For All Solve Worker

10-1. The Good and Bad of Using Teams

Ninety-one percent of organizations are significantly improving their effectiveness by using work teams. *  Procter & Gamble and Cummins Engine began using teams in 1962 and 1973, respectively. Boeing, Caterpillar, Champion International, Ford Motor Company, 3M, and General Electric established work teams in the mid- to late-1980s. Today, most companies use teams to tackle a variety of issues. *  “Teams are ubiquitous. Whether we are talking about software development, Olympic hockey, disease outbreak response, or urban warfare, teams represent the critical unit that ‘gets things done’ in today’s world.” *

Work teams consist of a small number of people with complementary skills who hold themselves mutually accountable for pursuing a common purpose, achieving performance goals, and improving interdependent work processes. *  By this definition, computer programmers working on separate projects in the same department of a company would not be considered a team. To be a team, the programmers would have to be interdependent and share responsibility and accountability for the quality and amount of computer code they produced. *  Teams are becoming more important in many industries because they help organizations respond to specific problems and challenges. Though work teams are not the answer for every situation or organization, if the right teams are used properly and in the right settings, teams can dramatically improve company performance over more traditional management approaches while also instilling a sense of vitality in the workplace that is otherwise difficult to achieve.

Let’s begin our discussion of teams by learning about 10-1a the advantages of teams, 10-1b the disadvantages of teams, and 10-1c when to use and not use teams.

10-1a. The Advantages of Teams

Companies are making greater use of teams because teams have been shown to improve customer satisfaction, product and service quality, speed and efficiency in product development, employee job satisfaction, and decision making. *  For example, one survey indicated that 80 percent of companies with more than 100 employees use teams, and 90 percent of all U.S. employees work part of their day in a team. *  In fact, according to recent research, workers spend half again as much time in collaborative activities as they did just 20 years ago! *

Teams help businesses increase customer satisfaction in several ways. One way is to create work teams that are trained to meet the needs of specific customers. 3D printing, also called additive manufacturing because one thin layer is added at a time, is now part of the production process in aviation, energy, pharmaceuticals, cars, and more. A survey of 900 manufacturers found that 14 percent use 3D printing today, and 48 percent plan to use it within a decade. Because legal issues related to additive manufacturing are different from those related to traditional manufacturing, the law practice of Hunton & Williams developed a cross-functional team of attorneys to assist clients who are adopting this new technology. Rather than seek out legal advice from several independent lawyers and then try to piece all the information together themselves, clients with significant investments in 3D printing can access a range of experts on product liability, taxes, intellectual property, insurance, litigation—and more—with just one phone call. *

Teams also help firms improve product and service quality in several ways. *  In contrast to traditional organizational structures, in which management is responsible for organizational outcomes and performance, teams take direct responsibility for the quality of the products and service they produce and sell. Once considered a solo career, over-the-road (OTR) truck drivers are increasingly pairing up to keep trucks moving more than 20 hours a day. Team driver Gary Helms says that he and his partner only stop for fuel, food, and a shower—otherwise, “We want the truck to move.” *  With state regulations limiting truck drivers to no more than eleven hours a day of driving, a single driver can cover roughly 500 miles per day. Driver teams, however, can cover 1,000 miles a day, which makes them incredibly valuable to online retailers and the organic-grocery industry, both of which promise customers fast delivery and fresh products. Driver teams are so valuable, in fact, that companies are willing to pay them $6 per mile—three times the normal price. According to transportation analyst Donald Broughton, companies running driver teams can provide freight speeds at a fraction of the price. *

Collaboration Tool Overload Is Killing Teams

A multitude of ways to communicate, from intranet discussion platforms to company chat programs like Facebook Workplace and Google Chat, video chat apps like Skype and Google Hangouts, and file-sharing apps like Google Drive and Dropbox overwhelm today’s work teams. Forrester Research’s Craig Le Clair says, “Workers don’t want nine collaboration platforms.” Add email to the list and it’s the equivalent of having 10 different inboxes!

Seeking a simpler approach, J. Walter Thompson adopted Microsoft Teams, a threaded chat-based tool integrated into Office365, which means that Office Apps like Excel, Word, and PowerPoint, and file storage and sharing like Microsoft’s OneDrive, are available without leaving Teams.

Slack, which originated this way of communicating, has even greater functionality. Users can access file storage, task managers, phone and video calls, calendars and meeting scheduling, sales and accounting—1,000 apps in all—without leaving slack. Slack users report a one-third increase in productivity, a 49 percent drop in email, and 25 percent fewer meetings.

Kill collaboration tool overload. Make your teams more effective.

Another reason for using teams is that teamwork often leads to increased job satisfaction. *  Teamwork can be more satisfying than traditional work because it gives workers a chance to improve their skills. This is often accomplished through cross-training, in which team members are taught how to do all or most of the jobs performed by the other team members. The advantage for the organization is that cross-training allows a team to function normally when one member is absent, quits, or is transferred. The advantage for workers is that cross-training broadens their skills and increases their capabilities while also making their work more varied and interesting.

Teamwork is also satisfying because work teams often receive proprietary business information that typically is available only to managers. Atomic Object is an employee-owned software company with an “open books” philosophy, which gives team members full access to financial information. Each quarter, founder Carl Erickson shares incomes statements and financial projections and explains how employee bonuses are determined. Financial data are accessible to all via spreadsheets and financial modeling tools to create better understanding about what makes Atomic profitable. Vice president and managing partner Shawn Crowley says each team “has a large key performance indicator (KPI) monitor that displays … marketing and financial metrics. Openly showing our individual contributions allows us to see how we are performing against expectations and keeps us accountable to each other.” *  Which means that Atomic’s team members act like business owners. Said team member Brittany Hunter, “I don’t mentally check out at 5 p.m. My mind is often going late into the night about things I can do to improve Atomic or promote it to outsiders, ways I can serve my clients better, how to solve hard problems on my projects.” *

Team members also gain job satisfaction from unique leadership responsibilities that are not typically available in traditional organizations. Finally, teams share many of the advantages of group decision making discussed in Chapter 5. For instance, because team members possess different knowledge, skills, abilities, and experiences, a team is able to view problems from multiple perspectives. This diversity of viewpoints increases the odds that team decisions will solve the underlying causes of problems and not just address the symptoms. The increased knowledge and information available to teams also make it easier for them to generate more alternative solutions, a critical part of improving the quality of decisions. Because team members are involved in decision-making processes, they are also likely to be more committed to making those decisions work. In short, teams can do a much better jobs than individuals in two important steps of the decision-making process: defining the problem and generating alternative solutions.

