notion of the SMWT is that team members are better suited to evaluate processes and make decisions than managers or any other officially designated leader, and that this collaborative environment will increase productivity, enhance quality, reduce cycle time, and hasten responses to the rapidly changing workplace.

Naturally, the key question is whether SMWTs are actually as good as they sound. In fact, much data supports the SMWT. Sirkin (1993) indicates that SMWTs can produce greater worker satisfaction, reduced costs, improved decision making, and increased market share. SMWTs also share leadership responsibilities, which has been found to increase effectiveness in terms of team performance and team attitudes, especially when the team’s work is com- plex in nature (Wang, Waldman, & Zhang, 2014). For manufacturing giant Procter & Gamble, SMWTs helped reduce costs by 30% to 50%; for General Mills, they increased productivity by 40% as compared to traditional factories; and for Federal Express, they reduced service glitches by 13% in just 1 year (Fisher, 1993). In a longitudinal study, Banker, Field, Schroeder, and Sinha (1996) found that in the 2 years after their inception, SMWTs in an electromechani- cal assembly plant were able to improve both quality and labor production.

Despite the continuous parade of success stories, not all companies have been satisfied with SMWTs. Contrary to expectations, newly formed SMWTs do not instantly and miraculously revolutionize an organization’s business. Instead, members of SMWTs often make a slow tran- sition from their old work style to the new one and sometimes do not adopt the team-based style at all. As Wageman (1997) notes, some members of SMWTs can have trouble adjusting, choosing to “divide their work and do it independently, showing no inclination to join in a collective effort to improve their work strategies, take responsibility for different decisions, or solve problems” (p. 50). Of course, resistance by team members to the SMWT concept will negate the potential benefits this work format has to offer.

The effectiveness of self-managed teams depends on the degree to which their structure is aligned with the tasks to be accomplished. Structurally aligned teams have higher perfor- mance. Moreover, when change is necessary, aligned teams focus on the structural changes that can help them continue to restore alignment and effectiveness. For example, they may implement changes in team members’ roles or reward systems to meet the new demands of their situation. In contrast, structurally misaligned teams tend to focus on changes in pro- cesses and personnel. For example, they may blame, remove, or replace members perceived to be low performers, or they may focus on monitoring, evaluating, or adapting the mission, goals, or performance. While these activities are generally valuable, emphasizing them can slow down adaptation and change, which can cause performance to deteriorate (Johnson, Hollenbek, DeRue, Barns, & Jundt, 2013).

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 261 4/20/17 5:36 PM

262

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

Manager-Led Teams The most common type of team is the tradi- tional manager-led team. Here, in contrast to the SMWT, a manager acts as team leader and is responsible for defining goals, methods, and functions. The team has little operational input and is responsible only for completing the work outlined by the manager. Examples of manager- led teams include military squadrons, sports teams, and assembly-line crews.

Manager-led teams have a number of advantages and disadvantages. On the positive side, the man- ager has maximum control over team members and the work they perform, which allows the

manager to use his or her experience to actively guide the team to optimal performance. The manager can then ensure that the work of team members is adequately coordinated and inte- grated to reduce duplication and redundancies. At the same time, the manager can work to avoid gaps in team performance as a result of uncompleted tasks. Manager-led teams also encourage team members to spend their energy on work actions instead of the planning, goal setting, managing, and other duties associated with SMWTs. On the other hand, members of manager-led teams may experience less autonomy and empowerment than they would in an SMWT; this can be a serious drawback for workers who value these characteristics. Addition- ally, an overly controlling team leader may inspire too much conformity, resulting in poor decisions and mistakes that could have been corrected in a more open environment. Overall, manager-led teams are ideally suited for straightforward tasks in which there is a clear goal.

Cross-Functional Teams Suppose an insurance company plans to bring a new disability insurance product to market. Management puts together a team made up of actuarial, marketing, sales, and finance profes- sionals, along with representatives from support areas such as HR, information technology, customer service, compliance, and the legal department. This team is an example of a cross- functional team, in which representatives of approximately the same hierarchical level from many functional areas of an organization combine forces to solve problems.

Cross-functional teams can be quite powerful because of their ability to leverage the diverse expertise, skills, and abilities from throughout the entire organization. However, they can be problematic, largely because of the amount of time needed for the group to coalesce into a fully functioning team. Because members of cross-functional teams typically do not work together outside of the team, they will need time to build trust and get to know and under- stand their fellow team members’ diverse perspectives. As you can guess, cross-functional teams are susceptible to conflict, especially when they are in the early stages of development and are working to define goals and outcomes.

To minimize conflict, cross-functional teams can appoint a leader to help direct and unify the team as it clarifies goals and processes at the beginning of the project. However, manager-led cross-functional teams can experience another type of conflict. Members of these teams now

Roy Delgado/CartoonStock

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 262 4/20/17 5:36 PM

263

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

have to report to at least two leaders: the team leader and their functional department lead- ers. If they are involved in multiple projects, members may need to report to multiple team leaders in addition to their functional leaders. Each individual leader often has different pri- orities, and each may try to compete for the employee’s time, attention, and expertise.

Consider This: Who Should Be on the Team? Below are several examples of work projects. Read the description of each project and recom- mend which type of team is best suited for it. (If a cross-functional team is necessary, note which functional areas should be represented.)

Project 1: A wireless phone provider would like to introduce a new shared plan that would attract a 25% share of the market for family plans over the next 2 years and yield at least 5% profit margin above the current margin of existing plans.

Project 2: A chain of physicians’ offices would like to update and improve its patient database.

Project 3: A department store would like to implement a new inventory system, called Just in Time, in which it holds limited inventories but develops close relationships with suppliers and links into their inventory systems so that suppliers are signaled to restock items when the store’s inventories hit a certain threshold.

Project 4: A privately held organization is considering going public.

Project 5: A grocery store would like to designate a group of employees to choose items for weekly promotions and design the weekly sales flyer mailed throughout the neighborhood.

Project Teams Project teams have a number of defining characteristics. First, these teams are relatively small. Second, they are temporary and usually disband at the project’s end. Third, they are created for a specific reason and are given a very clear goal to accomplish. Finally, they are led by a project manager, who coordinates the people and materials needed to complete the task. For example, management might assemble a project team composed of a team leader and representatives from each of the major departments in order to plan and implement a company-wide changeover to a new type of financial accounting software. This team would exist solely to accomplish its goal and would likely dissolve as soon as employees had transi- tioned to the new software.

Because project teams exist outside the formal chain of command, they encourage team members to identify with the project, which often leads to high team morale and productiv- ity. Additionally, because project teams typically work toward very clear goals, it is easier to determine their level of success or failure. However, team members continue to perform their regular duties and responsibilities in their own departments and report to their managers within the permanent organizational structure. As with cross-functional teams, project teams can sometimes cause role conflict if the project workload and schedule are not adequately coordinated with project team members’ permanent roles.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 263 4/20/17 5:36 PM

264

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

Virtual Teams Virtual teams are groups of individuals who work across time, space, and organizational boundaries and interact primarily through elec- tronic communications (Minton-Eversole, 2012). Up to this point, we have described teams that interact face-to-face. However, technological advancements have made it possible for a physi- cally dispersed team to collaborate via electronic communication. These virtual teams interact and collaborate through electronic meetings, e-mail, instant messages, and social networking sites. Being open to the concept of the virtual team is an increasingly important way for organizations to recruit and retain highly valuable employees who do not want to relocate, and to draw from diverse talent pools for short-term assignments.

