Good & Bad Of Using Teams

The Good and Bad of Using Teams

Ninety-one percent of organizations are significantly improving their effectiveness by using work

teams.Footnote 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.Footnote “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.”Footnote

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.Footnote 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.Footnote 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.

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 one hundred employees use teams, and 90 percent of all U.S. employees work part of their day in a team.

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. After financial scandals tarnished London-based Barclays Bank’s

reputation, it hired a director of customer experience to lead teams that were directly responsible for making sure, “the voice of the customer is heard.” One of those customers is business consultant and blogger Maz Iqbal. When Iqbal moved his business’s bank accounts to Barclays from another bank, he blogged that his initial interactions were “frustrating.” When he subsequently changed his company’s registered name, he expected more paperwork, inefficiency, and frustration. Instead, before he visited his local branch, Barclays mailed him new checks and credit cards already imprinted with his company’s new name. Said an obviously satisfied Iqbal, “I feel grateful. Why? Because Barclays Bank helped me out—saved me time, effort, concern—without me even asking them to help me out. They anticipated a need and met it.”

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. Oriental Trading Company (OTC) sells party supplies, arts and crafts, toys and games, and teaching supplies on the Internet. Like most retail websites, OTC’s site allows customers to write comments about the products they buy. When customers complained about its Inflatable Solar System, giving it two stars out of five, members of OTC’s intradepartmental teams sprang to action. A team member from the quality department worked directly with the manufacturer to improve quality. Another from copy writing worked with a team member from merchandising to post new photos of the improved product along with a more accurate product description. Other members of the team contacted dissatisfied customers to tell them that OTC had listened and had taken steps to address their concerns. Seven weeks after the first negative comment appeared on OTC’s website, the improved product was available for sale. Customers consistently rate the new version at four out of five stars.

Another reason for using teams is that teamwork often leads to increased job satisfaction. One reason that teamwork can be more satisfying than traditional work is that 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.

A second reason that teamwork is satisfying is that work teams often receive proprietary business information that typically is available only to managers. The Great Little Box Company (GLBC), which makes corrugated boxes, custom product displays, and flexible and protective packaging for manufacturers, has an “open books” philosophy, where team members are given full access to the company’s financial information. Founder Robert Meggy says, “It makes people feel more a part of the company. It instills a sense of trust. Regardless of whether the news is good or bad, people want to know and, ultimately, will try harder to make the company more profitable.” After all, he says, “We want employees to run the company like their own business.” Team member and customer-service representative Sandra Fung says, “If we have been profitable that month, it makes me feel good to learn that I have contributed to that.” Finally, to drive home the importance of teams and teamwork, everyone receives equal monthly profit sharing checks. Says Meggy, “When it comes to teamwork, everyone is equal here. The truck drivers, the controller, office staff, plant supervisor— everybody gets the same amount.”

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 job than individuals in two important steps of the decision-making process: defining the problem and generating alternative solutions.

Building Cohesiveness by Eating Lunch Together

At Ocean Spray, the cranberry juice company, no one is allowed to set a meeting during lunchtime. Why? The company sets this time aside so that employees can eat lunch together. But it’s not just about eating, it’s about giving everyone in the company some time to get to know each other. Leaders at Ocean Spray believe that there is no better way to find out about what is going on at work, and perhaps even to discover ways to work together, than to sit and have a conversation over lunch. It’s better than emails, it’s better than conference calls, and it’s definitely better than cramming everyone into a conference room for five hours in the middle of the day. By encouraging everyone to eat together, the company gives people a comfortable, informal, and organic setting where they can build relationships, share knowledge and ideas, and find out what makes other people tick. And really, what’s a better way to learn to trust someone—to talk to them one-on-one over lunch or to sit through another boring seminar together?

Source: M. Heffernan, “To-Do Today: Eat Lunch with a Colleague,” Inc., September 25, 2012, accessed June 13, 2013, http://www.inc.com/margaret-heffernan/team-building-eat-lunch-with- a-colleague.html.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.