10-1b. The Disadvantages of Teams

Although teams can significantly improve customer satisfaction, product and service quality, speed and efficiency in product development, employee job satisfaction, and decision making, using teams does not guarantee these positive outcomes. In fact, if you’ve ever participated in team projects in your classes, you’re probably already aware of some of the problems inherent in work teams. Despite all of their promise, teams and teamwork are also prone to these significant disadvantages: initially high turnover, social loafing, and the problems associated with group decision making.

The first disadvantage of work teams is initially high turnover. Teams aren’t for everyone, and some workers balk at the responsibility, effort, and learning required in team settings. When Zappos, the online shoe company changed from a traditional to a team-based structure where there are no bosses and no titles and employees manage themselves (what it calls Holacracy), it offered everyone in the company three months of severance pay to leave if they decided that it wasn’t right for them. Turns out that of its 1,500 employees, 14 percent decided to leave. After 10 months, that figure had risen to 18 percent overall and 38 percent among members of a special technology team charged with migrating Zappos’s website to Amazon servers. Zappos’s John Bunch, who is managing the transition to Holacracy, said, “Whatever the number of people who took the offer was the right number as they made the decision that was right for them and right for Zappos.” *

Social loafing is another disadvantage of work teams. Social loafing occurs when workers withhold their efforts and fail to perform their share of the work. *  A nineteenth-century French engineer named Maximilian Ringlemann first documented social loafing when he found that one person pulling on a rope alone exerted an average of 139 pounds of force on the rope. In groups of three, the average force dropped to 117 pounds per person. In groups of eight, the average dropped to just 68 pounds per person. Ringlemann concluded that the larger the team, the smaller the individual effort. In fact, social loafing is more likely to occur in larger groups where identifying and monitoring the efforts of individual team members can be difficult. *  In other words, social loafers count on being able to blend into the background, where their lack of effort isn’t easily spotted.

From team-based class projects, most students already know about social loafers or “slackers,” who contribute poor, little, or no work whatsoever. Not surprisingly, a study of 250 student teams found that the most talented students are typically the least satisfied with teamwork because of having to carry slackers and do a disproportionate share of their team’s work. *  A similar study of virtual teams (where team members work remotely) found that social loafing is higher among team members who are stretched by high levels of non-work obligations (such as family, volunteering, and community work). *  Perceptions of fairness are negatively related to the extent of social loafing within teams. *

Finally, teams share many of the disadvantages of group decision making discussed in Chapter 5, such as groupthink. In groupthink, members of highly cohesive groups feel intense pressure not to disagree with each other so that the group can approve a proposed solution. Because groupthink restricts discussion and leads to consideration of a limited number of alternative solutions, it usually results in poor decisions. Also, team decision making takes considerable time, and team meetings can often be unproductive and inefficient. Another possible pitfall is minority domination, where just one or two people dominate team discussions, restricting consideration of different problem definitions and alternative solutions. Minority domination is especially likely to occur when the team leader talks so much during team discussions, effectively discouraging other team members from speaking up. When that happens, team performance drops significantly. *  Finally, team members may not feel accountable for the decisions and actions taken by the team.

10-1c. When to Use Teams

As the two previous subsections made clear, teams have significant advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, the question is not whether to use teams, but when and where to use teams for maximum benefit and minimum cost. As Doug Johnson, associate director at the Center for Collaborative Organizations at the University of North Texas, puts it, “Teams are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. You have to ask yourself questions first. Does the work require interdependence? Will the team philosophy fit company strategy? Will management make a long-term commitment to this process?” *  Exhibit 10.1 provides some additional guidelines on when to use or not use teams. *

First, teams should be used when there is a clear, engaging reason or purpose for using them. Too many companies use teams because they’re popular or because the companies assume that teams can fix all problems. Teams are much more likely to succeed if they know why they exist and what they are supposed to accomplish, and they are more likely to fail if they don’t.

Second, teams should be used when the job can’t be done unless people work together. This typically means that teams are needed when tasks are complex, require multiple perspectives, or require repeated interaction with others to complete. Because of the enormous complexity of today’s cars, you would think that auto companies routinely use interconnected design teams. After all, the typical car has 30,000 parts, 80 different computer modules, indicators sensing how close other cars are when parking or going 70 mph, and the ability to automatically adjust braking, cornering, gas mileage, and acceleration. But auto companies don’t routinely use interconnected design teams, as most designers are responsible for separate sections or parts of the car. Achim Badstübner, head of Audi Group exterior design, says, “We tend to make the mistake that we have an exterior department, an interior department and a technology department, and they all know what they’re doing but the connection is not so good.” Audi, however, takes a team approach. Badstübner says, “I think it’s very important to basically lock them in one room, literally speaking. Then there is an interaction: you talk to the guy who does seats and he tells you something about his expertise and you might take something from him that helps you to develop a new wheel, for example.” Badstübner says by connecting the teams, “you get a different result because through this method you get the best of every brain. I think you can’t survive if you just depend on one brain to do a complex thing like [design] a car.” *

Third, teams should be used when rewards can be provided for teamwork and team performance. Rewards that depend on team performance rather than individual performance are the key to rewarding team behaviors and efforts. You’ll read more about team rewards later in the chapter, but for now it’s enough to know that if the type of reward (individual versus team) is not matched to the type of performance (individual versus team), teams won’t work.