According to a recent survey, nearly half of organizations today use virtual teams. However, multinational organizations are more than twice as likely to use virtual teams as U.S.-based organizations (66% versus 28%, respectively). Government agencies are least likely to use virtual teams (9%). Almost 40% of organizations that use virtual teams report increased pro- ductivity. Other equally important reasons to use virtual teams include travel cost savings and facilitating global collaboration (Minton-Eversole, 2012).

However, virtual teams are quite different from traditional teams. The absence of face-to- face interaction creates significant challenges (Driskell, Radtke, & Salas, 2003). For example, research shows that virtual teams using primarily text-based media (e.g., e-mail, instant mes- saging, or texts) are less likely to build trusting relationships than are virtual teams using media that simulate face-to-face interactions (e.g., Skype or videoconferencing; Bos, Gergle, Olson, & Olson, 2001). Another disadvantage stems from the relative anonymity that exists within the virtual world, lowering inhibitions and making it easier for people to make inap- propriate comments or flamboyant statements they would not normally make in a face-to-face interaction (Sproull & Kiesler, 1991). These types of comments can hurt feelings, impair team- work, and reduce team performance. As you can see, the biggest challenges for virtual teams are communication and building effective team relations. These challenges alone compromise the effectiveness of over 50% of virtual teams. Other important challenges include time differ- ences, work distribution, cultural differences, and leadership (Minton-Eversole, 2012).

Despite these challenges, the use of virtual teams is a growing trend. Organizations must thus consider how best to implement this type of team and ensure its optimum effective- ness. If possible, organizations should consider having members of the virtual team meet and interact face-to-face prior to entering the virtual environment. Additionally, workers should receive training on how to work in the virtual realm. A survey of 440 organizations found that those companies that implemented such training programs (e.g., learning how to use and communicate effectively with electronic media and how to collaborate in a virtual envi- ronment) were more likely to experience success with their virtual teams, reporting them as a positive competitive advantage for their organization (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2007). The surveyed managers also reported that the traditional methods of communication, goal

Jon Feingersh/Blend Images/Thinkstock

Virtual teams allow colleagues to interact and collaborate through electronic meetings, e-mail, instant messages, and social networking sites. This enables organizations to draw from diverse talent pools and retain highly skilled employees.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 264 4/20/17 5:36 PM

265

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

setting, performance management, reward allocation, coaching, and feedback were not as effective in the virtual environment; they needed to adjust their methods to effectively man- age the team.

Similarly, supportive structures and shared leadership are more effective than hierarchical leadership in virtual teams. Keep in mind that being a virtual team is a matter of degree. In today’s networked world, even face-to-face teams interact virtually through e-mail, instant messaging, and conferencing programs such as Skype, GoToMeeting, and WebEx. Similarly, many virtual teams have opportunities for face-to-face interaction. However, the more virtual a team’s interactions tend to be, the more important it becomes for that team to be supported and empowered to make decisions through shared leadership and other participative pro- cesses, rather than being led in a traditional, hierarchical manner (Hoch & Kozlowski, 2014; Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gipson, 2004).

Consider This: Virtual Project Teams Think about a recent project you were involved in. It can be a class project, a project at work, or a personal or family project. Identify the tasks and participants involved as well as the timeline for completing the project. Now, imagine completing the same project virtually. If the project is tangible (such as a home improvement project), imagine having to remotely offer guidance to the person or team completing the project on the ground.

Questions to Consider

1. Which communication media would you use? 2. How would each of the tasks be adapted to be more effectively completed? 3. Which of the members of the project team could be remote, and which ones would have

to be local? 4. How should the schedule be adapted? 5. What would be some of the advantages and challenges of moving this project to a virtual

environment?

Stages of Team Development As previously stated, effective teams do not develop instantly. Over time, groups progress through five stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Maples, 1988; Tuckman, 1965; Tuckman & Jensen, 1977).

• Stage 1: Forming. In this initial stage, members are eager to learn about the new team’s purpose, structure, and power. This period of orientation involves members getting to know each other, and it ends when the individuals see themselves as part of a team.

• Stage 2: Storming. Teams in the storming stage often experience conflict. This can be something of a shakedown period, with hostility, infighting, tension, and confrontation as members attempt to clarify expectations, assign roles, and determine the distribu- tion of power. Not everyone will be happy with the decisions made or roles assigned, and the storming can continue until challenges are resolved. The storming stage ends after the team has established a clear hierarchy and basic assignment of roles.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 265 4/20/17 5:36 PM

266

Section 9.2 Developing Teams

• Stage 3: Norming. In the norming stage, the team begins to structure itself by estab- lishing roles and deeper social relationships. Members begin to identify with the team and develop cohesiveness and commitment. Team norms evolve, and members know what behaviors will be acceptable (and unacceptable) to their teammates. Challenges are met with support and advice, and individuals volunteer to assist one another if necessary.

• Stage 4: Performing. In this stage, the team moves from foundational stages (get- ting to know each other and setting ground rules and roles) to accomplishing its key tasks. Team members believe they are working for a common purpose and become an efficiently functioning unit. The team becomes a well-oiled machine, meeting regularly to discuss successes, address challenges, and brainstorm new opportuni- ties. When working together, each team member has an equal say in the project, and disagreements are discussed and dealt with constructively.

• Stage 5: Adjourning. For temporary work teams, such as task forces, project teams, and committees, the final stage of development is the dissolution of the team at the completion of the project. After meeting one last time to evaluate the project and tie up loose ends, the team members leave the group, having formed important rela- tionships they can build on in the future.

Teams must address each stage effectively, or they risk having to go back and deal with unre- solved issues from earlier stages. As you can guess, one of the key goals for managers is to help teams move quickly and successfully through the first three stages to the performing stage. This can be tricky, because each team is unique, and some teams spend more time in the early stages than others.

Team Dynamics and Emergence Patterns Traditional models of team development such as the forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning model have been recently criticized for being too static (Cronin, 2015). Teams are dynamic entities that are constantly changing beyond these predictable stages. For exam- ple, every time members leave or are added to the team, it may need to get involved in some additional forming, storming, and norming. In today’s dynamic business environment, the “rules of the game” change all the time. When teams face changes in sequence and patterns of events, they can experience unexpected storming that may require flexibility and frequent renorming. Thus, it is almost impossible to “catch” a team at one particular stage of develop- ment. In reality, these stages may be occurring concurrently and dynamically at all times.

Although it makes sense to think of teams as dynamic entities, this poses notable challenges for the scientific study of teams (Cronin, 2015). In general, most researchers take a “snap- shot” approach. They collect their data at one or more points in time, analyze it, and make deductions about relationships between the variables they study. Even longitudinal studies that span several years and collect data over time, or experimental studies that use interven- tions to manipulate some factors and observe their impact on outcomes of interest, are still considered static. They may resemble multiple snapshots, but they are nowhere near a high- resolution video capture of the richness and dynamism of these situations.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 266 4/20/17 5:36 PM

267

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Similar to team development stages, team phenomena are also dynamic. For example, the “teamness” of a team emerges over time. As you will learn later in this chapter, teams develop collective characteristics, thought patterns, and emotions that are unique and different from those of the team’s individual members. Therefore, most researchers use an “average” approach when they measure team phenomena. For example, it is very common in research studies to measure the level of work engagement of each team member, and then take the average as a representation of team engagement (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). However, the average is not always representative of a team phenomenon. For example, let’s compare the engagement levels of two hypothetical teams. In the first team, all members are moder- ately engaged. In the second team, half the members are highly engaged and the other half are highly disengaged. The average level of engagement in these two teams may be the same, but the dynamics of these two teams are likely to be very different.

To better understand team phenomena, scholars have recommended a number of approaches. One approach is to try to understand some team phenomena, like diversity, in terms of the level of agreement or dispersion across team members. Team diversity is not some kind of “average” that can be taken across team members to represent the team’s level of diversity. Instead, each member’s uniqueness and variability across members are more meaningful representations of team diversity.

Other team phenomena are more appropriately understood in terms of “maximum emer- gence,” or the team’s highest contributor. For example, in leaderless or self-managed teams, leadership emerges depending on unique characteristics or behaviors of the emergent leader. It is not necessary for every member of the team to exhibit these characteristics, only for one member to be determined as the highest contributor of these characteristics.

Another pattern is “minimum emergence,” where the adage “We are only as strong as our weakest link” applies. For example, one member’s deficient performance can cause the whole team to fail. Finally, in some cases the average, dispersion, minimum, or maximum do not mat- ter as much as the “profile” or combination of team members’ abilities. In these truly dynamic cases, the mix of team members, like pieces of a puzzle, forms the full picture that deter- mines the team’s effectiveness. Unfortunately, these cases are the hardest to study. However, new scientific research methods have emerged to study such complex phenomena and show substantial promise in shedding additional light on team dynamism (Chan, 1998; Kozlowski, Chao, Grand, Braun, & Kuljanin, 2013; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

9.3 Effectiveness of Teams The extensive study of teams has resulted in a better understanding of why some are more effective than others. One of the most frequently cited conceptualizations of team effective- ness originates from a systems perspective, which proposes that the team works as a system: Team inputs lead to team processes, which in turn lead to team outcomes (Williams & Allen, 2008). As shown in Figure 9.1, this input-process-outcome model provides an effective heu- ristic for understanding team effectiveness (McGrath, 1964).

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 267 4/20/17 5:36 PM

268

· Task design · Team size · Composition of team - Personality - Cognitive ability - Demographics

Inputs

Team design

· Reward system · Management support · Culture

Context variables

· Information sharing · Group conflict · Goal setting · Team efficacy · Shared mental models

Processes

· Performance · Efficiency · Member satisfaction

Effectiveness

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Team Task Design Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) job characteristics model (see Chapter 6) was designed to show how individual-level jobs could be enriched to improve both individual and organi- zational outcomes. Interestingly, it appears that many of these techniques apply not only to individual workers but to teams of workers as well. Additionally, concepts from the job char- acteristics model could explain team member motivation and effectiveness.

Like individual tasks, team tasks are more motivating if they possess the five job-design char- acteristics: skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. The basic nature of the work team tends to promote these characteristics: Team tasks provide variety because they require workers to use many different skills and learn new skills; they provide task identity because team members usually work on tasks from start to finish; and they provide significance because teams usually work on projects that are important for the orga- nization. Additionally, members of all effective teams enjoy some autonomy in deciding how to handle their assigned tasks. Finally, the overall success or failure of the team’s finished product provides the team with feedback about its performance. The five job-design char- acteristics should motivate members not only to perform well on the team task but also to cooperate with the other team members (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993).

Team Composition A major driver of a team’s effectiveness is its composition. Forming a team, however, can be complicated—not only because the organization must consider the various attributes work- ers will need, but also because of the manner in which those individual attributes should be configured (Levine & Moreland, 1990). Although researchers have investigated the ways in which a number of different characteristics affect team performance, four have been found to have the greatest influence: member personality, member cognitive ability, team diversity, and team size.

Figure 9.1: Input-process-outcome model of team effectiveness

· Task design · Team size · Composition of team - Personality - Cognitive ability - Demographics

Inputs

Team design

· Reward system · Management support · Culture

Context variables

· Information sharing · Group conflict · Goal setting · Team efficacy · Shared mental models

Processes

· Performance · Efficiency · Member satisfaction

Effectiveness

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 268 4/20/17 5:36 PM

269

Area of best performance

Low agreeability High agreeability

Best Performance

P e rf

o rm

a n

c e

Agreeableness

High

Low High

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Personality Personality has been found to have an effect on both individual employee and team perfor- mance. Although all of the Big Five personality variables (extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, openness to experience, and emotional stability) have shown some relation- ship to team performance, agreeableness and emotional stability show the strongest rela- tionship (Bell, 2007; Peeters, Van Tuijl, Rutte, & Reymen, 2006). As you might expect, teams composed of emotionally stable individuals are more successful than those composed of emotionally unstable individuals. A more interesting inverted-U-shaped relationship exists between team performance and agreeableness: Teams are less effective both when team members have a high level of agreeability and when they have a low level of agreeability (see Figure 9.2). Highly agreeable team members usually get along, but they may not want to chal- lenge each other sufficiently to explore new options. Team members with low levels of agree- ability, on the other hand, may have too much conflict, which can be dysfunctional. A moder- ate amount of conflict tends to be most effective; hence the inverted-U-shaped relationship. Teams have also been found to benefit differentially from team conflict based on the prevalent personality traits of team members. For example, conflict tends to enhance performance in teams with higher emotional stability and openness to experience but tends to have a nega- tive effect on performance in teams that have lower levels of these personality traits (Bradley, Klotz, Postlethwaite, & Brown, 2013). Similarly interesting is the role of conscientiousness in promoting teamwork quality. Vîrgă and colleagues (2014) found that conscientiousness buf- fers the harmful effects of relationship conflict on teamwork quality.

Figure 9.2: Inverted-U-shaped relationship between team performance and agreeableness

Area of best performance

Low agreeability High agreeability

Best Performance

P e rf

o rm

a n

c e

Agreeableness

High

Low High

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 269 4/20/17 5:36 PM

270

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

In addition to Big Five personality characteristics, two other personality traits have an impor- tant influence on team effectiveness: tolerance for ambiguity and the need for autonomy. Because teams often solve problems or perform new tasks for which no clear solution, orga- nization, or method has yet been established, people who have a low tolerance for ambigu- ity tend to find working on teams frustrating and unfulfilling and are thus less motivated to embrace this type of work environment (Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). A person’s relative need for autonomy is also important to team dynamics (Kirkman, 2000). Workers who have a high need for autonomy tend to flourish on teams because they have more freedom and indepen- dence to develop and implement their own ideas.

Consider This: Teams and EI A recurring theme of this text is the importance of EI in the organizational context. Read the following article from the Harvard Business Review for a discussion on the importance of EI for teams.