10-2. Kinds of Teams

Let’s continue our discussion of teams by learning about the different kinds of teams that companies such as Google and Maytag use to make themselves more competitive. We look first at 10-2a how teams differ in terms of autonomy, which is the key dimension that makes one team different from another, and then at 10-2b some special kinds of teams

10-2a. Autonomy, the Key Dimension

Teams can be classified in a number of ways, such as permanent or temporary, or functional or cross-functional. However, studies indicate that the amount of autonomy possessed by a team is the key difference among teams. *  Autonomy is the degree to which workers have the discretion, freedom, and independence to decide how and when to accomplish their jobs. Exhibit 10.2 shows how five kinds of teams differ in terms of autonomy. Moving left to right across the autonomy continuum at the top of the exhibit, traditional work groups and employee involvement groups have the least autonomy, semi- autonomous work groups have more autonomy, and, finally, self-managing teams and self-designing teams have the most autonomy. Moving from bottom to top along the left side of the exhibit, note that the number of responsibilities given to each kind of team increases directly with its autonomy. Let’s review each of these kinds of teams and their autonomy and responsibilities in more detail.

The smallest amount of autonomy is found in traditional work groups, where two or more people work together to achieve a shared goal. In these groups, workers are responsible for doing the work or executing the task, but they do not have direct responsibility or control over their work. Workers report to managers, who are responsible for their performance and have the authority to hire and fire them, make job assignments, and control resources. For instance, suppose that an experienced worker blatantly refuses to do his share of the work, saying, “I’ve done my time. Let the younger employees do the work.” In a team with high autonomy, the responsibility of getting this employee to put forth his fair share of effort would belong to his teammates. But, in a traditional work group, that responsibility belongs to the boss or supervisor. The supervisor in this situation calmly confronted the employee and told him, “We need your talent, [and] your knowledge of these machines. But if you won’t work, you’ll have to go elsewhere.” Within days, the employee’s behavior improved. *

Employee involvement teams, which have somewhat more autonomy, meet on company time on a weekly or monthly basis to provide advice or make suggestions to management concerning specific issues such as plant safety, customer relations, or product quality. *  Though they offer advice and suggestions, they do not have the authority to make decisions. Membership on these teams is often voluntary, but members may be selected because of their expertise. The idea behind employee involvement teams is that the people closest to the problem or situation are best able to recommend solutions. For more than three years, production of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner was delayed by multiple problems—parts shortages, improper installation, failed test flights, and more. Because of production delays, Boeing must build ten planes per month, up from the typical two and a half planes. To meet this aggressive goal, it established nearly 200 employee involvement teams to analyze the way 787s are assembled and make changes to maximize efficiency. For example, one employee involvement team found that ducts already installed in the plane were being damaged because workers were kicking and stepping on them while doing other work. The damaged ducts then had to be removed and replaced. The team recommended that temporary covers be placed over the ducts, thus eliminating delays and increased costs. *

A host of productivity apps are available to make working remotely easier for people in teams. Keep the following apps in mind next time you have a group project—they might help you all work better together.

· World Clock and Figure It Out display multiple time zones to help teammates around the globe schedule meetings and avoid calling in the middle of the night.

· Sqwiggle takes quick snapshots of each team member via webcam every few seconds, making it easy to tell who is available if you have to call an impromptu meeting across multiple time zones. (The app can be paused during off-hours.)

· With annotation app Skitch you can add arrows, text, and more to screenshots and pictures to get your point across quickly and clearly.

· 15Five lets managers send short sets of company-, project-, or user-specific questions to virtual teams to see what’s on everybody’s minds.

· With Meldium, remote teams can log into apps and tech platforms with a single sign-on. Team members have access to the apps but never see the actual password so the organizer can retain password control and security.

· Semi-autonomous work groups not only provide advice and suggestions to management but also have the authority to make decisions and solve problems related to the major tasks required to produce a product or service. Semi-autonomous groups regularly receive information about budgets, work quality and performance, and competitors’ products. Furthermore, members of semi-autonomous work groups are typically cross-trained in a number of different skills and tasks. In short, semi-autonomous work groups give employees the authority to make decisions that are typically made by supervisors and managers.

· That authority is not complete, however. Managers still play a role, though one that is much reduced compared with traditional work groups, in supporting the work of semi-autonomous work groups. The role a manager plays on a team usually evolves over time. “It may start with helping to transition problem-solving responsibilities to the team, filling miscellaneous requests for the team, and doing ad hoc tasks,” says Steven Hitchcock, president of Axis Performance Advisors in Portland, Oregon. Later, the team may develop into a mini-enterprise, and the former manager becomes externally focused—sort of an account manager for the customer. Managers have to adjust what they do based on the sophistication of the team. *  A lot of what managers of semi-autonomous work groups do is ask good questions, provide resources, and facilitate performance of group goals.

· Self-managing teams are different from semi-autonomous work groups in that team members manage and control all of the major tasks directly related to production of a product or service without first getting approval from management. This includes managing and controlling the acquisition of materials, making a product or providing a service, and ensuring timely delivery. Spotify, the streaming music company, organizes its 2,000 employees into self-organizing teams called squads. No larger than 8 people, squads are completely responsible for a particular product function, like search algorithms, and decide what to do, how to do it, who to work with (other squads), and select their leaders. Squads receive feedback from other squads and customers, and conduct postmortems every few weeks to analyze what is or is not working. All of these decisions are made without management’s input or approval. *

· The use of self-managing teams has significantly increased productivity at a number of other companies, increasing quality by 12 percent at AT&T, reducing errors by 13 percent at FedEx, and helping 3M increase production by 300 percent at one of its manufacturing plants. *  Seventy-two percent of Fortune 1,000 companies have at least one self-managing team, up from 28 percent in 1987. *

Self-designing teams have all the characteristics of self-managing teams, but they can also control and change the design of the teams themselves, the tasks they do and how and when they do them, and the membership of the teams. Valve, a Bellevue, Washington, maker of video games, has no managers. In fact, the company defines “manager” in its employee handbook as, “The kind of people we don’t have any of. So, if you see one, tell somebody, because it’s probably the ghost of whoever was in this building before us.” *  “We do have a founder/president, but even he isn’t your manager. This company is yours to steer—toward opportunities and away from risks. You have the power to green-light projects. You have the power to ship projects.” *  But what makes Valve’s team self-designing (and not just self-managing), is that they control and change the teams themselves by deciding who gets hired, fired, promoted, and what they get paid (which is determined by peer rankings regarding contributions to team projects). *

10-2b. Special Kinds of Teams

Companies are also increasingly using several other kinds of teams that can’t easily be categorized in terms of autonomy: cross-functional teams, virtual teams, and project teams. Depending on how these teams are designed, they can be either low- or high-autonomy teams.