Building the Emotional Intelligence of Groups

Questions to Consider

1. Why is it important for teams to build EI? 2. How does team EI differ from individual EI?

Cognitive Abilities An individual’s cognitive ability is the strongest single predictor of job success (see Chap- ter 3). This result also appears to hold true in the team work environment. A meta-analytic study conducted by Stewart (2006) found that the average cognitive ability of a team’s mem- bers is strongly related to team performance, regardless of task type. Even though it appears that, in most cases, high-ability teams have a significant advantage over lower ability teams, higher cognitive ability may not be an advantage in some situations. For example, if the task is simple, high-ability teams are likely to lose interest or become bored. Conversely, lower ability teams confronted with the same task will remain focused, regardless of whether they are intellectually stimulated. Therefore, organizations should save their high-ability teams to work on the most challenging and complex assignments.

Team Diversity Within the workplace, diversity is popularly believed to positively increase team effective- ness. However, researchers have discovered that surface-level demographic diversity, such as race, gender, and age, can have a negative effect on team performance (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Apparently, demographic diversity can disrupt team communication and cohesion while also increasing member conflict (Mohammed, Cannon-Bowers, & Foo, 2010), at least initially, although these effects tend to dissipate over time (Chatman & Flynn, 2001).

On the other hand, more recent studies demonstrate that the relationship between demo- graphic diversity and organizational performance is not linear; it is instead industry specific and depends on organizational strategy. For example, gender and racial diversity have been

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 270 4/20/17 5:36 PM

https://hbr.org/2001/03/building-the-emotional-intelligence-of-groups

271

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

shown to have a nonlinear relationship with organizational performance, moderated by two dimensions of the organization’s strategy: entrepreneurial orientation and risk taking (Rich- ard, Barnett, Dwyer, & Chadwick, 2004). A study of the banking industry also showed that racial diversity can have a positive effect on organizational performance when banks pursue an innovative strategy but a negative effect in banks that are low on innovation (Richard, McMillan, Chadwick, & Dwyer, 2003). Overall, meta-analytical findings show that cultur- ally diverse teams gain from increased creativity and satisfaction but realize losses due to increased task conflict and decreased social integration; net gains or losses depend on the context (Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010).

Whereas demographic diversity can challenge a team’s effectiveness, task-related diversity tends to improve it. Teams whose members represent a variety of educational backgrounds, experiences, tenure, skill sets, and so forth have been shown to be more effective than teams with less task- related diversity (Horowitz & Horowitz, 2007). As is the case with demographic diversity, the significance of task-related diversity may also depend on the type of task the team is assigned. Specifically, teams with low task-related diver- sity perform better on low-difficulty tasks but worse on high-difficulty tasks (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000).

Similar to task-related diversity, Liang and colleagues (Liang, Liu, Lin, & Lin 2007) found that the knowledge diversity of team members was positively related to team performance. On the other hand, they found that value diversity was related to relationship conflict and, in turn, lower team performance. This is especially relevant in today’s local and global business envi- ronments, given increasing cultural diversity. Cultural diversity can be manifested in terms of varied values and beliefs, which can be challenging to reconcile. However, research shows that cultural diversity can enhance performance when team members’ goals are focused on learning, rather than just on performance. Although performance is important, overemphasiz- ing it can lead to what are called avoidance goals, which emphasize tried-and-true processes and avoiding mistakes. On the other hand, a learning orientation results in what are called approach goals. Approach goals encourage pursuit of new challenges and exploration of new solutions, which can reduce conflict, encourage collaboration, promote information sharing, and enhance team performance (Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, & Van Dierendonck, 2013).

Team Size Determining how many people to include on a team can be critical to its overall success. Lead- ers often choose to follow the maxim “The more, the merrier,” believing that greater input will result in more accurate decisions and better results. However, too many people on a team can impair team performance, reduce cohesiveness, increase conflict, and interfere with coordi- nation. Research suggests that the most effective teams are made up of five to nine members who possess the combination of KSAOs required to solve the problem (Thompson, 2003). In general, it is best for managers to create teams with the smallest number of workers needed to get the job done.

Rawpixel Ltd/iStock/Thinkstock

Culturally diverse teams profit from increased creativity, effectiveness, and satisfaction.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 271 4/20/17 5:36 PM

272

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Context for Team Success Many contextual factors, such as support, rewards, and culture, play a significant role in a team’s success or failure. As Richard Hackman (1999) explains, “There are no free-standing groups, as each is embedded in several larger contexts—whether they be the organization, its environment (e.g., marketplace or industry), or the wider culture in which the team operates” (p. 238).

Support Organizations can send mixed messages about their support for teams and their tasks. When managers say that they value their teams but do not give them the autonomy to make their own decisions, this suggests that management is not really on board with the team concept (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006). The actions taken by the organization to either support or restrict teams will influence the way team members feel about their team, its goals, and their participation on it.

Rewards Typical performance appraisals and compensation programs are designed for individuals and do not work within a team-based environment. Organizations need to modify their systems to evaluate both individual- and team-based behaviors and performance outcomes (McClurg, 2001). Including incentives and rewards that relate to team performance will encourage team members to concentrate on team outcomes and shift their focus from personal to collective work and accountability.

Culture Some researchers have suggested that a country’s culture may affect team performance, with four cultural characteristics being especially influential: collectivism, power distance, a “doing” orientation, and determinism (Nicholls, Lane, & Brechu, 1999; Kirkman & Shap- iro, 2001). As discussed in previous chapters, collectivist societies (such as many in Asia) emphasize the harmony, success, and needs of the group over personal needs and desires. Thus, teams should be more successful in these societies because workers already have much experience working as part of a group and, because of cultural norms, will be less likely to instigate competition within the team. In contrast, individualistic cultures emphasize the suc- cess and goals of the individual, so teams can be more challenging to implement. In individu- alistic cultures, it is particularly important to promote teamwork through team rewards and job design in order to align individual and team goals. If jobs continue to be designed and rewarded based on individual achievement, as is the case in many U.S. organizations, teams can be unsuccessful; team goals tend to conflict with individual goals, which can reduce team members’ commitment to team goals.

Power distance is the relative importance cultures place on hierarchical structure, author- ity, and acceptance of unequal distribution of power. Cultures with high power distance— in which leadership leans toward or is openly totalitarian and subordinates expect specific instructions and guidance on work tasks—may have more difficulty implementing successful teams, because workers may be unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the higher levels of auton- omy and task ambiguity inherent in the team work concept.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 272 4/20/17 5:36 PM

273

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Cultures that promote and appreciate a high “doing” orientation should have more success implementing team work models than cultures that are more appreciative of reflection and contemplation. Americans have a very high doing orientation—we idealize the go-getter at work, admire people who take the initiative, characterize children who are bold and outspo- ken as leaders, and become frustrated with coworkers who can’t multitask. Everything is in constant motion and done for a purpose; we often judge others (or ourselves) as lazy or frivo- lous for taking time to think, reflect, or talk about nothing in particular. Organizations expect their teams and the people on them to meet deadlines, take action, think proactively, speak up, and be efficient.

Finally, determinism, or the degree to which people believe they control what happens in their lives, can impact team effectiveness. Some cultures perceive their environments as unchangeable and their positions and duties as fixed and determined by others. These highly deterministic cultures may not be as successful in implementing teams as cultures in which people feel they have the power to address problems and improve their situation. It makes sense to predict that, in order to be successful, team members need to believe that their work is meaningful and will solve the problem.

Consider This: Too Much of a Good Thing? 1. When might a high doing orientation be detrimental to a team? Can you think of a spe-

cific task or situation that would be better served by a team that is more contemplative? 2. Can you think of specific tasks or situations where individualism, determinism, and/or

high power distance can be conducive to effective team dynamics? What about a task or situation where collectivism, low power distance, and/or low determinism can compro- mise the team’s effectiveness?

Team Cohesion Team cohesion is the tendency for a team to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its objectives (Carron, Brawley, & Widemeyer, 1998). The notion that closely knit teams are more effective than those that are more loosely bound is so widely held that most team- training programs include segments with the specific goal of enhancing team cohesion (Healy, Milbourne, Aaronson, & Errichetti, 2004). It is surprising, then, that research does not defini- tively support this belief. A classic study by Schachter and his associates (Schachter, Ellertson, McBride, & Gregory, 1951) revealed an interesting set of relationships between team cohe- sion and performance. Cohesion was associated with higher productivity when the environ- ment was positive but with lower productivity when the environment was negative. In other words, cohesion acted as a double-edged sword. In positive work environments, cohesion can magnify the functional dynamics that lead to higher productivity, but in negative work envi- ronments, cohesion can exacerbate negative behaviors and further compromise performance.

A meta-analytical study by Mullen and Cooper (1994) found that team cohesion has only a weak effect on team performance, though the relationship tends to be stronger for small teams than for larger ones. However, in a more recent comprehensive study, the relationship

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 273 4/20/17 5:36 PM

274

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

between team cohesion and performance was found to be reciprocal and to grow over time. In other words, this relationship becomes stronger the longer a team works together, and the more cohesive a team becomes, the better it performs (Mathieu, Kukenberger, D’Innocenzo, & Reilly, 2015). Other research has shown a stronger relationship between team cohesion and performance when teams exhibit high interdependence (Gully & Devine, 1995). Interestingly, although there is some debate about whether team cohesion directly affects overall team per- formance, it does seem to have an effect on specific aspects of performance. For example, Beal, Cohen, Burke, and McLendon (2003) found that team cohesion is a strong predictor of team performance on behavior and efficiency measures but not on effectiveness measures. Finally, cohesive teams are more likely to accept group goals, decisions, and norms, which can help improve a team’s overall functionality.

Team Processes A cohesive team is able to produce work that is greater (in quantity, creativity, innovation, efficiency, etc.) than the sum of the work its members can produce independently. This effect, called synergy, is one of the major reasons organizations are attracted to the team work concept. But how do teams create synergy, and what can organizations do to promote it? In a nutshell, synergy evolves through the development and accrual of interpersonal interactions, also called team processes, including information sharing, conflict, collective efficacy, goal set- ting, and shared mental models.

Information Sharing Information sharing is one of the most fundamental team processes. Whether it occurs within the team (during team meetings, breakout sessions, etc.) or outside the team (one team mem- ber calling another for help while working on an individual component of the project), com- munication will positively impact team performance (Barry & Stewart, 1997). If a team mem- ber hoards data or keeps key information secret in a bid for power or self-promotion, the whole team—and the project itself—suffers, because the other team members must waste precious time and resources hunting for information they should already be putting to use. One way to improve a team’s level of information sharing is to increase its task-related diver- sity (using members who represent a variety of educational backgrounds, experiences, ten- ure, skill sets, etc.; Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001).

Conflict Another team process that affects team performance is conflict. The term conflict often carries a negative connotation, suggesting dysfunction, interpersonal challenges, and hostility. With teams, however, there is a difference between conflict that arises in the course of working on the task, called task conflict, and conflict that stems from interpersonal disagreements between team members, called relationship conflict. Relationship conflict is usually detri- mental to a team’s effectiveness. Although a certain amount of task conflict occurs in even the best teams, research demonstrates that it does not facilitate positive team performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Successful teams take steps to manage conflict by (a) proactively setting ground rules for dealing with disagreement and (b) transforming conflict into compe- tition (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000).

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 274 4/20/17 5:36 PM

275

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Collective Efficacy Effective teams believe in themselves and have confidence they will be successful, a charac- teristic known as collective efficacy (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Collective efficacy has been defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and exe- cute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). This collective efficacy develops in teams over time as they share small successes, and each success serves to make the team believe it will be successful in the future (Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). Extensive research has shown that collective efficacy is positively related to team performance (Gully et al., 2002; Stajkovic et al., 2009).

Efficacy is not the only psychological resource that can emerge at the team level. Research supports the emergence of other positive psychological resources in teams and organiza- tions, such as compassion and resilience (Hamel & Välikangas, 2003). Similar to the many synergies experienced in larger groups, these positive characteristics are more than the sum of their individual parts. For example, a resilient team is not simply a team that is composed of resilient individuals. When resilience occurs at the collective level, it takes on unique char- acteristics such as resilient systems and practices. Similarly, team emotions take on unique characteristics that are influenced by, and in turn influence, the emotions of team members (Barsade & Gibson, 2014).

Goal Setting Effective teams also use goal setting to translate the common purpose of the group into specific, actionable goals and then devise strategies to accomplish them. Just as they do with individu- als (see Chapter 8), specific and challenging goals lead to improved team performance and help focus the team’s effort in the right direction. Additionally, such goals have been found to raise a team’s levels of energy and effort, which leads to high performance (Weldon & Weingart, 1993). To be effective, teams should articulate specific goals that both challenge their capabilities and include a defined deadline.

Shared Mental Models Much recent attention has been paid to the ability of team members to apply a shared under- standing of how the team’s work will be done. Teams that are able to construct shared men- tal models of team processes, tasks, and roles are more likely to outperform teams that construct highly divergent mental models (Mohammed & Dumville, 2001). Teams that share mental models benefit from fewer misunderstandings among members, which promotes rapid coordination, reduced conflict, and ultimately, more time spent performing the task (Williams & Allen, 2008). On the other hand, teams whose members have divergent ideas on how to complete the assigned task will likely struggle to get work done, because they will spend more time arguing than actually doing their job.

Dave Carpenter/CartoonStock

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 275 4/20/17 5:36 PM

276

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

Social Loafing and Free Riding Two of the most detrimental team processes are social loafing and free riding, which occur when a member or members of a team coast through a project, letting others do the brunt of the work. Social loafing and free riding both lead to process losses within groups; however, social loafing is a less deliberate reduction in individual effort. Free riding, on the other hand, occurs when an individual believes others will pick up the slack, so he or she does less work (Forsyth, 2010). Social loafing and free riding are more common when individual contribu- tions are not easily identifiable. Therefore, teams can reduce social loafing and free riding by making each member of the team accountable to an identifiable segment of the work effort. By proactively setting both individual and team tasks, the team will ensure that everyone takes an equal share of the work—and enjoys an equal measure of the team’s success.