Cross-functional teams are intentionally composed of employees from different functional areas of the organization. *  Because their members have different functional backgrounds, education, and experience, cross-functional teams usually attack problems from multiple perspectives and generate more ideas and alternative solutions, all of which are especially important when trying to innovate or solve problems creatively. *  Cross-functional teams can be used almost anywhere in an organization and are often used in conjunction with matrix and product organizational structures (see Chapter 9). They can also be used either with part-time or temporary team assignments or with full-time, long-term teams.

Virtual teams are groups of geographically and/or organizationally dispersed coworkers who use a combination of telecommunications and information technologies to accomplish an organizational task. *  Virtual teams are increasingly common, and are used by 28 percent of U.S.-based corporations and 66 percent of multinational firms. *  Members of virtual teams rarely meet face-to-face; instead, they use email, videoconferencing, and group communication software. Virtual teams can be employee involvement teams, self-managing teams, or nearly any kind of team discussed in this chapter. Virtual teams are often (but not necessarily) temporary teams that are set up to accomplish a specific task.

Virtual teams are highly flexible because employees can work with each other regardless of physical location or time zones, but they’re also much more complex than face-to-face teams when it comes to purpose, communication, and trust. Virtual teams often suffer from a lack of understanding regarding the team’s purpose and team member roles. Dave Davis of RedFly Marketing has managed virtual teams for more than a decade and says, “You’d be surprised how many people will wait until halfway through a project to admit they don’t understand something.” *  Because of distance and different time zones, 38 percent of virtual team members cite communication as their biggest challenge. Joe McCann says, CEO of NodeSource, a JavaScript software company, says “It’s a pain…, I’m gonna be honest. If everybody was in North America, it would be easier. We have an influential gentleman employee in Australia, so every Monday at 6 p.m. when I’d like to be winding down my day I have to have a very focused call.” *  Digital communication (email, IM, virtual conferencing) accounts for 63 percent of communication on virtual teams, yet 23 percent of team members find that long email discussion threads threaten (rather than help) effective project communication. *  So, it’s important for members to know when to use different communication media. Mary Ellen Slater, a manager at Reputation Capital, says, “At Rep Cap, we IM each other throughout the day, but there are times when a phone call or face-to-face meeting is better. A new project or something that deviates from our usual process may merit a phone call.” * Finally, trust is critical for virtual teams to be successful. Andrea Rozman, owner of Your Gal Friday, a company that provides virtual personal assistants, says, “You have to take that leap of faith. You have to believe that once you hand them the work, they will do it, and get it done on time.” * See Exhibit 10.3 for more information on managing virtual teams.

Project teams are created to complete specific, one-time projects or tasks within a limited time. *  Project teams are often used to develop new products, significantly improve existing products, roll out new information systems, or build new factories or offices. The project team is typically led by a project manager who has the overall responsibility for planning, staffing, and managing the team, which usually includes employees from different functional areas. Effective project teams demand both individual and collective responsibility. *  One advantage of project teams is that drawing employees from different functional areas can reduce or eliminate communication barriers. In turn, as long as team members feel free to express their ideas, thoughts, and concerns, free-flowing communication encourages cooperation among separate departments and typically speeds up the design process. *  Another advantage of project teams is their flexibility. When projects are finished, project team members either move on to the next project or return to their functional units. For example, publication of this book required designers, editors, page compositors, and web designers, among others. When the task was finished, these people applied their skills to other textbook projects. Because of this flexibility, project teams are often used with the matrix organizational designs discussed in Chapter 9.

10-3. Work Team Characteristics

“Why did I ever let you talk me into teams? They’re nothing but trouble.” *  Lots of managers have this reaction after making the move to teams. Many don’t realize that this reaction is normal, both for them and for workers. In fact, such a reaction is characteristic of the storming stage of team development (discussed in Section 10-3e). Managers who are familiar with these stages and with the other important characteristics of teams will be better prepared to manage the predictable changes that occur when companies make the switch to team-based structures.

Understanding the characteristics of work teams is essential for making teams an effective part of an organization. Therefore, in this section you’ll learn about 10-3a team norms, 10-3b team cohesiveness, 10-3c team size, 10-3d team conflict, and 10-3e the stages of team development.

10-3a. Team Norms

Over time, teams develop norms, which are informally agreed-on standards that regulate team behavior. *  Norms are valuable because they let team members know what is expected of them. One of the key ways in which norms develop is by observing nearby team members. A two-year study in which 2,000 workers were randomly assigned to locations within offices found that ten percent of an employee’s productivity, effectiveness and work quality was determined by who they sat next to. When an average performer was replaced by a top performer, the workers seated nearby increased their performance by 10 percent. Likewise, when productive workers (fast, but lacking quality) sat next to quality workers (superior work done slowly), quality workers became 13 percent more productive (faster) and productive workers were 17 percent more effective (higher quality). *  In other words, one of the ways in which team members know what is expected of them (i.e., norms) is by taking immediate cues from those around them.

How to Socialize with Coworkers when You Don’t Want to

Being social at or after work doesn’t have to mean obligatory happy hours or once-a-week group lunches. If the pressure of work group socializing stresses you out, try these tips to make it more manageable:

· Attend on a regular, but not necessarily frequent, basis (for example, every third or fourth event).

· Strike up a conversation with two people, and even prepare some conversation-starter questions ahead of time to use in the event of an awkward silence.

· Stay long enough to be respectful to the organizers and show that you are part of the team, but don’t be afraid to be the first one to leave.

· Seek out colleagues with similar interests, and invite them to join you at an event sometime.

Source: S. Gawronski, “3 Easy, Introvert-Approved Ways to Socialize More with Your Co-Workers: Not Everyone Wants to Partake in Group Lunch,” Inc., December 30, 2015, accessed April 30, 2016,  http://www.inc.com/the-muse/3-easy-introvert-approved-ways-to-socialize-more-with-your-coworkers.html .

Studies indicate that norms are one of the most powerful influences on work behavior because they regulate the everyday actions that allow teams to function effectively. Team norms are often associated with positive outcomes such as stronger organizational commitment, more trust in management, and stronger job and organizational satisfaction. *  Effective work teams develop norms about the quality and timeliness of job performance, absenteeism, safety, and honest expression of ideas and opinions.

At Google, a special task force called Project Aristotle spent four years reviewing published research on teams, as well as analyzing internal data on 180 Google work teams. *  Unable to find identifiable patterns related to the sizes, skills, or tenures of teams or their team members, Project Aristotle eventually found that Google’s most successful teams had positive norms with high levels of psychological safety, a concept that Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson defines as “a sense of confidence that the team will not embarrass, reject or punish someone for speaking up … the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking.” *  Building on that study, a team of researchers led by Carnegie Mellon professor Anita Woolley found that the best-performing teams engaged in conversational turn-taking. Woolley explained, “As long as everyone got a chance to talk, the team did well. But if only one person or a small group spoke all the time, the collective intelligence [of the team] declined. *  Woolley’s findings are consistent with the previously discussed research showing that overly dominant team leaders minimized discussion and hurt team performance. See Section 10-1b.

Norms can also influence team behavior in negative ways. For example, most people would agree that damaging organizational property; saying or doing something to hurt someone at work; intentionally doing one’s work badly, incorrectly, or slowly; griping about coworkers; deliberately bending or breaking rules; and doing something to harm the company or boss are negative behaviors. A study of workers from 34 teams in 20 different organizations found that teams with negative norms strongly influenced their team members to engage in these negative behaviors. In fact, the longer individuals were members of a team with negative norms and the more frequently they interacted with their teammates, the more likely they were to perform negative behaviors. Because team norms typically develop early in the life of a team, these results indicate how important it is for teams to establish positive norms from the outset. *

10-3b. Team Cohesiveness

Cohesiveness is another important characteristic of work teams. Cohesiveness is the extent to which team members are attracted to a team and motivated to remain in it. *  What can be done to promote team cohesiveness? First, make sure that all team members are present at team meetings and activities. Team cohesiveness suffers when members are allowed to withdraw from the team and miss team meetings and events. *  Second, create additional opportunities for teammates to work together by rearranging work schedules and creating common workspaces. Bank of America discovered the value of cohesive teams when it did a study tracking employee behavior. When Bank of America experimented by having call center employees wear sensors monitoring their movements throughout the office, it found that the most productive employees were in cohesive teams that communicated frequently. So, to encourage more interaction, it scheduled team members to all have breaks at the same time, rather than solo breaks. As a result, worker productivity rose 10 percent. *  When task interdependence is high, and team members have lots of chances to work together, team cohesiveness tends to increase. *  Third, engaging in nonwork activities as a team can help build cohesion. The NFL’s Minnesota Vikings “Donut Club” is a key way in which the team builds cohesiveness among players. Head trainer Eric Sugarman says, “It’s for the guys who aren’t injured [who pay for the donuts] to be able to support the guys who get mandatory treatment all week [who eat the donuts].” The Donut Club, which meets every Saturday at 7:50 a.m., has a few key rules. Don’t be late. Sugarman says, “The Donut Club waits for nobody.” Do not touch or eat the donuts before 8:00 a.m. Sugarman calls this ten minutes, “Basically, a donut viewing.” Retired quarterback Gus Frerrote, who started buying the donuts, said, “I love that there are rules. That’s what makes the game fun. It’s really nice to have a common bond about something stupid like that.” *  Finally, companies build team cohesiveness by making employees feel that they are part of an organization.

10-3c. Team Size

The relationship between team size and performance appears to be curvilinear. Very small or very large teams may not perform as well as moderately sized teams. CEO of Amazon Jeff Bezos tends to prefer small teams, saying, “If I see more than two pizzas for lunch, the team is too big.” *  For most teams, the right size is somewhere between six and nine members. *  A team of this size is small enough for the team members to get to know each other and for each member to have an opportunity to contribute in a meaningful way to the success of the team. At the same time, the team is large enough to take advantage of team members’ diverse skills, knowledge, and perspectives. It is also easier to instill a sense of responsibility and mutual accountability in teams of this size. *  The Wall Street Journal’s Sue Shellenbarger says managers invite too many people to meetings. For analyzing possible causes of problems, invite 4 to 6 people. *  Bain & Company’s Michael Mankins follows the “rule of seven,” which says the chances of making good decisions drop 10 percent for every person beyond seven. Says Mankins, “By the time you get 17 people, the chances of your actually making a decision are zero.” *  So, for making decisions, invite 4 to 7.

Team size has a significant impact on the value of a company as well. Among companies with a market capitalization of $10 billion or more, those with smaller boards of directors outperform their peers by 8.5 percent, and those with larger boards underperform their peers by nearly 11 percent. With only seven directors, Netflix’s board was able to spend nine months discussing a potential price increase. Director Jay Hoag says, “We get in-depth. That’s easier with a small group.” Netflix outperforms its sector peers by 32 percent. *

When teams get too large, team members find it difficult to get to know one another, and the team may splinter into smaller subgroups. When this occurs, subgroups sometimes argue and disagree, weakening overall team cohesion. As teams grow, there is also a greater chance of minority domination, where just a few team members dominate team discussions. Even if minority domination doesn’t occur, larger groups may not have time for all team members to share their input. And when team members feel that their contributions are unimportant or not needed, the result is less involvement, effort, and accountability to the team. *  Large teams also face logistical problems such as finding an appropriate time or place to meet. Finally, the incidence of social loafing, discussed earlier in the chapter, is much higher in large teams.

Just as team performance can suffer when a team is too large, it can also be negatively affected when a team is too small. Teams with just a few people may lack the diversity of skills and knowledge found in larger teams. Also, teams that are too small are unlikely to gain the advantages of team decision making (multiple perspectives, generating more ideas and alternative solutions, and stronger commitment) found in larger teams.

What signs indicate that a team’s size needs to be changed? If decisions are taking too long, if the team has difficulty making decisions or taking action, if a few members dominate the team, or if the commitment or efforts of team members are weak, chances are the team is too big. In contrast, if a team is having difficulty coming up with ideas or generating solutions, or if the team does not have the expertise to address a specific problem, chances are the team is too small.