Consider This: Social Loafing Social loafing is a common problem in teamwork. For example, one team member may not show up for meetings on time or perform the tasks assigned to him. Another team member may do minimal work and depend on the rest of the team to carry her through the project.

Questions to Consider

1. Review your experiences of being part of a team (at work, in school, on the playing field, or elsewhere). Were any of your team members (or you!) guilty of social loafing?

2. What did your team do, if anything, to address loafers? 3. What could you or your team have done differently to prevent loafing?

High-Performance Work Teams Some teams have been found to exhibit exceptionally high levels of effectiveness. These teams are referred to as high-performance work teams. These teams possess a combination of the factors discussed throughout this chapter. Riggio (2011) identifies 10 practices of these types of teams:

1. Define and create interdependencies. 2. Establish goals. 3. Determine how teams will make decisions. 4. Provide clear and constant feedback. 5. Keep team membership stable. 6. Allow team members to challenge the status quo. 7. Learn how to identify and attract talent. 8. Use team-based reward systems. 9. Create a learning environment.

10. Focus on the collective mission.

A study by MIT’s Human Dynamics Lab (Pentland, 2012) shows that highly effective teams tend to communicate more frequently and intensely than a typical team, not only in terms of

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 276 4/20/17 5:36 PM

277

Section 9.3 Effectiveness of Teams

the content communicated, but also in terms of voice tone and body language. Highly effective teams display a lot of energy and engagement when communicating with team members and often take the opportunity to communicate outside the team and bring back valuable infor- mation and new perspectives. Communication also tends to be short, focused, and spread equally among team members. Interestingly, effective teams tend to engage in a lot of side conversations, about 50% of the time. This contradicts conventional wisdom, in which side conversations are considered disruptive and usually discouraged.

Find Out for Yourself: Teams at Whole Foods Whole Foods, an American supermarket chain, is recognized for its unique structure, which is designed entirely around teams, from the front lines all the way to the top of the organization, including the founders. Read this article to gain insights into how Whole Foods uses teams to increase the quality of hiring and in turn how high-quality teams can improve the perfor- mance and effectiveness of the organization.

Why Whole Foods Builds Its Entire Business on Teams

What Did You Learn?

1. What strikes you as most distinctive about Whole Foods’ team-based structure? 2. Why do you think Whole Foods’ team-based structure is conducive to high-performance

work teams? 3. What are the most important factors within the organization’s structure and culture

that cause this team-based structure to work? Consider aspects of job design, recruit- ment, selection, performance appraisal, and reward systems.

4. Do you think you would personally enjoy working for Whole Foods? Why or why not?

Consider This: Models of Team Effectiveness Over the years, many models of team effectiveness have emerged. Of course teams are unique, and no one model can capture all of their characteristics and success criteria, so it is helpful to examine multiple models. I/O psychologist Kenneth De Meuse (2009) summarizes and com- pares some of these models in the following article.

A Comparative Analysis of the Korn/Ferry T7 Model With Other Popular Team Models

Questions to Consider

1. What are the most notable similarities between the models discussed in this article? 2. What are the most notable differences? 3. Did you observe any consistencies, inconsistencies, or trends between older and newer

models? Why do you think that’s the case?

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 277 4/20/17 5:36 PM

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidburkus/2016/06/08/why-whole-foods-build-their-entire-business-on-teams/#7175c0fe483d

http://www.kornferry.com/media/lominger_pdf/teamswhitepaper080409.pdf

278

Section 9.4 Decision Making in Teams

9.4 Decision Making in Teams “Two heads are better than one.” This common saying describes the essence of team decision making, a process in which multiple individuals act collectively to analyze a problem and select a solution or solutions that best address the problem. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages of team decision making as well as practical techniques to help teams make better decisions.

Advantages of Team Decision Making There are a number of reasons why organizations utilize teams. Because teams are able to leverage more resources, such as KSAOs, time, and energy, they are able to generate more complete knowledge and information to use in the decision-making process. Additionally, team decision making can take advantage of the diverse strengths and expertise of its mem- bers, which enables the team to generate more, higher quality alternatives. As a result, teams are often more likely than a single individual to reach a superior solution.

Another benefit of team decision making has to do with the way people accept solutions to problems, especially difficult ones. Teams develop a collective understanding of the chosen course of action, which promotes a sense of ownership of the decision. Team members can say, “We made this choice,” instead of, “Someone made this choice for us,” so they are more likely to support the decision, commit to it, and encourage others to accept it.

Disadvantages of Team Decision Making Although teams hold great potential for performing superior work and producing superior results, potential pitfalls do exist. Generally speaking, team decision making is more time con- suming than individual decision making, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to use when decisions need to be made quickly. Additionally, teams can fall prey to a domineering team member, which, if the member is of low or medium ability, can result in poor outcomes. Finally, conformity pressures can influence team decisions, leading to group polarization and groupthink.

Group Polarization Team decision-making situations almost always involve some degree of risk or uncertainty. Research has found a tendency for group polarization, or convergence on extreme posi- tions on either side of an issue. For example, the risky shift phenomenon occurs when, after discussion, a team makes decisions that are riskier than those advocated by individual team members. The cautious shift, on the other hand, occurs when discussion prompts teams to make decisions that are more conservative than those originally proposed by individual members (Isenberg, 1986; Stoner, 1968). Why does this polarization occur? In both cases individuals propose various ideas, and then the entire team engages in discussion. Discus- sion can prompt individuals to generate more and more information in support of their pre- ferred solution, resulting in an ever more polarizing game of one-upmanship. Caught in a desire to support one side or defeat another, team members feel pressure to take sides, and polarization escalates until the final solution is much more extreme than anything originally intended. Another possible reason for group polarization is accountability and responsibility.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 278 4/20/17 5:36 PM

279

Section 9.4 Decision Making in Teams

Individuals sometimes choose to acquiesce to an extreme decision instead of continuing to work on a tough challenge, because if the action fails, they can shrug and say, “Well, I told you that would never work. It’s your fault, not mine!”

Groupthink One of the most serious and detrimental disadvantages of team decision making is group- think. In his 1972 book, Victims of Groupthink, Irving Janis describes this phenomenon as the “deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment resulting from in- group pressure” (p. 9). Groupthink occurs when views dissenting from the majority opinion are suppressed and alternative courses of action are not fully explored.

Groupthink has been the main driver of some of the most damaging decision-making fail- ures in American history. The disaster of the Space Shuttle Challenger is a tragic example of how social pressure and conformity lead teams to make poor decisions. In response to heavy demands to meet strict launch timelines, NASA officials chose not to spend time investigating their engineers’ concerns about the potential for O-ring failure and proceeded with the scheduled launch, resulting in the shuttle’s destruction and the death of all its crew members (Moorhead, Ference, & Neck, 1991).

There are many reasons why teams fall vic- tim to groupthink (see Figure 9.3). Teams with high cohesiveness are more likely to experience groupthink, as are those with members who place a high value on consensus and a need for approval. Such teams make a collective effort to rationalize and discount potential warning signs. Additionally, teams that isolate themselves from or do not look for conflicting sources of informa- tion begin to believe that the lack of dissenting information is proof that their solution is the best one. The most common cause of group- think, however, is a charismatic or powerful leader who champions a specific idea or solution. In such situations, the other team members feel social pressure to censor their ideas, align themselves with the leader, and avoid questioning the leader’s direction. To address this issue, Janis (1982) developed five practical steps teams can use to help avoid the groupthink trap:

1. Team leaders should explicitly encourage dissent and criticism. 2. Team leaders should gain participation from all members before stating their own

opinion. 3. Team members can create a separate team with its own leader to tackle the same

problem. 4. Team members should ask trusted advisors to provide feedback on the team’s

decision-making process and to challenge the team’s decisions. 5. Team members should appoint one person to serve as devil’s advocate, who pur-

posefully takes the contrary perspective.

NASA

Groupthink has contributed to some of the most damaging decision-making failures in American history, including the 1986 catastrophe involving the Challenger Space Shuttle.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 279 4/20/17 5:36 PM

280

Precursors of groupthink

Group unity

Inaccessibility

Biased leaders

Stressful decision making

Warning signs of groupthink

Belief in group immunity. Belief in total agre e m

e n t a

m o n g g

ro up m

em bers. Peer pressure. Informational filters

. Ju stif

yin g.

L ab

el lin

g. R

es tr

ic tio

n o

f p e rs

o n a l c

o n ce

rn s

or d

ou bt

B eli

ef in

gro up m

orality.

= Faultydecision making

Section 9.4 Decision Making in Teams

Each of these techniques legitimizes the value of disagreement in the decision-making pro- cess and helps teams capitalize on the fact that dissenting perspectives reduce conformity and groupthink.

Over the decades, some of the underlying assumptions of Janis’s theory have been questioned by scholars who have noted that groupthink can actually be related to positive performance outcomes. Team activities were found to be more important predictors of team performance than groupthink alone (Choi & Kim, 1999). Some research even negates the existence of groupthink, in essence casting doubt on the concept (Grossman, 2011). Ironically, this would actually make the idea of groupthink, which has been supported for decades by scholars and practitioners alike, a clear example of groupthink! However, these more recent findings do not negate the importance of Janis’s practical steps, outlined above, to ensure that team mem- bers engage in productive activities.

Team Decision-Making Techniques There are numerous techniques teams can employ to help them make better decisions. Two of the most common team decision-making methods are brainstorming and the nominal group technique.

Brainstorming Brainstorming is a process in which team members attempt to increase the number and creativity of solutions by verbally suggesting ideas or alternative courses of action. A typical

Figure 9.3: Groupthink

Adapted from Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment, by I. L. Janis and L. Mann, 1977, New York, NY: Free Press.

Precursors of groupthink

Group unity

Inaccessibility

Biased leaders

Stressful decision making

Warning signs of groupthink

Belief in group immunity. Belief in total agre e m

e n t a

m o n g g

ro up m

em bers. Peer pressure. Informational filters

. Ju stif

yin g.

L ab

el lin

g. R

es tr

ic tio

n o

f p e rs

o n a l c

o n ce

rn s

or d

ou bt

B eli

ef in

gro up m

orality.

= Faultydecision making

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 280 4/20/17 5:36 PM

281

Section 9.5 When Teams Are a Bad Idea

brainstorming session is relatively unstructured and begins with the leader describing the problem. Team members then generate as many solutions as possible for a given amount of time. No criticism or evaluation is allowed; all ideas, no matter how unusual, are recorded. Once the time has expired or the group members have run out of ideas, the group begins evaluating the utility of each of the suggestions.

Although brainstorming tends to generate an abundance of possible solutions, it is an ineffi- cient way to solve problems. Research consistently shows that individuals working alone can generate more solutions than a brainstorming group. Production blocking, which occurs when individual participants lose their train of thought and become cognitively blocked, limiting their potential to share, is one reason (Kerr & Tindale, 2004). Another is individual team member shyness. Finally, some team members may keep controversial or unusual ideas to themselves due to fear of being personally judged by other group members. Thus, even though brainstorming is a popular and much used technique, it is flawed.

Nominal Group Technique The nominal group technique has been shown to produce much better results than brain- storming. This method is a structured decision-making process in which team members gen- erate ideas on their own, without any interaction, and then bring their ideas to the entire group to be evaluated. The process involves four steps:

1. Prior to group discussion, each individual composes a comprehensive written list of ideas or proposed alternatives.

2. Individuals gather as a team and present, in turn, one item from their list until all ideas or alternatives have been presented and recorded. No discussion occurs at this point.

3. The team discusses the ideas for clarity. 4. Each team member privately puts the ideas in rank order. The solution with the

highest aggregate ranking is chosen.

The nominal group technique has a number of advantages over brainstorming. First, it has been shown to produce more effective decisions (Faure, 2004). Second, the pressure to con- form is limited, because members work independently. And third, because ideas are pre- sented and recorded in an orderly fashion, production block is reduced. Thus, if you ever have the option of choosing between brainstorming and nominal group technique to make an important team decision, you would be better served by the latter.

9.5 When Teams Are a Bad Idea Organizations have become enamored with teams—not because they are necessarily the best way to increase productivity but because “everyone” is using them. However, in certain situ- ations, teams can be a big mistake. For example, creating cohesive teams takes a consider- able amount of time and effort. When speed is essential, new, inexperienced teams may make more blunders than they are worth (Staats, Milkman, & Fox, 2012). Additionally, teams put a big burden on team members and leaders to share information, manage conflict, and solve complex problems, which can lead to team members’ frustration and burnout.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 281 4/20/17 5:36 PM

282

Section 9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?

Specific conditions do exist under which only teams should be used. For example, when tasks are highly interdependent, employees are required to collaborate in order to perform their jobs. An example of highly interdependent jobs is a surgical team: Nurses, doctors, techni- cians, and specialists each rely on communication with and the complementary skills of the others to complete a successful operation. These individuals must work as a team or risk the safety of their patients.

On the other hand, if jobs are relatively independent or sequential, teams can add an unneces- sary layer of coordination that can be impractical and time consuming. For example, a large transportation company decided to implement teams across most of its operations. The implementation process was torturous, especially for drivers who are on the road most of the time, but senior management persisted and demanded that all operations should convert to the new team design. Sacrificing road time to attend team meetings was costly to the orga- nization and frustrating to the teams, who complied with the changes but without any real engagement or commitment to the new design. Deliveries became chronically late, customer complaints increased, turnover skyrocketed, and the initiative was abandoned within 1 year.

Before rushing into implementing the team concept, organizations must assess whether the problem is better addressed with individual or collective effort. Are multiple individuals required to complete the task? If so, organizations must then determine the complexity of the project. Teams are best suited for situations that are challenging and complex, whereas sim- ple problems that require limited input and information sharing should be left to individuals.

Teams are often viewed as a universal remedy within the organization. They can, however, be overused and poorly designed, and they are almost always a bad idea when they are not needed. Ultimately, it is important that organizations use teams only when there is true inter- dependence between team members and the task requires leveraging their diverse skills.