10-3d. Team Conflict

Conflict and disagreement are inevitable in most teams. But this shouldn’t surprise anyone. From time to time, people who work together are going to disagree about what and how things get done. What causes conflict in teams? Although almost anything can lead to conflict—casual remarks that unintentionally offend a team member or fighting over scarce resources—the primary cause of team conflict is disagreement over team goals and priorities. *  Other common causes of team conflict include disagreements over task-related issues, interpersonal incompatibilities, and simple fatigue.

Though most people view conflict negatively, the key to dealing with team conflict is not avoiding it, but rather making sure that the team experiences the right kind of conflict. In Chapter 5, you learned about c-type conflict, or cognitive conflict, which focuses on problem-related differences of opinion, and a-type conflict, or affective conflict, which refers to the emotional reactions that can occur when disagreements become personal rather than professional. *  Cognitive conflict is strongly associated with improvements in team performance, whereas affective conflict is strongly associated with decreases in team performance. *  Why does this happen? With cognitive conflict, team members disagree because their different experiences and expertise lead them to different views of the problem and solutions. Indeed, managers who participated on teams that emphasized cognitive conflict described their teammates as “smart,” “team players,” and “best in the business.” They described their teams as “open,” “fun,” and “productive.” One manager summed up the positive attitude that team members had about cognitive conflict by saying, “We scream a lot, then laugh, and then resolve the issue.” *  Thus, cognitive conflict is also characterized by a willingness to examine, compare, and reconcile differences to produce the best possible solution.

By contrast, affective conflict often results in hostility, anger, resentment, distrust, cynicism, and apathy. Managers who participated on teams that experienced affective conflict described their teammates as “manipulative,” “secretive,” “burned out,” and “political.” *  Dana Browlee, who runs a corporate training company in Atlanta, gives the example of the naysayer, who, “whatever you bring up, it will never work,” and the silent plotter, who she says, “may be the quiet person sitting in the back, but as soon as the [team] meeting is over, they’re over by the Coke machine, planning your demise.” *  Not surprisingly, affective conflict can make people uncomfortable and cause them to withdraw and decrease their commitment to a team. * Affective conflict also lowers the satisfaction of team members, may lead to personal hostility between coworkers, and can decrease team cohesiveness. *  So, unlike cognitive conflict, affective conflict undermines team performance by preventing teams from engaging in the kinds of activities that are critical to team effectiveness.

So, what can managers do to manage team conflict? First, they need to realize that emphasizing cognitive conflict alone won’t be enough. Studies show that cognitive and affective conflicts often occur together in a given team activity! Sincere attempts to reach agreement on a difficult issue can quickly deteriorate from cognitive to affective conflict if the discussion turns personal, and tempers and emotions flare. While cognitive conflict is clearly the better approach to take, efforts to engage in cognitive conflict should be managed well and checked before they deteriorate, causing the team to become unproductive.

Can teams disagree and still get along? Fortunately, they can. In an attempt to study this issue, researchers examined team conflict in twelve high-tech companies. In four of the companies, work teams used cognitive conflict to address work problems but did so in a way that minimized the occurrence of affective conflict. *

There are several ways teams can have a good fight. *  First, work with more, rather than less, information. A senior retail executive said, “Disagreement is great as long as it’s fact-based.” *  If data are plentiful, objective, and up-to-date, teams will focus on issues, not personalities. Second, develop multiple alternatives to enrich debate. Focusing on multiple solutions diffuses conflict by getting the team to keep searching for a better solution. Positions and opinions are naturally more flexible with five alternatives than with just two. Third, establish common goals. Remember, most team conflict arises from disagreements over team goals and priorities. Therefore, common goals encourage collaboration and minimize conflict over a team’s purpose. The late Steve Jobs, former CEO of Apple, explained it this way: “It’s okay to spend a lot of time arguing about which route to take to San Francisco when everyone wants to end up there, but a lot of time gets wasted in such arguments if one person wants to go to San Francisco and another secretly wants to go to San Diego.” *  Fourth, inject humor into the workplace. Humor relieves tension, builds cohesion, and just makes being in teams fun. Fifth, maintain a balance of power by involving as many people as possible in the decision process. And, sixth, resolve issues without forcing a consensus. Consensus means that everyone must agree before decisions are finalized. Effectively, requiring consensus gives everyone on the team veto power. Nothing gets done until everyone agrees, which, of course, is nearly impossible. As a result, insisting on consensus usually promotes affective rather than cognitive conflict. If team members can’t agree after constructively discussing their options, it’s better to have the team leader make the final choice. Most team members can accept the team leader’s choice if they’ve been thoroughly involved in the decision process.

10-3e. Stages of Team Development

As teams develop and grow, they pass through four stages of development. As shown in Exhibit 10.4, those stages are forming, storming, norming, and performing. *  Although not every team passes through each of these stages, teams that do tend to be better performers. *  This holds true even for teams composed of seasoned executives. After a period of time, however, if a team is not managed well, its performance may start to deteriorate as the team begins a process of decline and progresses through the stages of de-norming, de-storming, and de-forming. *

Forming is the initial stage of team development. This is the getting-acquainted stage in which team members first meet each other, form initial impressions, and try to get a sense of what it will be like to be part of the team. Some of the first team norms will be established during this stage as team members begin to find out what behaviors will and won’t be accepted by the team. During this stage, team leaders should allow time for team members to get to know each other, set early ground rules, and begin to set up a preliminary team structure.

Conflicts and disagreements often characterize the second stage of team development, storming. As team members begin working together, different personalities and work styles may clash. Team members become more assertive at this stage and more willing to state opinions. This is also the stage when team members jockey for position and try to establish a favorable role for themselves on the team. In addition, team members are likely to disagree about what the group should do and how it should do it. Team performance is still relatively low, given that team cohesion is weak and team members are still reluctant to support each other. Because teams that get stuck in the storming stage are almost always ineffective, it is important for team leaders to focus the team on team goals and on improving team performance. Team members need to be particularly patient and tolerant with each other in this stage.

During norming, the third stage of team development, team members begin to settle into their roles as team members. Positive team norms will have developed by this stage, and teammates should know what to expect from each other. Petty differences should have been resolved, friendships will have developed, and group cohesion will be relatively strong. At this point, team members will have accepted team goals, be operating as a unit, and, as indicated by the increase in performance, be working together effectively. This stage can be very short and is often characterized by someone on the team saying, “I think things are finally coming together.” Note, however, that teams may also cycle back and forth between storming and norming several times before finally settling into norming.