9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious? Positivity can benefit not only individuals, but also groups and organizations. Research shows that positivity as well as negativity can be contagious. Encounters with positive individuals can lift our spirits and make us more positive and energetic. On the other hand, interactions with negative individuals can make us feel down, defeated, or discouraged. These findings were revealed in a fascinating set of experiments in which a trained actor was embedded in groups assigned to negotiate the distribution of a limited bonus pool across their depart- ments. Regardless of the intensity of the emotions expressed by the actor, or even the degree of pleasantness of the actor to the other members, positive mood expressions produced a ripple effect that shaped the group’s interactions, improving cooperation and group perfor- mance and decreasing group conflict (Barsade, 2002).

The contagious effects of managers’ positive emotions and moods on their employees have also been demonstrated as a mechanism for effective leadership (Barsade & Gibson, 2014; Bono & Ilies, 2006). Positivity should therefore be taken into consideration when forming teams, selecting team leaders and members, and training employees to become effective con- tributors to their teams. Leadership styles also affect team functioning beyond their effects

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 282 4/20/17 5:36 PM

283

Section 9.6 Collective Positivity: Can Positivity Be Contagious?

on individual performance. For example, although LMX quality (see Chapter 7) is generally positively related to employee performance at the individual level, bimodal LMX differentia- tion (treating team members differently based on their classification into an in-group and out-group) has a negative effect on team coordination and ultimately causes the team’s finan- cial performance to suffer (Li & Liao, 2014).

However, just selecting positive individuals will not automatically make a positive team or organization. Positive organizing is also needed, in which the organization’s context, pro- cesses, and outcomes also become more positive in order to facilitate positive organizational phenomena (Cameron & Caza, 2004). For example, as discussed earlier, team members need to build collective efficacy, a shared belief in their joint abilities to achieve their goals (Ban- dura, 1997). However, collective efficacy is not the sum of the individual efficacies of the team members. In fact, if team members possess extremely high levels of efficacy, they may become overconfident, which may hinder their motivation or desire to collaborate with other team members. Therefore, for collective efficacy to develop among team members, trusting rela- tionships, open communication, and information sharing may be more important than the individual efficacy of each team member.

Recently, there has also been an increasing interest in organizational resiliency, or the ability of an organization to survive and recover from crises. Again, however, organizational resil- iency is not the same as individual resiliency. A resilient organization (or group) does not necessarily make its members more resilient, nor does a resilient group of individuals nec- essarily make a resilient team or organization. In fact, the processes leading to individual resiliency may sometimes be detrimental for groups and organizations. For example, indi- viduals may bounce back from adversity at the expense of others, using coping mechanisms and strategies that resemble survival of the fittest (Coutu, 2002), which are not conducive to team or organizational resiliency. On the other hand, the dynamic processes that help teams adapt to change and recover from crises need to go beyond the capabilities and limitations of any one individual. These processes include flexibility, ability to learn and evolve, and norms of respectful interaction (Weick, 1993).

Consider This: A Recent Crisis or Challenge Think about a challenging situation that you have recently faced and successfully overcome in the context of work, family, or social relationships.

Questions to Consider

1. How did you overcome the crisis or challenge you faced? 2. To what extent did you do it alone? What were some of the personal resources you drew

upon? 3. To what extent did you get help from others? What were some of the ways others con-

tributed to your success in overcoming this crisis or challenge? 4. In hindsight, which aspects of the situation were best handled alone, and which aspects

should have been handled with the help of others? Use the knowledge you gained from this chapter to explain your answer.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 283 4/20/17 5:36 PM

284

Summary and Conclusion

Currently, many organizations are focusing heavily on groups and teams to solve difficult and complex problems. However, the team outcomes show mixed results. First, not all tasks and projects lend themselves to teamwork. Second, just because a group of individuals are assigned a common goal does not mean that they will function as a team and realize the syn- ergies expected from teamwork. Numerous individual, group, organizational, and contextual factors will shape the dynamics of the group and make it more or less effective. Managers are strongly advised to consider those factors and thoroughly analyze them, rather than just choosing to design operations around teams simply because everyone else in their industry is doing the same. If analysis reveals that teams are the correct approach, then many factors discussed in this chapter should be evaluated and adopted in order to facilitate teamwork, motivate team members, promote positive team dynamics, and ultimately increase teams’ effectiveness within the organization.

brainstorming A process in which team members attempt to increase the num- ber and creativity of solutions by verbally suggesting ideas or alternative courses of action.

cautious shift A phenomenon that occurs when discussion prompts teams to make decisions that are more conservative than those originally proposed by individual members.

collective efficacy A group’s shared belief in its capabilities to organize and execute courses of action that will produce a given level of attainment.

collectivist Tending to value harmony, suc- cess, and the needs of the group over indi- viduals’ personal needs and desires.

cross-functional team A team in which representatives of approximately the same hierarchical level from many functional areas of an organization combine forces to solve problems.

determinism The degree to which people believe they control what happens in their lives.

“doing” orientation The tendency to value action over contemplation.

free riding A belief that sometimes occurs in a team context, where a team member believes the other members will pick up the slack so he or she does less work.

group polarization Convergence on extreme positions on either side of an issue.

groupthink Deterioration of mental effi- ciency, reality testing, and moral judgment resulting from in-group pressure.

manager-led team The traditional, most common type of team, in which a manager acts as team leader and is responsible for defining goals, methods, and functions, and the team has little operational input and is responsible only for completing the work outlined by the manager.

Key Terms

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 284 4/20/17 5:36 PM

285

Summary and Conclusion

nominal group technique A structured decision-making process in which team members generate ideas on their own, without any interaction, and then bring their ideas to the entire group to be evaluated.

power distance The relative importance cultures place on hierarchical structure, authority, and acceptance of unequal distri- bution of power.

production blocking Individual team members lose their train of thought and become cognitively blocked, limiting their potential to generate solutions.

project teams Relatively small teams that are temporary, created for a specific reason, given a clear goal, and usually disband at project’s end; usually led by a project man- ager, who coordinates the people and mate- rials needed to complete the task.

relationship conflict Conflict that stems from interpersonal disagreements between team members.

risky shift A phenomenon that occurs when, after discussion, a team makes deci- sions that are riskier than those originally advocated by individual team members.

self-managed work team (SMWT) A group of people who work together to accomplish a goal by managing their own work in a collaborative environment without an officially designated leader.

shared mental model A team’s shared understanding of team processes, tasks, roles, and how the team’s work will be done.

social loafing Coasting through a team project, letting other members of the team do the brunt of the work.

synergy The notion that the total is greater than the sum of its independent parts.

task conflict Conflict that arises in a team in the course of working on a task.

team cohesion The tendency for a team to stick together and remain united in the pursuit of its objectives.

virtual teams Groups of individuals who work across time, space, and organizational boundaries and who interact primarily through electronic communications.

work group Two or more individuals who interact and share ideas in order to achieve a common goal.

work teams Work groups characterized by interdependence; collective responsibility for outcomes; authority to decide how to interact, function, and make decisions; and exclusiveness to a few members who pos- sess complementary skills.

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 285 4/20/17 5:37 PM

you83701_09_c09_257-286.indd 286 4/20/17 5:37 PM