In the last stage of team development, performing, performance improves because the team has finally matured into an effective, fully functioning team. At this point, members should be fully committed to the team and think of themselves as members of a team and not just employees. Team members often become intensely loyal to one another at this stage and feel mutual accountability for team successes and failures. Trivial disagreements, which can take time and energy away from the work of the team, should be rare. At this stage, teams get a lot of work done, and it is fun to be a team member.

The team should not become complacent, however. Without effective management, its performance may begin to decline as the team passes through the stages of de-norming, de-storming, and de-forming. *  John Puckett, manufacturing vice president for circuit-board manufacturer XEL Communications, says, “The books all say you start in this state of chaos and march through these various stages, and you end up in this state of ultimate self-direction, where everything is going just great. They never tell you it can go back in the other direction, sometimes just as quickly. *

10-4. Enhancing Work Team Effectiveness

Making teams work is a challenging and difficult process. Nonetheless, companies can increase the likelihood that teams will succeed by carefully managing 10-4a the setting of team goals and priorities and 10-4b how work team members are selected, 10-4c trained, and 10-4d compensated. *

10-4a. Setting Team Goals and Priorities

In Chapter 5, you learned that having specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and timely (S.M.A.R.T.) goals is one of the most effective means for improving individual job performance. Fortunately, team goals also improve team performance. In fact, team goals lead to much higher team performance 93 percent of the time. *

Why is setting specific team goals so critical to team success? One reason is that increasing a team’s performance is inherently more complex than just increasing one individual’s job performance. For instance, consider that any team is likely to involve at least four different kinds of goals: each member’s goal for the team, each member’s goal for himself or herself on the team, the team’s goal for each member, and the team’s goal for itself. *  In other words, without a specific goal for the team itself (the last of the four goals listed), team members may head off in all directions at once pursuing these other goals. Consequently, setting a specific goal for the team clarifies team priorities by providing a clear focus and purpose.

Challenging team goals affect how hard team members work. In particular, they greatly reduce the incidence of social loafing. When faced with difficult goals, team members necessarily expect everyone to contribute. Consequently, they are much more likely to notice and complain if a teammate isn’t doing his or her share. In fact, when teammates know each other well, when team goals are specific, when team communication is good, and when teams are rewarded for team performance (discussed later in this section), there is only a 1 in 16 chance that teammates will be social loafers. *

What can companies and teams do to ensure that team goals lead to superior team performance? One increasingly popular approach is to give teams stretch goals. Stretch goals are extremely ambitious goals that workers don’t know how to reach. *  Indian-based Tata Steel’s stretch goal is a 25% profit margin. Managing Director TV Narendran said, “Tata Steel has always had a rich history of setting steep targets which we may not know how to achieve. But that is how innovation comes about. Because if we know how to achieve the target, then it is only about execution. If you want to get people to think out of the box, then you have to have those stretch targets.” *  Likewise, CEO Jim Snee says Hormel Foods’ goal is to make 15 percent of revenues from products no more than five years old. Says Snee, “The 15 percent is a very aggressive number. It’s a stretch goal for our organization.” *  Hormel also aims to increase sales by 5 percent and profits by 10% each year.

Four things must occur for stretch goals to effectively motivate teams. *  First, teams must have a high degree of autonomy or control over how they achieve their goals. Second, teams must be empowered with control of resources, such as budgets, workspaces, computers, or whatever else they need to do their jobs. Third, teams need structural accommodation. Structural accommodation means giving teams the ability to change organizational structures, policies, and practices if doing so helps them meet their stretch goals. Finally, teams need bureaucratic immunity. Bureaucratic immunity means that teams no longer have to go through the frustratingly slow process of multilevel reviews and sign-offs to get management approval before making changes. Once granted bureaucratic immunity, teams are immune from the influence of various organizational groups and are accountable only to top management. Experian, a credit reporting company, helps organizations and banks make lending decisions and individuals manage credit scores. Experian’s Eric Haller went to his boss with a unique proposal to find out customers’ unsolved problems (such as how to lend to people with no credit history), fix them, and turn those solutions into new product lines. His boss replied, “I’ve wanted to do this for years, so I’ll give you the money if you can find the people.” *  With three years of guaranteed funding and just one requirement, a biannual performance report, Haller formed Experian DataLabs and hired his “navy seals of data science.” *  With freedom thanks to bureaucratic immunity, Experian DataLabs has grown in six years from 8 to 40 data scientists and now earns eight-figure revenues. *

10-4b. Selecting People for Teamwork

University of Southern California management professor Edward Lawler says, “People are very naive about how easy it is to create a team. Teams are the Ferraris of work design. They’re high performance but high maintenance and expensive.” *  It’s almost impossible to have an effective work team without carefully selecting people who are suited for teamwork or for working on a particular team. A focus on teamwork (individualism-collectivism), team level, and team diversity can help companies choose the right team members. *

Are you more comfortable working alone or with others? If you strongly prefer to work alone, you may not be well suited for teamwork. Studies show that job satisfaction is higher in teams when team members prefer working with others. *  An indirect way to measure someone’s preference for teamwork is to assess the person’s degree of individualism or collectivism. Individualism-collectivism is the degree to which a person believes that people should be self-sufficient and that loyalty to one’s self is more important than loyalty to one’s team or company. *  Individualists, who put their own welfare and interests first, generally prefer independent tasks in which they work alone. In contrast, collectivists, who put group or team interests ahead of self-interests, generally prefer interdependent tasks in which they work with others. Collectivists would also rather cooperate than compete and are fearful of disappointing team members or of being ostracized from teams. Given these differences, it makes sense to select team members who are collectivists rather than individualists. In fact, many companies use individualism-collectivism as an initial screening device for team members. If team diversity is desired, however, individualists may also be appropriate, as discussed next. To determine your preference for teamwork, take the Team Player Inventory shown in Exhibit 10.5.

Team level is the average level of ability, experience, personality, or any other factor on a team. For example, a high level of team experience means that a team has particularly experienced team members. This does not mean that every member of the team has considerable experience, but that enough team members do to significantly raise the average level of experience on the team. Team level is used to guide selection of teammates when teams need a particular set of skills or capabilities to do their jobs well. For example, SAP, a German software company, has struggled to deliver cloud-based solutions and hopes to replicate a team approach to innovation pioneered by Xerox Parc in the 1970s. So it hired Alan Kay, a renowned technologist who was a computer scientist at Xerox Parc, to build a similar high-level team. So far, Kay has recruited 20 polymathic technologists, funded their research projects, and then given them the independence to work alone to pursue their research interests. *  (A polymath is someone who is a genius in more than one field.) Kay understands the risks of having too many “stars.” Based on his research on NBA teams, management professor Adam Galinsky says, “If you have too many people [on teams], and they all want to be stars, coordination [on the team] goes down. But if you have a bunch of star programmers all working on their own projects, and they don’t need to integrate their programs with each other, then more stars is probably better.” *

Whereas team level represents the average level or capability on a team, team diversity represents the variances or differences in ability, experience, personality, or any other factor on a team. *  From a practical perspective, why is team diversity important? MIT researcher Alex Pentland’s research at MIT’s Human Dynamics lab shows that the most successful teams,

· (1)

talk with everyone on the team, balancing talking with listening

· (2)

have a diversity of ideas and team members who are open to new ideas

· (3)

are goal oriented.

Pentland says, “You need everyone exploring slightly different things, but doing in the same direction.” *  Team diversity ensures that strong teams not only have talented members (that is, a high team level), but those talented members also have different abilities, experiences, and personalities from which to view and solve problems.

Industrial Light & Magic’s Experience Lab (xLAB) has assembled a team of artists, engineers, sound designers, and storytellers to create a virtual reality experience based on Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Building the future of immersive cinema requires both dreamers and rocket builders, says Vicki Dobbs Beck, the executive in charge of xLAB. “The dreamers are constantly thinking about what’s possible, and the rocket builders figure out how to get us there.” *

After the right team has been put together in terms of individualism-collectivism, team level, and team diversity, it’s important to keep the team together as long as practically possible. Interesting research by the National Transportation Safety Board shows that 73 percent of serious mistakes made by jet cockpit crews are made the very first day that a crew flies together as a team and that 44 percent of serious mistakes occur on their very first flight together that day (pilot teams fly two to three flights per day). Moreover, research has shown that fatigued pilot crews who have worked together before make significantly fewer errors than rested crews who have never worked together. *  Their experience working together helps them overcome their fatigue and outperform new teams that have not worked together before. So, after you’ve created effective teams, keep them together as long as possible.

Team-Training Matchmaker

Today’s team training events in corporate America go far beyond the stereotypical trust fall. From cooking to caving to paintball to mural painting, team training has become so elaborate that some companies do not have the internal resources needed to organize such exotic events. Instead, these companies outsource to Wekudo (pronounced “we could do”), a corporate event matchmaking service that helps companies find the best team-building experiences for their needs and culture. Wekudo draws from a wide range of third-party providers and trains them on how to reframe their activities to align with corporate goals. For example, an improv teacher might create activities for sale pitches, while a laser tag center might focus on team communication. For tea and nutritional supplement company Aloha, Wekudo proposed an outing to an Acroyoga studio. This innovative practice combines yoga and acrobatics and requires heavy doses of both cooperation and communication.

10-4c. Team Training

After selecting the right people for teamwork, you need to train them. To be successful, teams need significant training, particularly in interpersonal skills, decision-making and problem-solving skills, conflict resolution skills, and technical training. Organizations that create work teams often underestimate the amount of training required to make teams effective. This mistake occurs frequently in successful organizations where managers assume that if employees can work effectively on their own, they can work effectively in teams. In reality, companies that successfully use teams provide thousands of hours of training to make sure that teams work. Stacy Myers, a consultant who helps companies implement teams, says, “When we help companies move to teams, we also require that employees take basic quality and business knowledge classes as well. Teams must know how their work affects the company, and how their success will be measured. *

Most commonly, members of work teams receive training in interpersonal skills. Interpersonal skills such as listening, communicating, questioning, and providing feedback enable people to have effective working relationships with others. Consultant Peter Grazier, founder of Teambuilding Inc., says, “Teams have told us that if they had to do it over again, they would have more of the people skills up front. They don’t struggle with the technical stuff. They tend to struggle with the people skills.” *  Because of teams’ autonomy and responsibility, many companies also give team members training in decision-making and problem-solving skills to help them do a better job of cutting costs and improving quality and customer service. Many organizations also teach teams conflict resolution skills. Teambuilding Inc.’s Grazier explains that “the diversity of values and personalities makes a team powerful, but it can be the greatest source of conflict. If you’re a detail person, and I’m not, and we get on a team, you might say that we need more analysis on a problem before making a decision, [while I] may want to make a decision [right away]. But, if I’ve been trained in problem-solving and conflict resolution, then I look at your detail [focus] as something that is needed in a team because it’s a shortcoming of mine. *  Liane Davey, co-founder of 3COze, a team communication consulting firm, says you see, “…the light bulbs going on as people realize, ‘You mean I’m supposed to fight with that person!’ Yes! ‘And when he’s disagreeing with me, it’s not because he’s a jerk or trying to annoy me?’ Right!” *

Firms must also provide team members with the technical training they need to do their jobs, particularly if they are being cross-trained to perform all of the different jobs on the team. Before teams were created at Milwaukee Mutual Insurance, separate employees performed the tasks of rating, underwriting, and processing insurance policies. After extensive cross-training, however, each team member can now do all three jobs. *  Cross-training is less appropriate for teams of highly skilled workers. For instance, it is unlikely that a group of engineers, computer programmers, and systems analysts would be cross-trained for each other’s jobs.

Team leaders need training, too, as they often feel unprepared for their new duties. New team leaders face myriad problems ranging from confusion about their new roles as team leaders (compared with their old jobs as managers or employees) to not knowing where to go for help when their teams have problems. The solution is extensive training. Overall, does team training work? One recent study found that across a wide variety of settings, tasks, team types, and 2,650 teams in different organizations, team training was positively related to team performance out comes.